I like the ethics change, but... (add new ethics, don't change)

[Artaios Greybark]

I agree with Wiz. The existing ethos choices should be fleshed out first.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I know that but collectivism is not the same that authoritarism that's why i was trying to say. Right now in the game collectivism =authoritarism. But that's not really what collectivism is (band,swarm mentality). I find that these two ethos are completly differents normaly but aren't in the game.

Which is why they're changing it- they were trying to do one thing (make Collectivism/Individualism an axis on the Ethics wheel) but found that the result was more in-line with an Authoritarian/Egalitarian axis- so that's what they're making it into.

Please look forward ethos, they are very clunky now (restrictive to each others spiritualist/materialist etc...).

While I've certainly had moments where I wanted to pick opposing Ethos, I fully understand why they're mutually exclusive and opposed. I'd rather it stayed that way, because it's part of the core components of the diplomacy system and what gives different empires different views on each other.

We need unique goverments types (like Hive mind)

Paradox have already said that things like a "hive mind" are not supported by the game's base mechanics (because they, y'know, ignore several basic mechanics)- they'd need to be something Completely Different. We might see them in DLC at some point.

and more impact on the gameplay for each ethos we choose (unique technologies etc...).

This I can agree with- more unique techs and event trees for each Ethos would be nice.

 

[Madzai]

I agree with Wiz. The existing ethos choices should be fleshed out first.

But the less ethics you have the more spectrum each ethos most cover. So if current ethic will be more fleshed out, it'll be really have to add new ones in the future as they have to take something from already presented ones.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

But the less ethics you have the more spectrum each ethos most cover. So if current ethic will be more fleshed out, it'll be really have to add new ones in the future as they have to take something from already presented ones.

I honestly wouldn't expect them to add new axis on the Ethics wheel ever- it'd effectively break all the content made before that change, because there'd be no events/options/fluff for the new axis in the old content.

 

[Derp]

Seriously, ignoring the people who really really want individualism/collectivism to stick around, what new ethics could be added that wouldn't just be a pointless atomization of what already exists?

 

[Madzai]

I honestly wouldn't expect them to add new axis on the Ethics wheel ever- it'd effectively break all the content made before that change, because there'd be no events/options/fluff for the new axis in the old content.

Well, i think so too, but personally i wish for Individualist\Collectivists scale back (to represent that Ind\Col actually mean), a scale to represent a species outlook on the world - something like Opportunists\Exploiters and Xenophobes\Xenophiles changed to broader terms that represent something like inward\outward personality.

 

[Agamemnic]

The whole point of the change is that the current mechanics do not fit 'Collectivism' and 'Individualism'. If we thought Collectivism and Authoritarianism was the same thing there'd be no need for a change.

I have to agree with this. I'd hardly call an empire that enslaves and commits genocide against its own people a "harmonious collective" [Pacifist + Collectivist empire]

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Well, i think so too, but personally i wish for Individualist\Collectivists scale back (to represent that Ind\Col actually mean), a scale to represent a species outlook on the world - something like Opportunists\Exploiters and Xenophobes\Xenophiles changed to broader terms that represent something like inward\outward personality.

I think that there are probably non-Ethic ways of doing that.

 

[Madzai]

I think that there are probably non-Ethic ways of doing that.

Probably. If anything, IMO, Stellaris could get a lot of variety by adding unique traits that affects gameplay a lot, but i think it isn't a course that Stellaris developments is following.

 

[PirateJack]

It could be, given the devs have expressed interest in actual hive minds and the likes.

 

[Avernite]

Seriously, ignoring the people who really really want individualism/collectivism to stick around, what new ethics could be added that wouldn't just be a pointless atomization of what already exists?

I see space for one.

You can have the authoritarian/egalitarian axis (anyone can become anything and is important, or has to just obey) with the governments and slaves and such.

you can have a collectivist/individualist or caste/free axis which instead revolves around anyone should or should not become anything. The story stays tricky, but the mechanics would be individualist focusing on leaders (if anyone can become a leader, the choice for best is wider, and better) and collectivist focusing on happiness/ethics divergence. Late-term policies about leader-improvement would unfortunately seem to fit better in the collectivist/caste mindset, but perhaps that just requires a rework to their story (making it about individual boosters and improvements rather than bloodlines, while collectivism would instead make everyone better via genetic engineering of the species).

 

[Shermanator]

I think this could be done, and I have my own idea for how individualism and collectivism would work.

