Stellaris Dev Diary #326 - 3.10.4 "Pyxis" Released [e9b6] + Upcoming Holiday Tech Beta

[Peter Ebbesen]

Yes, I'm talking about extra options. The time of the chain of events is always fixed and does not depend on the technology price scaling.

And this is the connection.
the price of technologies and traditions has been increased -> changes the time it takes to achieve the ascension technique -> You can easily not make it to the end of the chain of events and will not be able to get the desired extra option.

I would like to somehow scale the prices of technologies and traditions to take into account this type of event chains

Whereas I think that so long as gaining access to the extra options with a reasonable investment in both unity and science is possible using whatever the default tech/tradition settings are in a given release, there is no problem at all, and that - based on the information released so far - there seems to be no cause for concern in that regard.

1. Teachers of the Shroud origin empires have Psionic Theory available as a research option from the start
2. Everybody else can gain access to Psionic Theory via half-price agenda after selecting Mind over Matter as their third ascension perk

What, if anything, in the information given about the beta so far makes you think you won't still be able to complete the Psionic Ascension in time for the 2280 date, given that it is currently, with the restrictions above, something a non-TotS high-unity empire can complete by the 2230s, and most empires by the 2240s or 2250s if they don't cripple their unity production?

It is certainly a good thing to test in the beta, to see whether that is indeed the case, it is just that I don't see any cause for alarm in what we actually know about the beta so far.

 

[Foxosaur]

it is just that I don't see any cause for alarm in what we actually know about the beta so far.

I don't know where you've been the last few years, maybe you was an employee or tester for Paradox (that's not an accusation or implication) or playing a lot of crusader kings but Stellaris has been a set way for at least how long I've been a player (just over 3 years). And as there is a ebb and flow to communities, I expect that a quietened minority remember the game any differently but it was certainly beyond those 3 years I've been around. And that's the reason in plain sight where you can't just dismiss people getting "uppity", "unsettled" and otherwise be cautious about these changes. A lot of active people only know this way of Stellaris and have been "purchasers" of it and "enjoyer" of it throughout this time and it's been sold a specific way under a power fantasy. EU/Crusader Kings by comparison are far slower and is much more about diplomacy, borders and province management - and as there isn't a CW game like Stellaris, rightfully people are a little concerned of a overall narrative change but also maybe a lot of fast paced change too.

So I think you should give people room to exercise their caution and to also expect it and not combat it whilst as you say, letting people test it for themselves

 

[Theodotus1]

I don't know where you've been the last few years, maybe you was an employee or tester for Paradox (that's not an accusation or implication) or playing a lot of crusader kings but Stellaris has been a set way for at least how long I've been a player (just over 3 years). And as there is a ebb and flow to communities, I expect that a quietened minority remember the game any differently but it was certainly beyond those 3 years I've been around. And that's the reason in plain sight where you can't just dismiss people getting "uppity", "unsettled" and otherwise be cautious about these changes. A lot of active people only know this way of Stellaris and have been "purchasers" of it and "enjoyer" of it throughout this time and it's been sold a specific way under a power fantasy. EU/Crusader Kings by comparison are far slower and is much more about diplomacy, borders and province management - and as there isn't a CW game like Stellaris, rightfully people are a little concerned of a overall narrative change but also maybe a lot of fast paced change too.

So I think you should give people room to exercise their caution and to also expect it and not combat it whilst as you say, letting people test it for themselves

I perceive you to be unfamiliar with "The Conqueror."

He predates almost all of us, including many of the Paradox devs.

And he speaks the secret languages and perceives the hidden teachings.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

I absolutely hate the idea of Ascension Perks not requiring technologies. It would legitimately ruin the game for me. The complex interplay between the Unity and technology systems has always been one of my favourite game design aspects of the game, and every time it is weakened it disheartens me, such as when the relationship between Master Builders, Mega-Engineering and Galactic Wonders was simplified, and when Ascension Paths were changed to not require techs and to give Agendas that provide you with the techs you need to progress the Tradition Tree.

You are not supposed to be able to brainlessly focus on a single resource and have success with that, it is important to have interconnected systems of locks and keys so that you have to balance your economy to some extent to reap the full benefits from each focus area. Efficiently navigating those pathways of locks and keys is one of the most satisfying aspects of the game to me.

