Too many ascension perks, not enough choice

[gekp78]

I feel that there are way too many ascension perks, and too few slots, compounded by how many feel mandatory. Some of the perks should be combined, some low-tier ones should be buffed, and some should be both combined and buffed. This suggestion has been thrown around many times so I don't feel the need to get into too much detail about it, but for one quick example: even good perks like Galactic Wonders and Master Builders should be combined I feel. Yeah, both are already pretty good, but both also are very similar thematically, and I would be far more willing to take a 'bad' perk if it didn't feel like it came at the cost of something too good to pass up. The overall balance and number of perks is pretty out of whack and is in major need of a makeover.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

IMHO Ascension perks/paths are entirely about opportunity costs and that's a good thing. Choosing them is supposed to be tough.

 

[gekp78]

IMHO Ascension perks/paths are entirely about opportunity costs and that's a good thing. Choosing them is supposed to be tough.

Except its not tough. Some of them are just too good. Which means I will never pick the other ones.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Except its not tough. Some of them are just too good. Which means I will never pick the other ones.

So the problem is...?

 

[HFY]

I feel that there are way too many ascension perks, and too few slots, compounded by how many feel mandatory. Some of the perks should be combined, some low-tier ones should be buffed, and some should be both combined and buffed. This suggestion has been thrown around many times so I don't feel the need to get into too much detail about it, but for one quick example: even good perks like Galactic Wonders and Master Builders should be combined I feel. Yeah, both are already pretty good, but both also are very similar thematically, and I would be far more willing to take a 'bad' perk if it didn't feel like it came at the cost of something too good to pass up. The overall balance and number of perks is pretty out of whack and is in major need of a makeover.

Having too many good choices is good, but having too many mandatory "choices" is bad -- there's no opportunity cost when I'm making a mandatory "choice", since it's not really a choice.

Agree about combining some, but also it might be possible to remove the mandatory parts of those perks.

 

[gekp78]

Yeah, I'm not saying we should go to a world where we don't have too many choices, in fact I feel we don't have enough choices right now. Some perks are just far and beyond the other ones. I'm going to pick more or less the same perks each game because they are so much better than the others. I'm not going to give up ringworlds, dyson spheres, and the matter decompressor for Enigmatic Engineering. Thats not a real choice. I'm not a game dev, so I don't know the best approach to solve this. But I do feel that perks are a bit problematic and unbalanced. Too many are mandatory, leaving me with far too few perk slots for the ones that aren't.

 

[Ryika]

I would argue that the Master Builders effect could just be moved to a late game tech. Usually, I'm not a fan of that kind of power creep, but I think this is a case the speed of empire development has outpaced the 1-megastructure limitation a long time ago, so adjusting it wouldn't be all that bad imho. No need to make an already strong perk even more useful, I'd much rather open up some of the limitations for all empires.

But other than that, I don't really see any "strictly mandatory" ascension Perks. I do see quite a few weak perks that just aren't on the same power level as others that go ignored and should probably be buffed, but nothing that I feel like I always have to take.

More generally, I'd also like to see more situationally useful perks that you only take if certain things outside your control are favorable to them, similar to what Detox is trying to do in concept. Those tend to offer actual interesting choices because they don't have a semi-fixed power level.

 

[WoodenP]

So the problem is...?

He likely cherishes variety and doesn't want to feel punished for experiencing different content. Content he likely paid for via DLC's, at that. (I would have thought this didn't need to be explained out loud.)

Spinning up new empires/campaigns should feel like an opportunity to pick new perks, not grabbing the same ones over and over because they're blatantly the best and to do otherwise feels bad.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I can't quite see it myself. While there are some ascension perks I never pick due to my playing style (e.g. Nihilistic Acquisition, Lord of War, Colossus Project), and some I never pick because I consider them very weak (e.g. Techonological Ascendancy, Executive Vigor, Enigmatic Engineering in SP), it is hardly as if any are mandatory.

Except that I always play with an ascendancy path, so I guess I have to take that back as 1/8 is mandatory except for origins that skip the need for a perk to ascend. Take that to 2/8 for a Megacorp without an ascendance perk skipping origin because Universal Transactions is just that good, both in terms of in-game and role-playing power.

