New Trait Suggestions, Opinionated, Indifferent, and Neutral Ethics

[Dinkelman]

I have some suggestions. First a positive trait called something along the lines of "Opinionated" which gives +1 ethics points, with a cost of either 1 or 2 trait points. I figured this could be interesting in the game as it gives the species 4 ethics points in total. It would allow two fanatic ethics or maybe just four normal ethics, or perhaps one fanatic and two normal. Your government with that species would be able to have that amount of ethics points as well.

I'm thinking it would have an opposite called "Indifferent" or something. It's a negative trait that give one less ethics points. It would cost either -1 or -2 trait points. Everything the same as Opinionated, but opposite.

In relation to that, but more as a side note, it would be fun to be able to play as a "Despicable Neutral", meaning you have no ethics. You won't generally be very disliked except perhaps by fanatics who dislike you for not having any conviction etc. There could be a negative opinion modifier for them. Other mechanics should maybe also be implemented. Making an empire like the Neutrals from Futurama would be fun, or not.

 

[Dinkelman]

Any thoughts? Does it sound good?

 

[Dinkelman]

Hate to bump my thread like this, but I kind of wanted to start a discussion, and also get more people to see it.

 

[Naelar]

It sounds neat, but it sounds odd to have traits correlate to ethics. I wonder how the implementation would go.

 

[Horror In The Deep]

I really like idea about +/- 1 ethic point trait. This makes 4/2 trait Empire possible, but extremely rare, like they should be. And I never truly understood, why you cannot be fanatic spiritualist and fanatic militarist in the same time. But the pointprice? Even 2 point for "Opinionated" seems not enough, considering how many things like special billings you can get.

As for neutrals... well, Neutral Planet and it`s inhabitants in Futurama was fun... because it was shown for couple of minutes. But try to imagine something fun with them as main characters)

 

[Dinkelman]

Yeah, maybe you're right about the neutrals, it might get boring fast.

And the cost of Opinionated should not be 1 trait point now that I think about it. But I've looked over what you can do with an extra ethos point compared to 2 trait points and as far as the stat bonuses go it seems relatively balanced. It's true that more options are potentially unlocked with more ethos, which is another advantage, but on the contrary I can imagine that it has some disadvantages as well, like for example having a more difficult time getting along with other empires. Maybe at 2 it would be too attractive of an option compared to the other traits with that cost. If so then 3 might be better. Suppose it's something that would have to be tested.

 

[Cakeathon]

I'm not sure it would be balanced even on 5 points but maybe it would be. The short version is that traits are currently a balance check on xeno empires and this trait breaks the balance check so it needs to be massively overcosted.

The mistake I see when you say

But I've looked over what you can do with an extra ethos point compared to 2 trait points and as far as the stat bonuses go it seems relatively balanced.

is that you are comparing a species-only bonus to an empire-wide ethos bonus. Even ethos pop bonuses can be made global trough negative divergence, you can't do that with traits.

This is a very important distinction in relation to current balance. Right now the most potent strategies are rapid conquest(by far the most potent) and migration treaty spam. Both of those have to "sacrifice" the potency of their trait as they rely on a population of mostly xenos. The ability to convert their mostly useless species-only traits into very potent empire-wide bonuses means they will be even more powerful than they already are. In many ways the trait system is a balance check on the more powerful xeno-based strategies as it gives the much weaker non-xeno strategies an extra boost as they can make better use of their traits.

 

[Ramiel]

Yeah, as said before ethos are a very different beast than racial traits, and making a way to exchange them seems like a really bad, bad idea to me. Also, I'm pretty positive the devs have stated they intentionally want to avoid any situation where someone has two (or more) Fanatic ethos at the same time. The whole point of Fanatic is that your entire society revolves around that one concept, and having two of them simply doesn't make much sense.

 

[Kayttajatili]

It might just be me, but I feel like having more than three ethics points would be a bad thing. As I feel having more than one ethic at fanatic level seems... odd. Again, likely just my subjective view, but I think you can't really truly be fanatic in several topics at once. Since fanaticism is something that takes devotion.

