So we have a LOT of strong disagreement between the following:
1) Whether Positive (and potentially Negative) traits should or should not have some slight element of negative (in Positive traits) or a slight element of positive (in Negative traits.)
I'll comment on this with a few more arguments:
First off, any personality element, which is what traits are, the personality definitions of the Leaderhead, is going to have some strengths and weaknesses inherent in what they are. Its all part of one personality trait package because the strengths also directly rationalize into the same sets of weaknesses as a result of the strengths. At least it does in this system and I think that gives us a lot more room to balance as opposed to giving us less.
Second, it places the negative elements of those traits a value those traits are interacting with, and with trait upgrades would eventually be a positive towards the very same value elements, which is what I meant by 'something to overcome'. As far as the argument that these are just handicaps, sure they are to some extent but they are VARIED by the leader so some leaders have certain issues others don't - which helps us hit the holy grail of Civ design theory: Different but Equal.
Third, by allowing some slight negatives, we allow the traits to be more rationally developable as we can give some traits a bit more strength, in relation to other equivalent traits, and counterbalance with slightly more impacting slight penalties.
BTW, you may have noticed I don't often favor experience gain penalties. Only in few and rare trait cases should that show up, simply because even a bit of that is highly undesireable because it acts a bit like the tax brackets in our tax code, pushing into a worse level gain increment bracket right out of the gate (if that makes any sense.)
Anyhow, I do understand all the feelings involved here and the biases and in many cases I think the general arguments that are unsurmountable in any debate on this subject is that for both sides of the fence the difference represents two very different flavors of play.
My point is, this is where Game Option Lines should be drawn. I'd therefore like us to consider both Yin/Yang style traits (where there is element of negative among the mostly positive and element of positive among the mostly negative traits) and Dichotomy style traits (where positive is purely positive and Negative is purely negative.) Both should eventually be enabled for players based on the options they choose.
I'm hoping AIAndy is able to pull off what he said he could do with modular files and game options he discussed in another thread that would easily allow us to make such an option and have it fairly streamlined. (There are other ways to pull it off but his was the best method, which sadly I don't have the skill to achieve myself.)
We also have two very strong disagreements on whether Negative traits should be included at all. There again I like having them but I can completely understand those who flat don't want them in their game. Thus another game option which would again be compatible with the previous seems to be in order.
I suggest we get past that and accept that we'll offer both when its all said and done and move on to more pointed suggestions about the trait in current focus.
Right now, again, that's Aggressive.
Currently, ls612 and I are in disagreement mostly over whether this trait giving both Combat I and Combat II to many units would be OP or not. I personally feel, due to the massive unlocking of more powerful promotions this would represent, that it would force us to make ALL traits considerably more powerful to keep up with the new desirability Aggressive would carry if it were to offer both promos like this. I already consider it one of the most desirable traits at offering simply Combat I alone (because it eliminates a major pointless waste of a promotion selection on leveling to get to so many wanted promos!)
Then we have Hydro suggesting to make it get a unique promo altogether (though hasn't yet provided a proposal as to the ability of that promo.)
There's some other suggestions about what it could or should offer as well thrown in the mix. So what do y'all think about those? Where do YOU fall on the Combat I/II debate?