If it isn't too much of a bother, I would love to hear from those of you who consider many perks mandatory, or near mandatory: Which they are, and why.


For my own part, I usually pick up the following three because they are so powerful throughout the game regardless of whether I play peaceful or... less peaceful, shall we say.

• Imperial Prerogative - such a strong economy & tech perk for every build that doesn't control very few planets, mainly for the empire size reduction but also for the additional officials; This is probably the closest I get to mandatory other than the ascension path perk for non-trade builds
• Transcendent Learning - I love playing in huge galaxies with lots to explore, so extra scientists and extra XP is just too good to pass up on unless for very good reason
• Galactic Force Projection - the max influence from power projection is great in the early- and mid-game, and the increased command limit is always nice

But I occasionally go without one or two of them, because they certainly aren't necessary and it isn't fun doing the same thing all the time.

Likewise I'll usually pick one of Arcology Project and Galactic Wonders to be able to mass produce artificial planets with high POP capacity, but occasionally both or none. Master Builders I often pick together with Galactic Wonders, but not always, and sometimes even without Galactic Wonders - it all depends on what worlds are already on the map and what my megastructure strategy is. If my plan is build print Ring-worlds all over the place to concentrate the entire galaxy's population I'm definitely taking Galactic Wonders, but if not... do I really need it? Sure, building a Dyson Sphere or a Matter Decompressor is fun too, but there might be a ruined one around nearby or I might be be playing overlord with vassals feeding me all the energy and minerals I need.

And so on and so forth.

When I design a build, it is usually 4-6 ascendancy perks decided ahead of time, with the rest left to be decided based on circumstances. I understand that some of you do things very differently if you feel pressed to pick the same perks all the time.

 

[Casko]

I would argue that the Master Builders effect could just be moved to the Megaengineering tech. Usually, I'm not a fan of that kind of power creep, but I think this is the case where the speed of empire development outpaced the 1-megastructure limitation a long time ago, so adjusting it wouldn't be all that bad imho.

Eh. I feel Master Builders is fine at what it does. since its not strictly needed. But it is really good if you do decide to go building megastructures.

That said MLT mod (more leader traits) is a godsent, as it gives scientists chance to roll a trait that is just flat +1 megastructure cap as a destiny trait.

 

[Ryika]

Eh. I feel Master Builders is fine at what it does. since its not strictly needed. But it is really good if you do decide to go building megastructures.

That said MLT mod (more leader traits) is a godsent, as it gives scientists chance to roll a trait that is just flat +1 megastructure cap as a destiny trait.

It's certainly not "strictly needed", but it's so good for any empire that actually cares about constructing late-game megastructures that it's practically an auto-pick.
And it's really boring for a late-game ascension perk - doesn't allow you to do anything new, it's just needed if you want to do the thing you're already doing with much higher efficiency.

 

[Forblaze]

Agreed. I feel like my ascension perk choices are pretty much locked in regardless of empire type.

 

[Thiend]

So the problem is...?

IMHO Ascension perks/paths are entirely about opportunity costs and that's a good thing. Choosing them is supposed to be tough.

The problem is that this second one isn't really true, although increasing the cap isn't the best solution. Balancing perks better is.

I'll take an extreme example. You can take Technological Ascension OR one of the four species paths.

This doesn't result in an opportunity cost. It doesn't result in an interesting choice. It isn't tough to choose. You take the species ascension and move on.

It's a little more complicated than that, but that is essentially the problem. Not all must-haves stand out as much as species ascension, but there are still obviously correct ascension perks to take for any build - how many depends on your empire. For Storm Chasers, especially now internal storms are actually going to be positive, taking Galactic Weather Control is another. So is Voidborne for a habitat start, and so is either Arcology Project, Galactic Wonders or both for any Virtual machines. There are plenty more I won't exhaustively list.

The real number of ascension perks is 7, minus however many are obviously correct for your empire, plus one if you actually roll Ascension Theory before the game ends. It's the same problem I had/have with traditions, in that the real number of choices is not the listed number of choices - at best, you choose 6 traditions because one will be your species ascension. Federations eat another for Psionic empires. The list goes on for both.

