Galreth Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 For example maybe Pete felt there was not enough conflict over resources. I can see where this change could make it more likely empires would fight each other. There may be some other motivation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You could probably look at it from the opposite view as well...perhaps Pete thought there was not enough emphasis being paid to the colonization piece and too much to combat. Perhpas increased colonization bonuses will get more folks to do put resources into that avenue and less into their defense departments. I don't know the motivation, but just throwing that out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternusIV Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 For example maybe Pete felt there was not enough conflict over resources. I can see where this change could make it more likely empires would fight each other. There may be some other motivation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You could probably look at it from the opposite view as well...perhaps Pete thought there was not enough emphasis being paid to the colonization piece and too much to combat. Perhpas increased colonization bonuses will get more folks to do put resources into that avenue and less into their defense departments. I don't know the motivation, but just throwing that out there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well the great speed limit for population is population growth. Races that invested in high reproduction rates are still getting value from SRPs. This does favor the SRP races, as it makes it easier to research your way into previously coveted racial design choices. Overall, I don't see anything severely out of balance, though. But - I haven't really analyzed all the numbers. Hehe - would it matter either way? The hole you're in is the Whole Year Inn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-t-akua Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 For example maybe Pete felt there was not enough conflict over resources. I can see where this change could make it more likely empires would fight each other. There may be some other motivation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You could probably look at it from the opposite view as well...perhaps Pete thought there was not enough emphasis being paid to the colonization piece and too much to combat. Perhpas increased colonization bonuses will get more folks to do put resources into that avenue and less into their defense departments. I don't know the motivation, but just throwing that out there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see your point but what about those races that chose to follow the colonization path. Will the Linear Accelerator compensate for the lessening in value of that path? Of course this is all conjecture as I don't know what Pete was thinking and there may be some other purpose to this set of changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Colonizers are not really hurt with the rule changes. We can just go further than we could before. This new emphasis on colonization is simply a recognition of the importance of colonization. A good colonizer will most always have an economic advantage which will be transferred into a strategic advantage. To my way of thinking, this has always been the case and I believe that these changes confirm that assumption and give validation to all those who have spent SRP's on colonization rather than other choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTGPete Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 For example maybe Pete felt there was not enough conflict over resources. I can see where this change could make it more likely empires would fight each other. There may be some other motivation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You could probably look at it from the opposite view as well...perhaps Pete thought there was not enough emphasis being paid to the colonization piece and too much to combat. Perhpas increased colonization bonuses will get more folks to do put resources into that avenue and less into their defense departments. I don't know the motivation, but just throwing that out there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see your point but what about those races that chose to follow the colonization path. Will the Linear Accelerator compensate for the lessening in value of that path? Of course this is all conjecture as I don't know what Pete was thinking and there may be some other purpose to this set of changes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My thoughts were that colonization was a bit brutal in some cases - hot homeworlds had a devil of a time colonizing very cold worlds, and when you include asteroid fields in that mix it was a bit of a problem for them. There is no hot equivalent to the cold asteroid field. The trick was to give a bigger bonus on attrition without invalidating the expensive lifeform choices necessary for heavy colonizer races. I think what we have now is a good balance - if you invested heavily in your lifeform to be a colonizer, you'll be able to negate attrition out right on many worlds, and now you'll have access to some really harsh worlds. Races that did not emphasize colonization can colonize better than before, have access to some difficult worlds, but won't be able to drop pop on gas giants or other harsh worlds without extreme expenditures in terms of cities, domed cities, subterranean cities, colonial training centers, legendary characters and so forth. As a long-term empire-building space game, colonization was a bit too hard before. Now, colonization races can colonize a lot more than before, and regular races have access to more worlds...but they still can't