1. The fundamental suggestion was that techs should not be required to pick an ascension perk - not that ascension perks should no longer require technologies. It was even explicitly stated that Arcology Project could still effectively require Anti-Gravity Engineering, by just shifting the technology requirement to the planetary decision. Essentially, the core suggestion was only that it would be possible to decide which ascension perk will go into which slot without having to wait 50-100 years for technology to catch up, and that the AI would thereby also be less handicapped by its lack of planning ability.

2. It was also one of two alternative suggestions in the post, with the first one incidentally being that AI players could get the ability to plan their ascension perk picks in advance. Since your reply does not mention it, I can't see why you chose to award that one a disagreement too.

But, your attitude and forum behaviour are your own choice.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I don't know where you've been the last few years, maybe you was an employee or tester for Paradox (that's not an accusation or implication) or playing a lot of crusader kings but Stellaris has been a set way for at least how long I've been a player (just over 3 years). And as there is a ebb and flow to communities, I expect that a quietened minority remember the game any differently but it was certainly beyond those 3 years I've been around. And that's the reason in plain sight where you can't just dismiss people getting "uppity", "unsettled" and otherwise be cautious about these changes. A lot of active people only know this way of Stellaris and have been "purchasers" of it and "enjoyer" of it throughout this time and it's been sold a specific way under a power fantasy. EU/Crusader Kings by comparison are far slower and is much more about diplomacy, borders and province management - and as there isn't a CW game like Stellaris, rightfully people are a little concerned of a overall narrative change but also maybe a lot of fast paced change too.

So I think you should give people room to exercise their caution and to also expect it and not combat it whilst as you say, letting people test it for themselves

I've been around since forever on the Paradox forums, mostly providing helpful analysis and advice about gameplay mechanics as well as writing silly stories, but also being a real killjoy in balance discussions by insisting on separating preference from problems, and have been playing Stellaris a few weeks - or in some cases - months every year since its release. As for testing, I've beta tested most of PDS' games but, curiously enough, not Stellaris, and I don't think I personally know anybody on the current Stellaris development team - but I might be wrong. Anything else you don't want to know?

(Sorry about that, couldn't resist it. It is all true, but at times my sense of humour gets the better of me.)

I am definitely not against people expressing themselves, being cautious, or exercising alarm - but if they do it without reference to the numbers we are presented for changes, or do it with reference to the numbers, and my analysis happens to differ, then I will tell them what my analysis of the situation is and why I think there is cause for alarm, or not cause for alarm as the case might be, because I quite like helping people by presenting data and analysis rather than opinion.

So when I see an argument based on "when the price of tech and traditions have been increased" by a player who has played the current game under those conditions by using the tech/tradition slide, and to the best of my knowledge (as expressed in these release notes and last week's dev diary) the price of traditions has not been increased, and the tech and tradition sliders have been deliberately split up for the test, why would I not want to try to correct that mistaken assumption by looking at the implications of what we do know, giving my own extrapolations?

If they end up relieved, that's fine. If they end up thinking, "he's got a point, but I still think so-and-so" that's also fine. If they end up thinking that I don't have a point, that's also fine with me, and perhaps they are right. But at least I'll have provided them with better data and a contrasting view to make better predictions.

And perhaps they'll provide arguments that convince me they have a point, or at least cause me to doubt my point, and take a second look at affairs, and that is valuable too.

 

[Lenk]

For terms of balance/late game lag, kind of thought of a few things. Since by the end game there are tens of thousands of ships in the galaxy

1. Reducing the naval capacity gained from all sources to lower the limit of ships in active service
2. Drastically increasing the upkeep of ships when over naval capacity
3. Adding an officer mechanic where ships would require officers similar to that in Star Trek: Infinite to lower the speed in which ships could be produced.

 

[Foxosaur]

I am definitely not against people expressing themselves, being cautious, or exercising alarm - but if they do it without reference to the numbers we are presented for changes, or do it with reference to the numbers, and my analysis happens to differ, then I will tell them what my analysis of the situation is and why I think there is cause for alarm, or not cause for alarm as the case might be, because I quite like helping people by presenting data and analysis rather than opinion.

