Ethics rebalance because of single-non-fanatic-ethic POPs?

[Ciccillo Rre]

So, I was reading again the DD about ethics/factions rework, and this issue came up to my mind but did not find anyone discussing it. Maybe some people find it irrelevant... but I don't, so I'm opening a new thread.

Basically, the current ethic system is based on Empire modifiers as well as POP modifiers, that for each ethic vary along the fanatic-non fanatic scale. Since POPs can have multiple ethics, as far as I understand the POP modifiers only apply to POPs with the appropriate ethic (as long as your empire embraces such ethic). Thus, fanatic collectivist POPs will consume -15% less food if you are fanatic collectivist, and will enjoy +5% happiness if both they and your empire are also (non fanatic) pacifist.

However, with the single-non fanatic ethic new POPs, I assume that the effect of empire ethical choice will be changed along several dimensions. First, POP modifiers would become less meaningful, since from the start not all your POPs will embrace all your chosen ethics. How does your choice of empire-level ethics affect this? Second, how does the choice of fanatic ethics in particular affect this? I assume that there will no longer be any additional "POP modifers" from the choice of fanatic ethics, since fanatic POPs will be gone.

To put it in concrete terms: say I choose choose "fanatic authoritarian" (replacing "fanatic collectivist") and "pacifist". Will my (non fanatic) authoritarian POPs consume 15% less or 5% less food? Will my pacifist POPs be tolerant of slavery, or rather not?

If this is not addressed, I foresee the potential for some big balance messup.

 

[gdj]

I assume there will be no pop modifiers as such anymore. The empire bonuses would count for all pops, however a mismatch between government ethos and pop ethos will make factions stronger. At least that´s my guess how it would be made.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

I assume there will be no pop modifiers as such anymore. The empire bonuses would count for all pops, however a mismatch between government ethos and pop ethos will make factions stronger. At least that´s my guess how it would be made.

That would still create huge imbalance problems, materialists for instance would become OP.

I foresee lots of other issues as well: conquered egalitarians happy to be enslaved, conquered pacifists happier when going to war and vice versa etc. etc.

 

[aprogressivist]

I don't think they can remove Pop ethics modifiers, it would completely unravel most of the systems. Suddenly because you're a Militarist empire, your Pacifist pops would stop acting like Pacifists? That wouldn't be Stellaris anymore.

That aside, the biggest effect of simplifying Pops to have a single ethic will be that it will make it easier to balance the Pop ethic modifiers; it will "flatten" certain balance choices while retaining uniqueness. Consider: right now, there's no difference between the Pop modifier of regular vs. Fanatic Militarists; but the Pop modifier of most other Ethics is tripled between regular and Fanatic. That's an odd design, but I understand it was probably not attractive to have regular Militarism give only +5% war happiness and Fanatic Militarism to give +15%.

So doing away with Pop fanatics makes things simpler.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

I don't think they can remove Pop ethics modifiers, it would completely unravel most of the systems. Suddenly because you're a Militarist empire, your Pacifist pops would stop acting like Pacifists? That wouldn't be Stellaris anymore.

That aside, the biggest effect of simplifying Pops to have a single ethic will be that it will make it easier to balance the Pop ethic modifiers; it will "flatten" certain balance choices while retaining uniqueness. Consider: right now, there's no difference between the Pop modifier of regular vs. Fanatic Militarists; but the Pop modifier of most other Ethics is tripled between regular and Fanatic. That's an odd design, but I understand it was probably not attractive to have regular Militarism give only +5% war happiness and Fanatic Militarism to give +15%.

So doing away with Pop fanatics makes things simpler.

I agree, but then what would be the point of choosing "fanatic" for some empire-wide ethics? Just the tripled empire-level modifier? I hear nothing from the devs about it.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I agree, but then what would be the point of choosing "fanatic" for some empire-wide ethics? Just the tripled empire-level modifier? I hear nothing from the devs about it.

Your POPs are divided between the Ethics you've given your government- if, for example, you selected three Ethics, your populace would begin (and would, barring further factors, trend towards) an even 3-way split between those Ethics.

