Planets, Happiness and Corruption - an idea

So following something that occured in another thread : Synth 2nd popo decline issue
I’m following my own advice and putting an idea that popped into my head down on another thread rather than cluttering up that one.

In essence, right now few folks approve of how corruption works in game. OK we can allow the need for it sure but the execution does not have a lot of fans that I’ve noticed.

How about if a planets nearness to a Races ideal directly affected not just growth but inherent happiness - or corruption resistance if you will?

So mid to late game we could still be looking for some more worlds but would get more and more specific on what ones IE they’d be close to our racial ideal.

Not asking for a huge modifier, maybe a +0.25 for an exact match, +0.15 for within 10% of ideal and +0.05 for within 15% was my initial thoughts. But that’s just numbers we could tweak if the idea finds any merit generally.

Obviously the converse would be true so anyone inheriting a Syntis world instead of rejoicing at free mega population would be scrambling to bring it back to Organic Norms before the population fell into negatives too badly. Penalty point I am guessing would be when a planet is a third more or less than the ideal depending on what characteristic we were talking about.
Examples
Synts like 90% Land. Rips 30% Humans 50% thus:

  • 90% Landmass is in excess by more than 33% of human idea so thats a -0.25 happy
  • a Synt taking a Human Home-world will be in the same boat till those Hydro stations kick in.
  • A Ripchee taking a Syntis Home or ideal world is int he same boat as the humans if they took a Human ideal world that’s not so bad as 50% is 20% off ideal but not in the penalty area of 63%

Any takers? The exact number we can tweak I am just curious to see if the idea grabs any attention?

1 Like

I am having some trouble following primarily because you dont seem to want to apply a negative but that would be the only way to make it work since a bunch of level 3 ECs really arent expensive late game. And they would have to be stacking negatives so that the growth of population would not be able to overcome the drawbacks.

IMO, the present mechanics are good, they just need to be adjusted.

Ah I’m sorry that was me not being clear then. I had envisaged a simple formula:
Close to ideal = Bonus’s, far from ideal = Penalties

The exact numbers can be shifted any way thats liked. As you say a T3 EC isn’t really onerous to build later in the game. I was hoping for a glimmer of a mechanic that could also help us out later game when Corruption really starts to bite. IE it would not stop expansion but narrow down the choices to worlds close to our ideals?

The current formula is an exponential growth formula (or so i think i was told), if X is changed so that it is no longer counting simple planets but instead planet mass %, you get the following for mankind.

image
for comparison, the blue is Y=1.09^(x-12) when X is greater than 12, and the red is old corruption data displaced to represent what we have now. the yellow is essentially just replacing X with the sum total of twice the decimal value of the planets’ percent land mass and is just the data of the first 43 planets i scanned in the new galaxy regardless of how good/bad they might be.

The data:
image

I think what this really ends up doing is just pushing the meta harder to larger planets. I personally just dont feel that this really changes anything.

Even if we tied it to the max populations or current populations, because a single ODS would have a larger umbrella over a larger population as well as how much easier it is to defend a single planet vs a bunch of small ones, i am just not seeing a good advantage. I think the only way to add value to small planets is to simply have a high rate of special features on smaller worlds.

Here is the docs file for any who desire.

also, no one would have a squid planet late game unless your race preferred 0 landmass…

Currently on 42 planets as mankind in pre-beta, and aside from spending a lot of time cycling through to build and upgrade my ECs corruption has felt pretty reasonable throttling my expansion at various stages. I’m going to be mulling over if I should go for more mining next time around and how that would affect the whole thing though, and maybe I’ll crunch some more efficiency numbers around ideal planet count and minimum viable planet.

I don’t really see a system of bonus / penalty for happiness affecting my choice of system. If a planet is far above my ideal 50% the extra population far surpasses the costs, even up to the point of almost doubling the penalty there.

Using the size of planets could be pretty interesting, though I would prefer basing it directly on population as it would be essentially the same but much easier to implement systematically and less affected by RNG. It would also be easier for players to keep track of. The only downside I really see at the moment to using population is that it opens a bigger window for empires crashing if left unattended.

