Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Teneb]

Research penlaities should be based off of population, like with unity.

[Telgin]

Isn't the cost of traditions also based off of planets and systems, just like technology?  I think the modifiers are just different, and grow faster for tradition costs.  For research costs I'm pretty sure it's just +1% to the base technology cost per system after your first, which is easily offset by research stations in those systems.  I guess for really crappy mineral or energy only systems it would be tempting to skip or delete them if you don't care about the pirates.

In any case, that's all going to be redone in the next version, where the costs are going to be based off of an "empire size" metric which is supposedly going to be based on the number of districts you have first and foremost.  That's good because it'll mean small planets are no longer disproportionately bad to take, but it's unclear exactly how much impact the number of systems you have will impact the number.

[Criptfeind]

Isn't the cost of traditions also based off of planets and systems, just like technology?

Yeah, last I checked it was a different equation that comes out to a different balancing point, for unity a fairly high but limited number of planets was ideal, for research you never actually would increase the cost of a tech by enough by adding a planet that it wasn't worth it outside of having a Science Nexus (thus the one planet strategy) but for both it counts systems and planets.

For research costs I'm pretty sure it's just +1% to the base technology cost per system after your first, which is easily offset by research stations in those systems.  I guess for really crappy mineral or energy only systems it would be tempting to skip or delete them if you don't care about the pirates.

Nah, in the mid to late game, even pretty good orbital research simply isn't worth it. As your technology increases you'll have more and better research labs per planet, vastly decreasing the relative value of orbital research but the cost of the system remains the same. This is pretty easy to see if you have a game with a well developed and expansive empire, just delete all your systems and watch your research skyrocket.

In any case, that's all going to be redone in the next version, where the costs are going to be based off of an "empire size" metric which is supposedly going to be based on the number of districts you have first and foremost.  That's good because it'll mean small planets are no longer disproportionately bad to take, but it's unclear exactly how much impact the number of systems you have will impact the number.

I'm sure it's been said (although not 100% sure where) that empire size is going to be based off districts and systems, not sure about districts first and foremost or any numbers on that, right now colonies are the biggest single impacts, but since you have so many more systems then colonies systems still end up being a bigger deal. So systems not worth having in the late game is probably still going to an issue, at least unless they have plenty of the orbital increase. It might actually be worse though, the ability to build up planets more then just the basic x pops on x buildings might make planets even more powerful relative to orbitals, maybe.

[Telgin]

I just did some math and it looks like in many cases you're probably right about the orbital research, at least late game.

I used a vague approximation of my last game's numbers to figure up the research time for a first tier repeatable and came up with the fact that any system with less than +5 research to every field (i.e. basically no system except a forerunner home system with +10 to everything) was hurting my research in some tiny amount.  A +5 system was about the breakeven point for one field, and a +4 system increased research time by about 0.1%, with a +2 system increasing it by about 0.15%.  I've seen a system go as high as +12 in one field before, but even if I found one like that per field, which might be almost impossible for society research, I'd still be losing out by a tiny fraction in the end.

The numbers are highly dependent on the contribution from planets though.  I'd try to model it to find some kind of equation that could tell you where to balance it, but it depends a lot on the output per planet and isn't really simple to do because of that.

In the end, I'll just take the small hits aesthetic's sake, even if they add up for having so many systems.  It does tempt me to try to play a truly tall empire for a change though, or play as a pseudo fallen empire.  Even in my life-seeded game I ended up with like 45 worlds + habitats and like 80 systems by the time the crisis hit...

[Dunamisdeos]

I greatly enjoy single-world games.

Those are the games where my tech goes nuts.

[Criptfeind]

There's a new dev diary about the galactic market up.

I don't think this tells us anything we didn't already know about the market, except how the market founder works (sounds like if you want to be the market founder, you'll have to explore a lot early game so your first to find half the races) and how trader enclaves will work since they are basically being replaced by the market.

[Loud Whispers]

This Market Fee is there so that it will not be possible to make money by purchasing and then immediately re-selling resources at a higher price. Resources can be purchased either in bulk, or by setting up a monthly trade, where you for example specify that you want to sell 20 food and buy 10 minerals per month, and can set a minimum sale/maximum purchase price, if you want to ensure that major fluctuations in price do not disrupt your empire's economy too much.

Yeah nah I'm modding out that market fee immediately to play money grubbing materialists. Finally hoarding up that delicious energy will feel irresponsible and greedy

[Radsoc]

Not sure if I like their design choices. Resources shouldn't appear magically (endless market supply) nor should there be a market fee that goes to nobody. Sure, if the fee was used to keep some stock, then that's ok, but just deleting things and creating them in and out of the game is lazy.

[Loud Whispers]

Not sure if I like their design choices. Resources shouldn't appear magically (endless market supply) nor should there be a market fee that goes to nobody. Sure, if the fee was used to keep some stock, then that's ok, but just deleting things and creating them in and out of the game is lazy.