So when I see an argument based on "when the price of tech and traditions have been increased" by a player who has played the current game under those conditions by using the tech/tradition slide, and to my best of the knowledge (as expressed in these release notes and last week's dev diary) the price of traditions has not been increased, and the tech and tradition sliders have been deliberately split up for the test, why would I not want to try to correct that mistaken assumption by looking at what we know?

If they end up relieved, that's fine. If they end up thinking, "he's got a point, but I still think so-and-so" that's also fine. If they end up thinking that I don't have a point, that's also fine with me, and perhaps they are right. But at least I'll have provided them with better data and a contrasting view to make better predictions.

And perhaps they'll provide arguments that convince me they have a point, or at least cause me to doubt my point, and take a second look at affairs, and that is valuable too.

You're just a player, Peter, like the rest of us and your opinions have the same value as everyone else's, whether they do to a specific set of people is something else.

I just want to tell you, that commonly on forums people just post their thoughts and reactions (as words as well as emojis) and they are not just entitled to those but are sharing their perspective. If these "posts" were all about the numbers and just them, then you would have something solid to say right or wrong on, every time or at least with approximations. Which you do as well and add value - but a lot of posts people make also are based of solely or as well as those numbers - from intuition and interpretation. They also consider things like changes over the last year, developer posts and they way they are written and attitudes - as well just their own thoughts of the game these days - and condemning them in your mind as "wrong", saying so, then challenging it as often as you do, I think can come across as less helpful but at times a bit more negatively even slightly suppressive to someone that may not even really post here.

Those are posts where there isn't a definite answer "yet", you have as much clue as everyone else even if you think differently or oppositely and can qualify why - and us older people know better than to try and fight the tide on those sorts of things or at least very often, don't we? And know to let people be

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

You're just a player, Peter, like the rest of us and your opinions have the same value as everyone else's, whether they do to a specific set of people is something else.

Absolutely, I couldn't have said it better than that myself.

That is yet another good reason to distinguish between opinion and analysis, and to make clear what data one uses for the latter, so people can make up their own mind about it.

EDIT: My apologies for joining you in perpetuating this thread derail. As so often when things get personal, the temptation to have the last word is strong. What say you, that we declare a ceasefire to allow a return to the topic of the thread rather than an analysis of other people's possible reactions to my posts, for better and worse? (After you've had the final word, should you so desire.)
EDIT2: Clarified EDIT above.

 

[Foxosaur]

I perceive you to be unfamiliar with "The Conqueror."

Only from the halls of legends I'm afraid.

 

[Soranya]

If you are asking if you were to select the 25x crisis multiplier then the 2nd crisis would be 50x and the third crisis is 100x then the answer is yes.

x100 sounds either like a grindfeast, or an exploit feast - space combat or event wise - or modifier wise
funny

 

[Soranya]

One potential balance issue, especially for AI empires:
About half of the ascension perks are currently gated behind technologies. With technological progress becoming slower, the number of ascension perks available at each new AP slot will be lower. This will especially impact two categories of empires:

1. AI players.
   Unlike human players, who can delay their ascension perk picks, AI players pick from the ascension perks available when a new AP slot is obtained. AI players will get the more powerful technology-gated ascension perks much less frequently than currently, weakening AI players versus human players.
2. Unity-focused (Tradition-focused) empires.
   Human players will need to wait longer until they can fill an AP slot with the intended ascension perk, but AI players will be hit especially hard due to their inability to plan their AP picks in advance (and wait patiently when no desired ascension perk is available). Unity-focused AI empires may end up having mostly, perhaps only, basic ascension perks.

This can be avoided in two ways:

1. AI players are "taught" to plan their AP picks in advance, i.e. only pick ascension perks from a small pool of selected ascension perks.
2. Ascension perks are changed to never require technologies to be picked.
   • Optionally, they could also help focus research in that direction. A real-life analogy could be that when the USA picked the Manhattan Project and Lunar Program ascension perks, they did not yet possess the necessary technologies - rather, these undertakings focused research in those directions.
     • For instance, "Eternal Vigilance" currently requires the Star Fortress technology (tier 3 engineering). With this change, "Eternal Vigilance" could instead be picked regardless of whether that technology had been researched. Additionally, Starhold and Star Fortress could become guaranteed research options once their prerequisites are fulfilled (similar to the advanced Habitat technologies becoming guaranteed research options after picking Voidborne).
     • "Arcology Project" could similarly be picked early, and add "Weather Control Systems" and "Anti-Gravity Engineering" as guaranteed research options, but the planetary decision "Arcology Project" could require that "Anti-Gravity Engineering" has been discovered. Essentially, players could pick "Arcology Project" early, and face a time period where the ascension perk is effectively useless, but ultimately get the necessary technologies sooner than they otherwise would have.
   • It would become more important for ascension perks to be relatively balanced versus each other, so that all of them are (situationally) attractive options.
   • Suggestion thread:
     Ascension Perk picks should never require technologies to pick, but instead...

