An Early Set of Game TXT Alterations, nonfaction.

[StrikerX22]

The effect of Economy and Efficiency is distributed among all three energy related factors (income, psych and research). As long as there is inefficiency in moving the slider, I would rather have the Research boost in the early and mid games when tech is so important.

It's easy to say that the effect of econ/eff is simply "distributed" among 3 energy results and therefore have a lesser effect to each, but as I just said, they still affect research about as much, and that's without touching sliders, in addition to giving a bonus to the other 2 energies.

Additionally, if you take Research over Efficiency, you won't get a decent slider at all when you want it. And really, it isn't that bad to have a tiny bit of inefficiency still when using the slider. It can be quite effective at certain times with sub 4 Eff.

Also, in my notes, could you clarify your part?

-vyeh: "I think that if solar collectors were faster to build, then a size 2 base could be producing more energy than 2 size 1 bases (it is the energy of the base square that makes ICS so attractive)." Keep in mind that terraforming is already faster, so what alternative does it need to be faster than? And changing Solars affects Tidals as well.

and just an fyi of what I'll be working with now:
-*Changed focus on AI's to default + build or explore and total 3 (or 4 if already 3 and strong), while changing aggressiveness to 0 or -1. Exception is I put Cyborgs to all C-D-B-E 1 with -1 aggro.

-*Mines and Sea Mines now require Industrial Economics, aka Free Market, to encourage AI to Forest more.

-*Trying out Smacksim's Worldbuilder settings, 2nd set. (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?t=118426)

-*Put back base square and Rec Tanks to default resource production for now to go against ICS, testing.

 

[vyeh]

It's easy to say that the effect of econ/eff is simply "distributed" among 3 energy results and therefore have a lesser effect to each, but as I just said, they still affect research about as much, and that's without touching sliders, in addition to giving a bonus to the other 2 energies.

Additionally, if you take Research over Efficiency, you won't get a decent slider at all when you want it. And really, it isn't that bad to have a tiny bit of inefficiency still when using the slider. It can be quite effective at certain times with sub 4 Eff.

I think the way RESEARCH, ECONOMY, and EFFICIENCY works. After +2 ECONOMY, each boost in ECONOMY adds a little energy to each base and adds to COMMERCE. If you already have a lot of solar collectors, boreholes, etc. and are not treatied or pact with high energy producing factions, it isn't too large. EFFICIENCY has more of an impact as the empire gets larger. On the other hand, each step in RESEARCH increases the research rate by 10%. And once you have specialist that produce the same amount of labs regardless of ECONOMY or EFFICIENCY, then RESEARCH becomes the only one of the three that has an effect on specialists lab output.

Also, in my notes, could you clarify your part?

I meant that if you decrease the time it takes to build solar collectors/tidal harnesses, then having a size 2 base with solar collectors/tidal harnesses on the two worked squares might be a more attractive alternative compared to two size 1 bases.

 

[StrikerX22]

I think the way RESEARCH, ECONOMY, and EFFICIENCY works. After +2 ECONOMY, each boost in ECONOMY adds a little energy to each base and adds to COMMERCE. If you already have a lot of solar collectors, boreholes, etc. and are not treatied or pact with high energy producing factions, it isn't too large. EFFICIENCY has more of an impact as the empire gets larger. On the other hand, each step in RESEARCH increases the research rate by 10%. And once you have specialist that produce the same amount of labs regardless of ECONOMY or EFFICIENCY, then RESEARCH becomes the only one of the three that has an effect on specialists lab output.

I see, I'll have to take specialist bases into account more.

I meant that if you decrease the time it takes to build solar collectors/tidal harnesses, then having a size 2 base with solar collectors/tidal harnesses on the two worked squares might be a more attractive alternative compared to two size 1 bases.

Yeah actually what I was meaning to say was can you clarify based on my note here especially, "Keep in mind that terraforming is already faster, so what alternative does it need to be faster than?" So it's already faster. How fast, faster than what else, etc. Right now it's at 3 turns instead of 4.

So I've tested the custom unit price thing... Yes, you cannot rename or reprice a basic unit. However, in the unit customization screen, it will say the autocalculate cost rather than the set cost. When building or disbanding, it treats it with the correct set price, though.

 

[vyeh]

Yeah actually what I was meaning to say was can you clarify based on my note here especially, "Keep in mind that terraforming is already faster, so what alternative does it need to be faster than?" So it's already faster. How fast, faster than what else, etc. Right now it's at 3 turns instead of 4.

The alternative is building a colony pod and creating another base. Are you sure about the 4 for solar collectors. In the manual it says 6 (+2 for rocky). I seem to recall that it is 4 for flat, 6 for rolling and 8 for rocky.

So I've tested the custom unit price thing... Yes, you cannot rename or reprice a basic unit. However, in the unit customization screen, it will say the autocalculate cost rather than the set cost. When building or disbanding, it treats it with the correct set price, though.