I do have to say, realistically, the easiest way for IDA to make corruption changes is just small tweaks to the current formula. I can understand and appreciate the kind of excitement and imagination that these suggestions (and many others on the forum) display, but especially in the development circumstances of this game occam’s razor is good to follow. I would caution against ideas that seem unnecessarily complex for fixing a system that doesn’t really feel broken.

1 Like

Really good point especially in the light of the Steam announcement.

While I don’t think the system we have for corruptions very good (or logical) it does seem to have worked pretty well this time around in pre Beta. I appreciated being able to get to 14 worlds before Corruption began to bite. That was enough to have a decent rate of expansion of my economy before the overhead of EC & attendant Power stations/populating of them had to be factored into further growth.

Hovering about 30-35 worlds right now as I am surface mining and abandoning secondary worlds which have a single established Base Planet in the system, quite a bit. But that’s working well enough for me and I have plenty of EC to upgrade to cover longer term expansions.

Still, I mislike the fact that if a world is under 10Kkm it basically gets hardly a glance at. Even the super rich resource ones just are not attractive as the small size means you have to ferry in more pop that requires a farm faster than a big world that would support more before a farm. Some mining colony mechanic that is exempt or gets a discount on corruption would be a good addition to the game at some point later, however its done…

I salute @odis’s number crunching. Yeah my off the cuff idea not really attractive as is. But I’m still convinced a further tweak will make corruption work even better :smiley:

1 Like

It does sound like they’ll play with the mechanics for veteran galaxies so I’m sure we’ll see some tweaks there.

Using population as the metric would make having more smaller planets actually better than fewer large ones, and would shift the ideal more toward resources. Though I could see some cheese potential for having a ton of planets with small populations to crank up fleet caps etc. and I can’t really say if it would work for Syntis. I guess bigger planets are still easier to defend, so ideally competition and meta game would decide the balance between big and small and allow for more diverse styles to be viable.

Perhaps the best way around it all for later is to have a race that loves small worlds and gets significant benifits for using them…

This is not true principally because you would have twice the corruption overhead. Each planet would need to first have enough ECs to counter whatever that number is before it can start to be useful. To get 3.3 happiness, you would need 12 lvl 3 ECs and 2 power plants (the extra EC is for the PP and I could be wrong but I’m assuming ECs require 15 power, not 10).

I have tried to come up with alternatives to the corruption but the ideas seem to be largely rejected by the community although the devs have stated that they wanted to hear alternatives. It made me think they don’t like it either but no one has a better idea.

Not really, you would need some ratio of EC to population that grows over time; the number of planets they are on is irrelevant. More planets means more growth so yeah you’d need to build them sooner, but everything else would happen faster too. The overall total needed may be higher, but I think the benefits are worth, or at least worth trying.

I’m not saying grabbing all the tiny worlds somehow becomes as strong as taking only 20kkm ones now is, it’s more an idea for making planet size less of a driving force and giving reasons for having both large and small worlds depending on specific location or current needs.

Yes, you would not need to build them right away, but whenever I calculate what I want to build, I start with the things that are required, such as the overhead. I do the farms, ECs, and power plants to start. A player maybe able to have 80 planets with your idea, but when the endgame begins to come about, yes, the small planets will still be abandoned.

And when youve gotten to endgame and take another world, the first thing you still have to do is build the 12 ECs.

Well, I’m looking at 60+ EC not 12, but that really just makes your point stronger I guess. Bigger does seem like it still wins out in the long run.

I was mostly looking at it from an expansion point of view, taking a bunch of planets as you grow and slowly consolidating to the better ones as corruption causes smaller colonies to fold.

1 Like

maybe thats half the answer? Each ODS can only kill a limited number of troops. Transporter can only send so much at a time.

Idk if I like that, maybe as I said above, smaller worlds have a higher chance of having special resources.

1 Like