[Alpha 1a] So much empire :)

Wow, 10K production on your homeworld, amazing What difficulty level are you playing by the way?

Could you send me your save so that I can have a look at the numbers? 10K production is really something

To upload a save please go here C:\Users\<your_username>\AppData\LocalLow\Praxis Games\ISG\ the saves are there. Zip/compress the save and then use the "Upload a file" button you see at the bottom of every post here in the forums.

Thanks!

 

Thanks for the save.

Ok, I see what allowed for those incredible numbers of production in your Shipyard I and Shipyard 2 words. You leveraged asteroid mining by using asteroid production exploitations combined with Freighter Ports (in the Orbital Station), plus a great Corporate leader in Shipyard I and the Mining Guild space culture perk. Well played

Of course, that is simply too much, so your playthrough was very helpful in understanding that the asteroid exploitation side of the game is currently unbalanced. We'll adjust that for the next versions.

Thanks again for the report and the save.

 

Please be very careful with the tuning. This is a trap that designers of any game with asymmetry or play styles can fall into. Each time you reduce the effectiveness of one path, players simply flock to another. Then when that path gets nerfed, another is found. This continues round and round until all paths are the same and the player's strategic planning and decisions are rendered neutered to the point of being pointless.

A player who wants to find the "broken" path is going to. You want to leave as many paths viable to victory as possible. Instead focus on the requirements of taking that path. In the case of asteroids, you must have ample asteroids around and the time to develop all the things you need to make them "broken". If those requirements aren't present every game, due to a lack of suitable asteroids, early pressure from an aggressive AI nearby, or the presence of another more optimal path (say helium-3 abundance), than the player should or must adapt naturally. The key is to make each start different. Importantly, this also means you shouldn't always have a hyper aggressive AI next door to you, as that becomes predictable and makes every game start the exact same way.

Any player who takes a path is sacrificing spending their time and energy on other paths. Instead of reducing the player's ability to exploit what the galaxy has provided to them, instead look to keep them guessing from game to game as to what path they should take based on the game state and environment. Putting more pressure on the player on higher difficulties will force different decisions to be made naturally rather than artificially, as will changing up what the best strategy is based on their surroundings. It would be nice to also see the AI learn how to optimize and take specific paths based on its game state. Right now the AI could be left alone for ages and wouldn't capitalize.

This game does not have multiplayer so balancing everything to the extreme is not a necessity. As long as the game offers a difficult enough challenge to really put an optimization focused player to the test, than the game will offer a worthwhile challenge and fun experience

 

I understand what you're saying @aReclusiveMind. I agree that we need to be very careful in tuning the numbers as I do not wish to break a viable path to victory. Believe me, I have no intention to make everything perfectly balanced, equal to everything else or preditable, but the opposite. In this case I think the danger of a dominant strategy is real though as the asteroid production exploitations account for the large majority of the 10K production. And this with "just" a few exploitations assigned. The issues seems to be the bonuses added on top being too great.

I agree that the playing field should be more dynamic to allow different strategies to work in different games. So the issue is not so much in the base numbers per se, but maybe some bonuses that are just too great. The danger is that if this becomes a dominant strategy, if we find asteroid belts to be abundant enough from game to game, you will have no incentive not to follow that path every time. Of course, you may say that belts should then not always appear in abundance. The thing is, if they do appear, the player will know that that path is "broken" or easily exploitable. Just beeline Mining Guild, Freighter Ports and assign a few exploitations and voilá, 10K production in the homeworld

So, I will keep an eye on this. However, I feel this scenario isn't so uncommon to find in a given game. Perhaps when the AI is more aggressive this will not be so much of a problem, but right now I'm inclined to believe it is. My motivation is that the player feels there are viable paths to exploit, but that they do not degenerate into dominant and broken/easily exploited strategies to the point of them being a preditable and sure way to win.

 

Thanks, @Adam Solo. I'm glad to know you are cognizant of the issues that trying to achieve a perfect balance can bring. It sounds like you don't want to see a dominant strategy every time either, and in this case if the "stars line up" too often to make this strategy exploitable every game, than some tuning may certainly be in order. I completely agree with that.

In the case of the asteroid belts, which aspect do you think most needs to be tuned? Where is too much bang for the buck coming from. Is it the Freighter Ports, or the Mining Guild? I know in my experience even the large asteroid belts with the space culture choice and a decent leader still didn't feel that strong. I'm not sure I got all the associated techs though. I generally turned to Helium-3 or Antimatter instead to benefit my entire empire instead.

My hope/dream is that, on the higher difficulties especially, the AI's performance becomes a tour de force in whatever play style they are suited for. If they are a passive race, I'd like to see them really exploit their economy and build up strong defenses before expanding out seeking a council win. If they are an empire builder, I'd like to see them expand and built up their economy and military to become a mid-late game offensive powerhouse. If they are an early aggressor, I want to see them really force the passive races to focus on defense alongside building their economy. In an abstract sense, each play style should provide checks and balances for the others.

Right now it is difficult to judge balance when playing against the AI because the player is able to out produce them so heavily even with their early game boosts. These screenshots are from my Alpha (not 1a) game. Granted I exploited a ton of helium-3, but most notable is how flat all of the AI's production is while I built up. This was on Impossible difficulty.





On nearly all the other charts, we were still close to neck and neck at this point. This gap widened rapidly though as the AI never capitalized and built up or tore me down.

 

I wouldn't use asteroids if they are made worse, personally. You either have to go all in on them or skip them altogether. Building an outpost, building a freighter, etc. is a lot of busy work if the bonus is small. The tech/building bonuses should be reduced, but not the leader skill or asteroids themselves. The leader skill already has a lot of competition for those points.

 

I agree. The problem isn't so much in the base numbers of asteroid exploitations, the issue is more on the tech/building/space culture bonuses that stack to provide up to +150% bonus.

However, I think the problem may be also on the number of available asteroid belts. As aReclusiveMind says, if the base numbers are reduced, they aren't worth the hassle. I believe that we may have to put a cap on the number of exploitations you assign to a colony, as well.

 

Well you are talking about a pretty extreme world there. It has to have large caves or the player has to have the subterranean trait to have 30 pops anywhere. It also takes a while to max pop and infrastructure. Perhaps subterranean trait needs to cost more customization points?

 

Alpha 1a should provide a different experience. H3 has been reduced and the AIs should be more diligent in both boosting their production in-house as for getting it elsewhere, aka invading!

I agree that it is hard to discuss balance if the challenge isn't there yet. Could you please try Alpha 1a and repeat your scenario. I believe the experience should be different this time (this in Hardcore, of course). The production issue will not be resolved, but I suspect part of it will. Let me know. Thanks.

 

I certainly will be doing just that this weekend. On hardcore, as you wish.

 

The power of multiplication is certainly something to be reckoned with. That said, I believe changing the multiplication formula at this stage would put the target release date of Q2 2019 in serious jeopardy.

One potential solution might be to increase the production requirements to increase infrastructure, especially as you reach the higher levels, since you now produce a lot more due to the pop x infrastructure formula. What do you think?