Fanatic governments increase the draw towards that Ethic- so it might be more like a 1-to-2 split between a non-fanatic Ethic and the fanatic one; we can also reasonably assume that Fanatic Ethics-pull is strong enough to help counter other possible influences that might otherwise swap your POPs to other Ethics.

 

[terrycloth]

So, I was reading again the DD about ethics/factions rework, and this issue came up to my mind but did not find anyone discussing it. Maybe some people find it irrelevant... but I don't, so I'm opening a new thread.

Basically, the current ethic system is based on Empire modifiers as well as POP modifiers, that for each ethic vary along the fanatic-non fanatic scale. Since POPs can have multiple ethics, as far as I understand the POP modifiers only apply to POPs with the appropriate ethic (as long as your empire embraces such ethic). Thus, fanatic collectivist POPs will consume -15% less food if you are fanatic collectivist, and will enjoy +5% happiness if both they and your empire are also (non fanatic) pacifist.

However, with the single-non fanatic ethic new POPs, I assume that the effect of empire ethical choice will be changed along several dimensions. First, POP modifiers would become less meaningful, since from the start not all your POPs will embrace all your chosen ethics. How does your choice of empire-level ethics affect this? Second, how does the choice of fanatic ethics in particular affect this? I assume that there will no longer be any additional "POP modifers" from the choice of fanatic ethics, since fanatic POPs will be gone.

To put it in concrete terms: say I choose choose "fanatic authoritarian" (replacing "fanatic collectivist") and "pacifist". Will my (non fanatic) authoritarian POPs consume 15% less or 5% less food? Will my pacifist POPs be tolerant of slavery, or rather not?

If this is not addressed, I foresee the potential for some big balance messup.

Currently pop modifiers happen whether or not they match your government ethics. Some modifiers are empire modifiers instead and ignore your pops completely. There are no modifiers which require both.

 

[Madzai]

Your POPs are divided between the Ethics you've given your government- if, for example, you selected three Ethics, your populace would begin (and would, barring further factors, trend towards) an even 3-way split between those Ethics.

Fanatic governments increase the draw towards that Ethic- so it might be more like a 1-to-2 split between a non-fanatic Ethic and the fanatic one; we can also reasonably assume that Fanatic Ethics-pull is strong enough to help counter other possible influences that might otherwise swap your POPs to other Ethics.

But if Fanatic Ethic pull stronger that are the chances to your second ethic choice POP become non-existent after some time? And what'll happens if you do something like purges and your second ethic choice is something like Spiritualists. Those, by default, aren't amused by it. 1/3 of your Empire will be unhappy? Way to heavy penalty right from the start.

And if each POP with ethic support same outlook on things as the ethic tself, 3 Ethics Empires will be a real nightmare to manage.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

But if Fanatic Ethic pull stronger that are the chances to your second ethic choice POP become non-existent after some time?

That's not how it works.

Pop Ethics Rework
Another mechanic that never quite felt satisfying is the ethics divergence mechanic. Not only is it overly simplified with just a single value determining if pops go towards or from empire ethics, the shift rarely makes sense: Why would xenophobe alien pops diverge away from xenophobe just because they're far away from the capital of a xenophobic empire? Furthermore, the fact that pops could have anything from one to three different ethics made it extremely difficult to actually quantify what any individual pop's ethics actually mean for how they relate to the empire. For this reason we've decided to revamp the way pop ethics work in the following way:

• Each pop in your empire will now only embrace a single, non-fanatic ethic. At the start of the game, your population will be made of up of only the ethics that you picked in species setup, but as your empire grows, its population will become more diverse in their views and wants.
• Each ethic now has an attraction value for each pop in your empire depending on both the empire's situation and their own situation. For example, enslaved pops tend to become more egalitarian, while pops living around non-enslaved aliens become more xenophilic (and pops living around enslaved aliens more xenophobic). Conversely, fighting a lot of wars will increase the attraction for militarism across your entire empire, while an alien empire purging pops of a particular species will massively increase the attraction for xenophobic for the species being purged.
• Over time, the ethics of your pops will drift in such a way that it roughly matches the overall attraction of that value. For example, if your materialist attraction sits at 10% for decades, it's likely that after that time, around 10% of your pops will be materialist. There is some random factor so it's likely never going to match up perfectly, but the system is built to try and go towards the mean, so the more overrepresented an ethic is compared to its attraction, the more likely pops are to drift away from it and vice versa.

