Megacorp/Le Guin feedback - Empire size, influence, sectors...

[cimoptigan]

There are a few things about the game so far that just bug me and that I find have reduced my enjoyment of the game.

1. Empire size. This function is crippling my expansion, as the cap is super low and I can't figure out how to increase it properly. My empire is not even particularly big yet, with 33 systems and 11 settled worlds, but I have penalties like 26 % for tech costs and 86 % for leader cost due to an empire size of 136 and a cap of 50.

2. Influence. This has always been my least favorite part of the game. It's a weak mechanism that really doesn't make sense in terms of how it works... why should the influence I gather every month pay for establishing new bases? I could see this work if there was a system in place where you could claim star systems before taking them, and then settling a system someone else had claimed would cost you more influence than settling an unclaimed system (which should be free other than for material costs). It's hard to earn influence at all, and the only real way to get enough is when you meet new civs. Now that bonus is gone, even, and I can't really see how this will be sustainable.

3. Sectors. Am I the only one who hates the new sector system? Why can't I make my own? For a feeling of deeper political gameplay I always make sectors based on different aspects like culture and race, annexed or integrated civs, military significance etc. This is now gone and sectors are just static entities without real purpose. Vassalizing them now, for instance, makes for completely random vassals instead of being able to make entities based on the factors I mentioned above.

4. Pop growth. It seems SO much slower now, and I'm never able to produce enough energy due to the worker slots never filling up. I haven't played that many years yet, but with several large planets I can't see how they'll be productive within a reasonable time frame. I have space for a dozen generators, but with all the other jobs needing to be filled I'll never get all of them working.

Does anyone else have thoughts on these subjects?

 

[metalosse]

You should just not mind at all about admin cap.

 

[icon41gimp]

1. Empire size is fine, go over it. You pretty much have to be expanding into empty space for the penalties to be larger than the productive use you'll get out of the extra capacity used.

2. Influence is just meant to be a limiter on expansion. Otherwise the optimal play would generally be to rush as much as possible into alloys for unlimited expansion. Influence lets people focus on other priorities early game because you have a barrier you can't go past. Stack -influence modifiers if you want to expand a lot early.

3. Sectors are bad, even worse than before if it's possible.

4. Pop growth is fine. Are you running a machine empire of some kind? They're feel extremely fragile right now, hopefully they get some help in the beta patch. If you don't need certain jobs you can turn them off in the population window of each planet.

 

[Objulen]

Empire size seems a bit too much at the moment. Imperial Perogative seems mandatory right now for early game expansion. The penalties seems like they should be lower or the admin cap should be higher.

I am playing a Machine Empire, so it may be that I'm feeling things like leader upkeep cost increases more acutely than organic empires due to my fragile economy.

 

[cimoptigan]

You should just not mind at all about admin cap.

But is there a way to increase it, other than with pre-existing bonuses or modifiers?

 

[nuyu]

I don't like new sectors, to me the options to manage our sectors are very limited now.
Ascension Path & Unity also not very different than before, still have priority pick and useless pick.

I'm not sure is it just me or not, but playing tall now are hard and Habitat need bit buff.

 

[Alastor]

But is there a way to increase it, other than with pre-existing bonuses or modifiers?

There is a repeatable late game social tech that increases admin cap by +15 each. But really don't worry too much about it. I've been 4 times over it without too much trouble. If anything it feels less punishing now. Which is obviously a good thing.

 

[nuyu]

But is there a way to increase it, other than with pre-existing bonuses or modifiers?

My last gameplay I can get up to 120 AC, you can research tech. Pacifist also add +10 for AC

 

[Dag-Erling]

I think the administration cap and the sector problem is tied together. Before you had a certain amount of planets in your core before you got hit by extreme penalties, now it's just there in general.

I hope they can bring them more into line with each other. The administration cap should be based on the number of jumps from your capital. 1 jump being low, 2 jumps medium, 3 jumps high and 4 jumps very high. So a planet that lies next to your capital should then be cheaper to maintain than one being far away. Then you would have the sector capitals that you create. Each planet within that sector gets it's administration cost based on the jumps to that capital instead. That way each sector would be predictable and you had some sort of strategy when you created them.

In this way, you could also tie up technology to decrease the cost. Planets with the "comms" would have easier communication with other planets. Or space stations with a module could also decrease the cost. That way far away outposts could have their admin cost reduced at the expense of a planet or a space station slot. Newer communication technology could also in general increase your admin cap or decrease the cost of the planets.

