I've seen the AI use sensor ships I designed too.  I think the best solution to this is to make sensor ships standard or make the diminishing returns tied to map size as on insane maps I use them as scouts.  Insane maps are that big and normal scout ships just don't cut it.  

I agree the people that are calling for this are definitely trying to force their preference on the community.  On small maps I can see the argument but on large maps this is a feature.

This is indeed an interesting question.

The first thing to keep in mind is that actually, the AI knows the whole map right from the start. So, in a way, he doesn't really need/depend/rely on sensors and if this is the case then building sensorship will actually stiffle his own game, in that he is going to spend some production into areas which will show no improvement in strength for his game. However, this assessment is most likely not correct in a few, or many, cases.

The AI needs to scout out planets before he can send colony ships to these. (he has to make them "known through sensors" although he already knows their location, that's why he builds scouts). Now if the Sensorships are used under this function then it might aid his game fairly well because such a ship can unveil alot of planets at once, esp. in abundant galaxies. On the other hand, there might be situations in which these Sensorships are a worse choice than standard Scouts, eg. with huge galaxy size but very little planets. There it might be better to produce a multitude of fast Scouts and send them to different systems.

I can't say whether the AI uses an auto-explore (or remove FOW-) feature but if that's the case these ships will help him a great deal although they probably clear so much that their next course might lead them very fast far away (and into their doom, hostile territory or pirates etc)

I agree. For a player having to make a choice between "sending that scout to system A, B or C" adds another random element to the game which can influence the game by a huge factor. You might find good worlds or bad ones or no habitable at all. Knowing everything in all 4 directions and simply picking the best is boring. Exploring the unkown is fun.

In a way, there's sensory techs that are ment to be researched in huge games but not in smaller maps. Perhaps the discrepancy in techccosts could be increased. The problem here is most likely that many players like to plunges right through the techtree and if it doesn't happen fast enough, they'll help themselves by increasing techspeed and by that, goof up their own game. One way to do away with this is tie racial bonuses to very expensive buildings (which do need, eg. a 100 turns to build) and which will grant good sensor range. In a small map, or a map with low planet counts, it might not be feasable to construct such a building, but on a large map with a lot of planets it's practically irrelevant if a single planet is pre-occupied, and it is only in these games that, by mid-game, you'll have to have decent sensor range.

As far as has been explained is that the AI only knows about other planets on the higher difficulties, exactly which one we don't know. But they don't seem to know where planets and resources are on normal level, at least not while I watched the AI play in my latest game.

I did notice however that the AI used some of the designs that I created, that was a pretty refreshing thing to see... 

Otherwise the AI only use the ships that are predesigned according to some template.

The AI does not know the map on Normal, at higher difficulties it does know the map. 

The AI can and will use your own designs against you. This is a fact and I have seen it.

Sensorships are a part of the game. As a previous posters stated if you dont like them dont build them. If the AI can use them, then you will be at a disadvantage. 

Sensor diminishing returns will not make it into gold but may show up. It is not game breaking by any means and some folks like playing with it. 

Yep, and I've already written that the AI needs to scout out habitable planets; see here:

but I'm pretty sure he can, for exampe, send constructors right to resources without making them known beforeahead. At least, this is what I see within the game, there are multiple forum posts from other users who described this, and Brad's post here

indicates it as well. But I get your point and if this comes in the near future, fine with me.

First off, I'm sorry, my post was in no way ment to offend you or personally attack you, I'm just expressing my opinion of what I feel would be good for the game. 

I play all sorts of different setups. If you just stay within a single one (preferred) setup you might miss things that might be off or OP only under specific circumstances. The problem here is that the gap you can create from going minimalistic to max is tremendous; therefore it's best to start from medium/average settings and work upward/downward. If you take the most extreme setup as starting point for balancing stuff it will totally break the game in the diametrical corner.

(Another reason why I rather prefer minimalistic setups for testgames is that, there, errors or other stuff like AI mechanics, are more easily observable. Because it really doesn't matter if an error, or a bug, appears multifold in a game - the thing that is important is that IF it happened 1 time, then it can always happen again.)

This is why I would like to have sensory gameplay changed in dependance of mapsize, so that even in small maps there is still something left to explore, while retaining this relation also onto insane maps (ie. you'll need much more sensory range on large maps in order to able to get an overview).

On the other hand, there are people who like to play very long and epic games. Even a decade before the manual of GC2 stated that the game offers the player the possibility of creating maps that might take MONTHS to resolve. Back then gigantic was the largest size, we now have insane, and we have alot of additional features. All of these factors should naturally prolong the game, so maybe now a game on all max settings should last about half a year. Folks that start such games would probably want a long exploration phase, although "long" here is rather relativ if you keep in mind the total length of such a game.

Quoting AlLanMandragoran,

reply 58

Why does sticking multiple sensors on one ship increase the overall range of the sensors? Adding sensors would be like sticking motion detectors on my dog. First I get to to see the area around the dog, then the house, then the neighbor's house, and as I add more sensors I can see ten houses away. Use the same analogy with radar and the point remains. All of you who have added motion detectors to your dogs know the point I am trying to make.

In short, adding sensors to increase resolution (the picture or information gleaned) within a scannable range makes sense; adding sensors to solely increase the scannable range makes no sense. Am I missing something?