That last bit especially seems important- if you are, say, Fanatic Militarist/Materialist, and that translates to a (for hypothetical example) 60%/30% attraction, your Militarist population is not going to "overpower" your Materialist ones- they'll outnumber them, but the overall composition will trend towards a representative split.

 

[Gaen]

In the new system your empire will have an attraction value to each ethics and your pop demographic will match the values. The reason to pick fanatic will be an increase in attraction so instead of 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 you will have 30 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 demografic. With traits, governments and tech to increase it further. So if you are going with a slave empire you want a fanatic slave ethic so less pops complain about it.

 

[Madzai]

In the new system your empire will have an attraction value to each ethics and your pop demographic will match the values. The reason to pick fanatic will be an increase in attraction so instead of 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 you will have 30 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 demografic. With traits, governments and tech to increase it further. So if you are going with a slave empire you want a fanatic slave ethic so less pops complain about it.

If go with 30 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 demografic it's still a whole lot of of POPs who disagree with slavery.

That last bit especially seems important- if you are, say, Fanatic Militarist/Materialist, and that translates to a (for hypothetical example) 60%/30% attraction, your Militarist population is not going to "overpower" your Materialist ones- they'll outnumber them, but the overall composition will trend towards a representative split.

You didn't take into account

Each ethic now has an attraction value for each pop in your empire depending on both the empire's situation and their own situation

part. If we go by their own examples selecting Fan. Authoritarian\Materialists but going full slavery results in whole lot of Egalitarian and Xenophobic tendencies with strong Authoritarian promoted by Empire actions, while Materialism side will shrink, unless there is some kind of "hard caps" that regulate bare minimum of some ethic in Empire based on starting ethics.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

You didn't take into account [...] part. If we go by their own examples selecting Fan. Authoritarian\Materialists but going full slavery results in whole lot of Egalitarian and Xenophobic tendencies with strong Authoritarian promoted by Empire actions, while Materialism side will shrink, unless there is some kind of "hard caps" that regulate bare minimum of some ethic in Empire based on starting ethics.

Let me quote myself, with emphasis added:

Your POPs are divided between the Ethics you've given your government- if, for example, you selected three Ethics, your populace would begin (and would, barring further factors, trend towards) an even 3-way split between those Ethics.

Fanatic governments increase the draw towards that Ethic- so it might be more like a 1-to-2 split between a non-fanatic Ethic and the fanatic one; we can also reasonably assume that Fanatic Ethics-pull is strong enough to help counter other possible influences that might otherwise swap your POPs to other Ethics.

A Fanatic Ethic on the government level will not, "pull" POPs away from your non-fanatic Ethic- that's not how it works. It will have a higher attraction, but that higher attraction cannot, on its own, take away from the attraction your other Ethic has inherent to itself.

For my Fanatic Militarist/Materialist example, it would be possible to wage a bunch of wars and invest in techs and perks and traditions that increase the attraction of the Militarist Ethic- but that can't actually decrease the attraction pull of the Materialist one. It will always have a flat buff if its your non-Fanatic Ethic. You could, conceivably, find ways to specifically decrease the appeal of Materialism in your empire- but choosing a Fanatic Ethic doesn't do that by itself.

 

[Melabranche]

A Fanatic Ethic on the government level will not, "pull" POPs away from your non-fanatic Ethic- that's not how it works. It will have a higher attraction, but that higher attraction cannot, on its own, take away from the attraction your other Ethic has inherent to itself.

For my Fanatic Militarist/Materialist example, it would be possible to wage a bunch of wars and invest in techs and perks and traditions that increase the attraction of the Militarist Ethic- but that can't actually decrease the attraction pull of the Materialist one. It will always have a flat buff if its your non-Fanatic Ethic. You could, conceivably, find ways to specifically decrease the appeal of Materialism in your empire- but choosing a Fanatic Ethic doesn't do that by itself.

