[3.3 Beta] Suggestion: There's more to sprawl than research and unity: There must be benefits as well!

[SectorsAreOkay]

I said this in another thread....


It seems like there is a class of players who want the game essentially to only have positives. Any game mechanic that limits their ability to do exactly what they want is considered bad, regardless of the purpose of the mechanic. They want to have it all while also having it all. The game should not be designed around these people at all. Frankly, the game is too easy as it is.

 

[Lidhuin]

How about instead of getting 1 starbase per 10 systems you get 1 starbase per N sprawl (choosing a value of N to get roughly the same number of starbases as currently)

That way the game plays out similarly, but sprawl no longer feels purely negative. Oh and while your at it, changing the name to something less negative (maybe Imperial Size) might also stop players from overly fearing high values.

So if I adopt beacon of liberty, I lose starbases?

If I research psionic theory, I lose starbases?

If I adopt traditions that reduce empire sprawl, I lose starbases?

If I adopt an ascension perk that reduces sprawl from colonies, I lose starbases?

 

[SectorsAreOkay]

So if I adopt beacon of liberty, I lose starbases?

If I research psionic theory, I lose starbases?

If I adopt traditions that reduce empire sprawl, I lose starbases?

If I adopt an ascension perk that reduces sprawl from colonies, I lose starbases?

The solution is to not base it on sprawl but instead base it on some of the things sprawl is based on. Those won't be modified out with techs and perks.

 

[Lidhuin]

The solution is to not base it on sprawl but instead base it on some of the things sprawl is based on. Those won't be modified out with techs and perks.

Hmm... how about if we base the number of starbases on sprawl caused by systems?

We could for example say that for every 10 systems, you get to have an additional starbase.

And then if you want more, we could make some traditions that give you additional starbases, maybe an ascension perk, and maybe some civics?

(yes, I'm being deliberately sarcastic. Hopefully not too snarky!)

 

[Lidhuin]

What I'm getting at, is that it shouldn't just be a counter-measure. It should be ok to be on the far left of the scale and on the far right.

You begin on the far left, because all empires start with 1 system. But there should be additional buffs for not going to the right as much as there should be additional buffs for doing so. The former would help tall, less sprawly builds, the latter would help expansive empires.

Pehaps an additional metric would be best, since sprawl doesn't tell you if your empire is tall or wide: Empire density - defined as total sprawl / systems controlled:
tall empire 1000 / 20 systems = 50 density
wide conqueror 1000 / 100 systems= 10 density

and reward/penalize both the left and the right side of the density spectra with different modifiers. In this way you will even be incentivised to release vassals, to become more dense, and get those bonuses! OWO

A wide empire will inevitably out-produce and out-tech a non-wide empire. A wide empire should always win a war against their weaker opponents in a 1v1.

Can you explain why, then, do they need additional buffs?

Can you explain how your proposed buffs differ from the existing benefits indirectly granted by sprawl? (i.e. you get more starbases when you have more systems, more systems gives you sprawl -> sprawl gives you starbases; you get more research when you have more pops working as researchers, more pops gives you sprawl -> sprawl gives you research).

 

[Ludaire]

(yes, I'm being deliberately sarcastic. Hopefully not too snarky!)

For a moment, I was thinking "Uh, what? That's exactly what we have!" Then I saw this and couldn't stop giggling.

 

[Unseelie]

Well, as for all the bonuses you do get during sprawl, at least some of these can just be added to the tooltip for sprawl.

Sprawl from systems is 50, ergo +5 starbases...and you've calmed down the people who are un-happy about red text.

Yes, we get them for systems, and I think there's some problem in showing this in two places, but my point is, if people are mad about the red in sprawl, and think having the + to starbase cap from owned systems showing up there will resolve this issue, I don't have a single problem with it.

 

[GOLANX]

1. There should be a bonus starbase per 200 or 300 sprawl. (Not too much but not nnothing either)

Maybe as a replacement for the current system.