It's be much cooler if Empires could found their own galactic market exchanges, with each Empire choosing to set their own external tariffs to orders. That way market forces could organically operate in Stellaris, so an inwards perfection market exchange with 100% tariffs will operate different from a corporate dominion with 0%, while the market fee would go to the Empire and not just vanish

[Criptfeind]

We've still got to see what trade value is and does, that might add some interest and complexity to the situation, but I agree, I'm a bit disappointed in how simplistic and infinite the resource trading is. Although I'm not 100% against infinite resources (honestly galaxies in stellaris are pretty small, if it totally relied on someone, somewhere, being willing to buy your shit I think it'd be really hard to make a trading based nation.) But without complexity and such large penalties to trading I'm struggling to see how using the market for anything but emergencies won't be vastly inferior in almost all cases too just having an empire that produces everything in house.

[Telgin]

It'll probably end up being something that many player empires just use their excess energy credits in.  Interestingly, this would make me much more inclined to build dyson spheres, but they're probably going to get some tweaks to compensate for the increased value of energy credits.

Overall I was hoping it would be a bit more deep, such as having multiple competing galactic markets, trade sanctions, embargoes and so on.  I guess a lot of that would be really hard to implement in the current diplomatic model anyway.

I'm also not thrilled about the infinite resource supply and sink of the market, but I get that it's probably very hard to make it work any other way with this level of AI.

[USEC_OFFICER]

I'm not 100% against markets being infinite but I would be much, much happier if they were based on the economies of the nations involved in them.

For example, the base-line cost of a resource would be dependent on how much production of that resource that everyone has. More production, whether concentrated in a single nation or spread out among many, would lower the base-line cost. Buying and selling resources would obviously jump the price up or down, but it'd slowly return to the base-line over time because private investors or something. Resources still come out of nowhere but since they're based on production it is related to the galactic economy in a way.

More importantly, it'd let you have multiple competing markets instead of a single global one that everyone is involved with. Pissed at your neighbours? Leave their market and join their rival's. Devouring Swarm? Fanatic Purifiers? Good luck joining a market in the first place.

It's an idea at least. Probably not a good one but...

[Criptfeind]

I think that's generally a pretty good idea. The ability to really hurt others markets via cutting them off from yours is something that sounds like it's needed. Otherwise you can't even really do economic warfare against enemies that should in theory be economically isolated (genocidal nations) without basically doing equal damage to yourself, either from having to spend a ton to out buy what they need on the market or refuse to sell what they want on the market. But that requires separate galactic stage markets and some systems to handle interactions between them, which I guess is too much for this update.

I do hope that someday we'll see a trade rework, that they treat this update as the planet economy rework and don't get too married to the upcoming system. Given how much work has gone into planets I could totally understand if this market system is the best they could do in this update and it needs to be how it is for a few years (go into diplomacy next year, then revisit trade in 2020?) but I think it'd really enrich the game to give it more depth someday. Also the DLC for trade wars almost writes itself with various economic system civics.

[Cruxador]

I'm not 100% against markets being infinite but I would be much, much happier if they were based on the economies of the nations involved in them.

Well, if nations make regular use of the market, then in practice the rates are based on economies. The only difference between this and your production-based version is that this way also takes energy production into account, whereas yours doesn't, and would need an extra mechanic tacked on to prevent energy from becoming the only resource that mattered.

As for implementing embargoes... Yeah, there sound be done way to do it, which right now it sounds like there isn't. I imagine xenophobes will get a bad market rate regardless, but that's a less dynamic way to interact with the new system.

I do hope that someday we'll see a trade rework, that they treat this update as the planet economy rework and don't get too married to the upcoming system. Given how much work has gone into planets I could totally understand if this market system is the best they could do in this update and it needs to be how it is for a few years (go into diplomacy next year, then revisit trade in 2020?) but I think it'd really enrich the game to give it more depth someday. Also the DLC for trade wars almost writes itself with various economic system civics.

There's a trade rework coming, which is separate from this galactic market. It's even mentioned in the dev diary as something that will be discussed later. So far we know that it represents primarily civilian trade and that economic activity on a planet increases the planet's trade value, and that's pretty much all we know.

[BurnedToast]

Not sure if I like their design choices. Resources shouldn't appear magically (endless market supply) nor should there be a market fee that goes to nobody. Sure, if the fee was used to keep some stock, then that's ok, but just deleting things and creating them in and out of the game is lazy.

The resources are so unbalanced in stellaris that if it didn't generate free stuff from nothing, it would never get used. Because let's be honest - we all want it to get more minerals. Who would ever sell it minerals? Nobody, ever, in any situation. Even if your mineral storage is full it would be dumb to sell it minerals because that's more minerals for your enemy to buy.

Anyway, I think you're missing the point. This is obviously primarily intended as a band-aid fix for the idiot AI that can't manage it's economy properly. Now it can "legitimately" create resources from nothing.