[Balance] Natives
Moderators: Oberlus, Committer
Re: [Balance] Natives
A couple of quick thoughts:
- I'd like to try out a branch after the next release with some of the modifications suggested in this thread: balance to the native species, changes to the "tech status" of natives (i'm thinking make moderate tech the default, have low tech be a special, but i'm still mulling the best approach), etc. I'm happy to author the changes wholly or in part, and i see no reason it wouldn't be compatible with Ophiuchus's changes in that branch so i don't see a conflict there.
- Regarding the Kobuntura specifically, perhaps addressing self-sustaining can be part of this. I think it's generally agreed the Trith are too strong right now as well. I'm fairly sure i read some suggestions about this a couple years back (MatGB i think); i'll see if i can locate that.
- I'd like to try out a branch after the next release with some of the modifications suggested in this thread: balance to the native species, changes to the "tech status" of natives (i'm thinking make moderate tech the default, have low tech be a special, but i'm still mulling the best approach), etc. I'm happy to author the changes wholly or in part, and i see no reason it wouldn't be compatible with Ophiuchus's changes in that branch so i don't see a conflict there.
- Regarding the Kobuntura specifically, perhaps addressing self-sustaining can be part of this. I think it's generally agreed the Trith are too strong right now as well. I'm fairly sure i read some suggestions about this a couple years back (MatGB i think); i'll see if i can locate that.
Re: [Balance] Natives
I haven't been talking about adding new native species, I was just referring to the rebalancing of existing ones.labgnome wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:10 pmI've designed native species in the past before, but I'm not always inspired about creating names. If you want to make that an assignment with some more specific parameters, like what gaps we want to fill first, I'm willing to start trying to crank out native species. Personally I think native species could use some love after their roister got cannibalized to make for more playable species.
But you're right of course. We definitely could use a lot more native species, to have more variety. I wouldn't even mind if some native species were quite similar, because IMO it would be ideal if each species would occur only once in the game (more immersive, and would avoid the issues that come with the same species spawning more than once). Most 4X space games I know work that way.
Sure, there are a lot of things we can do in the meantime to make native species more balanced. No reason to wait for influence to do anything.However I don't know if we want to wait until influence is a thing or not to do that.
Sorry, when I said "do away" I didn't mean to actually remove the species in question, but just to change them to something more balanced/reasonable.On the subject of the Kobuntura, I'd be hesitant to get rid of them completely, as currently they are the only colonizing natives you get for barren planets.
That's certainly something worth considering.Also, something else to consider is giving species spawn rates so that "average" species are more common while "good" and "bad" species are less common.
Re: [Balance] Natives
It is force energy structures tech in construction that I forgot about. Fixed in branch. (rev 5bdcb99be9d1e608a55edce28c622e0d8d54558c)The Silent One wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:26 am I think there is some growth tech (pure energy metabolism?) that modifies resource growth, that should probably also be modified?
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!
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Re: [Balance] Natives
I mean I'm fine assuming the various species have been "seeded" on their worlds by whatever precursors there used to be. Also until we can get a random species generation system like Stellaris has I think if we want every possible size of galaxy to also have similar rates of native species are going to get repeat species in sufficiently large galaxies. But we can definitely use more native species. Right now I'm just looking for some direction on where to start.Vezzra wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:25 amBut you're right of course. We definitely could use a lot more native species, to have more variety. I wouldn't even mind if some native species were quite similar, because IMO it would be ideal if each species would occur only once in the game (more immersive, and would avoid the issues that come with the same species spawning more than once). Most 4X space games I know work that way.
Well I just wanted to get a gauge on that before we jumped head-on into these ideas.Sure, there are a lot of things we can do in the meantime to make native species more balanced. No reason to wait for influence to do anything.
I think I suggested the general idea before, ages ago, but I could be wrong.That's certainly something worth considering.Also, something else to consider is giving species spawn rates so that "average" species are more common while "good" and "bad" species are less common.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.