1. would be a good choice - this is basically how the player picks perks anyway.

 

[Foxosaur]

EDIT: My apologies for joining you in perpetuating this thread derail. As so often when things get personal, the temptation to have the last word is strong. What say you, that we declare a ceasefire to allow a return to the topic of the thread rather than an analysis of other people's possible reactions to my posts, for better and worse? (After you've had the final word, should you so desire.)
EDIT2: Clarified EDIT above.

Ceasefire agreed and no problem, have a lovely Christmas, Peter. Hopefully we won't disagree again so soon lol. And no, the last word is all yours.

 

[Foxosaur]

x100 sounds either like a grindfeast, or an exploit feast - space combat or event wise - or modifier wise
funny

Need to see some fleet sizes of the x100 ^^

 

[amib]

Hello everyone!

The 3.10.4 "Pyxis" update has been released today. Of particular interest in this week’s update are a fix that lets AI be more willing to recruit Scientists for exploration, a fix to certain modifiers doubling up, and some adjustments to negative leader traits.

Spoiler: 3.10.4 "Pyxis" Patch Notes

Balance

• Significantly reduced the yearly chance for leaders to gain negative traits.
• Due to player feedback, the Micromanager negative trait for Commanders now increases fleet upkeep instead of reducing command limit.
• The Lethargic negative trait for Commanders now also reduces fleet upkeep.
• The Nervous negative trait for Commanders now also increases disengagement chance.
• Having the Antagonistic Diplomatic Stance will now appease your factions asking for you to have a Strong Diplomatic Stance.

Bugfixes

• Added some failsafes to generate council positions and gestalt nodes in various edge cases where they weren't created or disappeared
• Clarified reformed tooltip for Dark Consortium civics
• Declining to Hunt for the Hyacinth should now correctly remove the event chain.
• Fix Astral Harvesting not available for heavily conquering empires
• Fixed a typo in the pre-FTL Provide Technology Tooltip.
• Fixed Civics not swapping to their alternative when switching Governments
• Fixed missing loc for the Fear of the Dark Admiral trait
• Fixed the Accelerated Time Astral Planes Modifier having a description for a title.
• Removed a redundant tooltip from the Synthetic Evolution event
• Ruler clothing selection in the empire designer is now respected
• Some planet modifiers that were getting incorrectly applied twice should now only be applied once.
• Updated the All Crisis Strength tooltip to accurately state that it doubles the strength of each subsequent crisis.
• Your ice miners will no longer make your Mercenaries homeless if they happened to have built their base above an ice asteroid.

AI

• AI Empires will now be more willing to hire leaders for their science ships as long as they believe they can afford the Unity upkeep.
• UI
• Fixed XP not being shown in XP bar tooltip for gestalt rulers and councilors.

Modding

• collapsable_leader_container should now calculate the correct height no matter the amount of horizontal slots.
• Fixed lock_country scope change incorrectly stating that the output scope was a bypass, when it is actually a country

Barring unexpected developments, we consider the 3.10 “Pyxis” release stable at this point, and the 3.11 “Eridanus” update is the next expected release - currently planned for 2024Q1. As mentioned in an earlier dev diary, 3.11 “Eridanus” will be focused primarily on general bugfixing and stability.

Technology Open Beta

We’ll be putting a Technology Open Beta up tomorrow to gather feedback and data on some possible changes to research. While some changes planned for 3.11 “Eridanus” have snuck into this release (like some improvements to Galactic Doorstep), the overall technology rebalance is considered experimental and may or may not end up being released. It is likely to undergo some changes if it does go live.

The Technology Open Beta will run from December 15th through January 15th. We’ll post a feedback form tomorrow to help gather your impressions and thoughts.

