Please do something with governors

[Heliotic]

Yea it should be buffed, but the problem isn't that a minmaxer is moving his governors. It's that the trait is weak.

The post came off as a minmaxer wanting the developers to programme the game around his specific and unfun playstyle

I do think that if a play style is the complete
opposite of what stellaris claims to be, making it really powerful is only going to make people feel like suckers for trying to play the grand strategy game in the way it was intended.

This is literally just the "micromanaging technology research" argument with a new hat on. In fact I actually understand that better because the reward was more tangible than anything you got from governor swapping.

 

[Heliotic]

If someone can justify allocating one of their extremely limited Leader slots on a Governor who's trait produces fewer Minerals than a single pop(or worse sits an Architectural Interest on a planet that isn't building) and will actively defend these terrible traits from being looked at, they would have been happy with any choice so it seems catering to them was unnecessary, where ignoring mechanically flawed traits and Leader adjacent mechanics in a big Leader overhaul seems an oversight.

You're right, that sounds like a terrible choice to make from a strategic perspective but more leader slots wouldn't make it a good decision.

It was always just busywork.

Although, this is giving me an idea for a micromanagement focused space empire game that is just a massive spreadsheet full of buttons and dozens of tabs full of stats to analyse and resources to micromanage. I'm not even being sarcastic, I would play that game. But I do want to stress that it's the opposite of how grand strategy games should be.

 

[-Marauder-]

This has been said, but not really outright. With the new traits, a governor that applied his traits to every planet in a sector would make the resource and science worse. And I don't mean you have less. The default settings (i.e the way the devs recommend you playing) are Ensign, with a mid game of 2300, and a late of 2400. Who here honestly isn't licking their first repeatable tech by 2300? Or fully into repeatables by 2325? Even if you have a small fleet, the Khan is no longer a threat because your 17k stack vastly out techs his main fleet. By the time you hit the L-Gates, the grey tempest is simply about slowly draining their numbers, or shoving 4-6 fleets in there to deal with them.
These used to be mid game crises that ended playthroughs, and re-arranged the galaxy politically. Not anymore, because it is so easy to get so much research and resources. Even the AI can make these threats null and void because of the improvement they got.
Sector governor only affecting the sector capital with his traits, means that it matters where your sector capital is. It might be worth moving the capital, or losing out on a scientist to drop a governor on an extremely stacked world. And since he doesn't affect everything else, This means that tech and tradition slows down like it needs to. The way the game is intended, is to hit repeatable in the late 2300's or early 2400's. Not in 2320, with a maxed out tradition tree, and researching ambitions.

So that is the benefit. It slows down the game and is in effect partially an anti-snowball measure.



Personally, I don't think they are. Just because then you do have to choose between exploring and developing. And when your first batch dies in the mid 2200's help to dlineate the shift between expansion, and development, then the shift in the 2300's between development and conquest (extermination).
But yes, the silhouette bugs me. I innately want to fill it, which sucks because that penalty for going over leader cap is... Damn. Even parlimentarians have trouble taking that hit.


I'm torn on this. I feel like having more slots would be nice, but I know that I'd fill them up with scientists for exploration in nearly all cases.


Well, they were, but before now a governor's trait applied to all planets in a sector, not just the one they personally governed. But in general, they lost most to all value anyways by 2245.

Governor traits ALWAYS affect the entire sector, ever since they came around. Now even those old traits, DO NOT. Governors have been outright nerfed, and Planetary Governors contradict with the idea of fewer but more powerful rulers.

The game being "too easy" on some difficulties because you're too good at it isn't a problem, it's to be expected. Nerfing or outright destroying some aspects of the game to make it harder doesn't fix that. it just means engaging with these aspects of the game is a waste and there's no reason to do so.

Governors especially, the same as generals DO NOT exist in a vacuum. They compete with other leaders for the incredibly and overly limited slots. All you do is effectively remove these type of leaders from the game. As there's no reason to use them as their benefits simply aren't there and the investment isn't worth it.

The Planetary Governors simply need to go, and Governors affect planets under their rule in general again. And leaders really need separate pools. So Generals don't compete with Scientists. Because it's never a competition or question so to whcih one would be taken.

You're right, that sounds like a terrible choice to make from a strategic perspective but more leader slots wouldn't make it a good decision.

It was always just busywork.

