Hivemind 2.6, Society output gone?

[BlackUmbrellas]

even if i can say that for evry new expansion, i've see a speed up in game progression overall . new meccanics added new ways to reach more resources and this speeded up the game. cosnidering that now you can match the old leviatans by 2230 .

Which isn't a good thing.

 

[Methone]

Which isn't a good thing.

Yep. For those who don't know, it's called 'power creep' and Federations promises to bring even more of it!

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

[...] Federations promises to bring even more of it!

I don't know that that's necessarily true.

 

[Methone]

I don't know that that's necessarily true.

Leaving aside Juggernaut and Megashipyard, the bonuses from Federation levels don't presently exist. And when it comes out they will exist, therefore power creep.

 

[RoverStorm]

Leaving aside Juggernaut and Megashipyard, the bonuses from Federation levels don't presently exist. And when it comes out they will exist, therefore power creep.

Federations are also largely considered a terrible investment considering AI makes terrible allies and players can just make out-of-game agreements to war together and save the influence. Not to mention that currently Feds have a fleet cap of 500, while you lose 20% (?) of your naval cap even if the lost fleet size is WAY above 500 (and every member suffers this even if one member already fulfills the 500 requirement).

Federations are currently considered a trap outside of very specific situations in the early-mid game where a coalition of many empires is temporarily required. I think this has only happened to me twice since 2.0, and both times was Determined Exterminators getting so out of control that a Democratic Crusaders AI invited a Slaving Despot Kingdom to a federation.

I just don't see the Federation changes as power creep. Power creep is specifically new content making old content obsolete. If it turns out that Federations makes playing NOT part of one (or the Galactic Community) noncompetitive and/or sub-optimal, then there is probably a reason to cry power creep.

However, they've made it pretty clear that Feds and Galactic Community are NOT necessarily always better than previously. The Galactic Community could give you benefits, but it could also pass laws that cripple you. Federations could provide significant bonuses, but the devs specifically stated that even the Hegemony could have another member surpass you and suddenly use your bonuses against you. Things that are a trade off are usually "sidegrades", and unless the downside is negligible is not really power creep either.

I make this distinction important because often people cry buffs or fresh content as power creep fairly unjustifiably. Paradox has done powercreep in the past, but they also frequently rework major mechanics, which nukes powercreep related to the changed mechanics. Machine empires went from OP on release to comically weak to OP again.

 

[Escalist]

The only thing I see - now you can increase your's empire cap, so now agressive expansion won't slow down your's tech route.
So, 2.6 will be much more agressive patch, then 2.5
Anyway, we shall see that soon

 

[Tech Noir Synth]

Or I don't really see those issues as problems. But never mind, please do continue to tell me what I think.

Now the last concern I have is Synth Ascension and the Roboticist job for non-Gestalt empires. As others have observed, the Replicator job for Machine empires seems to consume 1 Alloy for producing 1.0 Robot assembly speed. I hope that you have made similar adjustments tothe Roboticist job of non-Gestalt empires. This job provides 2.0 pop growth speed for about 6 minerals upkeep. This by far the best pop growth job in the entire game and because it is so good, forces every non-Gestalt empires to use Robots (even Spiritualists) because otherwise your empire simply cannot compete. I hope that you have nerfed this job accordingly, so that Synth empires also do not end up with 12.2 pop growth anymore, but maybe something around 8. They should also receive an organic pop growth nerf similar to Machine empires. After all, once everyone has turned into Robots, why should it be so easy to reproduce still? And of course from a balance perspective this is severely needed.

I have described the problem in detail in my posts already and countless other players have aswell. Most multiplayer groups are aware of this.

From reading your posts it seems like you don't agree. Thats fine. However its simply about numbers, most of Stellaris is. And no one can deny pop growth is too high with Synth Ascension (its 12.2 plus whatever you get from organics, which will easily add up to 20-30 total pop growth, two to three times the amount of any other empire) and has been for Machine empires aswell (they start with 4.0 base pop growth as opposed to 3.0 pop growth before modifiers like any non-Machine empire). Just because you choose to ignore these problems, does not mean they do not exist.

Thankfully, as we can see from the recent videos, pop growth from Machine empires has been adjusted to a reasonable level.

 

[Turnil]

I have described the problem in detail in my posts already and countless other players have aswell. Most multiplayer groups are aware of this.

