There is something really off with piracy values.

[GnoSIS]

piracy was always broken, and they didn't fix it.

 

[Nevars]

I really don't see the problem.

If you have that much trade value then, no shit, passive protection wouldn't and shouldn't be able to protect it.

And game already give you a tool to combat it, that is patrol.

Just do it, problem solved.

Alternatively, putting a station there or better yet a gateway.

 

[fourteenfour]

piracy was always broken, and they didn't fix it.

Well we have a team whose stated goal is to clean up the game, the difficulty is that there are many issues. We would really benefit from a public scoring system so they understand what as players think is more important.

 

[MathyM]

How is Current Piracy higher than Max Piracy?

 

[Mastikator]

How is Current Piracy higher than Max Piracy?

Piracy doesn't decay. Could've been another trade route went through there and now doesn't.

 

[-Marauder-]

I really don't see the problem.

If you have that much trade value then, no shit, passive protection wouldn't and shouldn't be able to protect it.

And game already give you a tool to combat it, that is patrol.

Just do it, problem solved.

Alternatively, putting a station there or better yet a gateway.

1. There's no other resource you're being penalized for collecting and optimizing.
2. Trade protection and Piracy are completely out of whack. We have Piracy in the high hundreds and later thousands. While a tradition and resolution respectively add a grand total of 5 protection each!
3. Why exactly should passive protection if set up right not be sufficient to deal with piracy? You say it shouldn't but give no reason as to why not. Why is an entirely passive play style for every other resource fine and dandy but not for trade?
4. Patrols don't deal with this, at all. The sheer number of patrols one would need to suppress piracy in every system along the way especially as it keeps escalating is way higher than you seem to think it is.

 

[Lidhuin]

1. There's no other resource you're being penalized for collecting and optimizing.
2. Trade protection and Piracy are completely out of whack. We have Piracy in the high hundreds and later thousands. While a tradition and resolution respectively add a grand total of 5 protection each!
3. Why exactly should passive protection if set up right not be sufficient to deal with piracy? You say it shouldn't but give no reason as to why not. Why is an entirely passive play style for every other resource fine and dandy but not for trade?
4. Patrols don't deal with this, at all. The sheer number of patrols one would need to suppress piracy in every system along the way especially as it keeps escalating is way higher than you seem to think it is.

To add:
5) A starbase with roughly 500-600 fleet power is enough to completely negate piracy in a system (infinite piracy suppression)
5a) It's the only way to truly workaround piracy as it stands. That there's a workaround for something that should be a core mechanic implies it's broken (edit: protection? I didn't say such gibberish!)
6) A fleet with that much fleet power cannot actually suppress anywhere near enough piracy, even if stationed in a single system
7) An outpost with the same fleet power via defense stations can't suppress the piracy either
7a) An outpost that can defeat pirates can defeat the pirates, sure, but you still lose the trade value all the same
8) Trade is only marginally competitive with technicians/artisans/artificers before considering piracy and related limitations

 

[Derp]

They really should be changed to give a % decrease to piracy, or something along those lines.

it should be something major like -50%. or more.

too many things in stellaris feel like you're adding quarters to a stack of bills

While I can agree that trade defense measures is an issue (I'd support % decreases rather than flat bouffs), the discussion in the threat misses a point-

Trade Builds incentivize relatively tall/habitat builds, rather than wide-conquest. It is, to some degree, an anti-conquest meta.

While this can be circumvented (have trade jobs in empire interior, industry on exterior), and as a whole makes trade builds less meta, this is a good gameplay pressure if trade-builds can be good enough to justify it. It creates an incentive to not conquer other empires (because you can't defend trade lanes), incentivizes late-game conflicts (when gateways allow trade management), and adds an instability risk-reward factor.

This does, in meta terms, make it 'not as good' in many respects- and I feel habitats come too late to really build your build around- but it should be noted trade-build piracy protection is a limiting mechanic against unrestrained conquest.

trade, like every other economic factor, favours population. population favours conquest.

also, piracy is a very weak brake on conquest, because nothing really prevents a player from disabling piracy-riddled trade nodes and/or replacing trade buildings.