Spoiler: Technology Open Beta Release Notes

Features

• Replaced basic research technologies such as Quantum Theory with Breakthrough Technologies. Breakthrough Technologies will only appear once you have researched enough techs of your current tier and are required to research to reach the next tier.
• Breakthrough Technologies become easier to research based on the number of other empires you have low Tech intel on that have already researched them.
• Enigmatic Engineering blocks your Breakthrough Technologies from spreading.
• Events that give progress towards random technologies can grant progress towards Breakthrough Technologies, but will not give as much as they would a regular technology.

Improvements

• Technology and Tradition costs are now distinct sliders in galaxy setup.
• Added notification message when new pop settles in zeya (Gaia planet in azilash)

Balance

• Adjustments made to the Galactic Doorstep origin:
  • Added Gateway Cost and Megastructure Build Speed modifiers to the Galactic Doorstep origin.
  • Galactic Doorstep event chain now directly rewards the Gateway Activation technology and gives far more progress on the Gateway Construction technology
• Increased the effects of Empire Size on Technology to match its effect on Traditions.
• Rebalanced research speed modifiers. Most sources of Research Speed now have a corresponding increase in Researcher job upkeep
• Removed or adjusted many sources of Ship Cost and Upkeep reductions from the game.
• Military Buildup Agenda now improves ship build speed and reduces claim costs. (It still reduces War Exhaustion on completion.)
• Naval Procurement Officer councilor now improves ship build speed.
• Crusader Spirit civic now improves ship build speed.
• Psionic Supremacy (Eater of Worlds) finisher no longer reduces ship build costs.
• Vyctor's Improved Fleet Logistics trait now reduces ship build costs by 10% instead of 20%.
• Progress Oriented modifier no longer reduces ship build costs.
• Match tradition in the Enmity tree bonus to ship build costs reduced to 5% instead of 10%.
• Master Shipwrights tradition in the Supremacy tree no longer reduces ship build costs.
• Military Pioneer trait now reduces starbase upgrade costs instead of ship build costs.
• Shipwright trait no longer reduces ship build costs.
• Reduced penalty the Irenic trait applies to ship build costs.
• Sanctum of the Eater ship upkeep reduction reduced from 10% to 5%.
• Mark of the Instrument ship component no longer reduces ship upkeep.
• Grand Fleet ambition now increases power projection instead of reducing ship upkeep.
• Fleet Supremacy edict no longer reduces ship upkeep.
• Letters of Marque now reduces ship upkeep by 5% instead of 10%.
• Bulwark ship upkeep reductions reduced by 50%.
• Logistic Understanding, Armada Logistician, and Gunboat Diplomat traits now reduces ship upkeep while docked.
• Increased technology costs, especially those of higher tier technologies.
• The Technology curve has been changed from 1000 × 2^n to 500 × (2^n + 3^n), making the difference between an early and late-game tech more distinct.
• Reduced output of researcher jobs
• Researchers and their gestalt equivalents now produce 3 of each research instead of 4
• Head Researchers now produce 4 of each research instead of 6
• The effectiveness of Ministry of Science has been halved
• Astral Researchers now produce 5 physics and 1 of each other research instead of 5 physics and 2 of the other researches.
• Knights of the Toxic God balancing:
  • Slightly reduced the research output for Knight and Lord Commander jobs
  • Refactored how the output scaling for Knights from Squires functions, these now behave as normal additive modifiers instead of multiplicative modifiers
  • Knights now correctly inherit production modifiers from researchers and administrators
  • Slightly reduced the unity and research output for Knight and Lord Commander jobs
  • Knight output modifiers now only apply to resources, like other job output modifiers
  • The Fortress Habitat Designation for Knights no longer provides +1 Defensive Army per pop on the habitat, instead each Squire job provides +1 Defensive Army
  • Squires now increase the resource output of Knights by 2.5% not 2% per Squire.
  • The Luminous Blades modifier from the Knight's Quest now removes the alloy upkeep of knights and gives +25% Army damage instead of an empire-wide +1.5% alloy production modifier per knight
• Delegate GalCom focus traits now have a small chance to give favors.
• Reworked and rebalanced the Erudite, Cyborg, Synthetic, Psionic, Chosen One, and Chosen of X traits to include new leader assignments.