Having 8 ascension perks with tough choices and opportunity costs would be great game design, but when you lose generally somewhere between 1 and 5 to must-haves and then after that choose among the pretty-goods, that game design isn't present, and a lot of perks are just never going to be picked. Not because it's tough choices and we couldn't fit it into our 8, but because it's easy choices followed by a lower tier of easy choices followed by no remaining perk slots.

 

[gekp78]

The problem is that this second one isn't really true, although increasing the cap isn't the best solution. Balancing perks better is.

I'll take an extreme example. You can take Technological Ascension OR one of the four species paths.

This doesn't result in an opportunity cost. It doesn't result in an interesting choice. It isn't tough to choose. You take the species ascension and move on.

It's a little more complicated than that, but that is essentially the problem. Not all must-haves stand out as much as species ascension, but there are still obviously correct ascension perks to take for any build - how many depends on your empire. For Storm Chasers, especially now internal storms are actually going to be positive, taking Galactic Weather Control is another. So is Voidborne for a habitat start, and so is either Arcology Project, Galactic Wonders or both for any Virtual machines. There are plenty more I won't exhaustively list.

The real number of ascension perks is 7, minus however many are obviously correct for your empire, plus one if you actually roll Ascension Theory before the game ends. It's the same problem I had/have with traditions, in that the real number of choices is not the listed number of choices - at best, you choose 6 traditions because one will be your species ascension. Federations eat another for Psionic empires. The list goes on for both.

Having 8 ascension perks with tough choices and opportunity costs would be great game design, but when you lose generally somewhere between 1 and 5 to must-haves and then after that choose among the pretty-goods, that game design isn't present, and a lot of perks are just never going to be picked. Not because it's tough choices and we couldn't fit it into our 8, but because it's easy choices followed by a lower tier of easy choices followed by no remaining perk slots.

This is what I meant with this thread but much better said

 

[zMadMonk7]

IMHO Ascension perks/paths are entirely about opportunity costs and that's a good thing. Choosing them is supposed to be tough.

Sorry - I'm in total agreement with the OP. As are a LOT of Stellaris players based upon the mods that are created and used by said player base. So many AP and Tradition mods that add extra slots (and even more traditions and APs, may that are original and amazing. The game is so boring without Gigastructural Engineering mods, too.

The game isn't supposed to be tough. It's supposed to be FUN.

I will never understand why the developers don't take a page from the modding community and incorporate THOSE ideas into the base game.

Instead they insist on putting the burden on the modding community to make the game more diverse and fun.... While I do use some of the mods to make the game more fun and playable (a distance of a measly FOUR jumps for sectors is ridiculously low), I don't really like using mods for security reasons (as evident by the virus that spread due to an infected mod in City Skylines not too long ago).

 

[klopkr]

Choices are meaningless if you basically only ever make different choices when you want to play at a huge disadvantage.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Sorry - I'm in total agreement with the OP. As are a LOT of Stellaris players based upon the mods that are created and used by said player base. So many AP and Tradition mods that add extra slots (and even more traditions and APs, may that are original and amazing. The game is so boring without Gigastructural Engineering mods, too.

The game isn't supposed to be tough. It's supposed to be FUN.

I will never understand why the developers don't take a page from the modding community and incorporate THOSE ideas into the base game.

Instead they insist on putting the burden on the modding community to make the game more diverse and fun.... While I do use some of the mods to make the game more fun and playable (a distance of a measly FOUR jumps for sectors is ridiculously low), I don't really like using mods for security reasons (as evident by the virus that spread due to an infected mod in City Skylines not too long ago).

These come immediately to mind as likely answers to "why don't they just make DLC the way you want it":