Thanks. So, you can't reduce the cost of a basic unit by going into the unit design workshop unless you can change an attribute (like add a special ability).

 

[StrikerX22]

Okay, the manual says 6 + 2 for rocky for solar, and 4 for tidal. I'll have to test to find out the effect of setting it from 4 to 3 is, but I suspect you are right that it's 4 on flat, thus allowing it to share the number with tidal still. So perhaps it is simply +2 per rockiness, or some % thing going. Not sure I want to make tidals too much easier to build but we'll see.

The idea behind me asking what alternative was in terms of terraforming. I guess I just assumed 3 was pretty fast already and that ICS terraforms a bit more than it normally does, so therefore "faster than what other terraforming method?" I already understood from the start that it was panels over bases from the start. But in the end, I simply need to know how fast, as in "So it's already faster. How fast, faster than what else [other than bases, though estimated usual total turns to make a new ICS base in your opinion wouldn't be bad], etc."

So I've worked on the SE models some more. The top left cell's note has the changes, though reordered a bit for convenience. I'd mainly like any thoughts on whether some of the lower "weight" (as seen on graph) stats are still sufficiently viable choices, and any thoughts on the considered changes in that top left note. Free Market doesn't seem as worth it now, since you only get 1 econ, so some brainstorming may be in order. [edit: I'm undecided on this. Read the main note in the file for details. I'm also concerned about using Unity over Power, as it's lost its support advantage the way things are now. Graph is updated again.

And I noticed that in making the stats not go to their "boom" point, as in 6 for growth and 3 for support, and reaching 1 beneath, any faction that has a stat up can get a bigger advantage with the right models. If this is a problem in certain cases, it can sometimes be worked around by disallowing models or maybe giving something else in place of the stat.]

edit2: Update to the social graph just for more notes on categories. If you already understand them, you don't have to download this version.
[GRAPH NOTE: attachment is removed here. Find latest (at time of this edit) graph in post #33.]

 

[Kilkakon]

If you want to take away a Growth bonus for a faction, then perhaps an immunity/robust to negative modifiers to it instead could work. Or a bonus starting Colony Pod. Also keep in mind that Children's Creches add 2 more Growth, so you probably don't want to have any SE combinations that allow more than a maximum of +3 Growth. The Living Refinery also gives more support (+2 from memory?) so that may also affect things.

Another thought about ICS: if you make base squares and Recycling Tanks give less resources (or give Recycling Tanks maintenance) then they would be less valuable.

 

[StrikerX22]

Yeah I've kept in mind Creches as you can see in the graph ("Max" is 3). Only after future society does SE popbooming become viable, at least normally. You're right, impunity etc might be a good option in potentially troublesome stats.

I'm not worried about something that already is meant to get you most of the way to +3 support as it is... That's what makes the project worth building. I'm not so much trying to prevent completely every "boom" stat, but rather make it difficult to achieve. But of course if one faction has that stat it's much easier to get to that level. Just something I'll have to keep in mind, along with the alternatives.

And are you suggesting making base square and recycling tanks to be lower than default numbers? That sounds like it might be trouble for new bases, and I'm not sure who would build a rec tanks if you took away one of the resources...

 

[Kilkakon]

Sure I'm was just throwing in comments (I'm sorry that I haven't downloaded the xls -- you obviously caught me in the act). I have looked at the Excel chart and it's incredibly busy -- I can't tell what's going on! What I do know is that you've obviously put a lot of work into this though!

As for ICS, my base square stats 2/1/0, recycling tanks are 0/2/1.

 

[StrikerX22]

I've put some additional notes on some of the more odd categories. I assume you at least get the spreadsheet aspect of arranging the models to stat types they give, but this should explain the rest pretty well hopefully. If anything isn't clear, let me know and i'll try to make it so. I replaced the attached rar up a few posts.

So no soylent green from the tanks huh? Though I'm not sure if that's better or worse for ICS in this particular example. The base square not getting any energy, on the other hand, sounds like it would break them a bit actually though. Only energy would be from the land and the +1 from HQ. Research wouldn't happen easily so if you don't have formers/uranium/energy bonus or rec tank/former techs, things could get bad... Kinda like if your colony pod dies in Look First =P... a starting former could too.

 

[Kilkakon]

Okay I have studied the chart for a good half hour. Man it makes me want to get you to look at my civics hey! You've put loads of thinking into this. As for anything I can see, I agree with the idea of making Free Market have either less negatives or a major positive as +1 Econ is not that impressive unless you go Happiness too, kind of forcing strategy. The Relative Conversative idea is interesting.

I like the idea of ICS being something that's high production and low trade (gah just realised Lost Eden terms, try minerals and energy sorry. ). It's like lots of little villages, they wouldn't have much trade although all can produce things. I'm no expert on the practice though as I have never done it (I just build at a natural distance).