Maybe have the trait that adds more trait points, but hard code it so that you can only ever have one fanatic trait?

 

[Lothmar]

I think it would be interesting, indifferent would cause it to feel like starting as a very small fallen empire that messed itself up so badly that it's starting over with small territory and shit tech. I say that because the FE societies evolved/devolved into a generally fanatic version of one ethic over time.

 

[Dinkelman]

Yeah, as said before ethos are a very different beast than racial traits, and making a way to exchange them seems like a really bad, bad idea to me. Also, I'm pretty positive the devs have stated they intentionally want to avoid any situation where someone has two (or more) Fanatic ethos at the same time. The whole point of Fanatic is that your entire society revolves around that one concept, and having two of them simply doesn't make much sense.

Well, I agree. But, that's why only a species that is Opinionated would permit it. They are after all extraordinarily, well, for a lack of a better word, opinionated.

I'm not sure it would be balanced even on 5 points but maybe it would be. The short version is that traits are currently a balance check on xeno empires and this trait breaks the balance check so it needs to be massively overcosted. This is a very important distinction in relation to current balance. Right now the most potent strategies are rapid conquest(by far the most potent) and migration treaty spam. Both of those have to "sacrifice" the potency of their trait as they rely on a population of mostly xenos. The ability to convert their mostly useless species-only traits into very potent empire-wide bonuses means they will be even more powerful than they already are. In many ways the trait system is a balance check on the more powerful xeno-based strategies as it gives the much weaker non-xeno strategies an extra boost as they can make better use of their traits.

I don't know if you misunderstood, but pops that aren't opinionated, like xenos, would not be able to acquire all the ethos of the 'Opinionated' empire by negative ethics divergence. They would have to have the opinionated trait themselves to get ethics with a value higher than 3, just like it should be. If you did assume correctly, then I guess I don't understand why it would be so advantageous for those kind of strategies. What bonuses would non-opinionated species gain in an opinionated empire? Right now, its kind of strange and inconsistent whether ethics bonuses take effect on pops or on the empire. For example, spiritualist pops don't gain the ethics divergence modifier, but rather the empire. Usually bonuses act on the pops themselves. Is that the kind of thing you mean? Maybe this needs to be cleared up first.

 

[LordVladek]

Yeah, as said before ethos are a very different beast than racial traits, and making a way to exchange them seems like a really bad, bad idea to me. Also, I'm pretty positive the devs have stated they intentionally want to avoid any situation where someone has two (or more) Fanatic ethos at the same time. The whole point of Fanatic is that your entire society revolves around that one concept, and having two of them simply doesn't make much sense.

It doesn't make much sense to us human, but to an alien it may. After all, how should we know how they tick?

I dislike the idea though, but that's more because of all the balancing issues it brings.

 

[Sonmi]

What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or was he just born with a heart full of neutrality?

 

[Cakeathon]

I don't know if you misunderstood, but pops that aren't opinionated, like xenos, would not be able to acquire all the ethos of the 'Opinionated' empire by negative ethics divergence. They would have to have the opinionated trait themselves to get ethics with a value higher than 3, just like it should be. If you did assume correctly, then I guess I don't understand why it would be so advantageous for those kind of strategies. What bonuses would non-opinionated species gain in an opinionated empire? Right now, its kind of strange and inconsistent whether ethics bonuses take effect on pops or on the empire. For example, spiritualist pops don't gain the ethics divergence modifier, but rather the empire. Usually bonuses act on the pops themselves. Is that the kind of thing you mean? Maybe this needs to be cleared up first.

It's a little better if they can't be converged to it, but not by much. It's not strange and inconsistent, it's written on the ethics when you pick them as "empire modifier" and "pop modifier". Also, all ethos-unique techs, policies and edics which aren't mentioned on selection are empire wide.

For example picking individualist gives you a +10% empire-wide energy building and a +15% planet-wide happiness building on top of a bunch of less important bonuses. That's a lot more useful to a xeno empire than something like +15% energy or +5% happiness on their own pops.

