Raising/Lowering Profiles (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Suggestions and Feedback



Message

Cornuthaum -> Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/9/2020 10:50:30 PM)

It feels borderline impossible to raise some profiles, and incredibly easy to raise others.

If you have unrest anywhere, you can guarantee quick raises to Autocracy (shoot the protestors) and Democracy (pay them) and once in a blue moon a chance to get Meritocracy (at the cost of almost certainly crit-failing a difficulty 160 or higher roll when most of your governors have maybe plus 15 in the relevant traits)

My current game is on turn 90, and my Government profile - which was what I started with and wanted to focus on - has dropped steadily over the turns because I kept getting Commerce and Enforcement options from various choices, be they unit special tech options or regular administrative tasks, but nothing for Goernment. It dropped from the mid-60s to 31, and my main faction - which was my beginning-of-game Government faction - is ruining my Word score by asking me to increase a profile that I have no options for.

There need to be Stratagem cards generated by the Interior council that let us steer the nation by transmuting political power into government profiles, because I shouldn't be forced to watch my Government score slide into the toilet and my state transmute into a polcie state because I was forced to pick between Autocracy and Enforcement when an unit wants to know if it should have battle banner bearers or warrior-knights.



zgrssd -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/10/2020 11:46:55 AM)

Having to deal with your plan not matching what you get is part of the appeal of these kind of games. I mean, half the time I get faction whose Profile goals are the opposite of what I want in at least 1 profile area.

If you can not fullfill a demand, do not agree to fullfilling it. Do not make promises you can not keep. I take a happiness loss now, over a bigger one and a wordscore loss next every day of the week.

With the happiness in general, the current one is actually not that important. What you need to look at is "Natural Relations point". Current relation will always incrase or decrease towards that number and one of the biggest factors with 2 parts is "Leader Profile matches Regime Profile".

You can somewhat modify one profile, by buffing a opposite. The 9 major profiles are organized in circles with those little arrows. If the two connected by a arrow together exceed 100, the one being pointed at is reduced. And yes, you could have all 3 profiles reducing and being reduced at the same time.

That all being said, I am on board for those cards! A way to reliably buff a specific profile would go lenghts towards having some more agency.



Soar_Slitherine -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/10/2020 2:49:54 PM)

I likewise just failed an "increase government" demand after failing to RNG into any decent opportunities to affect that profile positively. I agree that the swings from picking training options for units seem rather extreme.

Maybe some more actions and factors outside of decisions should affect profiles. Nationalizing assets is an obvious candidate to increase the government profile at the cost of the commerce one. Perhaps having a disproportionate part of the workforce employed in either the public or private sector could cause one or the other to gradually drift up or down.



Cornuthaum -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/10/2020 4:38:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Having to deal with your plan not matching what you get is part of the appeal of these kind of games. I mean, half the time I get faction whose Profile goals are the opposite of what I want in at least 1 profile area.

If you can not fullfill a demand, do not agree to fullfilling it. Do not make promises you can not keep. I take a happiness loss now, over a bigger one and a wordscore loss next every day of the week.

With the happiness in general, the current one is actually not that important. What you need to look at is "Natural Relations point". Current relation will always incrase or decrease towards that number and one of the biggest factors with 2 parts is "Leader Profile matches Regime Profile".

You can somewhat modify one profile, by buffing a opposite. The 9 major profiles are organized in circles with those little arrows. If the two connected by a arrow together exceed 100, the one being pointed at is reduced. And yes, you could have all 3 profiles reducing and being reduced at the same time.

That all being said, I am on board for those cards! A way to reliably buff a specific profile would go lenghts towards having some more agency.

Every other promise you can make / party demand issued is something the player can directly influence. They want to increase BP production empire-wide? Sure. They want to increase admin or civilization level? sure. They want to go to war with them? I love three-front wars, that's fine.

But for government profiles, one is entirely at the mercy of the RNG deciding to spit out the right decisions - which can often not happen over a period of 40 or more turns. Half a game on a small map and about a quarter of a game on a large map. It is, design-wise, not reflective of my actual actions as I was heavily nationalizing civilian assets and always expanding my BP production, nor how I actually want to play the game - I'd just come out of an autocracy-enforcement-fist run (which is ridiculously easy to maintain the profile options on, by the way).

I'm not saying that it should be easy and without some cost to maintain a desired government profile - that's why I want Nation level stratagem cards that present me with the choice of whether i want to spend my PP on getting, say, decent leaders or zoos or what have you or if I want to shore up support for my desired profile options.



zgrssd -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/10/2020 5:56:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cornuthaum


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Having to deal with your plan not matching what you get is part of the appeal of these kind of games. I mean, half the time I get faction whose Profile goals are the opposite of what I want in at least 1 profile area.

If you can not fullfill a demand, do not agree to fullfilling it. Do not make promises you can not keep. I take a happiness loss now, over a bigger one and a wordscore loss next every day of the week.