2. Large empires are intimidating, needs a bonus of diplomatic weight, per sprawl point. 1% per 100? 200?

The things that got you that sprawl are mostly increasing your diplomatic weight, there is no need to doubble dip.

3. If I'm so sprawly, surely I have more space to store stuff! +1000 resource storage per 100 sprawl?

I'd like to have more passive storage capacity, I don't want to hook it up to sprawl

4. Vassals/members fear me (as suggested on the main thread by someone else): reduces relation penalties by x% 1 per 200?

Countersuggestion: empire sprawl increases the threat generated by your empire (if it doesn't already). If I've conquered half the galaxy the other empires should be more worried about me than their interpersonal rivalries.

5. Sprawly empires have greater reach! Reduces range penatlies for relations,treaties, or even starting federations (that one is soo anoying currently)

The exact opposite of what sprawl should be doing, taller empires should be making up for their lack of size by forming relationships with whoever they can, wide empires already can reduce those range penalties, by reducing the range (conquest)

6. Network effect! : Trading bonus due to internal synergies within the pops/planets/systems of the empire: +1% trade value on each planet, per 100 sprawl.

Same issue as the last point, wide empire doesn't need to squeeze their pops for value tall does.

7. Reduced influence costs due to distance: -3 influence cost increase per jump, per 200.

An interesting thought, maybe with a civic or AP (Interstellar Dominion comes to mind) not with sprawl.

Please Suggest more!

Encryption penalty, the more pops you have of diverse locations, ethics, and ethnics, the easier it is to spy on you.

Influence cost of friendship, the bigger you are the less friendly you look, the harder it is to convince others your a good friend, the more your factions need to be convinced it's a good idea. Won't really apply until an empire gets a higher proportion of all the sprawl in the galaxy.

 

[Inquisitor #5]

Honestly, being below admin cap should give you buffs (if it doesn't already, been away from Stellaris for a while), modelling an efficiently run state, with extra resources to invest in the administration.

A big, sprawling state can't be administered as easily. Managing a large empire would incur greater costs, possibly not scaling linerarily as you introduce more "middle managers." A bloated administration would also allow more corruption to creep into the system, both because a larger beurocracy has more hiding-places, and because having more people makes it more likely that someone corrupt ends up in administration.

Add to this that the larger you get, the more levels between the government and the governed, most likely.

A large empire can still throw its weight around, but its hold on its territory would be lower than that of a more centralised empire.

I will agree that megastructures should probably interact with sprawl in some capacity, those things should need some form of management.

 

[SectorsAreOkay]

Honestly, being below admin cap should give you buffs (if it doesn't already, been away from Stellaris for a while), modelling an efficiently run state, with extra resources to invest in the administration.

A big, sprawling state can't be administered as easily. Managing a large empire would incur greater costs, possibly not scaling linerarily as you introduce more "middle managers." A bloated administration would also allow more corruption to creep into the system, both because a larger beurocracy has more hiding-places, and because having more people makes it more likely that someone corrupt ends up in administration.

Add to this that the larger you get, the more levels between the government and the governed, most likely.

A large empire can still throw its weight around, but its hold on its territory would be lower than that of a more centralised empire.

I will agree that megastructures should probably interact with sprawl in some capacity, those things should need some form of management.

The sprawl system models this in a crude way, but its better than spamming bureaucrats to create "efficiency" (lol).

The only way IMO to model efficiency is with truly different government types or specific policies or something.

 

[Unseelie]

I said this in another thread....


It seems like there is a class of players who want the game essentially to only have positives. Any game mechanic that limits their ability to do exactly what they want is considered bad, regardless of the purpose of the mechanic. They want to have it all while also having it all. The game should not be designed around these people at all. Frankly, the game is too easy as it is.

I'd agree with these people if they said things like "okay, on easy mode, can we have better sprawl, or no sprawl?" but as a player who plays for challenges, I'm on the boat of harder is often better, and penalties are hard-making.