If I may say - we not know how it will Really works. We will see how it works. For now, we can only speculate how we think it will works.
For me, I got some "bad feelings" about this when I read Dev Diary:
- If on start my race will be "ok" with my ethic ... "but as your empire grows, its population will become more diverse in their views and wants" - for me, as Colectiv / F. Materialist, make no sense. As Individualist, I can be ok with that, but if there will be no Goverment mechanic (for example for Colectiv) to "stay in line" (and I don't mean by that spending influence) other than "F" before ethic, then role of Goverment is reduced greatly. We have not enough info about it.
- Next is:
"Each ethic now has an attraction value for each pop in your empire depending on both the empire's situation and their own situation. For example, enslaved pops tend to become more egalitarian, while pops living around non-enslaved aliens become more xenophilic (and pops living around enslaved aliens more xenophobic). Conversely, fighting a lot of wars will increase the attraction for militarism across your entire empire, while an alien empire purging pops of a particular species will massively increase the attraction for xenophobic for the species being purged."
So... If I close borders, which for me is logical for my Colectiv / F. Materialist gov, to protect my research, and offer peace in my border, then some pops become xenophobic? When I purge alien, because "it" is not part of my colective, then become xenophobic to? Or, when I need more resource, and enslave pop "For The Greater Good", he will may change from Colectiv to Individualist? Even if slavery is regulated? Lot's of wars you say? I live in peace! Until... Every spiritualist / individualist / xenophil / pacifist near me say "You are mean alien, and do not have open borders, and don't love everyone like this multi-race xenophob there, so war! And it does not mater, that you live in peace with us over 80+ yeras..." Nope. I need research to surpass everyone, and only "militarism" I have, is a fleet that I Must have - This game is constructed in this way, that you need fight, even if you are pacifist (which for me is strange). You need always have max fleet. And whot if some of my pop get brain damage, and become spiritualist / individualist / pacifist / etc? Be nice to him and live on? Nope! Some Govs need some way to promote only true way and / or forbid other - and again, I don't mean by that spending influence - give low lvl techs, buildings, event, and so on ... but, because there is so little info in Dev post, I have little to none hope for some good solutions for this.
- Last one:
"Over time, the ethics of your pops will drift in such a way that it roughly matches the overall attraction of that value. For example, if your materialist attraction sits at 10% for decades, it's likely that after that time, around 10% of your pops will be materialist. There is some random factor so it's likely never going to match up perfectly, but the system is built to try and go towards the mean, so the more overrepresented an ethic is compared to its attraction, the more likely pops are to drift away from it and vice versa."
Still, not enough info, but as I read it - it is marginalisation of some goverments, and adding chaos to pop relocation. For example - My Colectiv / F. Materialist race will have some this ethic and that ethic, but... if some pops is colectiv and some materialist, then if there will be some AI managment to relocate Materialist to labs, and Colectiv to production? Or I must do this manualy? And is there a way to eliminate some ethic? And this "overrepresented"? I want to eliminate every other ethic in my empire form existance! They give info about XX% for some ethic, and some pice of info about ... well, things we can speculate. And that's it.

We have almost no info about anything - only a scraps from Dev Diary.
And that's why I have "bad feelings".

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

@Melabranche I can't really agree with your fears, because your fears boil down to "B-but what if Paradox are really bad at making games?" You're worrying that they wont work out methods of basic functionality, or redesign existing parts of the Ethics system in the game to fit the new way it works.

 

[Melabranche]

@Melabranche I can't really agree with your fears, because your fears boil down to "B-but what if Paradox are really bad at making games?" You're worrying that they wont work out methods of basic functionality, or redesign existing parts of the Ethics system in the game to fit the new way it works.

Fears always come from un-known. And we know little to non mechanic hidden behind new ethic.
Show me place when I say that they are bad at making games. I only show my doubts and share my un-answered questions, that no one ask.
And, like I said in some other topic, I purchase this game in preorder, lured by they promise of infinitely varied of unique races, interesting and advance diplomacy, unique scienc paths, and so on. Variety is only in potraits, diplomacy don't exist, science is the same for everyone, and it's repeatable at the end. They fail me. And because of that, I have my doubts, and most importand - I have fear, that they will do something bad to this game.
I want, that this game be awesome, and that's why I ask my questions, and that's is a reason why I have my doubts. I can get even 100 people "Respectfully Disagree" with me, but this will not change main thing. I care about this game - You can be schocked, but it's true - And as a caring person, I will NOT see it through pink glasses. I will be sceptic, I will question everything, and I will be scumbag who points out every mistake and bug they made, But... I will to, show, promote and "glorify" they good actions and / or decision they make, when they make them. Now, I wait for more info, and for this DLC to come.