- Krikkitone
- Creative Contributor
- Posts: 1559
- Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm
Re: [Balance] Natives
One idea on the "more powerful"= harder to acquire
Have the "Tech level" Special of the natives give both defense and population
So Natives "Tech level" (Default, Moderate, or High) gives them a population cap (removed on conquest) as well as base defense (obviously removed on conquest)
That way the random distribution of the "tech specials" won't be as severe (high cost/high reward v. low cost/low reward)
Adding in a "death of population on conquest" and maybe upgrading defense for all of them...and that should be sufficient
When Happiness/Influence are fully worked out then a readjustment of the defense/pop caps could be provided
Have the "Tech level" Special of the natives give both defense and population
So Natives "Tech level" (Default, Moderate, or High) gives them a population cap (removed on conquest) as well as base defense (obviously removed on conquest)
That way the random distribution of the "tech specials" won't be as severe (high cost/high reward v. low cost/low reward)
Adding in a "death of population on conquest" and maybe upgrading defense for all of them...and that should be sufficient
When Happiness/Influence are fully worked out then a readjustment of the defense/pop caps could be provided
Re: [Balance] Natives
Just collecting a couple threads here:alleryn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:36 am - Regarding the Kobuntura specifically, perhaps addressing self-sustaining can be part of this. I think it's generally agreed the Trith are too strong right now as well. I'm fairly sure i read some suggestions about this a couple years back (MatGB i think); i'll see if i can locate that.
https://freeorion.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10996 (Make self-sustaining = radiovore)
https://freeorion.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10397 (Balancing the Playable species)
Re: [Balance] Natives
I think I have suggested this before, but I would remove the three-specials population boost for the self-sustaining metabolism. Possibly having technologies that boost self-sustaining populations, so that they start off relatively weak, but finish strong.alleryn wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:34 pmJust collecting a couple threads here:alleryn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:36 am - Regarding the Kobuntura specifically, perhaps addressing self-sustaining can be part of this. I think it's generally agreed the Trith are too strong right now as well. I'm fairly sure i read some suggestions about this a couple years back (MatGB i think); i'll see if i can locate that.
https://freeorion.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10996 (Make self-sustaining = radiovore)
https://freeorion.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10397 (Balancing the Playable species)
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.
Re: [Balance] Natives
At first glance, i like this suggestion. It's somewhat similar to one of MatGB's from one of the threads i quoted. Here also is your response from that thread:
I'm not sure quite what you had in mind here, but i really like your approach. A simple enough thing would be to attach the three growth specials for self-sustaining to the three growth techs Symbiotic Biology, Xenological Genetics, and Xenological Habitation. This wouldlabgnome wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:40 pmMatGB wrote:Self-Sustaining: Yup, overpowered, and I actually made it worse when I fixed Good/Bad Population, it now applies always rather than only on otherwise habitable worlds. A quick and dirty solution would be to reduce the bonus to equivalent of two growth specials not three, a more longer term solution is to change the Growth tech tree so that not all habitability boosts affect all metabolisms, and Self Sustaining creatures get fewer boosts. The former is easy, the latter a large project and thus delayed.I'm already working on a tech overhaul on my own, and I plan on the self-sustaining tech fix to be a part of that. Basically they'll be nerfed out of the gate but will perform really well late-game (hopefully).MatGB wrote:Should we reduce the Self Sustaining bonus from 3*size to 2*size?
I'm guessing what you intended was a more dramatic approach from the way you described it, but this could be a "baby step" (which i think shouldn't be terribly hard to implement, though i haven't actually done it yet) in that direction to test if it feels like we are moving in the right direction.
