3.6 "Orion" Open Beta - Ascension Path Rework Feedback

[Ligraph]

Played a cyborg assimilator run, it was quite fun and perhaps a bit OP.

I've been trying to play a Synthetic UNE, and have enormous trouble getting the Synthetics tech. I get access to all 3 other paths in the late 2200s/early 2300s (this is 1.5 tech, not terribly optimal play), but Synthetics regularly takes till almost 2400, which is annoying both from a gameplay and a RP perspective. This is despite regularly getting droids quite early. Seems like it should be a bit easier to unlock the synthetic path, so it's roughly on-par with the others. Or if it's supposed to be much harder to unlock, make it worth waiting for.

 

[Flamgino]

It's nice that psionics lets you open by trying for a covenant, but a real shame that the Eater of [your] Worlds can pop up. You waste that time doing the research to contact a "higher power" and then you roll one that's highly detrimental and doesn't add anything too valuable. Why would you ever take Eater of Worlds? I mean, okay, it buffs navy, but all the other covenants are stronger and don't have as terrible of a malus.

Why not let people choose the god they want to worship if they're all built with varying nasty drawbacks? Seems really harsh to still demand this be up to RNG and still have the mechanic kill pops, leaders, and whatever.

 

[L0rdScrambles]

It's nice that psionics lets you open by trying for a covenant, but a real shame that the Eater of [your] Worlds can pop up. You waste that time doing the research to contact a "higher power" and then you roll one that's highly detrimental and doesn't add anything too valuable. Why would you ever take Eater of Worlds? I mean, okay, it buffs navy, but all the other covenants are stronger and don't have as terrible of a malus.

Why not let people choose the god they want to worship if they're all built with varying nasty drawbacks? Seems really harsh to still demand this be up to RNG and still have the mechanic kill pops, leaders, and whatever.

Having just played a game on the beta where I selected Eater of Worlds I agree completely. The negatives are way too harsh - I would never choose it again.

 

[MatrixDragon]

So, the forums keep blocking the long version of my post because it is too 'spam like', so here's the super short version: Stacked bonuses to planet ascensions are crazy now. I have a tier 10 foundry arcology with 105% reduction in metallurgist upkeep, though I think I hit a reduction cap of 95%. I also have a unity arcology with 52.5% increased unity production with 52.5% decreased cost.

I had to really do an ascension focused build with a holy covenant federation to get them this good, so maybe this is balanced considering the huge investment. However, I figured I should still mention it since this seems a bit crazy XD

 

[Nevars]

It's nice that psionics lets you open by trying for a covenant, but a real shame that the Eater of [your] Worlds can pop up. You waste that time doing the research to contact a "higher power" and then you roll one that's highly detrimental and doesn't add anything too valuable. Why would you ever take Eater of Worlds? I mean, okay, it buffs navy, but all the other covenants are stronger and don't have as terrible of a malus.

Why not let people choose the god they want to worship if they're all built with varying nasty drawbacks? Seems really harsh to still demand this be up to RNG and still have the mechanic kill pops, leaders, and whatever.

Like I said eater of world buff is terrible and self defeating (psionic as a whole is like this to some degree), you could just take distinguished admiralty with no ascension path and it would still be better than psionic that take eater of world.

 

[Psykhes]

Where are your failure chances, where are your 1 option rolls, where are your 3x "shaka zulu" guess options? You are trying to prove something using an incomplete equation. I don't really care about the local maximum staying the same if you have added an entire 5th failure state in the first branch of the tree. The Shroud is a game of choice, not chance. Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption I am making the right choice every single time, and with this change doing it 20% more. You are doing napkin math about a dice roll while I'm talking about how this affects the calculus of my decision making, especially after I have removed the 4 one time positive options and Influence has begun to decay in value.

You aren't factoring in time either. I play a game of Stellaris for about 200 years. Of those I am delving the Shroud at most for 150 if I am very lucky, more likely only 100. If I am hoping for a very low chance roll to happen I am only going to see that a few times a game. With this change I am guaranteed to lose 20% of those rolls, but will need an entire extra low chance roll to see any payback. Most games this will be a 20% nerf with a few lucky ones getting a large buff. I would say on average this is a nerf, as I don't really care about my unrealized future gains.

Would you take a 20% paycut in exchange for 20% more lotteries in your country? Do we really want more RNG in this system to see any reward returned?

Actually I must correct myself.

The boon uptime does *NOT* stay the same with the shroud cooldown reduction.
Because while the shroud cooldown is reduced, the boon uptime stays the same.
So it is In fact it is a big *BUFF*.

Especially if you have other shroud cooldown reductions too.
I have in a game right now
- Psionic Archive (-50%)
- Psionics Tradition finished (-20%)
- President of lvl 4 Holy Covenant Federation (-20%)

And a cooldown of 216 days after delving, which is 12% of the base time.
Boons stay at a 1800 days cooldown. I have right now 3 of them active.