You already do need two prior perks before you can pick an actual ascension path.
(Unless the DLC versions do something bonkers? I don't have Machine Age or Biogenesis.)
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
(Unless the DLC versions do something bonkers? I don't have Machine Age or Biogenesis.)
Being able to hit just 40% reduction without any effort is pretty crazy though. (Harmony, Domination, Psionic Theory and Genetic Tradition)
Machine Intelligences gets 30% from their leader because they are supposed to have more pops, but without civics they can only reach 53% (Level 10 Leader + Skill levels from technology and Synchronity and Domination), but because it is tied to leader level, they get most of their reduction much later.
Machine Intelligences gets 30% from their leader because they are supposed to have more pops, but without civics they can only reach 53% (Level 10 Leader + Skill levels from technology and Synchronity and Domination), but because it is tied to leader level, they get most of their reduction much later.
.png){kind=avatar}
Some origins allow you to pick Ascension earlier.
Overtuned for example has "−1 Ascension perks needed to pick the Biomorphosis ascension perk".
Cybernetic Greed, Teachers of the Shroud, Synthetic Fertility all show how they can take their Ascension Traditions, which I assume as first pick into the game.
- 1
- 1
Ascension normally takes 2 AP or 3 Traditions before you can claim the AP for Ascension. Teachers of the Shroud origin completely removes that requirement and permits you to Psionically ascend right at the beginning of the game(meaning you can take Psionics as your first Tradition if you wanted to). Overtuned origin got "buffed" in 4.0 in three ways. Firstly the 2 Trait points from Gene Tailoring Technology(which you actually need to reach the end of the Genetic Ascension situation so that's a bonus perk) is granted to you at Faction creation. Meaning you have 4 Trait Points instead of 2. Second perk is a bonus Trait Pick. Namely you'll have a max of 6 Trait Picks to start and can go as high as 8 with Cloning/Purity or 10 with Mutation. The final perk is that it reduces the AP cost on Biomorphosis by 1, meaning you only need to finish two Traditions in order to start the Genetic Ascension situation.
Clone Army, Evolutionary Predators and Wilderness all must take a specific Genetic Ascension path but their Ascension paths are slightly different than if you went purely Cloning/Mutation/Purity via Flexible Traditions(Heightened Abilities in Wilderness for example gives -25% Districts + Colonies).
Probably other Origin changes that have been made that I'm overlooking or simply am forgetting.
- 2
Ascension should feel powerful, do I think the numbers of the game generally need to be toned down then I'd agree. But I want to feel powerful when I ascend.
- 1
Ascension certainly should feel powerful, and it has always felt powerful. It's just TOO powerful right now.
If ascension didn't feel powerful, that would be a bit silly.
- 1
It's fun to trap noobs, but you're right it's only humane to release them eventually.
How about this: taking the ascension perk loads you up with certain penalties that are only removed by completing the tradition tree. I also think this should be broadcast to the rest of the galaxy like Existential Expulsion or Psionic Awakening.
That way, you can't use the ascension bonuses to immediately snowball, and you're left a little bit vulnerable. But when the metamorphosis is complete, you're super-powerful, like a butterfly.
- 1
Then we run into the potential problem of the first empire to ascend basically winning the game on the spot.
Say we make the metamorphosis take 20 years.
If you somehow ascend 10 years before anyone else, you now have 10 years where you are super strong and can destroy all of the weak ascending empires.
That's fine, because they had 10 years in which to destroy or ally with you while you were cocooned and vulnerable, but didn't, and chose to ascend late instead.
I would greatly prefer a system where techs across the board are more expensive (at least at higher tiers) and empires receive a discount based on how many empires in their contacts have already researched the tech.
For one thing, this seems like it would be a lot more realistic. For reasons of both good balance and realism, you wouldn't want small empires to fall much behind large empires in the tech race. But it seems entirely reasonable that the larger empires, which have more resources and personnel to throw at entirely new problems, have a relative advantage in innovation. The smaller empires then have the comparatively easier job of figuring out how to replicate the new tech developed in the larger empires.