Here are a few little charts to illustrate habitability req's:
No Self-sustaining (add +1 for ea growth special):
Good | Adequate | Poor | Hostile | |
Base | 3 | 0 | -2 | -4 |
Sub Hab | 4 | 1 | -1 | -3 |
Symb Bio | 5 | 2 | 0 | -3 |
Xen Gen | 5 | 4 | 2 | -2 |
Xen Hab | 5 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
Good | Adequate | Poor | Hostile | |
Base | 6 | 3 | 1 | -1 |
Sub Hab | 7 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
Symb Bio | 8 | 5 | 3 | 0 |
Xen Gen | 8 | 7 | 5 | 1 |
Xen Hab | 8 | 7 | 6 | 3 |
Good | Adequate | Poor | Hostile | |
Base | 3 | 0 | -2 | -4 |
Sub Hab | 4 | 1 | -1 | -3 |
Symb Bio | 6 | 3 | 1 | -2 |
Xen Gen | 7 | 6 | 4 | 0 |
Xen Hab | 8 | 7 | 6 | 3 |
EDIT: I just realized i made a major omission, forgetting to factor in Subterranean Habitation. I'll redo the charts above shortly. /EDIT
Edit2: I probably should've explained what the numbers in the chart are. For species with Average Population, multiply the number in the chart by planet size to determine Maximum Population (there are some other adjustments like Homeworld and Planetary Ecology, the latter of which only applies pre-Symb Bio). /Edit2
Re: [Balance] Natives
What I had fully in-mind was to give them their own separate pop-boosting techs, ultimately fitting those into one of the themes (maybe void) of the proposed tech tree re-work. I'd personally prefer separate technologies, so that you specifically have to invest in the research cost of those techs. However do I think that your proposal could be a good starting point.alleryn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 3:22 am I'm not sure quite what you had in mind here, but i really like your approach. A simple enough thing would be to attach the three growth specials for self-sustaining to the three growth techs Symbiotic Biology, Xenological Genetics, and Xenological Habitation. This wouldpreservemaintain much of one of the key advantages (imo) of self-sustaining in it's current state: being able to colonize hostile worlds afterthis thirda relatively small investment in tech [Given multi-species empires, this may not seem like a huge advantage, but for the xenophobic Trith, i would consider it intrinsic to their current playstyle]. While at the same time nerfing the out-of-the-gate advantage self-sustaining currently provides (indeed, it's often quicker to capture a growth special than to research Symbiotic Biology, in my experience, though this of course depends on RNG).
I'm guessing what you intended was a more dramatic approach from the way you described it, but this could be a "baby step" (which i think shouldn't be terribly hard to implement, though i haven't actually done it yet) in that direction to test if it feels like we are moving in the right direction.
On a side note: I also like the idea of techs to remove the phototrophic maluses (possibly under the proposed energy theme), as I consider phototrophic relatively weak since it's the only metabolism that gets maluses. But I don't think that there is as much of a consensus there.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.
Re: [Balance] Natives
I'd agree that phototrophic is generally weaker than the standard metabolisms (in Mature (default) Galaxy Age). Just one Growth Special is almost as good as a white star, and leaves photrophs with an advantage only on the tiny minority of systems that are blue. Couple that with the malus at the relatively common red stars, and the fact that phototrophs can't benefit from black hole generators leave them quite weak late game.labgnome wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:12 pm On a side note: I also like the idea of techs to remove the phototrophic maluses (possibly under the proposed energy theme), as I consider phototrophic relatively weak since it's the only metabolism that gets maluses. But I don't think that there is as much of a consensus there.
I think that this may somewhat be affected by the upcoming Influence mechanic, since phototrophic species do have the advantage of a small number of outstanding worlds early game (subject to RNG of course).
Edit: I want to add that i don't consider phototrophic metabolism to really be a problem right now. Currently the strongest playable and unplayable species are, in my opinion, Trith and Kobuntura (I don't know if that's something that's agreed-upon or not), so it makes sense to nerf self-sustaining.
I don't think Chato or Laenfa are underpowered. If anything i would rate them both in the top half of playables i think.
It's not necessary or even desirable (imo) to balance all the metabolisms. Balancing the playable species should be a goal, though. Native species don't need to be balanced, but removing high-end outliers makes it easier to balance the native mechanic as a whole.
Re: [Balance] Natives
Late game you have exobots minimum, other species probably. It's been never a problem for me as phototrophic to get full advantage of a BH generator mid/late game.
I would not remove their maluses, maybe give them some mid/late tech that "upgrades" one level the luminosity of a star.
