Any way to mitigate Leader maintenance?

[Elegant Caveman]

Other than praying they randomly get (or start with) Philanthropic.

The "small" raises every time they go up a level is bad enough, but merit raises are insane.

Hey, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, your salary's already the same as a small planet's GDP, now you want me to double it because... what... you've been doing the job you're already paid for?

It's not like they go above and beyond. They're already getting paid, and that pay keeps going up. What's with this "merit" bull?

I save-scum a lot, so I'm going out of my way to actually get useful traits/trait upgrades when they level up, but if I wasn't doing that, it'd be even worse, as so many options are useless (or at least highly situational and/or inferior to alternatives).

They'd be getting raises for... what... working on their useless hobbies on the side?

I get that realism takes a back-seat to gameplay balance, and there has to be something keeping Leaders in check, what with their ever-increasing power, but merit raises really feel like too much, and the balance is skewed in the opposite direction.

Am I missing something? Is there some tech to research to help out with Leader maintenance fees or something?

[lonetrav]

Have you ever tried to calculate the benefit of a leader? It's simple: You can accept the payrise, refuse to pay more, or you can fire a leader. Do whatever is most beneficial for you.

[Elegant Caveman]

I understand what my direct options are.

I just find that the merit raise, specifically, is unbalanced, and I was wondering if this was due to there being some mitigating mechanic available that wasn't immediately obvious.

Originally posted by lonetrav:

Have you ever tried to calculate the benefit of a leader? It's simple: You can accept the payrise, refuse to pay more, or you can fire a leader. Do whatever is most beneficial for you.

Honestly, this just sounds like the corporate boot-licking people use to excuse overpriced DLC and terrible business practices.

"It's optional! If you don't like it, don't buy it."

Though technically true, it doesn't change the fact that there's a fundamental issue with the underlying transaction.

[coyote720]

By the time I get hit up with merit raises, I'm usually swimming in BC. It's annoying when a leader gets the greedy trait, but it sure beats getting envious.

[lonetrav]

Originally posted by Elegant Caveman:

... Honestly, this just sounds like the corporate boot-licking people use to excuse overpriced DLC and terrible business practices. ...

It may sound so :-), but it wasn't my intention. Initially, I thought just like you - until I bothered to seriously calculate the value a leader provides for my empire when he asked for a huge payrise. And I was surprised to find out that there were several cases where the leader value was a lot higher than what I paid him, and his request was justified, in the sense that there was still value left.
In all other cases I simply ignore the request and see what happens - nothing really tangible most of the time.

"It's optional! If you don't like it, don't buy it."

Actually, this characterises the whole game (replace "buy" by "do"), which is about decision-making. Do what you like, but consider the consequences, and accept that you may not always like them ("be careful what you ask for, you might just get it!"). It's called "assuming and accepting responsibility for one's decisions". This game is never trying to do you a favour, to make it easy for you. Worded positively: If you succeed, you've earned it yourself!

[ashbery76]

Get richer.

[Elegant Caveman]

Originally posted by coyote720:

By the time I get hit up with merit raises, I'm usually swimming in BC. It's annoying when a leader gets the greedy trait, but it sure beats getting envious.

Happened to me on turn 49, and left me with a 1 BC income. Not the end of the world, but it still came as a shock. I certainly wasn't swimming in BC.

Originally posted by lonetrav:

Originally posted by Elegant Caveman:

... Honestly, this just sounds like the corporate boot-licking people use to excuse overpriced DLC and terrible business practices. ...

It may sound so :-), but it wasn't my intention. Initially, I thought just like you - until I bothered to seriously calculate the value a leader provides for my empire when he asked for a huge payrise. And I was surprised to find out that there were several cases where the leader value was a lot higher than what I paid him, and his request was justified, in the sense that there was still value left.

Fair enough, and I appreciate the clarification.

I guess for me the biggest issue is that is that it's such a huge jump.

"Value" is relative and situational, of course. For some of my leaders, I'll probably get rid of them (or at least turn them down) when they ask this was with my only explorer, and he's an Expert, so I really don't want to lose him.

It could be argued that the fact that I want to keep him so badly makes the pay raise warranted, but I just feel like I'm being blackmailed.

"Realistically", he can command a premium for his niche skills, but just as "realistically", I would be able to look for a replacement, specifically. Also "realistically", he's asking for more money than multiple PLANETS make, which is absolutely ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ insane.

Game mechanics make it so I have no control over what leaders show up, so I feel like I'm getting shafted.

Originally posted by lonetrav:

In all other cases I simply ignore the request and see what happens - nothing really tangible most of the time.

Ignoring the request would give a -25 Opinion penalty, which is nothing to sneeze at. That's 250 turns, to recover from it (if you don't have any modifiers from traits).