touch the fully-regenerating chemical-exchanging rapid-reproduction photosynthetic colonization juggernauts Conflict over resources I'll leave to you guys....conflict? Fight? That would mean...risking ships, or maybe even losing some. Loss of production in...battle? Unthinkable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKO Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Thanks for the update Pete. I think the game is more balanced now. Coming from a hot homeworld and having invested quite a bit in colonising, I still found it hard to beat the attrition, even at "low" attrition worlds. It is a bit easier now and makes the investment in many colony berthings pay off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-t-akua Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 The trick was to give a bigger bonus on attrition without invalidating the expensive lifeform choices necessary for heavy colonizer races. I think what we have now is a good balance - if you invested heavily in your lifeform to be a colonizer, you'll be able to negate attrition out right on many worlds, and now you'll have access to some really harsh worlds. Races that did not emphasize colonization can colonize better than before, have access to some difficult worlds, but won't be able to drop pop on gas giants or other harsh worlds without extreme expenditures in terms of cities, domed cities, subterranean cities, colonial training centers, legendary characters and so forth. Gas Giants can be colonized? Hot worlds? Hmm even something to like for this heavy colonizer too. Thanks for the explanation Pete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I would think that the corrollary to asteroids is the Gas Giant. I am sure that those on really hot worlds ( I have one of these too) would love to be able to do some GG colonizing. Maybe some sort of bonus to the really hot starts that would give them a break. the GG's have some incredible yields, but they are limited to a few select materials and don't generally include the all important Iron or Crystal resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-t-akua Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I would think that the corrollary to asteroids is the Gas Giant. I am sure that those on really hot worlds ( I have one of these too) would love to be able to do some GG colonizing. Maybe some sort of bonus to the really hot starts that would give them a break. the GG's have some incredible yields, but they are limited to a few select materials and don't generally include the all important Iron or Crystal resources. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would think they would also need a break on gravity since GGs have high gravity ratings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozboym Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I would think they would also need a break on gravity since GGs have high gravity ratings. There are some high gravity homeworlds. One of mine at 3.5g is closer to gas giants then asteroids when it comes to gravity. Unfortunately its a cold world race so it gets stuffed by the gravity difference on asteroids and the temperature difference on GG Ozboym Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Gravity isn't the issue. You can have the exact same gravity on a HW as you get on a GG. There are plenty of 5 gravity worlds out there that are not GG's. There are no planets with temperaturs approaching GG's which come in at 2000. It just seems like it would be nice if you got a break when starting on a very hot HW. I would think that the temp factor in attrition could be reduced by 50-70% if your HW started with a temp over a certain point, like 400 or something. At 400 these guys will never make it to an asteroid field or any of the colder planets. food for thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-t-akua Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I would think they would also need a break on gravity since GGs have high gravity ratings. There are some high gravity homeworlds. One of mine at 3.5g is closer to gas giants then asteroids when it comes to gravity. Unfortunately its a cold world race so it gets stuffed by the gravity difference on asteroids and the temperature difference on GG Ozboym <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ouch!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Xaar Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 My thoughts were that colonization was a bit brutal in some cases - hot homeworlds had a devil of a time colonizing very cold worlds, and when you include asteroid fields in that mix it was a bit of a problem for them. There is no hot equivalent to the cold asteroid field. The Ring, after many turns of watching foolhardy (er, brave and noble) colonists go to their dooms a directive was issued to being everyone home from the inhospitable worlds and focus efforts on increasing production through other channels. It seemed that it was an outlay of time and effort that didn't repay itself -- the recent changes bring things in better balance. What was good (and is one of the strongest elements of SN:ROTE, IMO) is that there are so many other ways to play the game, to improve production, than to be a colonizer. And now that colonization is not so, so hard the game can be that much more versatile. Thanks for reevaluting this part of the system, Pete. -LX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowKitsune Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 [T]hey still can't touch the fully-regenerating chemical-exchanging rapid-reproduction photosynthetic colonization juggernauts <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey! Stop giving away our racial profile. <j/k> Thanks for the information Pete! -SK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.