Balancing the Playable species

Creation, discussion, and balancing of game content such as techs, buildings, ship parts.

Moderators: Oberlus, Committer

Message
Author
wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Balancing the Playable species

#31 Post by wobbly »

LienRag wrote: Sun Nov 15, 2020 5:14 am
Oberlus wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 8:09 pm I find mentally difficult to further boost humans, so I'm exploring to nerf anything more powerful.

We need a reference specie, having it be the humans makes sense imho.
It doesn't have to be them, but we need one.

Also, having a goal of achieving perfect balance will probably be at the expanse of creativity, so we probably should focus on a subset of species that we'll try to make balanced and which will be available randomly on multiplayer.
Other species would be availabe only in single player or on demand in multiplayer.
That can even allow to play handicap games - the acknowledged weaker player would have a better race, and the acknowledged best player would have a less powerful race.
I don't think the balance has to be perfect. As long as close enough is good enough they can be balanced in creative ways. I would however support the idea of being able to pick what races are avaliable in a given game, somewhere in the options. I think that's a nice to have irregardless of balance.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Balancing the Playable species

#32 Post by Oberlus »

wobbly wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:36 pm I haven't seen any criticism of this idea yet so I went and opened a feature request, so if anyone thinks it's terrible they should speak up.

https://github.com/freeorion/freeorion/issues/3244
Whoa, what a mess you did posting the issue :lol:

No criticism from me for now (obviously). Egassem's slow growth sounds good too.

If Ophiuchus, Geoff or Vezzra haven't objected anything yet I bet this can be implemented. I will do, if no one else does it first, once I get out of this swamp that my job is right now (huge sudden deadline until end of year).

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Balancing the Playable species

#33 Post by Oberlus »

wobbly wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:39 pmI would however support the idea of being able to pick what races are avaliable in a given game, somewhere in the options. I think that's a nice to have irregardless of balance.
Agree. I thought of that too. Disabling Chato in young galaxies, or Egassem in small galaxies with High Natives, could be quite handy.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Balancing the Playable species

#34 Post by Ophiuchus »

wobbly wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:36 pm I haven't seen any criticism of this idea yet so I went and opened a feature request, so if anyone thinks it's terrible they should speak up.
I am not convinced completely about balance (scylior buff, abaddoni double-buff), but if its implemented soonish, that is totally ok - we need a balance pass for influence anyway.

edit1: looking again at abaddoni, with the double buff they are for certain overpowered, broad environment tolerance, good growth and fast colonisation and no industry malus. Even without great influence probably OP. 75% research is not that much of a hit.
We could make them low population and see if that works out.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Balancing the Playable species

#35 Post by Oberlus »

Broad Env. Tolerance is not that good. It only unlocks more planets when reaching Xeno. Genetics, but that's around mid game. Other empires with std. env. tolerance can unlock poor sooner (if better research), or build colonies and expand faster (if better industry), or rely on natives.

Fast Colonization is a minor perk. The only advantage is you get the production from the new colony one or two turns sooner, but at the same cost. This gives a modest boost to empire growth, much smaller than good industry/research/influence, and maybe some tactical advantage when setting food on enemy land, but gives no advantage whatsoever when empires have their expansion constrained (i.e. once you have your ten colonies and I have mine, all fully populated, I don't care how fast you built them, what I know is that my good industry overpowers your average industry).

Good/Fast (Population) Growth is probably better/more rewarding than Fast Colonization but not for much (if we set the right values), and in the same terms (you get to maximum output sooner, but not to a better output, except for the extra planets you were able to grab sooner than expected thanks to the faster meter growth.

Without great/good influence I doubt they would be overpowered. But I didn't know we have Great Influence for Abaddoni...

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Balancing the Playable species

#36 Post by wobbly »

Fast growth might be roughly on par with good industry. 150% while growing & 100% at full. I'd rather they have a different nerf then bad pop (which isn't the best thematic fit) if possible. There's also the option of bad supply (need to be connected to mother) which might make them favour smaller planets. I think it'll need testing to get right.

Post Reply