With the happiness in general, the current one is actually not that important. What you need to look at is "Natural Relations point". Current relation will always incrase or decrease towards that number and one of the biggest factors with 2 parts is "Leader Profile matches Regime Profile".

You can somewhat modify one profile, by buffing a opposite. The 9 major profiles are organized in circles with those little arrows. If the two connected by a arrow together exceed 100, the one being pointed at is reduced. And yes, you could have all 3 profiles reducing and being reduced at the same time.

That all being said, I am on board for those cards! A way to reliably buff a specific profile would go lenghts towards having some more agency.

Every other promise you can make / party demand issued is something the player can directly influence. They want to increase BP production empire-wide? Sure. They want to increase admin or civilization level? sure. They want to go to war with them? I love three-front wars, that's fine.

But for government profiles, one is entirely at the mercy of the RNG deciding to spit out the right decisions - which can often not happen over a period of 40 or more turns. Half a game on a small map and about a quarter of a game on a large map. It is, design-wise, not reflective of my actual actions as I was heavily nationalizing civilian assets and always expanding my BP production, nor how I actually want to play the game - I'd just come out of an autocracy-enforcement-fist run (which is ridiculously easy to maintain the profile options on, by the way).

If you can not do it because you lack the tech or because the RNG would have to be with you - it does not mater: You can not do it either way.
You already know you will not be able to fullfill those demands. Accpeting them only gives you a worse relations impact and a word score loss (wich attacks your very important Neural Relations points).

I totally agree it needs a pass. Some way for the player to work towards fullfilling that demand. But at least for the time being, one fix is to stop accepting those demands [:)]



Clux -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/10/2020 6:16:16 PM)

I actually agree with the OP. Its harder to increase the government profile than the other two simply cuz the events doesnt have an option to increase that profile



Cornuthaum -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/10/2020 6:17:55 PM)

quote:

You already know you will not be able to fullfill those demands.


Pish-posh and nonsense. I fulfilled several of these demands in the first half of the game, that's why I agreed to them afterwards. It is *entirely* random at the moment, and it shouldn't be. I figured that I'd gotten unlucky with the first one, sure, that happens sometimes, but as the turns dragged on and literally no Government option showed up anywhere I was growing increasingly discontent with the game.



Soar_Slitherine -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/11/2020 8:15:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine

Perhaps having a disproportionate part of the workforce employed in either the public or private sector could cause one or the other to gradually drift up or down.

Now that I think about it, maybe the relation of total wages paid by the private versus public sector would be a better measure. Well-paid jobs tend to be prestigious and attract talent, and it makes sense that the respective sector should be both large and well-funded in order to for a regime to qualify for an exceptional Government or Commerce score.



zgrssd -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/11/2020 8:27:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine

Perhaps having a disproportionate part of the workforce employed in either the public or private sector could cause one or the other to gradually drift up or down.

Now that I think about it, maybe the relation of total wages paid by the private versus public sector would be a better measure. Well-paid jobs tend to be prestigious and attract talent, and it makes sense that the respective sector should be both large and well-funded in order to for a regime to qualify for an exceptional Government or Commerce score.

That is arleady factored in, with Worker Happiness and Worker Recuitment chances. Private income is comapred to worker income (for this zone).
So unless you intentionally tank your private economy, this will backfire horribly with you have to few workers that keep striking.



Soar_Slitherine -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/11/2020 9:48:16 PM)

I'm talking about it changing regime profiles, the subject of the thread. I know wages already affect populations' attraction to jobs.



GodwinW -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/11/2020 11:06:13 PM)

Yup I agree OP, I just had a Faction demand Democracy point raise in 12 turns or so and I declined, banking on not seeing that. And indeed. Zero possibilities to raise Democracy.
What I didn't know and what was a bit of a nasty surprise at the start of a decade of Corruption was that declining even lowered my Democracy.
Been looking to raise it as it is said to counter Corruption but nope. No way. Even fast-tracked getting an Interior Council, but no.



GodwinW -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/11/2020 11:13:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

If you can not fullfill a demand, do not agree to fullfilling it. Do not make promises you can not keep. I take a happiness loss now, over a bigger one and a wordscore loss next every day of the week.



Actually, declining it costs you the score they ask for. My Democracy went down by 6 or 7 points after declining to raise it with 9 points because I was already pretty sure it was going to be hard to luck into that. I did not expect that.
Next time I'll take the wordscore and happiness hit of failing over a decrease of the actual score.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

With the happiness in general, the current one is actually not that important. What you need to look at is "Natural Relations point". Current relation will always incrase or decrease towards that number and one of the biggest factors with 2 parts is "Leader Profile matches Regime Profile".



Well, Natural Relation will migrate towards the current relation as well so while it's a bit of a buffer it's not going to help in the long run.

---

Currently, the only thing I can think of is figuring out the possible RNG stuff that happens and maybe using those 'hurt-yourself-for-FP-points' cards to try and swing the odds a bit in your favor.
But even that depends quite a big deal on RNG.
Provided someone actually mapped out all the chances in the first place.



zgrssd -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/11/2020 11:15:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine

I'm talking about it changing regime profiles, the subject of the thread. I know wages already affect populations' attraction to jobs.