Although, this is giving me an idea for a micromanagement focused space empire game that is just a massive spreadsheet full of buttons and dozens of tabs full of stats to analyse and resources to micromanage. I'm not even being sarcastic, I would play that game. But I do want to stress that it's the opposite of how grand strategy games should be.

It shouldn't even be a choice really. It's a mistake on Paradox. There appear to be some changes and things in this release that outright clash with and contradict other changes and design ideas. If the DLC was really developed over an entire year, some of them might be much older and from earlier implementations that were then never revisited as ideas crystalized and goals changed as the DLC was worked on.

 

[Calvax]

It shouldn't even be a choice really. It's a mistake on Paradox. There appear to be some changes and things in this release that outright clash with and contradict other changes and design ideas. If the DLC was really developed over an entire year, some of them might be much older and from earlier implementations that were then never revisited as ideas crystalized and goals changed as the DLC was worked on.

It's impossible to know what's going on behind the scenes but the impression I've got is that this DLC wasn't originally planned to come out so soon. It was shockingly fast after First Contact (not even 2 months), there are bugs and balance issues from First Contact that remain unaddressed, and they crammed in two dev diaries a week which still did not cover all of the changes coming.

Given it was recently announced that the studio that developed Paragons would be closing down it doesn't seem a surprise that there's a lot of head scratching decisions in an otherwise excellent DLC.

 

[Losttruppen]

The Planetary Governors simply need to go,

Or passively filled by a read-only Leader(fireable for a Unity cost?) from the Planet's Ruler pops who populate the Governor hiring pool for you to select your Sector Governors from. I don't hate the idea of Planetary Governors, in fact I really like it, it just doesn't fit in with the current or new mechanics and certainly not with the recently re-added Leader cap.

 

[oreopirate]

Governor traits ALWAYS affect the entire sector, ever since they came around. Now even those old traits, DO NOT. Governors have been outright nerfed, and Planetary Governors contradict with the idea of fewer but more powerful rulers.

The game being "too easy" on some difficulties because you're too good at it isn't a problem, it's to be expected. Nerfing or outright destroying some aspects of the game to make it harder doesn't fix that. it just means engaging with these aspects of the game is a waste and there's no reason to do so.

Governors especially, the same as generals DO NOT exist in a vacuum. They compete with other leaders for the incredibly and overly limited slots. All you do is effectively remove these type of leaders from the game. As there's no reason to use them as their benefits simply aren't there and the investment isn't worth it.

The Planetary Governors simply need to go, and Governors affect planets under their rule in general again. And leaders really need separate pools. So Generals don't compete with Scientists. Because it's never a competition or question so to whcih one would be taken.

It shouldn't even be a choice really. It's a mistake on Paradox. There appear to be some changes and things in this release that outright clash with and contradict other changes and design ideas. If the DLC was really developed over an entire year, some of them might be much older and from earlier implementations that were then never revisited as ideas crystalized and goals changed as the DLC was worked on.

1) In my opinion, governors needed that nerf.
2) I am not a skilled player. I am of average skill as best I can tell. And it is isn't because the game is "too easy" it's literally the resource glut. These changes are reducing the resource glut, and the amount of modifiers at work. The more modifier on the more planets the more calculations the game does. So by my reckoning that helps two birds with one stone. Players have resource glut because we can synergize far better than the AI. I think if the AI could utilize leaders correctly, this would result in them staying at parity for longer than they already do (2300's or even 2330's before I begin to decisively pull ahead of the rest of the galaxy).
3) Generals, this may be true for, but governors? The meta would mean scientists for surveying, or admirals for conquest. You run out of surveying in about 40 years, tops. Unless you get real lucky with your spawn. For admirals, production is down. Flat out across the board. Governors' boost that production back up to maintain said high fleets needed for conquest.
4) I don't think planetary governors need to go. So far, to me, they proving much more fun to use than just a single sector governor. As for separate pools... I could get behind that depending on how it's done. Do I think you should have a flat out three capacity for each at start of the game? No. Should separate pools be modified by ethics? Yeah, I'd enjoy that.
5) I beg to differ. I think that this DLC is basically a Custodian rework. Improving performance and the longevity of the game. That's not to say that there aren't problems of course. Clearly the release was rushed since PDX Arctic is being shut down, the AI needs some more help to deal with the high upkeep of pops, generals need more utility, and negative traits on rulers should hurt more. Got a corrupt leader elected, did it increase crime on every planet? No. Should it? Hell yes.
Bu overall, I find a hell of a lot more good in this DLC than bad.