 

[GnoSIS]

Trade should have been a system on top of colonies, without the extra buildings and pops for it. That way it can be balanced(read boosted) independently, and conquerors can't just get rid of it or ignore it, without also killing the source colonies.

And yes, trade protection should be both an absolute amount and a % reduction. At the very least, add an option in-system to spend resources to build trade protection infrastructure (system police ships?). Don't ever ask me to micro patrols, I'll just slit my wrists at this point. I'd rather hunt pirates all day to doing patrols.

 

[HFY]

Trade protection could scale with fleet cap, so as you grow your trade network without bound, you can also grow your defenses of it without bound.

 

[Moonspring]

The Silk Route went across several countries, didnt it? In case of Stellaris if that were the case, several empires could band together and place their Starbases in a line, each taking turns to extend the route.

Perhaps food for thought. Vassals come to mind here. You could set up a series of Vassals to provide protected Trade Routes for you.

 

[DeanTheDull]

trade, like every other economic factor, favours population. population favours conquest.

also, piracy is a very weak brake on conquest, because nothing really prevents a player from disabling piracy-riddled trade nodes and/or replacing trade buildings.

Trade value favors the pops being concentrated near the collection center, not universal. It's happier to have tall-conquest, ie nihilistic acquisition, compared to wide-conquest, with starbases and fleets dedicated to collection upkeep rather than more pop collection.

 

[Derp]

Trade value favors the pops being concentrated near the collection center, not universal. It's happier to have tall-conquest, ie nihilistic acquisition, compared to wide-conquest, with starbases and fleets dedicated to collection upkeep rather than more pop collection.

trade *builds* favor that, but they're meme tier anyways.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Also, there is no piracy in systems with starbases. So, you can just do a line of anchorages between your capitol and your trade collecting star-base. Works okay if you have a small or medium sized empire, but annoying when you start getting systems with significant TV that are more than 8 or 9 away from your capitol

That's when you combine that with a collector station. A few arms of starbase highway with a collector terminating them.

 

[Moonspring]

trade *builds* favor that, but they're meme tier anyways.

The reason its a meme in 3.2 isnt because its bad. Its because its too good. The reason is Mercantile.
3.3 nerfed Merchants quite a lot. Remains to be seen how viable going for Trade Value is now.

Trade doesnt favor Population as much as other resources do. Its first priority is the infrastructure to house more Merchants, and treaties and % bonus to increase their effectiveness. Due to long distance trade routes suffering from piracy, its also not a resource you can gain immediate or near immediate increase from by means of conquest.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

Well we have a team whose stated goal is to clean up the game, the difficulty is that there are many issues. We would really benefit from a public scoring system so they understand what as players think is more important.

We have one: upvoting bug reports and suggestions.

 

[Nevars]

3. Why exactly should passive protection if set up right not be sufficient to deal with piracy? You say it shouldn't but give no reason as to why not.

Because otherwise you can simply sit off on your ass and collecting millions of trade without doing anything, with no cost whatsoever?

 

[Unseelie]

I really wish every resource was subject to this sort of piracy. because...yeah! YIKES!
BUT!
This is essentially the sprawl we need. With many of the changes suggested here, so that there's some sort of counterplay, but the opportunists just start coming out of the woodwork when there's that many resources flowing through the stars, leading to pirate rebellions and a general mad scramble to lock down your economy...and then, we get to gateway tech, and those chances for piracy start to evaporate.

 

[Lidhuin]

Because otherwise you can simply sit off on your ass and collecting millions of trade without doing anything, with no cost whatsoever?

Kind of like collecting millions in EC without doing anything with no cost whatsoever?

Or collecting millions in minerals without doing anything with no cost whatsoever?

Or...

Oh wait, the trade protection requires either adopting a tradition to obtain it (opportunity cost at the very least) or passing a resolution (influence & diplomatic weight). All the other resources though? Yeah, those you don't actually have to do anything remotely similar to get them protected from being raided by pirates.

 

[-Marauder-]

Because otherwise you can simply sit off on your ass and collecting millions of trade without doing anything, with no cost whatsoever?

That is an incredible hyperbole. Also, you mean the same way you can collect minerals, strategic resources, energy, food, every other resource?