Why there is only one -2 negative trait?

[Secret Master]

They took away droid armies and replaced them with some seriously overpriced robots.

You don't even need droid armies built from droid POPs.

If your species is weak, you either just spam more armies, or conquer/gain migration of POPs that don't have your weak trait. Viola! No more problems recruiting the most basic armies with decent stats.

Hell, many of my autocratic empires have weak species who specifically invade primitives or other empires just so I can grab POPs with desirable army traits. If you are a primitive species with strong/resilient, be prepared to be enslaved or cloned for the purposes of conquering the entire galaxy. There's not a primitive civilization in the game that can stand up to even weak armies from an FTL empire invading them with zero technologies researched. Atomic armies? LOL

I have to stop myself from making all my species weak just because it's basically a free trait point. That's how little effect the droid POP army mechanic had on me when it was removed.

(It does mean we can't have fun with xenomorphs bred from droids and other absurdities....)

 

[terrycloth]

We just need to add some traits that are worth -2.

-2: Extremely Fleeting. -45 years lifespan. Your leaders tend to die after a year or so, so basically recruit them when you need them. Like, when your science ship is hovering over the planet you want to colonize, so that he can quickly scan it before he croaks.

-2: Sadistic. -10% production without purge.

-2: Black Thumb. -50% food production. Homeworld starts out starving.

 

[The Founder]

If your species is weak, you either just spam more armies, or conquer/gain migration of POPs that don't have your weak trait. Viola! No more problems recruiting the most basic armies with decent stats.

If you got 20% less damage, just build 20% more armies. And you are actually ahead in HP, wich will in turn reduce attack losses of armies.
On T1 a Corvette costs the same as a Assault Army in energy Maintenance. Nothing in Minerals.
T3-5 it is one Corvette per 5 Clone Armies.

Strenght of a specific army only maters in a Garission/Defenses case. At wich point the attacker can just bomb it down to -100% and lock your armies out of regeneration anwyway.

(It does mean we can't have fun with xenomorphs bred from droids and other absurdities....)

The wierdest thing I ever made was a Droid Pop Psionic army.
Of course you can only do that when you are neutral on the Materialist/Spiritualsit Axis, but it was possible. I think it was a Stock UNS run too.

 

[Secret Master]

If you got 20% less damage, just build 20% more armies. And you are actually ahead in HP, wich will in turn reduce attack losses of armies.

That also works.

The wierdest thing I ever made was a Droid Pop Psionic army.

My favorite of all time are Droid-based Xenomorphs with commissar squad attachments.

So, the Xenomorphs are bred from the droids... and they respond to threats from commissars?

"You xenomorphs better get back into the fight, or we'll shoot you!"

:indistinct Alien hissing:

"Don't you act like a smart ass. I'm the commissar of this squad, and you have to do what I say."

:more Alien hissing:

"That's better. No more retreating. It's a shameful display from dangerously psychotic biological life forms bred from the honorable line of R2-D2."

 

[Chaos_TLW]

If you got 20% less damage, just build 20% more armies. And you are actually ahead in HP, wich will in turn reduce attack losses of armies.

You'd need 25% more armies, actually, but I'm just nitpicking, the point is the same either way.

 

[Kryndude]

Different question, is non-adaptive worth taking for 2 points?

 

[Elfwind]

They didn't have time to finish and balance some other traits before release.

We can always brainstorm!!!

Schizophrenic would be a funny negative trait, like a species has a divided brain or something.

 

[RedPearlA]

Different question, is non-adaptive worth taking for 2 points?

If you are not going to take extremely adaptive then it is definitely worth taking.

 

[Incompetent]

A super unhappiness penalty, like -15% or something, could be worth -2. ('Communal' and 'Solitary' aren't such good names, when they're just generic 'Happy' and 'Unhappy', regardless of population density.) Habitability is one thing, but inherently miserable pops would take some investment to deal with, and even your home planet would suffer.

Another possible -2 would be an 'Uninspired' trait that gives a severe penalty to science output (an outright 'stupid' species would never become spacefaring in the first place) and excludes all the positive science traits. You can eventually compensate for poor mineral/food production with robots and/or xeno slaves, but unless you get lucky with anomalies and whatnot, it's much harder to deal with a primary species that can't operate labs efficiently.

I suppose the devs have to be careful about too many negative traits, as they can make genetic engineering a bit OP when it's unlocked.

 

[RedPearlA]

The problem with -2 traits is that either they do not have enough of an negative effect on the player or the traits are so negative that the AIs that have them will be crippled. The main reason non-adaptible is not op for the player is because it locks out extremely adaptive.

 

[Nyanko-sensei]

A super unhappiness penalty, like -15% or something, could be worth -2.

Ney, this is EXTREME for -2. Minus 4 or minus 5 would be more appropriate since even Individualistic empires would have problems with overcoming such penalties, not to mention collectivists.

...('Communal' and 'Solitary' aren't such good names, when they're just generic 'Happy' and 'Unhappy', regardless of population density.) Habitability is one thing, but inherently miserable pops would take some investment to deal with, and even your home planet would suffer.

'Hippies' and 'emo' would be more descriptive then

Another possible -2 would be an 'Uninspired' trait that gives a severe penalty to science output (an outright 'stupid' species would never become spacefaring in the first place) and excludes all the positive science traits. You can eventually compensate for poor mineral/food production with robots and/or xeno slaves, but unless you get lucky with anomalies and whatnot, it's much harder to deal with a primary species that can't operate labs efficiently.