In general, I don't feel like you can expand beyond a certain point as the game is right now. I end up integrating a vassal and the entire economy tanks due to costs just going through the roof all across the board. The only thing holding my current empire afloat is the large stockpiles I have of Dark Matter .

 

[WhapXI]

Oh cool more people who don't understand what admin cap is. Can't wait for a dozen more threads about this today.

Complaining about a 26% tech cost increase when you're nearly at 300% empire size is... what? Assuming linear growth you can quite easily be putting out 3x the tech of an empire under cap. If you focus on tech it can easily be 4x or 5x. A 26% cost increase is nothing.

People who are claiming that the penalties are extreme or that it's the replacement of the core sector system demonstrably haven't done any research and have instead jumped on the forum to complain about how it's crippling their growth to stay under it, and that going over it is killing their empire. You're supposed to go over the cap. The penalties aren't extreme. They're the same tech/tradition size penalties of previous versions. It's just more visible now. Assuming you develop properly you won't even feel them.

 

[Badesumofu]

Stopped reading at ‘26% tech cost is crippling’.

 

[Drexl]

Oh cool more people who don't understand what admin cap is. Can't wait for a dozen more threads about this today.

Complaining about a 26% tech cost increase when you're nearly at 300% empire size is... what? Assuming linear growth you can quite easily be putting out 3x the tech of an empire under cap. If you focus on tech it can easily be 4x or 5x. A 26% cost increase is nothing.

People who are claiming that the penalties are extreme or that it's the replacement of the core sector system demonstrably haven't done any research and have instead jumped on the forum to complain about how it's crippling their growth to stay under it, and that going over it is killing their empire. You're supposed to go over the cap. The penalties aren't extreme. They're the same tech/tradition size penalties of previous versions. It's just more visible now. Assuming you develop properly you won't even feel them.

Preface: What follows is not an attack on you. I merely use your post briefly as a launching point for my own thoughts on this topic. I hope it can remain civil. I also plead with anyone who reads the following to read it in it's entirety before responding, and avoid jumping to conclusions.
---
I am one of those people who has come to the forums to discuss this issue. Before I get into my concerns proper I will address your comment by saying if we are expected to go over the admin cap, and indeed all but ignore it if what you say is true, then that is counter-intuitive, and quite frankly poor game design. As someone who spends a great deal of time researching game design and design theory in general this latest patch greatly disturbs me. What disturbs me even more is how little discussion I've manged to find on what I feel are the core issues. I've checked Steam, Reddit, and these forums. This topic is the closest I've found, but it sounds like there have been others.

I have a lot of issues with this patch, but only two that I feel kill the experience and enjoyment for me. The first is what the OP mentioned, the admin cap. Stellaris for me has been what I would call a 4x macro RTS. I've never been a fan of RTS, and Stellaris isn't one in the traditional sense, but it's the only one I've fallen in love with. Regardless of how you classify it the 4x elements are core to the experience. LeGuin has, in my observation and that of a close friend I play with, handicapped expansion, and all but eliminated extermination. That's half of the X's. We have observed that the AI doesn't expand past their admin cap much, if at all. Without adjusting the settings we're seeing half the galaxy being left wide open by the mid 2200's and no one engaging in wars. Some trivial AI wars will start happening later, but the *player* is never really threatened, nor encouraged to engage in a war. In fact doing so and winning is such a costly endeavor that you are actively *discouraged* from doing so. Stellaris 2.2 feels like an economy sim, not a 4x. Grow tall, and ignore everyone around you because they don't matter beyond being a score that you have to beat. The only thing fleets feel useful for are crises. The new pirate mechanic is thematic, and fun on the surface, but they manage to be even less of a threat than 2.1 pirates if that's even possible. I feel like I never need more than a handful of corvettes most of the game.

Now I concede that everything I wrote above could be written in ignorance, and if I just played differently I'd find solutions to these problems. However, I would argue why should I have to? If that's true, why are there staggeringly less valid ways to play Stellaris than before while still getting the complete experience? Perhaps I'm a bad player and suck at the game. I'm legit OK with that. The game needs to be enjoyable and intuitive for everyone. At the *very least* what follows is 100% true: As it stands now I never *feel* like I can expand much beyond my admin cap. I never *feel* like I am ever threatened by outside forces. I never *feel* like I am expanding, or exterminating. I only *feel* like I am exploring and exploiting. As a result half of my 4x experience has been lost, and if even one of those X's is handicapped in any significant way there is no game left for me. I don't want *just* an economy sim, and that's what Stellaris feels like. I've approached each major revision to Stellaris' core mechanics with trepidation, but ultimately I've allowed myself to give it a chance, and until now I've been pleased with the results. However overall this doesn't feel like a revision, it feels like a different game.

