Should NO_INFLUENCE species have influence upkeep?

[Oberlus]

Currently, species with the trait NO_INFLUENCE do not have any influence upkeep (the trait disables every influence modifier, so also the upkeep).

Although it was unexpected for me, I think I like that: species that are completely indifferent to influence (does not produce it, does not require it).

Thoughts?

[labgnome]

I would rather separate influence generation and upkeep stats. Since species like Happybirthday should probably have low generation and high upkeep while Cray should probably have high generation and low upkeep.

-BTW: is influence and government out in the test builds now?

[Oberlus]

I would rather separate influence generation and upkeep stats. Since species like Happybirthday should probably have low generation and high upkeep while Cray should probably have high generation and low upkeep.

Good point. Seconded. One trait for influence generation and one trait for influence upkeep.

-BTW: is influence and government out in the test builds now?

Yes.

[labgnome]

Good point. Seconded. One trait for influence generation and one trait for influence upkeep.

I'm sure if we thought about it we could have reasons why a no influence species might have an influence upkeep as well.

[Ophiuchus]

I would rather separate influence generation and upkeep stats. Since species like Happybirthday should probably have low generation and high upkeep while Cray should probably have high generation and low upkeep.

Good point. Seconded. One trait for influence generation and one trait for influence upkeep.

Jikes.

Influence is supposed to restrict exponential growth. A species which does not cost influence if such exists should be a corner case, so it does not circumvent the restriction (e.g. population restrictions like planetbound would be fine).

labgnome please up your balancing skills - your example seems ridiculous. High generation and low upkeep would be a settle everywhere species. Cray is broad env and good research. Happy birthday is narrow env, good research and bad population. Or maybe I am misunderstanding and you are just talking fluff?

What would good generation and high upkeep mean? About the same as average generation and average upkeep?

Lets have one kind of upkeep for all kind of species until we find out we have gaming needs for different kinds.

[Vezzra]

Lets have one kind of upkeep for all kind of species until we find out we have gaming needs for different kinds.

I'm leaning toward agreeing with this. Having different basic upkeep costs for different species is something I wouldn't include in the first iteration, as tempting as that concept might be. Lets just stick with traits for the resource output, and see how that works.

We can always add traits that modify basic IP "consumption" of species later if we come up with ideas/mechanics that would make for interesting gameplay.

[Oberlus]

For the record (future iterations):
The appealing of the idea for me comes from MoO2, where (e.g.) hive-mind species would not have happiness, so no maluses nor bonuses from it, which could compensate.

If all noinfluence, cancolonize species are bad at the same important areas (research or production), so that a noinfluence empire could not succeed (there should be other species in the empire that would require influence), it would not break the growth limitations of empires.

[Ophiuchus]

For the record (future iterations):
The appealing of the idea for me comes from MoO2, where (e.g.) hive-mind species would not have happiness, so no maluses nor bonuses from it, which could compensate.

If all noinfluence, cancolonize species are bad at the same important areas (research or production), so that a noinfluence empire could not succeed (there should be other species in the empire that would require influence), it would not break the growth limitations of empires.

I did not do the maths here. But even if you make the resource-generation slower we are still on an exponential curve (which looks in the beginning very like a linear growth). So given a big enough universe you will have exponential explosion, but only for no-influence species colonies.

This might be ok. But then you need to define how big an empire may grow without that effect and choose the nerf level of noinfluence, cancolonize accordingly.

[wobbly]

Well the only one I can see at the moment with no influence, can colonize is exobots. So this is almost a question of whether exobots should require influence.

[Oberlus]

Well the only one I can see at the moment with no influence, can colonize is exobots. So this is almost a question of whether exobots should require influence.

Exobots should, hands down. They can set any focus, that's a no-no for a species without upkeep.

if you make the resource-generation slower

I would give them no research or no production, rather than bad.

[Ophiuchus]

I would give them no research or no production, rather than bad.

You only escape the exponential curve if you give them no research AND no production.

Or you add something like stability getting lower the more colonies of that species exist in your empire for that species.

No research and no supply would be an interesting combination for a species though. You would need to integrate it into your supply networks by using other species. Or you could set it part of it to production and another part to stockpile distribution.