From reading your posts it seems like you don't agree. Thats fine. However its simply about numbers, most of Stellaris is. And no one can deny pop growth is too high with Synth Ascension (its 12.2 plus whatever you get from organics, which will easily add up to 20-30 total pop growth, two to three times the amount of any other empire) and has been for Machine empires aswell (they start with 4.0 base pop growth as opposed to 3.0 pop growth before modifiers like any non-Machine empire). Just because you choose to ignore these problems, does not mean they do not exist.

Thankfully, as we can see from the recent videos, pop growth from Machine empires has been adjusted to a reasonable level.

* Added Mega-Assembly technology, which unlocks the Machine Assembly Complex.
* Machine Assembly Complex building added, which is an upgrade to Machine Assembly Plant, with 3 Replicator Jobs.

 

[Tech Noir Synth]

Well atleast Machine empires don't start the game with 5.5 pop assembly speed (and potentially 1.5 organic pop growth) anymore.

 

[Badesumofu]

The only thing I see - now you can increase your's empire cap, so now agressive expansion won't slow down your's tech route.
So, 2.6 will be much more agressive patch, then 2.5
Anyway, we shall see that soon

Why do people think this? Currently you can offset admin cap penalties by building loads of labs. In 2.6 you can offset them by building beuracrats. In both cases you can tech faster by expanding if you focus on keeping up your tech rate.

 

[Tech Noir Synth]

The only thing I see - now you can increase your's empire cap, so now agressive expansion won't slow down your's tech route.
So, 2.6 will be much more agressive patch, then 2.5
Anyway, we shall see that soon

Aggressive does not describe this correctly in my opinon. What you can do now is build more outposts. Pre 2.6, outpost add 2 empire sprawl. Thats terribly inefficient. The best way to play until 2.6 has been to only take chokepoints and expand to every planet you can and leave out most of the useless stations inbetween, they were almost never worth their sprawl. Even the ones with strategic ressources.

However, from seeing gameplay so far, and reading the patch notes, outposts create less sprawl (1 down from 2) and they also create much less overall since pops now make up the major part of empire sprawl. So outposts are better and we might see less empires with tons of free space inbetween outposts.

 

[Gali77]

In regards to outposts expansion reduces the sprawl by another 25% and you start in expansion stance reducing the alloy cost of outposts.

Also with regards to aggressive gameplay remember that most federations lost their initial federation fleets. So they have more powerful economic bonuses long term but are quite a bit weaker short term.

 

[Verx90]

with regards to aggressive gameplay remember that most federations lost their initial federation fleets. So they have more powerful economic bonuses long term but are quite a bit weaker short term

Most of federation type dont have federation fleet asap (but the military one has that)and they need time to actualy get to it , but they start asap to pay energy credits for the federation if i'm not wrong .
So a startup federation (the galatic one) its actualy weaker than a simple defensive pact .

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

@Turnil they've added an upgraded assembly plant, but REMOVED the additional manufacturing jobs from the capital that scaled with population. So growth will be slower at the beginning of the game (reduced from what it is now) with the ability to boost it later on.

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

It precisely is good enough. We shouldn't have to spoon-feed you definitions word by word. I know for a fact you're smart enough to figure it out.

When you were talking about asymmetry I took you to mean literal asymmetry in mechanics, along the lines of one side being in Total War and the other not, not asymmetry in power levels. You were saying the 'lack' of asymmetry was a problem, and I said that no it wasn't.

Thanks for the compliment - no it isn't good enough, because the developers will give you exactly what you ask for. Everything will be reduced to the same bland 'sameness' in the name of balance that is repeatedly asked for on these forums.

It's not that you are spoonfeeding other people definitions, it's that you are making your own thinking explicit for yourself. The result, that it makes your own thinking more transparent to others, is a bonus. The reality is that a particular definition (in this case, balance) means something different to everybody involved in the conversation, so it does help to actually define it for the purposes of the discussion. It's good practice and not doing so is lazy.

Re: asymmetry, - assumptions make an arse out of 'u' and me. Rather than power levels, I'm thinking capabilities.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Thanks for the compliment - no it isn't good enough, because the developers will give you exactly what you ask for. Everything will be reduced to the same bland 'sameness' in the name of balance that is repeatedly asked for on these forums.