Wich is why the wage gap can not be used for profile changes!

It already has a effect. A very big one at that.
If you add Profile changes to the worker effect, you would have no shortage of issues. One can not take Happiness for the Profile effect, the other the Profile effect for the low happiness/high cost.



Cornuthaum -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/12/2020 1:00:28 AM)

Reading all your posts just brings me back to my plea of "please add interior council stratagem cards that let us convert PP into government profile points"



Soar_Slitherine -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/12/2020 1:05:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

Actually, declining it costs you the score they ask for. My Democracy went down by 6 or 7 points after declining to raise it with 9 points because I was already pretty sure it was going to be hard to luck into that. I did not expect that.
Next time I'll take the wordscore and happiness hit of failing over a decrease of the actual score.

Bad news - failing a demand dings your relevant regime profile score too! Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine

I'm talking about it changing regime profiles, the subject of the thread. I know wages already affect populations' attraction to jobs.

Wich is why the wage gap can not be used for profile changes!

It already has a effect. A very big one at that.
If you add Profile changes to the worker effect, you would have no shortage of issues. One can not take Happiness for the Profile effect, the other the Profile effect for the low happiness/high cost.

I really can't make sense of what your last two messages are trying to say, to be honest. I get that you object to profile changes being tied to worker wages, but would you care to rephrase why that is?



AttuWatcher -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/12/2020 3:18:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cornuthaum

Reading all your posts just brings me back to my plea of "please add interior council stratagem cards that let us convert PP into government profile points"


Seems like a good idea, but one that needs to be very carefully balanced.



zgrssd -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/12/2020 10:29:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine


quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

Actually, declining it costs you the score they ask for. My Democracy went down by 6 or 7 points after declining to raise it with 9 points because I was already pretty sure it was going to be hard to luck into that. I did not expect that.
Next time I'll take the wordscore and happiness hit of failing over a decrease of the actual score.

Bad news - failing a demand dings your relevant regime profile score too! Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine

I'm talking about it changing regime profiles, the subject of the thread. I know wages already affect populations' attraction to jobs.

Wich is why the wage gap can not be used for profile changes!

It already has a effect. A very big one at that.
If you add Profile changes to the worker effect, you would have no shortage of issues. One can not take Happiness for the Profile effect, the other the Profile effect for the low happiness/high cost.

I really can't make sense of what your last two messages are trying to say, to be honest. I get that you object to profile changes being tied to worker wages, but would you care to rephrase why that is?

"Worker Wage/Private Wage already has a effect. The one on worker Happiness. Wich is a very big effect.
If you add Profile changes to the Worker Happiness effect, you would have no shortage of issues:
One can not take Happiness for the Profile effect
The other the Profile effect for the low happiness or high cost that would entail."

Wich part specifically of this, do you not understand [&:]



Soar_Slitherine -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/12/2020 5:56:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
One can not take Happiness for the Profile effect
The other the Profile effect for the low happiness or high cost that would entail.

I understand if english is not your first language, but these two sentences came out pretty undecipherable.



GodwinW -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/12/2020 6:38:00 PM)

Yes, went to the manual when I had such a demand again and read that indeed.



zgrssd -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/12/2020 10:29:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
One can not take Happiness for the Profile effect
The other the Profile effect for the low happiness or high cost that would entail.

I understand if english is not your first language, but these two sentences came out pretty undecipherable.

Wich part SPECIFICALLY of this, do you not understand?

Or do I have to start by giving you a dictionary definition for each and every word?



Soar_Slitherine -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/12/2020 11:28:08 PM)

The problem is that the words do not make sense in that order, not that the definition of any one word is unclear. But if you're just going to be smarmy and pretend that what you wrote was understandable, grammatically correct english, I suppose there is no useful discussion to be had here.

EDIT: Grammar.



zgrssd -> RE: Raising/Lowering Profiles (6/13/2020 9:33:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine

The problem is that the words do not make sense in that order, not that the definition of any one word is unclear. But if you're just going to be smarmy and pretend that what you wrote was understandable, grammatically correct english, I suppose there is no useful discussion to be had here.

EDIT: Grammar.

Keep in mind that I gave you several opportunities to be more specific. If this sounds condescending or like it was written for a toddler, that is your fault.[:-]

Current Rule:
High Worker Wage = High Worker Happiness
Low Worker Wage = Low Worker Happines

Your sugestion:
High Worker Wage = High Worker Happiness + Profile Effect direction A
Low Worker Wage = Low Worker Happiness + Profile Effect direction B

Problems with your sugestion:
Want to get high Happiness, can not go Profile Effect Direction A
Want so save Money, can not go Profile Effect Direction B
Want to go Profile Effect Direciton A, can not afford money
Want to go Profiel Effect Direction B, can not afford low worker Happiness

Do you comprehend? Please answer with only Yes or No



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875