 

[-Marauder-]

Or passively filled by a read-only(fireable for a Unity cost?) Leader from the Ruler pops who populate the Governor hiring pool for you to select your Sector Governors from. I don't hate the idea of Planetary Governors, in fact I really like it, it just doesn't fit in with the current or new mechanics and certainly not with the recently re-added Leader cap.

Could work. Maybe for Fleets and co too. Where instead of an Admiral you get a "Captain" or "Commodore" leading the fleet. Governors would still need the change reverted.

1) In my opinion, governors needed that nerf.
2) I am not a skilled player. I am of average skill as best I can tell. And it is isn't because the game is "too easy" it's literally the resource glut. These changes are reducing the resource glut, and the amount of modifiers at work. The more modifier on the more planets the more calculations the game does. So by my reckoning that helps two birds with one stone. Players have resource glut because we can synergize far better than the AI. I think if the AI could utilize leaders correctly, this would result in them staying at parity for longer than they already do (2300's or even 2330's before I begin to decisively pull ahead of the rest of the galaxy).
3) Generals, this may be true for, but governors? The meta would mean scientists for surveying, or admirals for conquest. You run out of surveying in about 40 years, tops. Unless you get real lucky with your spawn. For admirals, production is down. Flat out across the board. Governors' boost that production back up to maintain said high fleets needed for conquest.
4) I don't think planetary governors need to go. So far, to me, they proving much more fun to use than just a single sector governor. As for separate pools... I could get behind that depending on how it's done. Do I think you should have a flat out three capacity for each at start of the game? No. Should separate pools be modified by ethics? Yeah, I'd enjoy that.
5) I beg to differ. I think that this DLC is basically a Custodian rework. Improving performance and the longevity of the game. That's not to say that there aren't problems of course. Clearly the release was rushed since PDX Arctic is being shut down, the AI needs some more help to deal with the high upkeep of pops, generals need more utility, and negative traits on rulers should hurt more. Got a corrupt leader elected, did it increase crime on every planet? No. Should it? Hell yes.
Bu overall, I find a hell of a lot more good in this DLC than bad.

1). No they didn't. Many people already didn't bother with them in the past. Because they weren't that great. They were only a single step above Generals.

2). This inflates a bunch of different things. Once again, if the game is too easy for you, you're playing on too low a difficulty level for your skill. So yes, you are too good. The resource glut is a consequence of doing well, the Ai also gets it, just slower (faster on higher difficulties). And no, the Governor and co calculations aren't a big factor in lag, at all. It's Pops themselves. Every pop/pop type gets calculated. It's why lag increased massively when we moved from the old tiles to the new pop numbers.

3) Yes, Governors right now are an easy cut. Their traits and bonus aren't as impactful as many people seem to think, especially once the early game is over.

4) If Losttruppens idea was applied, sure. But right now, planetary governors aren't even worth making a decision about. As those slots are simply wasted.

5) The DLC is highly conflicting, has lots of bugs, and hit us after only two months since the last one was released. Someone here claimed the studio working on it was part of what was being shut down. No idea if it's true, but it would explain things. Nobody is saying there aren't some good ideas and changes in the DLC. But here are some very conflicting and bad ones too. There's no reason to constantly praise the good ones each time someone criticizes the bad ones.

 

[Calvax]

5) The DLC is highly conflicting, has lots of bugs, and hit us after only two months since the last one was released. Someone here claimed the studio working on it was part of what was being shut down. No idea if it's true, but it would explain things.

That was me. The closure of the Umeå studio was reported in games media and was covered (somewhat infamously) by a popular stellaris youtuber. The early dev diaries for the DLC had comments confirming the paradox arctic team was based in that studio.

I stress that the development being rushed is speculation and I acknowledge it's not possible to know what's going on internally. It could be that this development timeline was always the plan and there could easily be things here I'm missing. The impression I get from this news and the unprecedented turnaround between DLCs is that the closure forced the release ahead of what they'd planned.