View attachment 1062609
View attachment 1062610​

Bugfix

• Repairing The Black Crown should no longer fire generic gateway repaired events.

Modding

• Added `last_resolution_category_changed` trigger

Meet the Devs Video

Game Systems Designer @Gruntsatwork did a video interview about what it’s like to work on the Custodian and Crisis teams.

No, you can’t implement trash. - E​

Next Week

The nights are getting cold and long, so for the last dev diary of the year it’s time for a look at the year in review.

See you then!

why, lord WHY do you guys stay so determined to keep scientists useless in the late game? in what universe is anomaly research speed beneficial in the late game after you've finished your ascension? erudite is literally the only actually useful scientist trait on that whole list. the timeline of a whole game session is filled with a plethora of useless modifiers and abilities you get AFTER the fact, once you no longer need them. any trait or modifier that increases survey speed after the first few scientist levels is utterly redundant and a waste of it's own existence.

for something that's supposed to be a fundamental milestone of your empire's timeline, getting anomaly research speed from your ascension path is just rude and irritating. survey speed, anomaly discovery chance, anomaly research speed, extra chance to get minor artifact deposits from archeological dig sites, those are all early game traits. the later you get them, the more useless they are.

other trait based modifiers would be more appropriate for ascension path traits. research speed, leader xp, leader negative trait reduction, upkeep reduction, and resource efficiency improvements like extra research from pops when the scientist is a governor, those are mid to late game trait effects more appropriate for an ascension path.

 

[Soranya]

why, lord WHY do you guys stay so determined to keep scientists useless in the late game? in what universe is anomaly research speed beneficial in the late game after you've finished your ascension? erudite is literally the only actually useful scientist trait on that whole list. the timeline of a whole game session is filled with a plethora of useless modifiers and abilities you get AFTER the fact, once you no longer need them. any trait or modifier that increases survey speed after the first few scientist levels is utterly redundant and a waste of it's own existence.

for something that's supposed to be a fundamental milestone of your empire's timeline, getting anomaly research speed from your ascension path is just rude and irritating. survey speed, anomaly discovery chance, anomaly research speed, extra chance to get minor artifact deposits from archeological dig sites, those are all early game traits. the later you get them, the more useless they are.

other trait based modifiers would be more appropriate for ascension path traits. research speed, leader xp, leader negative trait reduction, upkeep reduction, and resource efficiency improvements like extra research from pops when the scientist is a governor, those are mid to late game trait effects more appropriate for an ascension path.

Especially the "discovery" chance is annoying - basically it wants you to not explore AND to hinder the AI form exploring so that you can get the most of those unexplored worlds.
Would be better if you a) anomalies would be per player and not global and b) there would be a chance of discovering anomalies after surveying
or get rid of the discovery chance thing all along.

The whole stick that some traits appear after they are most usefull is true nonetheless.

 

[Harvey_James]

i feel like scientists exploration always finishes far too early in the game.. i like the idea of slowing everything they do down they did a little with survey speeds and scientist caps.. but its not really enough especially now assist research is gone its -1 avenue in late game they have a use for.. if u lucky to get a tech planet that helps give u a governor but most of the time its about 2 council spots worth of scientist by end of game u care about... thats sad... especially if u get the explorer renowned scientist guy.. he runs out stuff too do really..
- slow down surveying more and nerf the huge survey speed tech buffs.. this should help slow down early game a little more
- anomalies could also do with being slower too complete.. maybe make them multi step too extend there time much more? .. give us more mid/late game things too research like u have habitable worlds survey and the animal one.. give us more of these that last longer maybe randomly generated ones or empire related stuff? maybe planet stuff also make nebulas a thing too survey as a long term thing .. give us some unclaimed nebula systems and unique systems u cant claim too research stuff in

- archeological sites these in real life are never always done.. there is always more sites to be found over time as tech improves and people find more tombs etc.. this should be a semi constant thing too do.. maybe the results could vary much more so u not getting too much resources off it? .. or give us more unique and luxury resources from them we could trade or sell or research maybe another function scientists could do..
- astral rifts .. these could also take longer too research in the game..