 

[StrikerX22]

I've made some changes now, but right now I'm still not sure what to do with FM+Happy's probable overpower. Honestly I'm just tired of thinking and staring at the sheet though lol.

Really, +1 econ isn't bad (assuming 0 to 1) as it racks in some extra energy pretty well if you have a lot of bases, which is also when efficiency does that (aside from drone/slider changes), but +1 vs +1 I think econ's significantly better in general. I've tested a bit and it's lead me to lower Effic's "weight." Now, FM has +1 efficiency (and Green has +2), so this enhances the desire to get FM without Happiness.

I'll take your ICS view into consideration, it sounds like a pretty decent goal.

Let me teach you what to do if you want to take a similar approach with your SE table, as I'm sure you have as much game experience as I do at least. The reason for me attempting the Rel/Consv method was the "jagged" jumps in stat effectiveness, therefore the number is less important than the fact that one is higher than the other (Consv). And since the biggest oddities tend to be around extremes, keeping models centered around 0 (Relative to each other) of each stat promotes similar values per stat. So, not taking into account (the probably less important) starting models, we end up with 0's with some 1's and -1's.

From there, you'll have imbalanced models since you didn't originally design them with rel/consv in mind, so you'll have to edit from there to balance, within the constraints set by your original "Preliminary" SE table, using your best judgment whether to
--recenter a bit a stat in a category of models (for the sake of raising/lowering what a player has in that stat at all times, and for eliminating unnecessary nonzeros that make your models more complex).
--to nonconserve a stat (in all models or a certain category) if you think it needs more variety shown and the stat won't go crazy (like econ), or if the stat doesn't show enough effectiveness where it defines the model.
--Simply snip and add stuff as a last resort for balance's sake, hopefully making sense and not going beyond the total distance between any two models within a category from Prelim's original idea. (Like say Prelim's research in values was 0, 1, 3, and is now -1, 0, 1, don't push "1" beyond 2 distance from "0.)" In other words, try to stay within your 1st table's boundaries of differences between models in category, and not to suddenly have a stat that WAS higher than another model's same stat, but is now lower, or vice versa.

The whole idea is to keep it making sense despite the large edits being done to take into account poor game design planning.

Anyhow, here's my latest graph, see new changes on EDIT's note, via -*-'s.
[GRAPH NOTE: attachment is removed here. Find latest (at time of this edit) graph in post #33.]

 

[Kilkakon]

It looks good for me StrikerX22! If you are worried about secret projects making certain civics too powerful don't be afraid to make them more expensive or even disable them.

Thanks for taking the time on how your technique works. I'll think about how I can apply it to the mod--it's pretty balanced in my opinion but if people think that it needs work I'll see how your style works.

 

[StrikerX22]

Striker's fine. Excerpt from graph note:

"-**-FM receives -2 POLICE from -1 in a nonconserve manner (just for economics), and LABS/PROBE are now -2 from -1 in Prelim and here now. The police can be eased if you run with a good Politics. This is probably still not enough to make FM+Happy not overpowered, but it's a start. Higher neg police would be possible, but I didn't want to use a ton of -pol for “Free Market” because it simply makes no sense at all (Can see note on FM's probe for details). The problem with this is that FM without Happy may not be worth it once again with the 3 added negatives (pol/labs/probe) after the +1 Eff added for balance, but at least none of them are killer."

So right now, FM has +1 [Econ and Effic], but -2 [Planet, Police, Probe, and Labs].
Happiness has +1 [Econ, Industry, and Growth], but -1 [Support, Police, and Morale].

Here's newest version of the graph. I'll remove the older ones on this page with a note where to find this one.

 

[Kilkakon]

Striker's fine. Excerpt from graph note:

"-**-FM receives -2 POLICE from -1 in a nonconserve manner (just for economics), and LABS/PROBE are now -2 from -1 in Prelim and here now. The police can be eased if you run with a good Politics. This is probably still not enough to make FM+Happy not overpowered, but it's a start. Higher neg police would be possible, but I didn't want to use a ton of -pol for “Free Market” because it simply makes no sense at all (Can see note on FM's probe for details). The problem with this is that FM without Happy may not be worth it once again with the 3 added negatives (pol/labs/probe) after the +1 Eff added for balance, but at least none of them are killer."

So right now, FM has +1 [Econ and Effic], but -2 [Planet, Police, Probe, and Labs].
Happiness has +1 [Econ, Industry, and Growth], but -1 [Support, Police, and Morale].

Here's newest version of the graph. I'll remove the older ones on this page with a note where to find this one.

It seems a lot closer now, definitely better than before.

