5 points ethos system

[Yenzen]

Because if everything is fanatical nothing is. Again, do you think that one ethos would give us more meaningful choice?

Again, don't you think 8 points would give us more wide choices? As stated, you don't need to use them all if you don't want to! You'd basically need it to portray such Sci-Fi factions as humanity in W40k (fanatical in every way).

I don't think 1 point is appropriate for the same reason you think 8 is overdoing it, I think 3 points are a nice balance (because you can be fanatical at something or more wide) and 5 undermines the focus that ethoses bring.

 

[Loki98]

Indeed, and as brought up sometimes that's militarist (Fanatically so - North Korea, Moderately so (Israel, USA), Either way (Australia, most of Europe), Kind of against it with major diplomatic fallout for even considering entering it (Vatican, Japan?, most small states), Utterly opposed to it under any circumstances (?))

An indirect democracy that would be neutral on the militarist scale but sometimes went on offensive wars could be explained away by a new dominant party being more militarist than average. Meanwhile, a military republic would often do it because the population would be inclined towards military conflict as a driving force of their society.

True but if you ask me, as a nation there is no such thing as neutral.

 

[Yenzen]

True but if you ask me, as a nation there is no such thing as neutral.

Neutral just means that they're between extremes while being inclined but not fanatically so means they're closer to the extreme, but not extreme. If you make a list of Sci-FI nations with the most warlike on one end, and the most pacifist on the other, there will be nations half the way to one extreme and there will be nations in the middle of the scale.

What are you even arguing for with this specifically? That nations must be forced to pick either pacifism or militarism because the neutral position doesn't exist on this matter?

 

[Number 7]

There are a lot of techs that are ethos restricted (although you can still pick them up later as devs explained).

example - spiritualists will get psionics, xenophobes get "a very powerful" tech that is otherwise unnamed. its apparantly possible for a non spiritualist empire to still pick up psionics as long as they get a researcher with a specific trait, which would be pretty rare ("befriend" a spiritualist empire with the tech already and allow them to become scientists and then hope the tech shows up i assume?)

if you had 5 ethos points, you would be able to pick up all the unique special researches way too easy. it would be quite OP on top of all the massive bonuses you get.

i think 3 ethos points, although it feels limiting sometimes is really the key balancing point

 

[Milten]

Again, don't you think 8 points would give us more wide choices? As stated, you don't need to use them all if you don't want to! You'd basically need it to portray such Sci-Fi factions as humanity in W40k (fanatical in every way).

And as I said, compared to other species in WH they are not fanatical in any of these.

I think 3 points are a nice balance (because you can be fanatical at something or more wide) and 5 undermines the focus that ethoses bring.

Nice balance between what? 1 and 8? Maybe, but I still don't see how it's more believable or balanced than 2 or 4 (with 1 fanatical limit) for example.

 

[Yenzen]

There are a lot of techs that are ethos restricted (although you can still pick them up later as devs explained).

example - spiritualists will get psionics, xenophobes get "a very powerful" tech that is otherwise unnamed. its apparantly possible for a non spiritualist empire to still pick up psionics as long as they get a researcher with a specific trait, which would be pretty rare ("befriend" a spiritualist empire with the tech already and allow them to become scientists and then hope the tech shows up i assume?)

if you had 5 ethos points, you would be able to pick up all the unique special researches way too easy. it would be quite OP on top of all the massive bonuses you get.

i think 3 ethos points, although it feels limiting sometimes is really the key balancing point

Also affects replayability. Fanatical ethoses seem to get special edicts and such, so if you want to see everything, you'll have to play through many times.

 

[Loki98]

Neutral just means that they're between extremes while being inclined but not fanatically so means they're closer to the extreme, but not extreme. If you make a list of Sci-FI nations with the most warlike on one end, and the most pacifist on the other, there will be nations half the way to one extreme and there will be nations in the middle of the scale.

What are you even arguing for with this specifically? That nations must be forced to pick either pacifism or militarism because the neutral position doesn't exist on this matter?

In real life there is no neutral position but in game of course you can chose neutral but I want the ability to chose one point in each.

 

[cold warpgates]

Can't agree with that notion. By that logic only one point would be even more meaningful.

That would be taking it too far, the same way giving us 8 points would be too far. I think the current setup (3 points to spend, 2 levels in each direction, 4 axes) is just about ideal. Open enough to allow variety, restricted enough to force you to make tough decisions.

 

[Loki98]

There are a lot of techs that are ethos restricted (although you can still pick them up later as devs explained).

example - spiritualists will get psionics, xenophobes get "a very powerful" tech that is otherwise unnamed. its apparantly possible for a non spiritualist empire to still pick up psionics as long as they get a researcher with a specific trait, which would be pretty rare ("befriend" a spiritualist empire with the tech already and allow them to become scientists and then hope the tech shows up i assume?)

if you had 5 ethos points, you would be able to pick up all the unique special researches way too easy. it would be quite OP on top of all the massive bonuses you get.

i think 3 ethos points, although it feels limiting sometimes is really the key balancing point

In that case yes but you can restrict it so better technology's are only obtainable early by fanatic ethos.