That you're playing a video game?  Although Radar isn't really a good analogy, telescope is probably better but even then the way it works in the game doesn't show it well either.  For telescopes larger means better resolution and generally more focused but could be used to cast a wide net as well so to speak.  This can also be achieved by many smaller telescopes in an array so in that case adding more does exactly what the game does.  However we don't know how exactly the game's sensors work and it seems to work faster than light so nothing we have currently works as an analogue.  Use the array of telescopes and let it be because it kind of does work like that.  Also note I'm oversimplifying, there is a lot I'm glossing over mainly because I don't have to research it again. 

Yes. You're missing that you can detect and identify finer features in a higher-resolution image than you can in a lower-resolution image. Feature size in the image is related to the physical size of the object represented by the feature and how far that object is from the camera, with the feature size being directly proportional to the physical size of the object and inversely proportional to the distance between the object and the camera. If I have two sensor arrays where the only meaningful difference in capability is the resolution, the sensor with the higher resolution will in general be able to detect an object of a given size at a greater distance than the sensor with the lower resolution, unless we first run into some other limit on the sensor's effective range (say, minimum detectable signal strength).

This whole argument was started on the steam GC3 forums because one player built a pure sensor ship and then complained about it. I am completely against limiting sensor modules on player custom ships or reducing their capabilities. I firmly believe it is a players choice to use them and if you do not like them please don't build one and then come and complain about.

I have been arguing about this since it was first proposed on Steam.  I want the choice to stack sensors if I want to and with no reduction in how they work.  I am adamantly against any limits or reductions in how they work. The ones who first proposed changes to sensors did so because they don't want the AI's or other players to use them in their MP games.  I do not play MP and I want to freedom to stack sensors on a ship in a sandbox game.

The key word here is choice, I want the choice and I do not want that choice taken away from me.

Here another example of Mr your opinion is wrong!! there for the rest of us are right.!! There just maybe be no right answer to this at all. how ever it goes stays or gets change some one is NOT going to be Happy!!

The Sensors are NOT broke! They DON`T need to be fix!! and Yes It is a CHOICE on rather to Build or Not to Build!!!

Here are  two post on this topic also.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/620712364039070703/

and 

http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/2/620712999976321931/

Read them or don`t I doubt it will change your opinion one way or the other. 

The choice is you can either build them and use them or don't build them and use them but, just because you do not like them does not mean you can restrict my choice to build them and use them. Senors are not broken and I do not want to be limited on how I build and use my own custom ship designs in my personal single player game.

It's unsatisfactory if I have to dumb myself down in order to have a good challenge.

It is most satisfactory if I struggle to survive even if I use all available or known option to promote my game. It makes me think harder. And if I loose, then I will have to reconsider my gameplay, knowledge of game mechanics etc pp or hope for a better map.

Then, dumbing oneselfs down in MP or MV competetive play doesn't work, here specific things simply become mandatory. In DarkAvatar the MCC was buggy and gave 100% economy, and that forced all top25 MV players to pick evil alignment. It would have been more fun if all 3 alignments would have been equally strong. 

It's not the responsibility of the customers to create their own balance. Franco you're argumenting as if all customers are reading these forums and by that, know what they have to avoid or not use in order to get a quality game challenge.

You say its a fact but that is your opinion.  I read your thoughts on sensors being overpowered and I wonder if you have actually played on an Insane map, in my current game I'm about 180 turns into an insane map with all of the base races and 2 custom races.  I've met 5 races but my borders still haven't reached another race's borders, I've only found 1 race's territory and just barely, 1 planet and one starbase that I can see with my sensor ships and that's even going straight thought that territory.  Insane maps are so big that even a 50 tile radius sensor ship still only reveals a small portion of the map.  You are also ignoring the part that makes them balanced, sticking all those sensors on means maybe 1 engine and no life support so your range isn't very long.  That rushed on the first turn sensor ship only moves 2 or 3 depending on if you have a racial movement bonus and took an engine and its range is only something like 20.  It will only reveal what is immediately next to you and I've had starts on Insane maps where that only revealed 1 habitable planet with abundant starts, planets, habitable planets and extreme planets.  Every thing is a trade off.

Now, stop trying to ruin my fun and play the way you like or mod the game to play the way you want.  I will be spending a lot of time to mod the game to my preferences you can do the same.

The bottom line is simple. If I don't want super sensor in my game, I don't build them. BAM! that works, and I can still hate those who do. To insist that sensors don't stack is saying. I don't like them, I don't build them, and I don't want anyone else to build them either. That is childish, cognitive dissonance.

The sensor buoys must be designed. There is no such ship in the game to tempt you. I will never understand why anyone cares what others do in a single player game. I do not build multiple econ star bases around planets but I am impressed that others do. I am not on here saying that multiple econ bases are cheesy and over powered and the devs should somehow eliminate them from the game. I just ignore the fact that others build them and go on with MY game.

I lol when I think that the same people that are complaining will, after they get their shipyards up to 1 per turn, probably be building 40-50 scouts and arranging them in tight formations. It will be just fine to build 40 -50 to accomplish what one could do. If not, how do you plan to get that out of the game.

They are going to do what they are going to do. They have cut the sensor ships back from 30 something to 20 something and that is okay. Since Frogboy has said he uses super sensor ships, maybe they will call it a day on the issue.