I think that individualism should be focused on very strong LEADERS. Perhaps the ethic could give your leaders a bonus in skill, policies and edicts that make your leaders better, make leader stronger. This is because I think an individualist society would believe in empowering individuals to achieve great things.

Collectivist should take advantage of the new traditions and UNITY mechanic. Perhaps collectivism gives you strong buffs towards your unity, as your people are more inclined to work together, and maybe it could buff traditions, as your people have a greater desire to fight in with the whole and make the whole stronger?

 

[BrokenSky]

I agree the ethics are not unique enough but adding more ethics without the mechanics to support them will only make that worse.

One option to jostle bonuses around a bit so you can have both axis as distinct things which interact with current or revealed future game mechanics:

How about individualism gets empire modifiers to reduced unhappiness from policies due to ethics and pop modifiers to increased energy credits.
Collectivist gets empire modifiers to conform to empire ethics and pop modifiers to influence from tile improvements.

Egalitarian gets empire bonuses to happiness. Egalitarian pops also get reduced happiness bonuses/penalties from planet modifiers. Also a strong dislike of slavery and autocratic governments.
Authoritarians gets empire bonuses to slave output and pop bonuses to not being upset with slavery, plus reduced food need (energy for synths) and can't use democratic governments.

Xenophobe/Xenophile stops being an option at game-start, though events can turn pops xenophobe/xenophile and the empire ethics changing mechanisms in 1.15 can change your empire to a xenophilic/xenophobic one. (It seems weird that you can love/hate aliens even before you know they exist). They get the same pop bonuses as current, the empire bonuses are changed to increased/decreased desirability to migrate for aliens (so xenophobes can get migration treaties to "let" their aliens leave).

Pacifist/Militarist peace and war happiness bonuses are replaced with increased science and unity output on worked tiles while at peace and increased mineral and unity output while at war.
Spiritualists get bonus unity rather than conformity.

 

[Lexgrad]

Add an internal political game to stellaris and then you can have the ethics tied into that. I really want to see what you guys at Pdox can do with my pops

 

[Radically Right Wing]

The whole point of the change is that the current mechanics do not fit 'Collectivism' and 'Individualism'. If we thought Collectivism and Authoritarianism was the same thing there'd be no need for a change.

But do you think that Authoritarianism has more to do with slavery than Collectivism does? Because Communism is collectivistic and the Soviet Union was the only Slave State that existed in modern times. So what about Collectivism did not fit?

 

[PirateJack]

But do you think that Authoritarianism has more to do with slavery than Collectivism does? Because Communism is collectivistic and the Soviet Union was the only Slave State that existed in modern times. So what about Collectivism did not fit?

It's because we're not using real world examples of each ideology, we're using the tenets espoused by them. So while in theory the Soviet Union may have been a Collectivist state, it was really more Authoritarian because the elite were only ever really at risk of being persecuted by their peers, not the population as Collectivism may suggest. Also, nobody in the Soviet Union particularly wanted to be a slave; they were forced to become so. Pretty authoritarian right there, I think.

Also, there are plenty of countries that use slave labour in the modern world, it's just not advertised as such and instead of being paid nothing, they're paid just enough to survive on. Alternately they're in prison and forced to make license plates.

 

[Nyrael]

I have been using "Ethics and Governments Rebuilt" mod for quite a while and I can't say that I see a problem with more ethics (though new governments are a much messier deal, as the said mod proved).

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I have been using "Ethics and Governments Rebuilt" mod for quite a while and I can't say that I see a problem with more ethics (though new governments are a much messier deal, as the said mod proved).

It's a confused mess which utterly demolishes the carefully-crafted and intuitive opposing personality axis that the developers designed to let you intuitively understand where any empire stands in regards to the beliefs of any other.

 

[Incompetent]

Authoritarian is definitely a better name than Collectivist for the 'oppression' side of the axis, but I'm not sure Egalitarian is so good for the other end. The word can be interpreted to mean enforced equality at the expense of individual differences, which is not at all what this end of the axis is about in Stellaris.

Then again, just about every word for an ideology derived from 'free' or 'equal' (or their Latin counterparts) has been corrupted at some stage or other to serve the interests of the established elite, so there probably isn't a word left in English that clearly means the opposite of authoritarianism. Maybe Egalitarian is the best of a bad bunch.

 

[Wizzington]

But do you think that Authoritarianism has more to do with slavery than Collectivism does? Because Communism is collectivistic and the Soviet Union was the only Slave State that existed in modern times. So what about Collectivism did not fit?

We do not factor personal political delusions into the game design, I'm afraid.