Like @Smulm posted, we agreed it was speed tech in NP1 that made backstabbing a real viable option unlike NP2. I think @wfmcgillicuddy sums up the other factors just right. Complexity increases the importance of working together. I’m not saying make the game simpler, or throwing in any ideas. I haven’t been able to give it much thought, so I’m not really sure of what the solutions would be.
Not sure if alliances are any more fragile. I’ve just played one game. But I don’t see one way trading having caused anything of the sort in ours.
This exactly. There needs to be the opportunity for victory.
Are large games the problem here? It allows leaders to get a bigger lead, leaving only two or three players who have even a chance to win. Maybe if the winning stars was around 60 in our game (not quite sure what would be best; maybe as low as 50, high as 80) backstabbing would be a real option that would mean a definite win if carried out right. We had like 6 players around 40 stars at one point, and if it were 60 to win, everyone would have been in contention. At this point though, I’m over 30 stars ahead, and only halfway to the 161 to win. Backstabbing needs to be a winning move. As it is in triton right now, by the time it’s a possibility, winning isn’t.
Edit-
If low winning conditions are to be implemented though, it would have to be really important to have fair starts so someone doesn’t land next to two AIs and just grab enough stars without even fighting. Again, no idea how to implement such features, just my two cents.
I still enjoy the fresh game mechanics, but yes range has to go. Its, besides from the very very early game, a underpowered tech and i would always choose it as inferior tech.
I like the idea of destroying industry while raiding a star system, but i do not understand why i do not get any gain of attacking and plundering as hell. To implement an element for small players against big players, i like the idea of a good chance to find some new tech on invaded planets (only if the player has tech you dont have). Then its paying off to attack a big one, even if you cant hold the system for long, if you do that in a three on one, you can nag the big guy down much better. On the opposite site the big one does not really gain much raiding underdeveloped worlds.
I love the espionage mode, but i makes treason much less profitable. Having science exchange stars in your ally empires gives you so much science boost, which you loose immeadetly, if you turn the cloak.
I believe you identified yourself as one who would rather not backstab. So the conditions under which you would backstab - high odds of winning - make sense.
I am one of those who thinks the backstab is part of the game and creates optionality, which makes the game more interesting. So I would be willing to shank with the odds much lower. Just to mix things up.
But almost always for me it’s an end game decision. When I’m in a winning coalition, and second just isn’t good enough. I think it is those situations that Jay is trying to incentivize.
But if the backstab is distasteful, and the only condition you would execute the plan is at speed level 47 while the other guy slept, well for sure NP1 is the ticket.
Unless you play on your phone -man does that bring back bad memories!!!
Enjoying Omicron Formalhaut (my first Proteus game) but trading is impossible with just one star difference between neighbours. Could this be changed to allow trading with up to 20% or 2 or 3 difference in number of stars?
Why was the abandon star feature taken out? That would at least lvl out the difficulties with trading a bit, otherwise its a quite harsh feature
And i am not a fan of the public trades, besides the game mechanics that make it difficult for backroom deals, its anoying to get news which are not relevant to you as soon, as you know who is working with whom
Our game ended with a clear victory by the northern coalition. I tried to encourage the second place player to turn on the leader, to no avail.
I think this highlights @Omnimal’s point: that the cumbersome trade restrictions are not worth the trouble. Alliances are stable not because of trading, but because very few players are willing to shank their teammates in the end game. because it is distasteful to most, but also from sheer exhaustion at that point in the game.
Tech ceilings - can’t progress past, say, a level equal to number of players plus 5 or something like that, might make things a bit more diplomatic in the middle of a game rather than just a trading cartel race to get in position for the win.
Limited trades - Either one per day as someone suggested above (scientists are busy doing the transfer, you’ll have to wait until they get back).
per player per few days (e.g. only one trade with Orange every x days, the envoy is doing trade negotiations on the first tech still, wait until he’s free).
per player per game (e.g. only x trades with Orange in the entire game, your population is beginning to wonder exactly how cosy this relationship is, maybe it would be better politically to stop looking quite so friendly).
That last one might actually stop the cartel style team game, or at least mix up cartels halfway through.
Anything to make trading harder - delayed trades (they take 2 * production period / (scanning + range tech) hours or something to arrive). I don’t think they should be instant.
I’d also like to see a disadvantage to trade to make it an actual decision, at the moment the advantage of a trade swap is absolutely clear. Build one trade, get a second for tech level * 15 or whatever trade cost per scanned is. That cost is almost never a factor in whether to make the trade or not because it’s tiny in comparison with the advantage of whatever tech you get. Ok, one of your “competitors” is also getting the advantage, but the other players aren’t and the guy that is is probably friendly. If your science stopped for 12hrs or something (tech level * x or the next y of your science production is used up in the transfer where y is z% of the total research cost of the tech level, tech then sent when that cost is paid) every time you sent tech whilst your scientists pulled together some blueprints, complained about alien scientists getting slime over all the nice white lab coats and were generally occupied transferring some complicated stuff over to an alien planet light years away maybe you’d have more of a decision.
Related to that, in my opinion it should be “trade scanned and range” or “trade range” rather than just “trade scanned”. You’d almost certainly have to send experts with the blueprints and it makes range more important as everyone seems to want.
I think that with the current rules of “only trade with players with equal or less stars than you” you’re encouraging cartels. If you changed it to only trade with players with less than 75% of your stars then it might become more like you were aiming for. At the moment people just carefully manage star count. That does stop an alliance of small nations but I don’t think an alliance of small nations will ever work within the current rules. They need to be able to do collaborative research or something.
Anyway, my two cents, feel free to ignore it. Not all of those rules work together obviously. Some of them could apply equally to Triton, I don’t think there’s that much difference between the problems in the two games. They both get dominated by trading pacts as things stand.
Like a trade federation. Trading within a federation is allowed, perhaps without regard to scan. Federation is enabled with an accepted alliance offer. A given player can ally only offer alliance insofar as the sum of stars owned by him and all his allies does not exceed half of the win condition. Should a federation grow too large, trading is disabled until one player declares war on another.
Otherwise trade restrictions apply, keeping trades one way from large to small. That way a large player can work with a federation to unseat another large player.
I’m in Sigma Algedi, my first Proteus game. Unorganized feedback:
I like superior/inferior tech
I think the new trading rules are a kludge, and not a very good one. People will devote time to game them, and nothing will be gained. Smaller players will be vassalized as they always were.
Espionage is great, and made more powerful could be a boon to small players. Deserves more thought.
I haven’t decided how combat and pillage changes will work out for tactics and strategy. I’ll get back to you.
Thanks for the good feedback guys! Sorry I haven’t been super active here on the forums lately, but I have been reading all the great feedback and ideas!
I’m fairly certain this has been mentioned, but can we get some different colors? Or at least, not so many of the same? The game I’m in currently started with 5 Light Blues and 4 Dark Blues, followed by 3 Greens 1 Red, 1 Orange,1 Pink, and 1 Yellow. I am one of 4 Lt Blues left and we’re all in a line together. It makes borders very hard to see.
This is a little thing, but it’s the only thing that’s been really bothering me.
I havent played this edition myself, but I don’t understand why this is in? Shouldn’t warfare be encouraged? Strategic placement of production should be important too? (not meant at you Horst!)