___
Having separate habitability techs for different metabolisms... I don't see the point, appart from having more stuff to research. Yes, it adds the choice "do I boost first population of my normal species or my self-sustaining species?", whith the answer depending on which one will get you more profit, but I don't find that choice especially interesting, strategy-wise.
I like Alleryn's proposal. The same I'm doing for the new tech tree. My idea was to give Self-sustaining instead of +3 for every environment a different bonus depending on tolerance: good +4, adeq. +3, poor +2, hostile +1. So they get access to adequate from start (irrelevant for narrow tolerance species, nice advantage for the others), and require just one tech to access poor (nice advantage) but only one less tech than normal species to access hostile (quite small advantage, like accessing it in turn 40 instead of 50). The pro that I see with this approach compared to Alleryn's is that it allows to leave techs alone (no differente effects groups depending on metabolism), which seems a bit simpler (KISS).
Re: [Balance] Natives
A potential disadvantage to this approach is that it makes even larger the self-sustaining advantage at the game start. The homeworld is with this bonus now starting at a whopping 36 population.
Here are some numbers on turn one population and production with default focus:
Population | Industry | Research | |
Human | 20 | 10 | 9 |
Egassem | 17 | 15.3 | 5 |
Scylior | 17.25 | 8.625 | 11.9 |
Trith(current) | 32 | 16 | 11.4 |
Trith (with +4 on good) | 36 | 18 | 12.2 |
Re: [Balance] Natives
I could see that as an alternative.
I get that you don't find it an interesting choice. However I think that I would.Having separate habitability techs for different metabolisms... I don't see the point, appart from having more stuff to research. Yes, it adds the choice "do I boost first population of my normal species or my self-sustaining species?", whith the answer depending on which one will get you more profit, but I don't find that choice especially interesting, strategy-wise.
Plus we aren't really talking about separate habitability techs, so much as how to balance the metabolism. I do think that making the player invest in specific technologies to unlock the full benefits of the metabolism would go to balance something that is currently over-powered.
I think I prefer Alleryn's proposal over yours. I'd prefer it if self-sustaining didn't get any advantages "out of the gate". It starts-out more on-par with the other metabolisms. Plus it preserves the "three specials" attribute of the metabolism.I like Alleryn's proposal. The same I'm doing for the new tech tree. My idea was to give Self-sustaining instead of +3 for every environment a different bonus depending on tolerance: good +4, adeq. +3, poor +2, hostile +1. So they get access to adequate from start (irrelevant for narrow tolerance species, nice advantage for the others), and require just one tech to access poor (nice advantage) but only one less tech than normal species to access hostile (quite small advantage, like accessing it in turn 40 instead of 50). The pro that I see with this approach compared to Alleryn's is that it allows to leave techs alone (no differente effects groups depending on metabolism), which seems a bit simpler (KISS).
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.
Re: [Balance] Natives
Oh, right; I hardly ever get to that part of the game. Still you can't use black hole conversion to abuse stellar tomography if you are phototrophic.
Also, late game, phototrophs just can't compete with multiple growth specials of other metabolisms insofar as overall population is concerned. Maybe some kind of late game "Star Renewal" tech that allows you to terraform stars to blue? Blues are still quite a bit worse than black holes as far as stellar tomography is concerned and they don't provide any more than the standard 3 growth specials for phototrophs. If the "Star Renewal" were similar in cost to Black Hole Transformation, it would seem reasonable to me -- i don't really think your suggestion of simple +1 to luminosity is enough IF we desire relative lategame parity among metabolisms.
Edit: I just noticed you can only turn red stars into black holes... I didn't know that. Hmmm... maybe i take it all back.
Last edited by alleryn on Sat Oct 05, 2019 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: [Balance] Natives
You're so right. With default good being 3*size (+2*size at HW), another +4*size is crazy (near +100% production). It is already crazy the +3*size. So... either make starting value bigger for everyone at good, or give less bonus from self-sustaining. +2 for all environments might make sense? as well as Alleryn's proposal.