 

[terrycloth]

Maybe it would be more balanced to put some of the benefits that are currently ethics-based as options for traits as well? Like, a 'slavery-tolerant' trait where the pops don't care about slavery even if they're individualists, because of some quirk of their psychology.

Ethos only bonuses that could be converted to traits:
slavery tolerance
purge tolerance
War happiness
Peace happiness
Food consumption
Xenophilia

Things you couldn't really convert since they're not attached to pops:
starship damage
max rivalries
rivalry influence growth
trust growth
diplomatic influence cost

Everything else already has a corresponding trait.

 

[Crissa]

This is kind of a good idea, at least for evolving populations.

 

[Vasious]

Hate to bump my thread like this, but I kind of wanted to start a discussion, and also get more people to see it.

I would like to see a "no strong ethics on any axis" option but rather than being "despicable neutral" they follow the "golden mean".
The middle path of moderation over imbalance

 

[LordVladek]

Maybe it would be more balanced to put some of the benefits that are currently ethics-based as options for traits as well? Like, a 'slavery-tolerant' trait where the pops don't care about slavery even if they're individualists, because of some quirk of their psychology.

Ethos only bonuses that could be converted to traits:
slavery tolerance
purge tolerance
War happiness
Peace happiness
Food consumption
Xenophilia

Things you couldn't really convert since they're not attached to pops:
starship damage
max rivalries
rivalry influence growth
trust growth
diplomatic influence cost

Everything else already has a corresponding trait.

The problem with this is that many of those modifiers make sense only together with the ethos, and that's not limited to human-like minds.
If you were doing it like this, a pacifist empire could get a happiness bonus if at war. A species which has war encoded into their DNA wouldn't have a concept of pacifism to begin with. The other way around would make more sense, but for that we basically have communal already.
For Xenophilia/-phobia: Just look at humanity. There are people who are the living embodiment of Star Trek's federation, and then you have people who are in the KKK. So, why should something like this be encoded in DNA, when it is (obviously) a psychological/ideological issue?
Purge tolerance would be against the instinct of self preservation, and the only reason I can think of that people (or aliens, for that matter) would turn a blind eye towards it is because they are either xenophobic or extremely collectivistic, in the first case because they don't care, and in the second because it's for the greater good. Again, not something that would be encoded in DNA.
Slavery tolerance is on the border between probable and not-probable for me. If a species never abolished slavery it would still see it as normal, but this could change. So, for a species which has practiced slavery for tens of thousands of years, it would make perfect sense. Otherwise... not too much.
Food consumption is something that makes completely sense as a species trait, though. I still can't come up with a reason of why collectivistic pops would need less food than other pops. And it is far more likely that different species with the same ethos need different amounts of food than different ethics with the same species.

 

[The Founder]

What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or was he just born with a heart full of neutrality?

"Or maybe the species creator picked that trait during uplifting/universe creation?" (of course that kind of would be "born wit ha heart full of neutrality")

Ethics and Traits are two seperate constructs by design.
The people and the Government they have (right now) are two distinct entities. We have seen that dozen of times over the course of the last 100 years of human history. I even made a guide on the mater:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=689073779

Thus far I only know of one exception - Decadent Trait. And a bit of expansion to include synths would go a long way. But ideally they might just remove it altogether.

Most importantly, how would you create a species?
Traits or Ethoses first? If you go traits first, you may get a certain bias towards Xenophobe, Collectivist and possibly Materialist empires (as every Decadent has to be one).
If you got Ethoses first, you will not see those +1 or -1 combos.

That you should only be able to get 1 Fanatic Ethos could be done with another check. But the bigger dangers is you choosing no fanatic ethos. Non-fanatics give access to way more buildings and global edicts.

 

[LordVladek]

That you should only be able to get 1 Fanatic Ethos could be done with another check. But the bigger dangers is you choosing no fanatic ethos. Non-fanatics give access to way more buildings and global edicts.

Don't you need a fanatic trait to get the ethos-specific edicts?
But yeah, it doesn't really work out. I also thought of the problem of deciding which three of the four "normal" pops get via negative ethics divergence. Do you have to mark one ethos during empire creation as "extra" or is it decided randomly?