Now my second major issue is with the new Megacorp expansion and trade, but that's off-topic and another wall of text all on it's own. Also, I can fix that problem by just disabling the expansion and in fact there are so many issues with it I suspect that's what I'll have to do forever. Therefore, I'll instead touch on something related to the OP, and a very close third: sectors.

Sectors have never been in a great place, but I honestly didn't expect, nor was I prepared for, them to get worse. They serve no real purpose now. The language used in the dev diary about them even emphasizes that, and makes it sound like Paradox knows, and just kind of gave up on them effectively saying "They are there if you want. You can, like, assign governors and stuff still...". I would honestly rather them not be there as they exist now. They are a shadow of a mechanic that, while broken, I used to enjoy. Every time I interact with them I am disappointed. As trivial as it may seem I enjoyed being able to click those little +/- symbols and add some sort of structure to my empire. So many of my sectors end up having one or two planets because I can't control them at all. If Paradox does not want, or can't, fix the core issues with sectors, and the AI surrounding them then just allow us to draw sector boundaries that serve no purpose other than breaking up the outliner. I'd be fine with that honestly. I just want to give my empire structure, and sector names. It adds to the immersion for me. Sure I'd rather them mean something, but as they are now it's just another nail in the coffin so to speak. It's another element that makes me want to put the game down sooner, and I hate that because this has been one of my favorite games.

I'll end by saying that I am enjoying the new planet view and job system. However, if Paradox believes this new system in inexorably tied to the admin cap and can't exist separately then I would rather play 2.1. The sad thing is I can't now. Oh sure I can use Steam or GOG to go back to an older version (always possible on GOG, but I never know when I won't be able to do that on Steam >_<), but you know what doesn't go back to 2.1? Mods. I've seen the pleas in workshop comments for older versions of mods, but typically assumed that was just pirates because the new versions of the game were always better. Now I'm in the camp of people who want to play 2.1, and almost no one is willing to maintain older versions. I can't blame them, but now that they've all updated, and I naively let my copies do the same, I'll never get the 2.1 experience I had back. My only hope now rests entirely on Paradox. It is my sincere hope that they are willing to make drastic changes, even throwing away huge amounts of work and sunk cost, for the health of the game. Red 5 with Firefall, for all it's failings, did this well. They were never afraid to throw away EVERYTHING they had worked on if it meant a better game. Now unfortunately each time they did this they made even worse decisions, but I trust Paradox can fix this and make the right decisions as long as they don't shy away from scrapping all the work they've done when necessary. It's expensive to do so, I get it. I really hope my Stellaris journey doesn't end here because of that.

 

[Badesumofu]

Admin cap has been there the whole time, 2.2 just made it more explicit and less immediate (you used to get penalised as soon as you expanded past your starting system).

Very simply, the penalties for going over the cap are small relative to the value of going over it. Bigger empires are still stronger than smaller ones. Bigger empires can research faster, have bigger fleets, and just more of everything.

 

[WhapXI]

then that is counter-intuitive, and quite frankly poor game design

Agreed. And for that very purpose they are renaming it to be slightly more clear.

What disturbs me even more is how little discussion I've manged to find on what I feel are the core issues. I've checked Steam, Reddit, and these forums. This topic is the closest I've found, but it sounds like there have been others.

You can't have been looking very hard because there are dozens of "admin cap is killing me" and "2.2 feedback" threads about this very subject from people who don't understand it.

I have a lot of issues with this patch...

Wew that is a lot of anecdote you're writing. I'm not going to address it all but I have to say that I've definitely not seen the same. If Empires were staying below the admin cap then they'd stymie themselves at a dozen systems and three or fewer planets. Districts count towards empire size. If anything, tall play is made less viable by this change.

At the *very least* what follows is 100% true: As it stands now I never *feel* like I can expand much beyond my admin cap. I never *feel* like I am ever threatened by outside forces. I never *feel* like I am expanding, or exterminating. I only *feel* like I am exploring and exploiting.

I can't really argue against your feelings, dog. My first two games with 2.2 have been wide and prior to 2.2 I was pretty much exclusively a tall player (which I would say is much less viable/necessary considering sector changes and habitiat/ringworld nerfs). And these first two wide games (as CoM and UNE respectively) I had an absolute blast. I admit I never really felt the threat either but that seems to be more on an AI issue. I blew past the admin cap and was powerful as hell.

