"More Space For Players" Proposition

[Ollum]

I propose more space for ascension perks and traditions.

Currently, we are given so many ascension perks and traditions. In recent patch, we have new ascension model - you should use one tradition slot to make your species synthetic/cyborgs/psionic/genetic masters.

I think the game is now critically unbalanced - a lot of options and very small space. I ask for now for two additional tradition slots (because of new ascension traditions and "Politics" tradition) and making Ascension Theory technology repeatable two times (Ascension Theory and Ascension Theory II) to give us three new slots for Ascension Perks (one from Ascension Theory II, two for tradition slots).

Earlier, I had proposed making Ascension Theory technology repeatable four times to give players three additional AP slots without discrimination against players without DLCs, but for now we should have also new tradition slots for ascension and "Politics", so I modified my proposition.

Three additional ascension perk slots by making "Ascension Theory" technology repeatable four times.

I ask for adding 3 additional ascension perk slots. Note: I don't ask for additional tradition tree or ascension perk. Currently, we have necessary amount of them and this number grew considerably from 2016 to 2022. But three additional...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

To sum up my thoughts, I hereby propose two new tradition slots and two levels for Ascension Theory technology. It would give us, the players, three new places for Ascension Perks and enough space to ascend your species and to embrace a decent amount of traditions.

 

[Incompetent]

Maybe, but I wouldn't take it too far. Being forced to make choices is part of the design of traditions and APs. I think the situation is much better now than when traditions were first introduced and the set of traditions was more or less fixed, and while the change to ascension has increased pressure on tradition slots, it has also reduced the pressure on AP slots.

From a combinatorial point of view, the maximum amount of choice comes when the number of slots is half the number of options to fill them. This is a bit misleading though, because even if the options are well-balanced in a generic sense, for any given empire there will always be some options that are obviously of lower value than others, so the list of "viable" options is shorter than the complete list. For it to be a meaningful choice, not just the options you pick need to be impactful, but also at least the best few options you didn't pick need to be strong in their own way, so you are making a non-obvious trade-off.

 

[HFY]

For me, the space feels small because there are ~5 mandatory picks which don't vary from game to game, so that means only 2-3 real choices (2 for traditions, 3 for perks).

I'd suggest removing mandatory mechanics from the selections -- give me 7/8 roughly equal choices with comparable value -- and putting the mandatory stuff elsewhere.

 

[The5lacker]

"Please don't force me to make actual decisions with tradeoffs."

Decisions good. Differences good. Not getting everything good.

 

[Ollum]

"Please don't force me to make actual decisions with tradeoffs."

Decisions good. Differences good. Not getting everything good.

Well, with necessary DLCs we have 13 possible tradition trees and 24 possible ascension perks (I counted 4 ascension paths as one, because we can take only one ascension path). And we have only 7 tradition tree slots and 8 ascension perk slots. So an amount of trade-offs and abstaining from taking all desired trees and ascension perks is way too big.

Let's say I would take 9 tradition trees and 11 ascension perks, while having a possibility of taking only 7 tradition trees and 8 ascension perks.

I wonder why 4 players disagree with me and no one agreed (as I show you in a screenshot). Is it a sort of masochism? Do you seriously like to be paralysed by the game? I must admit that I heavily limited playing Stellaris because of that paralysis created by slots-possibilities imbalance. I used to like that game, but present situation heavily discourages me from playing it.

 

[InvisibleBison]

Well, with necessary DLCs we have 13 possible tradition trees and 24 possible ascension perks (I counted 4 ascension paths as one, because we can take only one ascension path). And we have only 7 tradition tree slots and 8 ascension perk slots. So an amount of trade-offs and abstaining from taking all desired trees and ascension perks is way too big.

Why is that the case? There's no standard rule for determining how many options is too many, so you have to give some reason why being able to pick at most 54% of the available traditions and 33% of the available traditions is "way too big". Bonus points if you can simultaneously explain why it's not a problem that you can only take 21% of the positive traits or 11% of the civics available in the base game.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

Well, with necessary DLCs we have 13 possible tradition trees and 24 possible ascension perks (I counted 4 ascension paths as one, because we can take only one ascension path). And we have only 7 tradition tree slots and 8 ascension perk slots. So an amount of trade-offs and abstaining from taking all desired trees and ascension perks is way too big.

I'm strongly opposed to adding more tradition slots until there are at least 2.5 times as many non-mutually-exclusive trees as slots (so like 17), and even then I'm not sure I'd support adding more slots. I want you to be able to reasonably expect that some empires or builds will have completely different tradition tree picks with no overlaps.

I'm also not really interested in increasing the number of AP slots until those are rebalanced so that more than like 5 feel worth the slot. After that happens, exactly how many slots I'd feel were necessary would depend on how strong perks ended up being.

Ideally I want there to be enough different tradition trees and ascension perks, of similar power levels, that I can play empires with completely different choices if they have sufficiently different strategies.

 

[mammonmachine]

I wonder why 4 players disagree with me and no one agreed (as I show you in a screenshot). Is it a sort of masochism? Do you seriously like to be paralysed by the game? I must admit that I heavily limited playing Stellaris because of that paralysis created by slots-possibilities imbalance. I used to like that game, but present situation heavily discourages me from playing it.

As people have already mentioned, many players value having to make meaningful decisions. I don't personally experience this as paralysis - usually between wishing to roleplay my empire and wanting to do well at the game, there's a fairly clear path. My main issue is that so many of the early ascension perks are still pretty bland bonuses with limited flavour, and not the gameplay shaping transformations I would like. But this wouldn't be solved by providing more slots.

 

[NotAYakk]

AP and Traditions are supposed to be things you don't collect all of in a given empire.

This is in comparison to technologies.

That is their design. A single empire doesn't get them all, they allow empires to diverge instead of converge as the game progresses.

If anything, there needs to be more tension. More tempting AP and Traditions that you have to pick between. The last few AP/Traditions end up being a bit of a "oh well, might as well pick this one, I have a slot", unless you burned the early ones on quick short-term power upgrades (which is legit!)

 

[Ollum]

AP and Traditions are supposed to be things you don't collect all of in a given empire.

This is in comparison to technologies.

That is their design. A single empire doesn't get them all, they allow empires to diverge instead of converge as the game progresses.

If anything, there needs to be more tension. More tempting AP and Traditions that you have to pick between. The last few AP/Traditions end up being a bit of a "oh well, might as well pick this one, I have a slot", unless you burned the early ones on quick short-term power upgrades (which is legit!)

I'm strongly opposed to adding more tradition slots until there are at least 2.5 times as many non-mutually-exclusive trees as slots (so like 17), and even then I'm not sure I'd support adding more slots. I want you to be able to reasonably expect that some empires or builds will have completely different tradition tree picks with no overlaps.

I'm also not really interested in increasing the number of AP slots until those are rebalanced so that more than like 5 feel worth the slot. After that happens, exactly how many slots I'd feel were necessary would depend on how strong perks ended up being.

Ideally I want there to be enough different tradition trees and ascension perks, of similar power levels, that I can play empires with completely different choices if they have sufficiently different strategies.

I don't think we should take EVERY ascension perk and every tradition. But I ask for slightly more place for them. Not all of them, but slightly more.

 

[great lakes]

I, by contrast, don't think the system is yet limiting enough. it's better from the old days, when all empires would take more or less the same 7 trees, but more work could be done to ensure that thouse last few slots have temping choices. extra tridition slots make this work harder.