Resources now 1 per player?

I just don't get it. If a few people post that something or other is OP, somebody or somebody's at Stardock seem to over-react.

Surely by now they know by now that everything is OP to a few people.

I don't mind. There is now a reason to trade resources. Which gives me more options. 

Yes it works either way really.   But again I think the real problem is managing how things work in BIG games.   There needs to be some way to scale things.   For example,

for testing today (the dreaded black screen on invasion bug) I am running medium with a half dozen major opponents.   No problem there.   But in my excessive games with 26 opponents, I was piling up a ton of  those things.   Clearly not right, I admit.   

Balancing is a tough process.   Like a teeter tooter sort of thing.   Way up, then way down.   Getting it so both riders are level to each other takes a little time.  And the other guy as to help!

   Trade resources stack, the tooltip is wrong.  I have +20% from snuggler colonies and +15 from precursor nanites.

   Silly question: is there any way, outside of the trade screen that I am locked out of, to see how many of which trade resources I have?

Hmm, funny, I was trading for those 5% things before.

Now, there's a reason?

Curious.

No it is NOT One Per Player.  

What is going on is, as of the latest opt-in patches, the descriptions for 'Galactic Achievements' (One per galaxy), 'Player Achievements' (What were Super Projects in GC II) (One built per faction), and "Colony Unique" (One per planet) are all now in the game.  For whatever reason, Trade Resources are labeled as something that the player can only build once.  

Well, the player can't build them at all, actually.

I was confused at first, as well.  But one I compared it to the descriptions for everything else, I realized what was going on.  At most, its a labeling error and they shouldn't have any sort of label at all.  It's probably due to the fact that one of each kind of trade resource can be generated per planet, and thus the game passes that information along.  In a slightly confusing manner.

Updating this.  I decided to check ImprovementDefs.xml and all trade resources have the following tag:  <IsPlayerWonder>true</IsPlayerWonder>

Why?  Beats me.  It really shouldn't matter, since players can't build them.  And, unless something has changed. the effects from improvements that are 'one per player' can be stacked if someone gets a planet that had another one of them (for instance, getting more than one Hyperion Shirnker).

Still, there's probably some code-related reason for this that we outsiders don't know.  But I do agree that it is a bit confusing.

Whew! Here I was worried they were now only 1. I agree with Bamdorf a little bit. I would suggest that we follow Brad's solution for things that get out of hand and suggest/mod a form of slight diminishing returns but only on maps where the possibility to get dozens of each type is present. 

On reflection I dont think we need a change at all. Keep in  mind if you get all those stacked bonuses, so does the AI and we all know he can probably use it. 

I just don't get it.  Something goes strange and it has to be an over-reaction from Stardock as if none of them knew what they were doing.

Surely by now, you know they are actually capable of doing their jobs.

From my stand point; having the 50 turn duration on the trade itself is diminishing.  Maybe making the AI treat them as more valuable would make them more lucrative since you have to negotiate all the time for them. 

Also lets say ya get some tech for some snugglers, well you keep the tech forever but the snugglers come home in 50 turns.

Its a Pandora's box, It feels fine as it is.

If it's indeed 1 per player then it's a very sad thing...

I was soo looking forward to stacking those... why take that fun away from the game?

The Ai already gets cheaty bonuses at high diff levels, why can't we have some good stuff?

It is not 1 per player.  I just confirmed this on the 6.2 opt-in patch. 

That is really the problem with many things, isn't it? This is one of the things in CIV V I kinda laughed at. So, if I have gems or whatever, I get +4 (or whatever your difficulty was scaled to). I think to myself, why would 20 cities be as happy as 4 cities for a finite resource? Again, simplicity. The bigger the empire, the more resources, ergo the more happiness to counter the bigger empire. No matter what, it is a brake on expansion. 

I would like to see something that for every conquest, your approval goes up and every loss, it goes down. Same, but with less effect, with fleet battles. People don't mind hardships when they are winning, losing though....