Originally posted by lonetrav:

"It's optional! If you don't like it, don't buy it."

Actually, this characterises the whole game (replace "buy" by "do"), which is about decision-making. Do what you like, but consider the consequences, and accept that you may not always like them ("be careful what you ask for, you might just get it!"). It's called "assuming and accepting responsibility for one's decisions". This game is never trying to do you a favour, to make it easy for you. Worded positively: If you succeed, you've earned it yourself!

My fundamental argument is that it feels unbalanced to me.

Sure, it's all about choices, but they need to feel balanced. And this doesn't.

But hey, maybe that's just me.

[Cordell]

I agree, the leader part of this game could be removed and reworked. And it would be a better game for it. Dealing with leaders is wonky and not fun at all in my opinion. The rest of the game is very well done.

It would totally make my day to read news that mentions a revamp of the entire leader system. Make some real tech trees or something. It's supposed to be exciting when a leader levels up, not a chore (or at the very least somewhat boring). Maybe add an airlock option to ships so you can eject them when you simply stop caring about what they will do when they level up next!

[eddieballgame]

Personally, I find the leaders (governors & ships) add a nice touch to an already engaging space 4X.
The 'rpg' element & the option to keep them around for awhile is well done.
Don't like or want them, don't hire them...it is that simple.
I will add, there are settings, race designs, & research that can assist anyone who is struggling to bring in BCs.

[Elegant Caveman]

Originally posted by eddieballgame:

I will add, there are settings, race designs, & research that can assist anyone who is struggling to bring in BCs.

I never struggled with BC, but this is my first game, and the settings are pretty easy. I do feel confident that it wouldn't be too much of an issue even on higher difficulties, though.

It's more the principle of the thing.

What really struck me is that this happening on turn 49, a 12 BC raise can easily be more than what entire planets make. That's too immersion-breaking for me.

Playing more, I've realized that's pretty early to get a merit raise, and it only happened to me because I'm playing on a low difficulty and had been aggressively going after ruins. In a more "normal" game, that's unlikely to happen without a lot of luck, I imagine.

Still, I have to say that getting hit with that first merit raise was my worst experience in an otherwise-entertaining ~50h of play.

I guess that's another reason why this stood out for me? It's not a perfect game, but it's otherwise quite solid overall.

[Nori]

Yep merit raises suck and add nothing but irritation to the game. I am frequently forced to say no early on. It wouldn't be as big of a deal if leader were more common.

[coyote720]

So, some of you are saying you have a difficult decision when you get hit up for a big merit raise, and therefore it sucks? As I mentioned before, I can usually afford greedy merit raises by the time they come up. Furthermore, granting them is beneficial. Worst case scenario, I have a tough choice to make. Is that really so bad in a strategy game?

[Elegant Caveman]

The decision's not hard. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it feels unbalanced.

[Cordell]

Originally posted by coyote720:

So, some of you are saying you have a difficult decision when you get hit up for a big merit raise, and therefore it sucks? As I mentioned before, I can usually afford greedy merit raises by the time they come up. Furthermore, granting them is beneficial. Worst case scenario, I have a tough choice to make. Is that really so bad in a strategy game?

No. The leader structure is just thrown together poorly. Take any game that has leaders and look at what happens when they level up. When you have a tree structure you can plan ahead a lot more and depending on the implementation it is fun when your leader levels up. The leaders in this game are super petulant and whiny, the random level up choices are not fun. I hate to compare to other games but pick any game where you have a leader level up choice and it is more fun. I don't mind them having desires, but some of them are just plain silly and take away even more choice on how I want the game played. Build building X on my planet or else I'll take my toys and move somewhere else.

You seem to want to tell other players how to have fun with their game rather than being locked into some meaningless choices.

[coyote720]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I enjoy the leader system in IS:G.

For example, Endless Space 2 has a tree structure like you mentioned, but I prefer IS:G's. In IS:G, it feels like you're dealing with a person. In ES2, it feels like you're programming a clone.

Am I disappointed when I'm offered a couple of sub-par choices when a key leader levels up? Of course. However, being able to choose exactly what I want every time is not a better way to do things. It also makes games different. Two games ago, I was stealing tech blind from most of the other races. I had the perfect leaders for the job. My last game, I couldn't get a leader who could steal tech for much of the game. Disappointing sure. But it made for a different game.

If you want absolute control over your leader's development, then I can understand not liking IS:G's leader system. However, that doesn't make it a poor system.

[elhran]

I just don't use the leader system...much. I only recruit leaders of my own species or MAYBE a species with which I have an alliance. That's just me and how I enjoy the game. Perhaps if I could replace some of the leader pics with my own "custom" images I would be inclined to use the system more...but I don't see that happening. No criticism or complaint...just the way I play. So...I guess I really can't contribute anything on how to better afford the leaders :)