 

[mial42]

That's because the changes are for the better. That there are people genuinely throwing tantrums over not having a dedicated Scientist for each type of Research, or because they can't recruit masses of Scientists to spam early exploration, is disappointing but sadly not unexpected. Those people seemingly think the game shouldn't evolve and change, and themselves along with it. They're stamping their feet, rather than adapting themselves.

I find the choices presented IN Leaders now, and therefore the choices between them, really interesting and flexible. I've got a Leader producing Unity and another one producing Alloys. I have a great Admiral as my Minister of Defence but I also want to use her carefully, in fights to my advantage, rather than taking a Leader for mere Admiral bonuses I can gamble on. There's such flexibility in terms of packable Traits now. I've only played a couple of hours but I'm really liking this so far.

My only wish is that Generals had more ways of gaining Exp.

UPDATE: The downvotes baffle me. Y'all really don't think selectable Leader Traits are great? You all don't think the Council is great? You don't think 700 Leader Traits options are great? Alreet, that seems bonkers to me, but you do you.

Compromise: some of the changes are good, some of them are bad. Council is nice, selectable leader traits are good. Governor traits limited to one planet is dumb and bad and explicitly goes against one of the stated goals of the update. Governors being able to nearly eliminate ship costs/upkeep/empire size is ridiculously broken (like, worse than when Catalytic Processing first came out and machines had upkeep-free fabricators, but for everyone) and needs to be removed ASAP. The leader cap is bad because it makes crappy leaders like generals (and in non-deliberately game breaking builds, governors) compete directly against scientists, which is not really a choice and just makes the classes totally obsolete. I'm not a huge fan of way fewer scientists for exploration (because I liked exploration spam) or the change to research, (because I think that system was 100% fine before) and think these changes are unnecessary and net negative, but they're not ridiculously, obviously bad like the other ones.

 

[Panzerslothen]

Compromise: some of the changes are good, some of them are bad. Council is nice, selectable leader traits are good. Governor traits limited to one planet is dumb and bad and explicitly goes against one of the stated goals of the update. Governors being able to nearly eliminate ship costs/upkeep/empire size is ridiculously broken (like, worse than when Catalytic Processing first came out and machines had upkeep-free fabricators, but for everyone) and needs to be removed ASAP. The leader cap is bad because it makes crappy leaders like generals (and in non-deliberately game breaking builds, governors) compete directly against scientists, which is not really a choice and just makes the classes totally obsolete. I'm not a huge fan of way fewer scientists for exploration (because I liked exploration spam) or the change to research, (because I think that system was 100% fine before) and think these changes are unnecessary and net negative, but they're not ridiculously, obviously bad like the other ones.

Yep, compromise is good. The majority of the changes in 3.8/GP are good too. I've seen the Stellaris community - or at least, particularly loud and obnoxious corners of it - hating on entire updates based on specific changes they hated before, and that's what seemed to be happening earlier on. So it is nice to see a 'balanced take', as it is.

Being able to dedicate a Governor to a particular planet now is an objectively fantastic innovation. I basically never bothered with Governors before (maybe if they had a particularly nice Trait, but this was infrequent). Now I'm really interested in them as tools to boost and shape particular Planets, form new strategies and ideas. It's really great. They still give per-level boosts to whole Sectors, which is enough for me. I don't have a view on them applying their traits Sector-wide yet; it seems that might be TOO powerful. Perhaps the best compromise solution would be for some of the selectable Governor traits to apply sector-wide, others not (so that you had on average one Governor trait which applied cross-sector.

I AM a fan of fewer Scientists for exploration, for reasons I've mentioned previously (and in the '6 Leaders' thread ongoing atm). I hope the Devs keep this one.

So, to my main point here: With a bit more game-time and having had the chance to read this threat through again (in more detail), I honestly think that those valid issues that have been raised would be resolved through ways of having an overall higher Leader count (also in the '6 Leaders' thread!).

 

[oreopirate]

1). No they didn't. Many people already didn't bother with them in the past. Because they weren't that great. They were only a single step above Generals.

2). This inflates a bunch of different things. Once again, if the game is too easy for you, you're playing on too low a difficulty level for your skill. So yes, you are too good. The resource glut is a consequence of doing well, the Ai also gets it, just slower (faster on higher difficulties). And no, the Governor and co calculations aren't a big factor in lag, at all. It's Pops themselves. Every pop/pop type gets calculated. It's why lag increased massively when we moved from the old tiles to the new pop numbers.