I would honestly rather them not be there as they exist now.

Yeah, it's kinda goofy. They still need to be around to make governors not entirely worthless, but can't be manipulable to the effect of having one governor control 50 planets and get 200 exp a month.

However, if Paradox believes this new system in inexorably tied to the admin cap and can't exist separately then I would rather play 2.1.

I really don't see what the problem with admin cap is. It's just a less vague iteration of the empire size penalties that have always. been. in. the. game. Going over the cap to claim more systems, settle more planets, and construct more districts is far more valuable that the couple of percent tech/tradition cost you save by staying under it.

 

[Drexl]

Wew that is a lot of anecdote you're writing.

You could be right, and I would hate to spread false information. What I mention has just been my observations. If everything I said was 100% wrong then at the very least that means (given you say this has come up a lot) there is a design problem with how information is given to the player, or perhaps a new more robust tutorial is required. Tutorials can be one of the hardest things to get right in design, especially when there are so many moving parts like there are in Stellaris, and they keep changing.

I really don't see what the problem with admin cap is. It's just a less vague iteration of the empire size penalties that have always. been. in. the. game. Going over the cap to claim more systems, settle more planets, and construct more districts is far more valuable that the couple of percent tech/tradition cost you save by staying under it.

I'll grant that I'm likely not experienced enough with the new mechanics, or perhaps Stellaris in general despite the time I've put into it, to grasp the value of the systems I criticized. Perhaps I didn't give it enough of a fair shake. Early on my friend and I both realized there was likely value in going over the admin cap, but we both decided against doing so because the game seemed to be telling us not to by it's design, and we wanted to play the way Paradox seemed to be asking us to, so I've been playing in such a way to get my cap to around 120. Based on what you're saying it seems like a very fixable design problem, and it sounds like there is already work being done on it.

Tabling the admin cap discussion, and choosing to grant for the sake of discourse that it is a non-issue that is merely poorly introduced to the player, the AI remains a serious problem. We now have 3x's, but not 4. For anyone who wants to play a game without extermination as a factor that's fine, but as it stands now it barely seems to exist, and AI issues have always been, or have seemed to me to be at least, a problem from the beginning. Modders have done what they can, but too much of the AI is hard-coded, or at least has been. I'm not sure how much of that code has been exposed in 2.2. What I do know is that they just leave me alone entirely. They also seem waaay more interested in being friends with me than before. I'm getting many more offers for research agreements, trade agreements, etc than I used to, and not once has anyone started a war with me. They haven't needed to because there is so much free space in the galaxy. I'll expand more aggressively and see how that changes things, but it sounds like you've experienced a similar problem. If the AI can't keep up with the player (preferably without "cheating", but I am very much aware of how hard that it is to accomplish) and pressure him then that's a serious issue that needs to be addressed quickly.

 

[cimoptigan]

I think the administration cap and the sector problem is tied together. Before you had a certain amount of planets in your core before you got hit by extreme penalties, now it's just there in general.

I hope they can bring them more into line with each other. The administration cap should be based on the number of jumps from your capital. 1 jump being low, 2 jumps medium, 3 jumps high and 4 jumps very high. So a planet that lies next to your capital should then be cheaper to maintain than one being far away. Then you would have the sector capitals that you create. Each planet within that sector gets it's administration cost based on the jumps to that capital instead. That way each sector would be predictable and you had some sort of strategy when you created them.

In this way, you could also tie up technology to decrease the cost. Planets with the "comms" would have easier communication with other planets. Or space stations with a module could also decrease the cost. That way far away outposts could have their admin cost reduced at the expense of a planet or a space station slot. Newer communication technology could also in general increase your admin cap or decrease the cost of the planets.

In general, I don't feel like you can expand beyond a certain point as the game is right now. I end up integrating a vassal and the entire economy tanks due to costs just going through the roof all across the board. The only thing holding my current empire afloat is the large stockpiles I have of Dark Matter .

That sounds like a great idea! Combined with more flexible sectors it would make for a lot better gameplay. Also, I think if sectors could be given different levels of autonomy we could really start talking about proper, complex empires. I also really think my idea of how influence is spent related to expansion would work a lot better and make more sense. In a vast galaxy where there are dozens of star systems between the different civs it just doesn't make sense that it should cost me anything else than materials to expand into a neighboring system no other race even knows about.

