Traits you'd like to see in the game!

[unmerged(133356)]

However traits are handled and whichever ones are there, I want them to be more useful, beyond + and - to attributes and piety or prestige. King has already stated that they will limit or enable certain event choices. How else do you guys think that traits should affect gameplay?

Traits should not restrict the player's choices.

 

[unmerged(133356)]

Because complications are what makes me enjoy CK1 most. The more messed up the character's life is, the more I'm enjoying myself.

And the more frustrated I am.

 

[telesien]

Traits should not restrict the player's choices.

I think they should. Selfish character shouldn't have the option to reward generously (moderately at best ) as well as just or valorous ones shouldn't be able to break treaties. At least not as easily as deceitful ones.

 

[Jesenjin]

I think they should. Selfish character shouldn't have the option to reward generously (moderately at best ) as well as just or valorous ones shouldn't be able to break treaties. At least not as easily as deceitful ones.

Plus I think in one of interview Devs gave, it was said that traits WOULD affect options in diplomacy. Correct me if I am wrong, cause I am not too sure about this.

 

[SolSara]

Traits should not restrict the player's choices.

Then this is not the game for you Seriously though, why not? Wouldn't it be fun to see that a kind or charitable person get an extra option that might remove some gold but add some prestige whilst a greedy person would get some gold but lose some prestige?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Traits should not restrict the player's choices.

Then what would be the point of them?

 

[unmerged(155641)]

Then what would be the point of them?

Indeed.

 

[unmerged(133356)]

The point of them is in the modifiers, not in the restrictions.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

The point of them is in the modifiers, not in the restrictions.

That implies you only want positive modifiers

 

[Captain Frakas]

The point of them is in the modifiers, not in the restrictions.

Without doubts, you'll be able to mod the game so that all options are always available and all traits give positive modifiers.

 

[unmerged(133356)]

Then this is not the game for you

That might very well be the case.

Seriously though, why not? Wouldn't it be fun to see that a kind or charitable person get an extra option that might remove some gold but add some prestige whilst a greedy person would get some gold but lose some prestige?

No.

Unless traits are gained and lost in a very different way than they often were in CK1, in which one often had no choice but to pick up a trait, or heavily risk picking up a trait, because of the options given in a random event. Being saddled with limits on my choices because the game fired off a random event at the character two in-game years earlier would be extremely frustrating.

At least the save-games are likely to still be editable, and I will always be able to delete traits off of characters...

 

[unmerged(133356)]

Without doubts, you'll be able to mod the game so that all options are always available and all traits give positive modifiers.

I don't mind all negative modifiers. I mind restricted choices.

 

[Count of Reval]

Ideally traits would restrict AI-characters in hard-coded manner and human-played character through very severe penalties - technically you could take any action that is in contradiction with some of your traits, but it would cause a stress in most cases, investment for taking that action would cost more (money/prestige/piety) and outcome of the action would have "lower quality" (decreased success rates and bonuses). Acting against one's nature should be made a very unattractive choice (but not impossible, because those things happen).

 

[telesien]

No.

Unless traits are gained and lost in a very different way than they often were in CK1, in which one often had no choice but to pick up a trait, or heavily risk picking up a trait, because of the options given in a random event. Being saddled with limits on my choices because the game fired off a random event at the character two in-game years earlier would be extremely frustrating.

At least the save-games are likely to still be editable, and I will always be able to delete traits off of characters...

I on the other hand like this and I would prefer some very visible limits for characters based on their traits. CK was always more of an RPG experience and just like muslim nations can't have crusade is their CB, so characters should be limited to improve the game experience beyond simple min/maxing of statistics.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

As long as you don't end up with events that only have one choice - why not??

 

[unmerged(31881)]

That implies you only want positive modifiers

iirc many traits had aspects which were both positive and negative.

Even a generally cruddy one like "Bastard" could occasionally produce a "Life is tough but so is this punk, make him your heir!" outcome.

 

[Drakken]

Traits should not restrict the player's choices.

They have already decided that they would, they said it in previews.

 

[unmerged(133356)]

They have already decided that they would, they said it in previews.

And this means that any thought to the contrary is forbidden on the forums and must remain unstated?

 

[unmerged(31881)]

It will probably be like CK1 - e.g. "Ruler kicking puppies" will have cruelty as a precondition. Or the possible infidelity events - bastards were not quite automatic but indeed strongly linked to traits.

i see it as akin to the playable muslims/pagans: as long as it is moddable without hacking the exe.... shouldn't be too much of an issue.

 

[Drakken]

And this means that any thought to the contrary is forbidden on the forums and must remain unstated?

No, only that the design decision has already been taken and that you are fighting windmills here, for something that the majority of us find acceptable.