3) Yes, Governors right now are an easy cut. Their traits and bonus aren't as impactful as many people seem to think, especially once the early game is over.

4) If Losttruppens idea was applied, sure. But right now, planetary governors aren't even worth making a decision about. As those slots are simply wasted.

5) The DLC is highly conflicting, has lots of bugs, and hit us after only two months since the last one was released. Someone here claimed the studio working on it was part of what was being shut down. No idea if it's true, but it would explain things. Nobody is saying there aren't some good ideas and changes in the DLC. But here are some very conflicting and bad ones too. There's no reason to constantly praise the good ones each time someone criticizes the bad ones.

1) Sure some people didn't. I did, and I know many people who also did. I'm the type player who would put a defensive general on a fortress planet or a border with a hostile neighbor because it made sense. I would always have a sector governor and fleet admiral. Not everyone does, all of the people that I know who play, did.

2) Keep saying that the game is too easy for me won't make it true. Sure, I'd go up a difficulty setting or two if I bothered to play it meta or micro every little thing. But that's not fun, and for my casual roleplay style, Ensign is sufficiently difficult. The resource glut problem is that of snowballing. You take away the glut and slow down the snowball. Governor's aren't a big source of lag, true. But they are a source.

3) Maybe for you, but what I am seeing in my game is that an appropriately applied governor is more valuable to me than a scientist after 2240 and initial surveying is done. Research assistance is, and was, useless unless you produced most of your science on one planet. You stuck your research vessels and scientists on it so that you didn't have to touch them for another 100 years until you needed debris. So for 160+ years, a governor is more valuable to me as by 2240 I'm usually hemmed in, all my anomalies are done, digs are mostly or entirely done. This is very likely a play style difference between us, as I tend more towards diplomacy than conquest and vassalization.

4) Feel free to ascribe to that. I personally am finding that they are more fun to work with. My forge ecu with 100+ pops should definitely require extra special attention, especially if said sector governor governs three such ecu's under him.

5) That is a fact, they said it in one of the dev diaries. The team primarily responsible for this DLC was based out of PDX Artic which is being shutdown since Paradox is trying to consolidate their people into a physical location.

 

[-Marauder-]

1) Sure some people didn't. I did, and I know many people who also did. I'm the type player who would put a defensive general on a fortress planet or a border with a hostile neighbor because it made sense. I would always have a sector governor and fleet admiral. Not everyone does, all of the people that I know who play, did.

2) Keep saying that the game is too easy for me won't make it true. Sure, I'd go up a difficulty setting or two if I bothered to play it meta or micro every little thing. But that's not fun, and for my casual roleplay style, Ensign is sufficiently difficult. The resource glut problem is that of snowballing. You take away the glut and slow down the snowball. Governor's aren't a big source of lag, true. But they are a source.

3) Maybe for you, but what I am seeing in my game is that an appropriately applied governor is more valuable to me than a scientist after 2240 and initial surveying is done. Research assistance is, and was, useless unless you produced most of your science on one planet. You stuck your research vessels and scientists on it so that you didn't have to touch them for another 100 years until you needed debris. So for 160+ years, a governor is more valuable to me as by 2240 I'm usually hemmed in, all my anomalies are done, digs are mostly or entirely done. This is very likely a play style difference between us, as I tend more towards diplomacy than conquest and vassalization.

4) Feel free to ascribe to that. I personally am finding that they are more fun to work with. My forge ecu with 100+ pops should definitely require extra special attention, especially if said sector governor governs three such ecu's under him.

5) That is a fact, they said it in one of the dev diaries. The team primarily responsible for this DLC was based out of PDX Artic which is being shutdown since Paradox is trying to consolidate their people into a physical location.

1) That's RP, not really beneficial all in all. RP is entirely fine, but if anything the changes cut DOWN on that.

2) You're saying the game is too easy and the Ai too weak, but then you don't want to increase the difficulty either. That's a bit contradictory. It's not the game that should change at that point. As for lag, everything is a source of lag by that logic.

3) Then you're not really doing the math behind things.

4) Not really, no.

5) Which then explains why some changes and ideas appear to be contradictory.