 

[cimoptigan]

Oh cool more people who don't understand what admin cap is. Can't wait for a dozen more threads about this today.

Complaining about a 26% tech cost increase when you're nearly at 300% empire size is... what? Assuming linear growth you can quite easily be putting out 3x the tech of an empire under cap. If you focus on tech it can easily be 4x or 5x. A 26% cost increase is nothing.

People who are claiming that the penalties are extreme or that it's the replacement of the core sector system demonstrably haven't done any research and have instead jumped on the forum to complain about how it's crippling their growth to stay under it, and that going over it is killing their empire. You're supposed to go over the cap. The penalties aren't extreme. They're the same tech/tradition size penalties of previous versions. It's just more visible now. Assuming you develop properly you won't even feel them.

If it bothers you so much that other people have different preferences or things to discuss than what you find interesting just stay out of those threads. No one needs your bitchy responses.

 

[cimoptigan]

Preface: What follows is not an attack on you. I merely use your post briefly as a launching point for my own thoughts on this topic. I hope it can remain civil. I also plead with anyone who reads the following to read it in it's entirety before responding, and avoid jumping to conclusions.
---
I am one of those people who has come to the forums to discuss this issue. Before I get into my concerns proper I will address your comment by saying if we are expected to go over the admin cap, and indeed all but ignore it if what you say is true, then that is counter-intuitive, and quite frankly poor game design. As someone who spends a great deal of time researching game design and design theory in general this latest patch greatly disturbs me. What disturbs me even more is how little discussion I've manged to find on what I feel are the core issues. I've checked Steam, Reddit, and these forums. This topic is the closest I've found, but it sounds like there have been others.

I have a lot of issues with this patch, but only two that I feel kill the experience and enjoyment for me. The first is what the OP mentioned, the admin cap. Stellaris for me has been what I would call a 4x macro RTS. I've never been a fan of RTS, and Stellaris isn't one in the traditional sense, but it's the only one I've fallen in love with. Regardless of how you classify it the 4x elements are core to the experience. LeGuin has, in my observation and that of a close friend I play with, handicapped expansion, and all but eliminated extermination. That's half of the X's. We have observed that the AI doesn't expand past their admin cap much, if at all. Without adjusting the settings we're seeing half the galaxy being left wide open by the mid 2200's and no one engaging in wars. Some trivial AI wars will start happening later, but the *player* is never really threatened, nor encouraged to engage in a war. In fact doing so and winning is such a costly endeavor that you are actively *discouraged* from doing so. Stellaris 2.2 feels like an economy sim, not a 4x. Grow tall, and ignore everyone around you because they don't matter beyond being a score that you have to beat. The only thing fleets feel useful for are crises. The new pirate mechanic is thematic, and fun on the surface, but they manage to be even less of a threat than 2.1 pirates if that's even possible. I feel like I never need more than a handful of corvettes most of the game.

Now I concede that everything I wrote above could be written in ignorance, and if I just played differently I'd find solutions to these problems. However, I would argue why should I have to? If that's true, why are there staggeringly less valid ways to play Stellaris than before while still getting the complete experience? Perhaps I'm a bad player and suck at the game. I'm legit OK with that. The game needs to be enjoyable and intuitive for everyone. At the *very least* what follows is 100% true: As it stands now I never *feel* like I can expand much beyond my admin cap. I never *feel* like I am ever threatened by outside forces. I never *feel* like I am expanding, or exterminating. I only *feel* like I am exploring and exploiting. As a result half of my 4x experience has been lost, and if even one of those X's is handicapped in any significant way there is no game left for me. I don't want *just* an economy sim, and that's what Stellaris feels like. I've approached each major revision to Stellaris' core mechanics with trepidation, but ultimately I've allowed myself to give it a chance, and until now I've been pleased with the results. However overall this doesn't feel like a revision, it feels like a different game.

Now my second major issue is with the new Megacorp expansion and trade, but that's off-topic and another wall of text all on it's own. Also, I can fix that problem by just disabling the expansion and in fact there are so many issues with it I suspect that's what I'll have to do forever. Therefore, I'll instead touch on something related to the OP, and a very close third: sectors.

