Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 5:50 am
Could you guys at least try not to reinvent Stellaris?
Since you are not quoting anyone, just in case I said something wrong: I have never played Stellaris, nor read about it.
Also, the idea about not using research upkeep and just wait to see if it is good enough to use influence upkeep for colonies as a way to slow down everything is good for me.
labgnome wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 5:02 pmGiven that the current output is 0.2 per pop, upping it to 1.0 per pop should also require increasing the cost of everything by a factor of 5. At least if we want to preserve any to the current cost balance.
Probably true, but the numbers I popped out were just meant as an example, mostly to show what ratio I had in mind. Actual numbers would have to take current costs for things into account, to prevent having to rebalance practically everything.
When it comes to actual numbers, I'd probably start with something along these lines: 0.5 per pop base production (focus setting), boni/boosts provided by techs/buildings/specials between 0.01 and 0.1 per pop.
Were you thinking 0.2 as the maximum individual bonus or as the maximum combined bonus?
I will go with this suggestion and playtest the results. It does not change starting production/research per pop., just the bonuses, so no need to rebalance costs of ships/parts. Anyways, the only thing that matters here is the relation between starting research/production per pop. and the final one.
Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 5:50 am
Could you guys at least try not to reinvent Stellaris?
I think we are a far cry from reinventing Stellaris. While it certainly has some very interesting mechanics and ideas, it also has some pretty serious shortcomings and does certain things in a way that goes against our design philosophy. And some things are just plain bad design.
That said, I don't see the issue with adopting things Stellaris got right and can be integrated into FO or applied to FO design. FO already took inspiration from other 4X/grand strategy games, first and foremost MOO of course, but also e.g. Europa Universalis. Which, by the way, is a Paradox game like Stellaris, and AFAICT Stellaris is an attempt to make an EU like space game. Insofar FO and Stellaris share a common legacy already.
Anyway, this discussion is about fixing exponential growth, and there are only so many reasonable approaches to that problem. Our design philosophy always has been not trying to reinvent the wheel and re-use good concepts present in other, similar games.
Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 5:50 am
Could you guys at least try not to reinvent Stellaris?
Since you are not quoting anyone, just in case I said something wrong: I have never played Stellaris, nor read about it.
Also, the idea about not using research upkeep and just wait to see if it is good enough to use influence upkeep for colonies as a way to slow down everything is good for me.
I referenced Stellaris in the OP in the suggestion that no-one picked up.
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.
labgnome wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 5:02 pmGiven that the current output is 0.2 per pop, upping it to 1.0 per pop should also require increasing the cost of everything by a factor of 5. At least if we want to preserve any to the current cost balance.
Probably true, but the numbers I popped out were just meant as an example, mostly to show what ratio I had in mind. Actual numbers would have to take current costs for things into account, to prevent having to rebalance practically everything.
When it comes to actual numbers, I'd probably start with something along these lines: 0.5 per pop base production (focus setting), boni/boosts provided by techs/buildings/specials between 0.01 and 0.1 per pop.
I mean then you'd just have to multiply everything by 2.5. Re-balancing base output is going to mean re-balancing the cost of everything.
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.
Just how "bad" are maximum multipliers gotten via tech/buildings/specials Vezzra is talking about?
In the end population and pop-based multipliers are what counts.
For population you can have about 12 habitable size in with all bells and wistles. For a good environment planet that is a factor of four. (And the other environments you can almost upgrade to being good. You'll never get gaia bonus). This sounds reasonable.
Species bonus could be estimated to go up from 1.0 to 3.0 (average to ultimate). Both research and production start at 0.2 per population.
For research i think you can get about 3 research per pop(?), so in whole you get 3.6 vs 0.2 per pop, factor 18.
For industry i do not have a clue; more than research; guestimate 25?
So no more increase than 25*4? So about 100 if you put everything to industry. That is a lot/probably too much. How about upping all the species base bonus by factor 4 (or doubling the species bonus and halving the X_per_pop)? Should bring the ratio down to 25 which sounds okaish.
Whatever that is, the exponential explosion comes from using your resources to add resource-producing planets.
edit: counting again i come to 15 max habitable sizes. somebody else please recount
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.
Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 3:22 pm
For research i think you can get about 3 research per pop(?), so in whole you get 3.6 vs 0.2 per pop, factor 18.
For industry i do not have a clue; more than research; guestimate 25?
Aprox. +3.2*pop from starting +0.2*pop, ignoring species traits, for both research and production.
I'm looking at taking those down to +0.95 and +0.80 (initial 0.2 included) for production and research respectively. That would be and increase of +375% and +300%.
I'm not counting population increases because that is too complex and uncontrollable (galaxy size, systems per empire, planet density...).
My figures are already rather small and will encourage blitzkriegs a lot, it shall be tested and some stuff shall be rebalanced to ensure that focusing on research and/or colonization is still as viable as going full military (and supply range) from start.
Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 3:22 pm
For research i think you can get about 3 research per pop(?), so in whole you get 3.6 vs 0.2 per pop, factor 18.
For industry i do not have a clue; more than research; guestimate 25?
Aprox. +3.2*pop from starting +0.2*pop, ignoring species traits, for both research and production.
I'm looking at taking those down to +0.95 and +0.80 (initial 0.2 included) for production and research respectively. That would be and increase of +375% and +300%.
I'm not counting population increases because that is too complex and uncontrollable (galaxy size, systems per empire, planet density...).
My figures are already rather small and will encourage blitzkriegs a lot, it shall be tested and some stuff shall be rebalanced to ensure that focusing on research and/or colonization is still as viable as going full military (and supply range) from start.
So that would be a factor 16. So about a third less than I thought. That should get a bit cancelled out a bit by my counting error and the end result is about the same (5*16==90 instead of 100). Love it.
Hope a complete increase of factor 15-20 over 200(?) turns is interesting enough to learn the tech tree(?).
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.
Vezzra wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 10:28 am
When it comes to actual numbers, I'd probably start with something along these lines: 0.5 per pop base production (focus setting), boni/boosts provided by techs/buildings/specials between 0.01 and 0.1 per pop.
That works late game when population is important, but not early game.
Which means the game would need more +1 or +2 flat-production-bonus-unlocking technologies and/or buildings at early game (or even +0,5 ones).
More generally, one way games deal with exponential growth usually is by giving logarithmic boni to late-game improvements : the n+1 level tech costs twice the n level and gives a +k bonus, not a n(k+1) one.
Something similar could be designed for buildings I guess; and the upkeep mechanism takes care of ships.
LienRag wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 4:25 pmThat works late game when population is important, but not early game.
Why do you think that it doesn't work early game?
Because spending scarce Research Points during many turns to get +0,203 Production Points can hardly be considered a satisfying result ?
Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 3:22 pm
Whatever that is, the exponential explosion comes from using your resources to add resource-producing planets.
Yup. And I guess that's something we want to keep ? I mean, using one's resources to add resource-producing planets.
And also the exponential explosion is good at the start of the game, it only becomes problematic at mid-game (where it becomes more tedious than fun and reduces the strategic aspects rather than enhance them).
So, mathematically, nerfing any resource production only slows down the exponential explosion, it doesn't tackle the problem.
Some sort of exponential influence cost (distance from Capitol has been proposed, yes it's one possibility, I think it'll be better to have more) with Influence production being only geometric as it is now seems to me (my math years are quite ancient now) a logical way to solve the question.