I did have a brainwave a few days ago -- how about making Free Market +2 Econ and balancing accordingly, and have that Happiness has +1 Effic or +1 Labs instead of +1 Econ? That way the overpowered +1 energy every square becomes something that's more manageable as it's only in one SE choice as apposed to a combination. Just a thought.

 

[StrikerX22]

Well, I've seen it more in the light that in order to get a high focus in something, I'd rather you have to give up flexibility in options. People are often willing to go certain routes for a small time and deal with the negatives that come, in order to get whatever needed benefit, like when pop-booming. I suppose it's hard to know if they'd do nearly as much for when it's simply an increase in growth or what have you and not some boom stat.

I'm not sure how making an overpowered stat in one model only makes it "easier to manage," unless you meant the overwhelming negatives. Naturally though, it really is quite powerful and feels wrong to get it from one thing.

For example, if you've got 3 characters to balance in a fighting game, you can make them all nearly the same to make sure they're easier to balance, or you can have them be widely different in skills but have crippling weaknesses. Naturally the latter is more interesting. However, when you take it too far, it shows flaw in game design. You will find exploits. One character will turn out to have too much speed or too much armor or something, and will always have a relatively easy time beating the others. You can tweak and tweak, but unless you bring them to somewhat more equal grounds, it's always going to be this fest some crazy tactic that results in exploiting a win. Then most everyone plays that character, and it gets boring and it's not a novelty anymore.

This can happen in strategy too. If you don't pop-boom, you're not the cool kid. You'd better have a heck of a momentum strategy because pop-booming is too powerful to ignore. +2 Econ might be a bit less powerful, but it still is in the realm of "wait, what? I get +1 energy in EACH SQUARE?" So it receives a huge negative that doesn't make sense to make you vulnerable, so you can only use it certain times... but in those times, what else WOULD you use, really? Is there much of a strategical choice? I'm sure you can find little examples here and there but it's still leaning toward being a problem. Rather, most stats can only be raised in usefulness a little without using all 3 model categories. So only using 2 models to get what "feels" like +4 or 5 Econ doesn't sound so bad.

It'll come down to play testing. Unfortunately, that may involve people trying to play the old way which isn't too possible anymore, and thus feel cheated, or in my case, I will do so more poorly as I'm not yet used to using higher end tactics at the right times. So meh.

 

[Cortex Reaver]

Nobody mentioned that Elite infantry has movement rate of TWO. Making them extremely powerful. Movement rate of 3 for Elite rover is only useful when there there are problems with the road network, such as roads not being constructed at all early in the game, or insufficient road network, or parts of road were destroyed in the fighting.

Recently played as Spartans + POWER, where I used radar rovers for attacking units in the open, scouting, destroying sensors, artillery, the morale of those rovers ranged from veteran to elite, with no major difference in performance in my opinion. There was on the other hand a huge performance difference between elite and veteran infantry, with veterans constantly lagging behind the offensive.

 

[StrikerX22]

Yeah naturally I've considered the elite move. Welcome to the forums btw. It is true that infantry get a bigger advantage from an extra move since for one it's a bigger % difference, and being higher than 1 makes all the difference in the world. As Spartans, you'll naturally be experiencing a lot of troop movement issues more often, but if you're moving a whole army, it's your job to keep them together, and use the extra move for multiple attacks, more than getting around faster. Especially since they're stronger morale wise, it helps it be worth being able to attack again. Honestly I'm not considering using 2 moves for infantry much at all at this point, and will be attempting some other remedy, as much as I enjoy the faster moves.

If I did increase infantry moves in general, I'm sure I'd have to increase the cost somehow, probably through increasing chassis cost in general (and them more) and lowering wep/armor cost a bit, as they'd suddenly be very useful against bases. Of course, I can lower the base % advantage and such, etc etc.

 

[Kilkakon]

As far as +2 Economy goes I believe that there's three options available.

1. Give Free Market +2 Economy and balance accordingly. Of course as you said it's a big advantage so it's hard to make it work properly and not a "peace time switch".
2. Have +2 Economy only possible via combining 2 or more civics. This then lends itself to our current issue, being that certain combinations are overall more powerful than others. :S
3. Make it impossible to have +2 Economy before Future Society (similar to what you did with pop-booming). Free Market gets just +1 Economy, Happiness gets Efficiency or something similar (Efficiency is a lot more linear than Economy). Give Morgan INTEREST, 0, instead of his +1 Economy bonus, so it doesn't break the rule (or make it a deliberate thing and balance accordingly).

That's all that's come to mind over the last few days.

 

[StrikerX22]

Yeah, I might take that 3rd route if it seems to be a problem. Right now I'm feeling a bit burnt out on smax stuff so I'll check back periodically but don't expect anything interesting for a little while at least, so you don't need to rack your brain over it anymore =P. I'll make an update post when I finally get around to consolidating all the information and making decisions, probably after a test game.

 

[Kilkakon]

Sure that's fine; you have other things to do in life.