Sectors have never been in a great place, but I honestly didn't expect, nor was I prepared for, them to get worse. They serve no real purpose now. The language used in the dev diary about them even emphasizes that, and makes it sound like Paradox knows, and just kind of gave up on them effectively saying "They are there if you want. You can, like, assign governors and stuff still...". I would honestly rather them not be there as they exist now. They are a shadow of a mechanic that, while broken, I used to enjoy. Every time I interact with them I am disappointed. As trivial as it may seem I enjoyed being able to click those little +/- symbols and add some sort of structure to my empire. So many of my sectors end up having one or two planets because I can't control them at all. If Paradox does not want, or can't, fix the core issues with sectors, and the AI surrounding them then just allow us to draw sector boundaries that serve no purpose other than breaking up the outliner. I'd be fine with that honestly. I just want to give my empire structure, and sector names. It adds to the immersion for me. Sure I'd rather them mean something, but as they are now it's just another nail in the coffin so to speak. It's another element that makes me want to put the game down sooner, and I hate that because this has been one of my favorite games.

I'll end by saying that I am enjoying the new planet view and job system. However, if Paradox believes this new system in inexorably tied to the admin cap and can't exist separately then I would rather play 2.1. The sad thing is I can't now. Oh sure I can use Steam or GOG to go back to an older version (always possible on GOG, but I never know when I won't be able to do that on Steam >_<), but you know what doesn't go back to 2.1? Mods. I've seen the pleas in workshop comments for older versions of mods, but typically assumed that was just pirates because the new versions of the game were always better. Now I'm in the camp of people who want to play 2.1, and almost no one is willing to maintain older versions. I can't blame them, but now that they've all updated, and I naively let my copies do the same, I'll never get the 2.1 experience I had back. My only hope now rests entirely on Paradox. It is my sincere hope that they are willing to make drastic changes, even throwing away huge amounts of work and sunk cost, for the health of the game. Red 5 with Firefall, for all it's failings, did this well. They were never afraid to throw away EVERYTHING they had worked on if it meant a better game. Now unfortunately each time they did this they made even worse decisions, but I trust Paradox can fix this and make the right decisions as long as they don't shy away from scrapping all the work they've done when necessary. It's expensive to do so, I get it. I really hope my Stellaris journey doesn't end here because of that.

I haven't played as far as you in the new 2.2 version, but I whole heartedly agree with everything you write. Logically, in a future where we're able to expand to the stars and have the resources to do so, we will, and I believe any other intelligent species with the same capabilities, want to expand as much as possible. Now, a way around this, and a way of keeping everyone happy, could be to differentiate between types of empires. Surely, if you want to run a centralized ship and keep every single outpost and planet in check, it will cost you more. If you'd rather opt for a more decentralized empire and are willing to let the periphery have some autonomy you could be able to get away with less penalties.

 

[hangry]

Admin cap again? Really????? Maybe read one of the dozen other threads that explain to you that the penalties were always a part of Stellaris and are actually lower than in 2.1.

 

[WhapXI]

We now have 3x's, but not 4. For anyone who wants to play a game without extermination as a factor that's fine, but as it stands now it barely seems to exist, and AI issues have always been, or have seemed to me to be at least, a problem from the beginning

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. The lack of meaningful opposition from the AI is a problem but they remain meaningful targets. Unless you're trying to artificially stymie your own growth, conquering enemy systems and planets is pretty much the best way to develop. Pops are the primary economic unit of the game. The AI can't be relied upon to manage them correctly. If you want the galaxy to survive the coming crisis, it has to be a player managing them. Benevolently, of course, and in their best interests. Wink.

Regarding the AI, I hear that Glavius does a great job at improving the AI. I'd recommend checking his AI mod out. I can't say I have, but people here seem to go nuts for it. More power to 'em.

What I do know is that they just leave me alone entirely. They also seem waaay more interested in being friends with me than before. I'm getting many more offers for research agreements, trade agreements, etc than I used to, and not once has anyone started a war with me.

More anecdotes, but I can vouch for the friendliness one. To be honest I find it a welcome change. In both on my 2.2 games so far I've started surrounded by at least three xenophobe/authoritarian/militarists who all find common ground and form a federation dedicated to taking me down. In both games at least two wars were declared on me. Though I managed to hold my own through proper chokepointing.

Regarding the friendliness, I like it. A lot. In both of my games I've had numerous AI empires approach me requesting non-aggression pacts, defensive pacts, commercial pacts, research pacts, protectorship, or even just large gifts of resources. Generally in strategy games the AI will act stubborn and suspicious, even when you're similarly aligned or at least natural allies due to common enemies. Research and commercial pacts in most games have to be heavily bribed out AIs, which automatically dispels any concept of mutual benefit. As it stands, by purposefully aligning with the player it feels like AIs are at least acting in some semblance of logical self-interest.