 

[Seryss]

Overall i think if enslaving or purging leads to angering 1/4-1/3 of my population, doesn't matter to 1/2 -1/3 and makes 1/4 to 1/3 happy or indifferent than i would just forgo them entirely. If we can't control pops to the extent we can now i'm struggling to see why you would continue to enslave; mineral production is nice, but not when 1/2 of your empire can't produce science, and is gimped on energy for slavery, and of the other half (your own species) 1/3 or more are unhappy, and barely producing science/energy.

I kind of feel like they would have to split every ethos evenly into pro x, anti y ignores z. otherwise there's going to be a clearly superior ethos combination if 2/3 of all possible combinations hate something, while only 1/6 care what you do as long as you don't purge the aliens or enslave them. The contention between other ethos like spiritualist and materialist would also have to be increased to include things like ai research, droids, etc, and would have to spill into other ethos (e.g. droids not only make spiritualists angry but xenophobes don't like them either)

 

[Madzai]

Overall i think if enslaving or purging leads to angering 1/4-1/3 of my population, doesn't matter to 1/2 -1/3 and makes 1/4 to 1/3 happy or indifferent than i would just forgo them entirely. If we can't control pops to the extent we can now i'm struggling to see why you would continue to enslave; mineral production is nice, but not when 1/2 of your empire can't produce science, and is gimped on energy for slavery, and of the other half (your own species) 1/3 or more are unhappy, and barely producing science/energy.

You forgot about new faction system. How one POP can join a faction is yet to properly described, but as the problem is that POP happiness is now depended on overall Faction happiness, and as i understood one very unhappy POP can affect Faction happiness a lot (so it's not just sum of all POPs happiness divided by their quanity). So you can guess the rest.

I kind of feel like they would have to split every ethos evenly into pro x, anti y ignores z. otherwise there's going to be a clearly superior ethos combination if 2/3 of all possible combinations hate something, while only 1/6 care what you do as long as you don't purge the aliens or enslave them. The contention between other ethos like spiritualist and materialist would also have to be increased to include things like ai research, droids, etc, and would have to spill into other ethos like droids not only make spirtualists angry but xenophobes don't like them either.

My fears exactly. If i got previous answers right, each ethic attraction is a separate value and is unrelated to other attractions. So your Empire is bound to have some POPs of not-Empire ethics no matter that. Now that POPs are joining factions... If a POP can join a faction not directly tied to it's ethos - f.e., a Pacifist POP can join a faction populated mostly by Materialists ... In Fan.Mil+Mat Empire... Well, that'll be disastrous.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

Currently pop modifiers happen whether or not they match your government ethics. Some modifiers are empire modifiers instead and ignore your pops completely. There are no modifiers which require both.

I know, and I am sorry but it seems that you largely ignored my initial post, because this comment does not answer my initial questions.

To make things clear, they are:

1) Since fanatic ethoses currently have extra POP modifiers, how will the disappearence of fanatic POPs alter the balance of ethics?

2) More generally, how will the fact that POPs will no longer be able to have multiple ethoses alter the same balance?

Do the devs foresee probems and solutions?

 

[Shermanator]

I have another question. If I am playing as fanatic authoritarian/spiritualist/spiritual autocracy, a government based on a ensuring that everyone follows the religion, then wouldn't it be a bit silly if only a third of my empire had the spiritualist ethics?

 

[Melabranche]

I have another question. If I am playing as fanatic authoritarian/spiritualist/spiritual autocracy, a government based on a ensuring that everyone follows the religion, then wouldn't it be a bit silly if only a third of my empire had the spiritualist ethics?

if there will be no Goverment mechanic (for example for Colectiv) to "stay in line" (and I don't mean by that spending influence) other than "F" before ethic, then role of Goverment is reduced greatly. We have not enough info about it.

And I repeat myself - We have not enough info about it. Scrach that. We have no info at all. We have speculations only... and hope (and fear) for paradox actions.