 

[Millbot]

In regards to tech gated perks and how that might really mess with some AI builds, while not feel great for players. Here are some additional ideas, that they devs could consider/

-Picking these perks will make it so that the tech is a research always available to players that don't have it. Maybe recode those perks so that they are essentially either partially or fully non-functional, until the tech is researched. This has the bonus of lessening some BS RNG, would mean that players would still have to research the tech before they get part or all of the perk. It would also help some weaker perks feel more worthwhile, I think worldshaper needs a bonus to production from pops on it for those that have the perk, but I'd also say that trying to get all the techs for it, also makes the perk less desirable, since there are better or equivalent perks that are much easier to access, much earlier than worldshaper. So why go with worldshapper, when you could be waiting quite a while to be able to pick it, when you could get the benefits of a similarly power or more powerful perk either now or at least know when you'll get it.​

​

-Take a page from the ascension paths, where one can pick the perks, but all or part of their benefits will be unavailable without the tech, but instead of having the tech always as an option to research. The player now has the option to run a special agenda, much like the ascension path tech agenda, to get the tech partially research and ready to be fully researched. Not wild about this, but I suppose that it is an option that could maybe make things a bit more balanced, if the devs feel it's too OP for players to just pick a perk and get the required tech as an option to research.​

Always worth noting, that there is the option to gate perks behind having a certain number of other perks researched, which means that can be a way to gate the techs, if a perk does make it easier to get certain techs. Also there is the option of gating certain perks behind having certain breakthroughs researched. So maybe instead of galactic wonders being gated behind megaengineering, there is the option that the perk becomes available to selection after the player researches the appropriate breakthrough technology in engineering and maybe they still have to wait for the tech to show up, but the perk massively increases the weighting of getting megaengineering as a research option.

As for AI, feels like the trick is to have certain AI personalities always go for certain perks, if they meet certain conditions. For example, feels like Rogue Servitors, probably should always grab it if they do not have any relic or ecumenopoli past a certain date and now way of getting one via peaceful expansion. Sure the downside is that it might make the AI a bit more predictable, if the player can get a grasp of the galactic landscape, but it would make the AI better and ensure that it doesn't end up under powered because it was able to unlock all the traditions before it had any of the techs needed to get the really good perks.


On another note, I'm hoping the devs have a plan in place to prevent RNG from making breakthrough techs a pain to get. Sure if one research all the techs in a tier, they'll get the tech. The problem is I can see stuff that reduces research alternatives being super punitive (want to say currently that is only one origin, fear of the dark, but pretty sure the devs will add other sources that can reduce research options. I'd suggest that after the player researches a certain number of techs in a tier, the next breakthrough tech just becomes a reserach option that is always available. That way if someone only has to research options or even the bog standard three, they are less likely to end up in a position where they constnatly get their choices being the breakthrough tech at high cost and then crappy techs they wan tto avoid because they don't use them.

 

[Harvey_James]

preferably they would make all techs useful.. ideal world i know.. but so many hanging fruits i feel in terms of tech that could use a buff.. some in terms of weapons that need looking at as they are useless now.. others are things like survey speed and colony speed maybe those could be condensed into 1 of each instead 2 or 3

 

[CWJameson]

I don't think so, divine sovereign always remove all your civics and replaced them with it own set of civics.

In fact, it is the only way to remove, unremovable civic such as inward perfection.

So removing oppressive autocracy is intended behaviour I think.

Well thats a huge bummer for my playstyle lol

 

[Dr Pippy]

Would you please, pretty please, add just a few lines explaining how the research cost factor 8 does not in any way reflect a factor 8 to research time?

Okay, I actually did end up running some extremely approximate but still reasonable calculations on this. The net result is that under the new system, you'd spend about 600 years to do as much research as you currently do in 150. (This is assuming linear population growth over time, which seems rather optimistic, but also makes the math a lot more tractable.) So given my playstyle and abilities, I'd expect to finish the tech tree in about 2800. In my current games, I generally feel like I'm starting to get into late-game tech (e.g. Citadels, X-slotted battleships, etc.) between 2270 and 2300. New ETA would be between 2420 and 2550.

In short, actual research times generally seem likely to be about 3-4x what they currently are. Again, pretty rough model so the error bars are pretty big, but it also seems fairly unsurprising. If anyone wants me to describe my math in more detail here or via DM, I'm happy to, so let me know. It's pretty nerdy though.