5 points ethos system

[Loki98]

Sorry if this has already been discussed but I could not be bothered to read through all the comments on all the posts.

I would like to see a change in the ethos system so that you have five points but you are only allowed to chose one fanatic. That way you don't have to neglect any row of ethoses.

You can have one point in three of them and one fanatic.

Just a thought and I would like to hear all of your opinions.

 

[Gregsplays]

i like the current system really, but i can see why, i would go for a four point system personally, or at least compromise and have the option to choose up to five points worth of ethoses, maybe add a third "extreme" layer to it, each taking three points to counteract the 5 point system

 

[Loki98]

i like the current system really, but i can see why, i would go for a four point system personally, or at least compromise and have the option to choose up to five points worth of ethoses, maybe add a third "extreme" layer to it, each taking three points to counteract the 5 point system

Yes I can agree partially with your idea but personally I fell that the current system is a bit limiting.

 

[cold warpgates]

The choice is limited on purpose so that's it's more meaningful.

It's like if there was an emergency and you had to leave your house forever. If you had a month, you could just take everything. If you only had an hour, you'd only take the very most important things.

 

[Bob_Herzog]

I like the 3 point system because it forces choices. A 5 point system also could class with stuff like the goverment choice. But maybe make it a game option where one can chose 3 or 5 points for all.

 

[Loki98]

The choice is limited on purpose so that's it's more meaningful.

It's like if there was an emergency and you had to leave your house forever. If you had a month, you could just take everything. If you only had an hour, you'd only take the very most important things.

Yes I understand that way of thinking but the thing I get annoyed about is that it is a bit unrealistic. Every empire/race should have a say in all the ethoses but then have one ethos that are there special one.
If you look at politics today for example every serious party has one main goal/question and then they have opinions about the rest of the problems. (I don't want to start a political debate here this is just an example) like the environmentalist party for example cares allot about environmental issues but that doesn't mean they don't care about other things like healthcare and criminal policy's.

 

[Lexx2503]

It's meant to be limiting so that you don't min/max your choices and possibly cancel out your negative modifiers. More points would just get cheesy.

The realism argument is also moot when we're dealing with FTL travel and other things that break the limits of what we know.

 

[henzington]

The maximum number of points provides tradeoffs. They could always change this later especially if they add more ethos to the game.

 

[Stormcow]

if its ok i will answer this question in 2 weeks time.

 

[Yenzen]

Yes I understand that way of thinking but the thing I get annoyed about is that it is a bit unrealistic. Every empire/race should have a say in all the ethoses but then have one ethos that are there special one.
If you look at politics today for example every serious party has one main goal/question and then they have opinions about the rest of the problems. (I don't want to start a political debate here this is just an example) like the environmentalist party for example cares allot about environmental issues but that doesn't mean they don't care about other things like healthcare and criminal policy's.

Look at the description of the fanatical ethoses. They are not the usual run of the mill political positions, but rather extreme points of view.

Besides, they don't represent political parties, but rather the average degree to which the population and governments are inclined towards something.

Having fewer ethos points forces you to focus. There's a certain degree of increased power of differentiation in limiting choices sometimes. Also keep in mind that each ethos is designed to be an overall bonus.

 

[EvilTom]

You could have a species trait which allows you to take another ethos. Perhaps call it "ideological" and give it a cost.

Also what about a "neutral" nation... perhaps as an opposite you can take one less ethos point and an extra trait? Reminds me of the beige/neutral people in Futurama. On that note... do you need to take all of your ethos? Can you leave them unspent?

 

[Loki98]

It's meant to be limiting so that you don't min/max your choices and possibly cancel out your negative modifiers. More points would just get cheesy.

The realism argument is also moot when we're dealing with FTL travel and other things that break the limits of what we know.

First of all I don't know if t would work since I haven't played it yet.

When you talk about FTL being unrealistic. Yes it is but then that is a technology that we don't have. Ethos is an idea that already exists.

 

[Loki98]

if its ok i will answer this question in 2 weeks time.

Feel free

 

[EvilTom]

First of all I don't know if t would work since I haven't played it yet.

When you talk about FTL being unrealistic. Yes it is but then that is a technology that we don't have. Ethos is an idea that already exists.

FTL is a game mechanic. Without it the game could be very boring on this galactic scale. The same goes for an artificial limit on ethos... it's a balance mechanic that makes the game more interesting and dynamic for most people.

 

[Lexx2503]

When you talk about FTL being unrealistic. Yes it is but then that is a technology that we don't have. Ethos is an idea that already exists.

And still relevant. This game has to strike a balance between game mechanics and things we can relate to. It's never been touted as a game focusing on realism.

 

[Darustet]

Yes I understand that way of thinking but the thing I get annoyed about is that it is a bit unrealistic. Every empire/race should have a say in all the ethoses but then have one ethos that are there special one.
If you look at politics today for example every serious party has one main goal/question and then they have opinions about the rest of the problems. (I don't want to start a political debate here this is just an example) like the environmentalist party for example cares allot about environmental issues but that doesn't mean they don't care about other things like healthcare and criminal policy's.

Ethoses are broader than just answers to specific problems. In-game those are simulated by selecting policies based on your ethoses. And even today, it is normal for a political party or a country to have a very neutral opinion about some matter.

 

[Loki98]

FTL is a game mechanic. Without it the game could be very boring on this galactic scale. The same goes for an artificial limit on ethos... it's a balance mechanic that makes the game more interesting and dynamic for most people.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know yet.
It was just an idea that I had.

Ethoses are like the sliders in eu3 if you ask me, witch is why I'm getting slightly annoyed about it. I don't think any empire would ever go "no we are not pacifist but we aren't militarist either" what would they be then???

 

[Loki98]

And still relevant. This game has to strike a balance between game mechanics and things we can relate to. It's never been touted as a game focusing on realism.

True but then we can't say if it is balanced/fun yet sins we haven't played it. Unfortunately.

 

[cold warpgates]

Yes I understand that way of thinking but the thing I get annoyed about is that it is a bit unrealistic. Every empire/race should have a say in all the ethoses but then have one ethos that are there special one.
If you look at politics today for example every serious party has one main goal/question and then they have opinions about the rest of the problems. (I don't want to start a political debate here this is just an example) like the environmentalist party for example cares allot about environmental issues but that doesn't mean they don't care about other things like healthcare and criminal policy's.

Yeah, of course everyone probably has a stance on these issues. But the ethos you select are the ones that are the most important. Sure, that environmentalist party has a policy on the books for everything...but they choose to define themselves by their environmentalism.

Take Gregsplays' idea with having 5 points to spend, and 3 levels for each ethos, and then cut out the lowest levels of each ethos - because if you only put one out of three points into an ethos, you probably don't feel that strongly about it.

 

[Darustet]

Ethoses are like the sliders in eu3 if you ask me, witch is why I'm getting slightly annoyed about it. I don't think any empire would ever go "no we are not pacifist but we aren't militarist either" what would they be then???

Sounds like Switzerland, very neutral.

They don't participate in wars but on the other hand, they maintain conscription, which doesn't sound very pacifistic to me. I could find other examples too but you got the idea.