 

[velles]

Even if the game is too easy, changes could be made somewhere else, instead of making certain leader type (governors) essentialy useless

 

[Panzerslothen]

Even if the game is too easy, changes could be made somewhere else, instead of making certain leader type (governors) essentialy useless

Have you seen how great some of the new on-planet Governor Traits are? Whooo-weee, there's some beauties in there. It makes Governors the complete opposite of useless.

 

[Casko]

Governors especially, the same as generals DO NOT exist in a vacuum. They compete with other leaders for the incredibly and overly limited slots. All you do is effectively remove these type of leaders from the game. As there's no reason to use them as their benefits simply aren't there and the investment isn't worth it.

The Planetary Governors simply need to go, and Governors affect planets under their rule in general again. And leaders really need separate pools. So Generals don't compete with Scientists. Because it's never a competition or question so to whcih one would be taken.

If anything, Generals feel like they have been buffed quite a bit in game right now, in particular on more early-to-mid game, as now that all planets are much more heavily defended, and I feel like armies take a lot more damage now invading as well. So the buffs they give with Butcher and Glory Seeker can help you save some early game minerals and the hassle of needing to replenish more troops due to losses and less time needed while bombarding a planet.

DO NOTE However that Generals are still bad, and compete with Scientists and Admirals for slot space. And you CAN still just as easily do the general "5k frontline infantry will win if dropped on a rock hard enough" I'm merely stating that Generals have gotten a slight buff.

 

[velles]

It doesn't matter how great the new traits are since now governor traits are only limited to one planet (not even one system, just one planet) , while previously they've been sector-wide. Overall this is a net loss and huge nerf.
Also saying that people hate on the whole update is a strawman - I think almost everyone praises the addition of council, it's changes like governors that are controversial.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

Also this is potentially just a me thing, but is anyone else bothered by all the blank silhouettes on planetary screens and fleets? Maybe it's because I'm not used to it but it's a bit ugly and seems to imply you're doing something wrong if you don't have someone on that planet.

Yep, bugs me a lot.

At least give us some portraits and names so we can assume some "empty suit" is in control there.

 

[-Marauder-]

It doesn't matter how great the new traits are since now governor traits are only limited to one planet (not even one system, just one planet) , while previously they've been sector-wide. Overall this is a net loss and huge nerf.
Also saying that people hate on the whole update is a strawman - I think almost everyone praises the addition of council, it's changes like governors that are controversial.

Pretty much. Changes like the governors, that the different leader types all compete for the same few slots, to few slots in general, and that slots don't really grow with your empire/galaxy size.

 

[oreopirate]

1) That's RP, not really beneficial all in all. RP is entirely fine, but if anything the changes cut DOWN on that.

2) You're saying the game is too easy and the Ai too weak, but then you don't want to increase the difficulty either. That's a bit contradictory. It's not the game that should change at that point. As for lag, everything is a source of lag by that logic.

3) Then you're not really doing the math behind things.

4) Not really, no.

5) Which then explains why some changes and ideas appear to be contradictory.

1) Personally, I think the changes increase RP potential. Lot more faceless bureaucrats and more prominent leaders. I'm from the U.S and I could tell the names of more than 6-7 prominent governors.

2) No it's not that the game is too easy, it's the player is always able to better snowball, and people have been snowballing way too early. That was my point. In part because of governor traits applying everywhere.

3) So imagine playing a egalitarian xenophile who only wages wars against purifiers, or in self defense. You are telling me that with your six planets, including the agriworld with one science lab, having an analyst support for that one lab is worth more than a governor? I mean, that's up to you, but to me the math favors a governor over that single analyst, especially since the rest of my council positions are governor based.

4) We will just have to agree to disagree. To me this is excellent since an ecu can have more pops than an entire sector (same with the individual segments of a ringworld), it should require it's own governor. Because this gets into a real life situation of what happens when you have a very diverse group. Two sides with very different needs and desires, and one side comprises 90% of the population.

 

[Devanor]

Regarding OP's point about the architecture trait, I think it should be for councilors. Maybe the numbers need to be tweaked if it affects the whole empire at once, but it would remove the need to move a governor entirely, at least in this instance.

When it comes to the discussion about governors in general, I'm personally fine with their traits working on a planetary basis, I'm just questioning the decision to put a soft cap on leaders, leader cap being so tiny and the penalty including experience gain reduction. Increased upkeep, sure, but experience reduction? Why?!