If you made the tech cost discounts strong enough — maybe something like a multiplicative 25% discount for every empire in your contact list with the tech, not including fallen empires or empires with Enigmatic Engineering (e.g. for a tech already known by 8 empires, the cost would be 0.75^8 ~ 10% of what the first empire would pay) — this would also make it much easier for formerly-primitive empires to reach something approaching technological parity, which again seems both realistic and good gameplay.
Mostly I just really dislike empire sprawl as a rubber-band mechanic for tech. (It makes more sense for things like tradition costs, edict costs, etc.) The goal is necessary and proper, but I've just never gotten over the feeling that it's a punishment for success. YMMV, but making techs cost less for empires that are behind on research seems like it would feel better than making techs cost more if you've done a good job growing your empire.
- 3
Regarding Empire Sprawl, it works much better than any alternative tried by Stellaris. I certainly would not want to outright suppress it, the game is already snowball-y as it is. The proposal for swapping the current system from one of penalties to one of incentives sounds quite intriguing, and I am sure that it would feel better (say, smaller or pacifist empires getting bonuses due to "empire cohesion", instead of penalizing big empires with empire sprawl).
But in the absence of that, I would settle for bigger sprawl penalties from systems instead of pops (I would love if distance from capital would factor into that), a more finely-tuned sprawl mechanic for pops (say, slaves requiring less sprawl, pops from opposite empire factions greatly increasing theirs) and way fewer sources of sprawl reduction as well (but I would focus more on nerfing sprawl reductions from traditions and techs, rather than "big decisions" with tradeoffs like ascension paths or ethics).
As for the less developed ascension paths:
> Nanite: I always thought that nanite ought to be the definitive "wide" ascension, one less defined by pop modding and more of a "big picture "one. Wilderness and its system of "pops as a consumable resource" was pretty close to what I had in mind, I don't know how much could be applicable without overlapping. I would certainly like for its economy to be more distinct, relying more on consuming planets and other celestial bodies in order to obtain nanites so you can expand, so you can consume more planets to obtain nanites, so you can expand, so... you get the idea.
> Cybernetic: Great authorities, weak overall, and flavor potential for biomechanical horrors clashing with the fact that we already have many other ascension paths revolving around pop modding. I think it could certainly work well as perhaps some megastructure-focused ascension too, with traits confering bonuses to pops depending on stations and structures on their system. I dunno, it certainly would benefit from finding its own identity.
But in the absence of that, I would settle for bigger sprawl penalties from systems instead of pops (I would love if distance from capital would factor into that), a more finely-tuned sprawl mechanic for pops (say, slaves requiring less sprawl, pops from opposite empire factions greatly increasing theirs) and way fewer sources of sprawl reduction as well (but I would focus more on nerfing sprawl reductions from traditions and techs, rather than "big decisions" with tradeoffs like ascension paths or ethics).
As for the less developed ascension paths:
> Nanite: I always thought that nanite ought to be the definitive "wide" ascension, one less defined by pop modding and more of a "big picture "one. Wilderness and its system of "pops as a consumable resource" was pretty close to what I had in mind, I don't know how much could be applicable without overlapping. I would certainly like for its economy to be more distinct, relying more on consuming planets and other celestial bodies in order to obtain nanites so you can expand, so you can consume more planets to obtain nanites, so you can expand, so... you get the idea.
> Cybernetic: Great authorities, weak overall, and flavor potential for biomechanical horrors clashing with the fact that we already have many other ascension paths revolving around pop modding. I think it could certainly work well as perhaps some megastructure-focused ascension too, with traits confering bonuses to pops depending on stations and structures on their system. I dunno, it certainly would benefit from finding its own identity.
Correction: A mecha-butterfly with eye lasers, antenna radar and wing thrusters
- 1
Now now, we aren't allowed to combine Ascensions. You aren't going to create genetically superior butterflies with cyborg enhancements.Correction: A mecha-butterfly with eye lasers, antenna radar and wing thrusters
- 1
Don't let game systems limit you. If you can dream it, you can build the ultimate engine of destruction in the form of a butterfly.
Imagine if you could utilize the new Biogenesis approach of flexible traditions and create mixture of genetic and cybernetic, rather than going full on one or another.
Like 3 situations, needing to choose between advancing via genetic or cybernetic enhancement. Like how we can currently choose with purity, mutation and cloning.
- 1