Bit over too much again. Minus 4 or something like that.

I suppose the devs have to be careful about too many negative traits, as they can make genetic engineering a bit OP when it's unlocked.

Removing negative traits also cost points and you have only +3 of them total, so I don't think it will be OP.

 

[Milten]

All in all they should include more traits.

If it's a dozen of another +7% to food - I guess I can manage without them.

 

[The Founder]

Different question, is non-adaptive worth taking for 2 points?

They can be worth it for what I call the "founder species". Basically a species that never leaves thier Home Planet Colony wise (except maybe for Gaia class worlds). They are the primary species. They provide the rulers, leaders, perhaps even 100% of the Ground Forces. But they do not settle anywhere else.

Non-Adaptive should not be trifelled with. -10% Max Happiness, -10% growth. On top of the -20%/-40% you suffer for colonies (relative to the homeworld) already. It is poision for Happiness builds.
Basically you will have to use another species for the bulk of your colonisation, wich makes you dependant on early conquest or nearby pre-FTL species*.

*Keep in mind that Culture shock locks out using pops as colonsits too, for up to 20 years with newly grown pops.


One bigger problem with the traits is that thier effect depends on your endgoal.
Deviant is a free pick as Fanatic Individualist. It does not hinder you. Moreover, it hinders people that conquer your empire not running a FI build.
In turn Conformist is good for you. But also good for people conquering your people (easier to convert).
The Faction/Ethos rework in 1.5 might make the Positive/Negative trait difference a bit clearer.

 

[Nyanko-sensei]

They can be worth it for what I call the "founder species". Basically a species that never leaves thier Home Planet Colony wise (except maybe for Gaia class worlds). They are the primary species. They provide the rulers, leaders, perhaps even 100% of the Ground Forces. But they do not settle anywhere else.

Non-Adaptive should not be trifelled with. -10% Max Happiness, -10% growth. On top of the -20%/-40% you suffer for colonies (relative to the homeworld) already. It is poision for Happiness builds.
Basically you will have to use another species for the bulk of your colonisation, wich makes you dependant on early conquest or nearby pre-FTL species*.

Being playing species with non-adaptive trait a lot. Haven't noticed problems at all. In fact my favorite "gimmesomepoints" trait. Why? Well, homeworld class planets will have happiness caped at 65%-70%, which is usually more that I could hope for anyway with collectivist build, and fairly OK with individualist or pacifist build. When I ran out of planets of homeworld type, a go and terraform something close to it. By then paying 1500-2000 energy for minor terraforming is not a huge deal. Also by then some little poobags within my borders or very close to me discovers joys of FTL, so I merge them into my glorious empire one way or another. Often they are form different climate so they become my colonization fodder for different planets. Same thing with third climate type.

 

[The Founder]

Being playing species with non-adaptive trait a lot. Haven't noticed problems at all. In fact my favorite "gimmesomepoints" trait. Why? Well, homeworld class planets will have happiness caped at 65%-70%, which is usually more that I could hope for anyway with collectivist build, and fairly OK with individualist or pacifist build. When I ran out of planets of homeworld type, a go and terraform something close to it. By then paying 1500-2000 energy for minor terraforming is not a huge deal. Also by then some little poobags within my borders or very close to me discovers joys of FTL, so I merge them into my glorious empire one way or another. Often they are form different climate so they become my colonization fodder for different planets. Same thing with third climate type.

For contentnes builds it is certainly viable. Wich is another of those "cases were traits can be more negative for your enemy then yourself". Of course the new Faction/Base Happiness System in 1.5 will elliminate that propblem as well, making Non-Adaptive a actuall bad trait.

 

[Wulfram]

Its sensible to be cautious about negative traits, because a clever player can always minimise the effect of negatives and maximise the effect of positives. So negative traits tend to end up being "overpowered".

 

[rittstar]

Fleeting should be -3.

i use fleeting trait to my advantage to ged rid of the ruler as quick as possible for tomb monument
dont think my advantage should give me more trait points somewhere else

 

[shadowclasper]

That also works.



My favorite of all time are Droid-based Xenomorphs with commissar squad attachments.

So, the Xenomorphs are bred from the droids... and they respond to threats from commissars?

"You xenomorphs better get back into the fight, or we'll shoot you!"

:indistinct Alien hissing:

"Don't you act like a smart ass. I'm the commissar of this squad, and you have to do what I say."

:more Alien hissing:

"That's better. No more retreating. It's a shameful display from dangerously psychotic biological life forms bred from the honorable line of R2-D2."

stuff like this is the only reason I'm happy that armies are in the game.
>holds the unpopular opinion that armies should've been an expac feature if included at all.

 

[Ezumiyr]

We should simply have more traits, especially more traits like "decadent".
Having species that live longer or are repugnant to other species is fun, but species with bland +10% ressource output are easily forgettable.

Currently, we have traits that make me think about Star Trek humanoids - there are slight differences between each species, but in the end, unique species with tryly defining traits are the exception. The problem is that what we see on our screens (three-headed hydras, ferocious bird-like creatures, amorphous mushrooms etc.) have no relation with the traits.

I would have strongly disagreed with that before, but now I think that some portraits should have more chances to be associated with some traits, and it would be even better if some unique traits could randomly be associated with specific portraits / specific portrait groups.

 

[Elothan]

Then custom portaits would be far fewer between.