Actually I've kept the Envoy Cruisers as the "Constructors", but they are not consumed on building an embassy, so one Envoy Cruiser is theoretically all you need. Otherwise one of the main benefits, not needing a lot of envoy ships, is not realized.

But my point really wasn't to suggest the idea, it is just showing that there are better ways of doing things. I think it's pretty much agreed it's not the rewards from Diplomacy that is the problem, rather it just feels too much like a chore to realize them. So if given the choice are players going to invest in blowing ships up or do a chore for a stat bonus?

I don't know man, I find some of those diplomacy techs to be pretty useful...you know, like, "Allure of the Unity" and "Enslaved Labor"...

Oh wait...

I believe part of the reason is the fact that players might not have the proper relationship with one-another at the start.  In a locked team game, allies should start with 20/20 loyalty with each other.  (After all, it's not like you can declare war on each other...)  If that were the case, then Pact Research would likely become either a new spot in the lineup, or a new aspect of the Eco slot, depending on the players involved and how good they are at their role.  It would also give an incentive for diversifying races in games.  What I'd like to see is a faction-specific pact added to each list.

-Huzzah!

As long as both sides HAVE an eco player, the balance would be maintained with this.  And would even add a bit of flavor to the eco player's roll in the game, rather than being a feed-source alone.  Will they devote themselves to feed, or will they drop a pact now and then, or even go straight for pacts?  If one side has the pacts, and the other is pure feed, how would this affect the outcome of the game, assuming similar skill level/starting locations?

The pacts are definitely useful, the problem is that a lot of people see other things as just as useful/more useful.  I understand the lack of pacts in a FFA, but in a locked team game where it is impossible to declare war on your allies, starting at 20/20 just makes more sense.  You're allies for the duration, and should be able to share every available tech with them to win.

-Huzzah!

Yes, but unfortunately there are just too many occasions where both teams do not have the same number of eco players (I'll ignore player skill and planet quality for the eco players for now)...currently, these situations are somewhat balanced by the fact that a team with more eco often has more suicide and thus is more vulnerable to completely losing a player....but if eco players are made even more powerful, it could easily become a game of who has the best/most eco players...

It doesn't take long for TEC eco players to get up to pervasive economy, AR to get wail, or Vasari to get their really nice tier 7/8 techs....thus, I am certain it wouldn't take long for eco players to get high level pacts....I'm not so much concerned with the Advent pacts, more with the TEC pacts (trade and supply) and Vasari (whatever one gives more HP, armament I think), which are extremely powerful once you remove the barriers to achieving them....

In a way it makes sense for locked teams to start with 20/20....but clearly the devs wanted diplomacy to be a more complex mechanic, and thus you need envoys (and time) to achieve relationship requirements for pacts...

I'd disagree with that - MP players are generally very good team players. For starters, their awareness of what is going on over the whole map is much broader and faster.  Good MP players recognize quickly where any imbalances are occurring and adjust as soon as possible. The problem is that pacts do not rank high on the immediate return scale. They are something you purchase when you have a large military and are feeling "comfortable". They are a luxury really. Of all benefits/features in the game, they provide a longer term ROI than most other things that take precedent (culture, trade, fleet, Titans, defenses, etc.) so it makes sense that they wouldn't be seen as commonly in a faster paced/close to your enemy style of gameplay. 

Maybe make cost not a Factor? Remove the resource Cost from most techs in the Diplomacy tree and replace it with something you get from actively pursuing relations. This would obviously be a big change, but you could recycle Diplomacy points for this new resource.

I do worry about my idea being too easy... If only a few techs have resource cost, then wouldn't be necessary to always research diplomacy concurrently?

While making the diplomacy tree more useful is good, I question how to bottleneck the tree enough that diplomacy research doesn't become a 'must'. Anyone have any ideas about this?

As long as the pacts all had the same effect as now, changing it to use diplomacy points instead of cash would not alter the necessity.  It would just give certain players more incentive to go for it.  Besides, what's wrong with making a whole tree that's getting ignored useful?  It may take a little re-balancing once it got integrated, but what in this game is the exact same as when it was first introduced?

-Huzzah!

And...this is why we need an official troll list....

Is it possible to do a mockup of this idea or would the devs have to do it?

Not a lot can be done via modding to fundamentally change how pacts work...you could make "dramatic" changes by reducing the required relationship to offer a pact, changing how easy it is to get pact technologies (what tier they are, their cost, etc.), how powerful envoy abilities are and the cost/fleet supply of envoys...but at the end of the day, it's still fundamentally the same...

The biggest change probably used by anyone is an "embassy" setup like that used by Goa....you still are limited by the "mutual relationship" requirement though, and each pact can still only be offered to one other person, which are the 2 biggest limitations...