 

[Yenzen]

And as I said, compared to other species in WH they are not fanatical in any of these.

Nice balance between what? 1 and 8? Maybe, but I still don't see how it's more believable or balanced than 2 or 4 (with 1 fanatical limit) for example.

Nice balance of ensuring that you yourself and AI nations are more defined by their choices. Sometimes limiting choice means that you have to make hard decisions on what to focus on. It's the same reason the number of traits was reduced to 4.

Who cares about what's believable anyway, the ethoses are a gameplay mechanic to give your nation a choice of focus and instrument in gameplay.

I'm not arguing that 3 ethos points is *realistic*, rather that being neutral on any of the scales is, including militarism. The ethos points are made as they are for gameplay reasons first and foremost.

 

[Brownbeard]

12 points ethos system, since the maximum number of points a country can give on Eurovision is 12 points.

Was this not chewed to death already on 3 vs 4?

 

[Loki98]

12 points ethos system, since the maximum number of points a country can give on Eurovision is 12 points.

Was this not chewed to death already on 3 vs 4?

Yes and no. The argument there was if you had four points you could chose 2 fanatics but if you put a fanatic limit then wirh five points you can chose one fanatic and 3 normal.

 

[tilcir]

Your starting ethoses does not seem permanent.

As a matter of fact, very little of what you do when you create your race seems to be permanent.

I feel that a very large part of the game is focused on your empire evolving as you play.

Want to be extreme in every way?
Well, play towards building that up.

As I see it, the start of your empire is at the infant stage.

That being said, it should be easy to mod in better starts in every possible way.
Start with 5 planets... done.
Start with 5 techs... done
Start with 5 ethos points... done

 

[Loki98]

Nice balance of ensuring that you yourself and AI nations are more defined by their choices. Sometimes limiting choice means that you have to make hard decisions on what to focus on. It's the same reason the number of traits was reduced to 4.

Who cares about what's believable anyway, the ethoses are a gameplay mechanic to give your nation a choice of focus and instrument in gameplay.

I'm not arguing that 3 ethos points is *realistic*, rather that being neutral on any of the scales is, including militarism. The ethos points are made as they are for gameplay reasons first and foremost.

I know that but when tryin to make/remake special empires then it starts to be hard. Like my idea of making a spartan space empire, they have to be fanatic militarist and then I would like to make them collectivist, materialist, and xenophobes.

 

[BaneINC]

Aren't we forgetting that you can gain and lose ehtoi while playing?

 

[Milten]

Nice balance of ensuring that you yourself and AI nations are more defined by their choices.

How is nation with three ethos is more defined than one with four?

Sometimes limiting choice means that you have to make hard decisions on what to focus on.

It's not a technology to focus on it. It's a definition of a species.

 

[Yenzen]

How is nation with three ethos is more defined than one with four?

It's not a technology to focus on it. It's a definition of a species.

Because they're fewer. It's like asking how does [STAR PLAYER] of a [SPORT] define his team more if there are 5 players instead of 30. The more ethos you have, the less each will mean individually.

It is not a technology to focus on, no.... but it IS a focus for your technology.

It is also a definition both for your species AND the political climate that dominates it after planetary unification. It can and will change on the fringes, where the POP might think the central government is wrong.

 

[Ultimuh]

I'd rather have an extra trait point than an ethos point. (And a few more traits to choose from.)

 

[Chrysaetos]

@majk123 My suggestion is that you leave it up to the Devs to figure out what works best for balance and if you disagree, you're welcome to go mod in your preference. I really don't understand this forums' obsession with wanting to shove their personal preference onto everyone else's game.

 

[Clophiroth]

Because they're fewer. It's like asking how does [STAR PLAYER] of a [SPORT] define his team more if there are 5 players instead of 30. The more ethos you have, the less each will mean individually.

It is not a technology to focus on, no.... but it IS a focus for your technology.

It is also a definition both for your species AND the political climate that dominates it after planetary unification. It can and will change on the fringes, where the POP might think the central government is wrong.

Exactly. When I have few traits in my CK2 characters, I find them more memorable: it is their core personality. Who is Duke Robert? A zealous, though still lustful, man who loses his temper easily. When I have 8 or 9 traits, all characters feel pretty samey to me. When he has few traits, each one is a core characteristic of his personality: he is specially religious, enjoys the company of women, and gets angry when he doesn´t get the things he want. It doesn´t mean that he can´t be generous, or proud, or slothful, or whatever. Just that these things aren´t a core part of his person. He would only have these traits if he was more generous/proud/slothful than most people, making him "special" in that way.


So, like in CK2, we don´t assume your character hate sex because he isn´t lusftul, in Stellaris we dont assume your race hate war because they aren´t militarists: it´s just that like Count Pedro probably enjoys women, but doesn´t spend half his nights wenching, thee Cralasian Republic doesn´t reject war as a diplomatic solution, it´s just that they won´t try to subjugate their neighbours.