Things can be different without being wildly overpowered. Stop strawmanning.

 

[Methone]

Thanks for the compliment - no it isn't good enough, because the developers will give you exactly what you ask for. Everything will be reduced to the same bland 'sameness' in the name of balance that is repeatedly asked for on these forums.

The developers are not paperclip maximizers.

It's not that you are spoonfeeding other people definitions, it's that you are making your own thinking explicit for yourself. The result, that it makes your own thinking more transparent to others, is a bonus. The reality is that a particular definition (in this case, balance) means something different to everybody involved in the conversation, so it does help to actually define it for the purposes of the discussion. It's good practice and not doing so is lazy.

It's not lazy, because the definitions are trivial.

Re: asymmetry, - assumptions make an arse out of 'u' and me. Rather than power levels, I'm thinking capabilities.

Oh for god's sake! So in the other thread you asked "What do you think about the lack of asymmetry-as-capabilities in warfare being a problem?"

I say it's not a problem.

And then, here, you ask "What, you already told me you don't think asymmetry-as-power isn't a problem, but here you're saying we need more balance. Which is it?"

And then I say "Oh, is that what you meant? You meant asymmetry-as-power? I thought you meant asymmetry-as-capabilities."

And NOW you say "No, I meant asymmetry-as-capabilities."

Just... stop with these mental gymnastics.

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

Things can be different without being wildly overpowered. Stop strawmanning.

I don't think I'm strawmanning here? The point being made is that the pro-balance people don't actually advocate for diversity in strategies, only the negation of what diversity already exists in the game.

As for AI being dogpiled, I frequently observe that AI playing as machines get dogpiled by other AI playing as non-machines, because those have access to better diplomacy than the machines. I don't agree that machines are overpowered.

The developers are not paperclip maximizers.

This is a strawman because I'm not saying they are.

There are, however, definitely features which are objectively in a worse position than they were because of changes to mechanics which were made based on the forums feedback. I'm thinking specifically of ship design, which is in the worst position its ever been in my opinion and has been for the past year.

It's not lazy, because the definitions are trivial.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Balance in games is actually a complicated concept, not a trivial one.

Oh for god's sake! So in the other thread you asked "What do you think about the lack of asymmetry-as-capabilities in warfare being a problem?"

I say it's not a problem.

And then, here, you ask "What, you already told me you don't think asymmetry-as-power isn't a problem, but here you're saying we need more balance. Which is it?"

And then I say "Oh, is that what you meant? You meant asymmetry-as-power? I thought you meant asymmetry-as-capabilities."

And NOW you say "No, I meant asymmetry-as-capabilities."

Just... stop with these mental gymnastics.

Lol you need to read that post again, I said power/capabilities in that initial post and further clarified the point, saying that capabilities described what I mean better than power does. Which remains true. If all empires have the same capabilities, they have the same power. If they have different capabilities, they can also have the same power, because the relative differences in their capabilities can equal the same power. The game is balanced and diverse, as opposed to the balanced and similar.

Isn't that what you want, you want diversity in the strategy game?

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I don't think I'm strawmanning here? The point being made is that the pro-balance people don't actually advocate for diversity in strategies, only the negation of what diversity already exists in the game.

Machines having ludicrous growth is certainly "diverse" compared to the growth rates of non-machines, but its not GOOD.

Thankfully this is being addressed.

 

[Methone]

only the negation of what diversity already exists in the game.

Yeah, except "This empire is just plain stronger" isn't a good type of diversity. "This type of empire is heavily focused on rushing unity" is good.

As for AI being dogpiled, I frequently observe that AI playing as machines get dogpiled by other AI playing as non-machines, because those have access to better diplomacy than the machines. I don't agree that machines are overpowered.

I do not witness this, and you are wrong.

This is a strawman because I'm not saying they are.

You are, however, implying they would behave in a similar manner.

Lol you need to read that post again, I said power/capabilities in that initial post and further clarified the point, saying that capabilities described what I mean better than power does. Which remains true. If all empires have the same capabilities, they have the same power. If they have different capabilities, they can also have the same power, because the relative differences in their capabilities can equal the same power. The game is balanced and diverse, as opposed to the balanced and similar.

Isn't that what you want, you want diversity in the strategy game?

Good god, you are living in an alternate universe. I'm done with you.