1. Because the developers want to make money. Take something like the highly popular Gigastructural Engineering. It is an immense effort. Using the time available in one DLC cycle to produce something similar to, or based on, the work of untold hours of unpaid work of one or several people over several years, which is available for free, not only invites inevitable unkind comparison, it is almost certain to result in lower sales than creating something that is genuinely new and not available via mods
2. Because it goes against the design: Some people like playing as ninja-pirates, some people like the choice between ninjas and pirates. The PDS team has pretty consistenly been designing for the latter group; 3 civics, 7 traditions, 8 ascension perks. That's it. The number of differenct civics, traditions, and perks has slowly increased over time, but not the number of slots. Because the more slots, the less the opportunity cost of making a choice. It seems unlikely that they'll tinker with this except at the edges unless it is part of a major mechanics overhaul
3. Because the developers want to make money, part 2. While not every DLC appeals to every player, each DLC needs to sell something that new players are likely to be interested in as well as something that experienced players are likely to be interested in, assuming the DLC's theme is something the player is even remotely interested in in the first place. Likewise story pack DLC includes some game mechanics elements to increase the odds of being bought by players who aren't in it for the stories, and game mechanics DLC include origins, civics, or other role playing elements to get people who aren't in it primarily for new game mechanics
4. ...A corollary to the above is that large scale mechanical changes mostly don't happens in DLC, but every 2-3 years in the major x.0 update, which often focus on resolving existing problems
5. The game becomes more diverse with every DLC, and while you might not think the DLC they produce is as diverse or fun as your preferred mods, the DLC PDS produce has a nine year history of being diverse and fun enough that the playerbase keeps funding its continued development, which is the goal

Anyhow, just my thoughts. A lot of it ultimately comes down to the huge difference between unpaid projects that are works of love and professional development on budget and schedule that needs to pay for itself and, as an eternal project (i.e. no planned end of development, but keeps getting DLC until it becomes unprofitable), with DLC that needs to keep attracting new players as well as retaining many of its existing players.

 

[SS Boss]

Yes, boring perks should be merged/reworked to be interesting choices.

However, they shouldnt increase the amount of perk slots under any circumstance. Your choices should matter.

 

[DarkHelmet110985]

It's not just Ascension Perks that need a balance tweak but Traditions too. For 7 Tradition slots, we basically have two "choices" on any given playthrough because the other five slots are occupied by Genetics/Cybernetics/Synthetics/Psionics(aka Ascension), Supremacy, Expansion(Void Dweller especially), Prosperity and Harmony/Synchronicity. Ascension Tradition is self-explanatory, Supremacy is a must-have for Military, Expansion for early-game growth and Empire Size reduction and is a must-pick for Void Dwellers, Prosperity for Economic benefits and Harmony for Pop Upkeep, Empire Size reduction, Stability and Planet Ascension perks(and unlocking Holy Covenants for non-Spiritualists). Synchronicity is Harmony equivalent for Gestalts.

For Ascension Perks, I often find myself taking the same Perks in each playthrough. They would be One Vision(duh...), World Shaper(Gaia Worlds are godly, Voidborne in its place if I'm Void Dweller), Arcology Project(Ecumenopolis are op), Galactic Wonders(all three Megastructures are must-haves), Imperial Prerogative(Empire Size reduction/Universal Transactions if MegaCorp), Galactic Force Projection(+50 Command Limit is huge), and Ascension path(Cybernetic right now, hoping 4.0 Genetic changes causes me to go back to it). That basically leaves me one flex perk, two if I happen to roll Baol Precursor because I can use the Relic instead of World Shaper for Gaia Worlds. I often pick Archaeo-Engineers for Nano-Missiles, Driller Drones and to have 5k Minor Artifact cap and either Detox or Mastery of Nature to maximize what colonies I have.

As for what balance tweaks I'd make, I'd definitely consolidate quite a few of them. One that comes to mind for me is Detox + World Shaper + Hydrocentric(which can only be taken if Aquatic). I would merge those three into one that permits you to Terraform any "Terraformable" Toxic, Frozen, Molten or Barren Planet into w/e Climate type you prefer. It would also permit Terraforming into Gaia Worlds and unlocks Ocean Paradise planetary decision for Ocean Worlds(for Aquatic factions).

 

[cryptkeeper]

I agree we should merge some, but not DLC paid ones instead I think those should just be remade. Worldshaper should honestly maybe be mid game tradition tree, that you slowly get better at terraforming a variety of planets, maybe a long with a kilo structure that costs energy to maintain but even terraforms barren and lifelessworlds(in place of a planetary ring) Mastery nature should be roped into the adaptability tree, for plantscapers they should get there own version of adaptability.

Detox should be remade into a perk more like hydrocentric, and give us a new planet type toxic or poisonous type and trait for those who live on said planets.