Extra Traits for C2C

I know you stand on the side of the fence that states all positive promos should be all positive. Do you feel that a game option or a module could resolve that satisfactorily for both sides? If so, do you feel that the 'pure' traits should be the default? If so, why? I'm really looking for rationale I'm not finding from the 'purists' that counters the suggestion that Traits, being personality elements of leaders and no personality is perfect nor without its own weaknesses, should never be ALL positive nor ALL negative, though they SHOULD be MOSTLY one or the other as a definition. Please, your thoughts?
 
@Thunderbrd

I have found in games that the most rewarding games are the ones that no only reward you but also have something to overcome. For instance in role playing games like D&D many of the most interesting characters are the ones with a penalty and not necessarily a bonus. For instance if a character was blind you would think, "why would I want to play a blind character"? Yet some of the most interesting characters are blind such as Daredevil in comics or Toph in Avatar.

Overcoming a "negative" trait can be that much more rewarding as a player. Which is why I was in the camp of 2 positives with 1 negative. And from purely gaming stand point all great heros have their weaknesses, be it Superman with kryptonite, Indiana Jones with snakes or Achilles and hisinfamous heel.

So as a player I want to have as much as I can milk from the game to get an advantage, but from a game maker I want to make the game both challenging and rewarding. This is why NIMBYs are just as important as YIMBYs.

As for optional. I think that is a good idea for those who do not wish to play that way. However I do not think its good to have "gray" traits that have both good and bad in them. I would much rather have 2/3rd good and 1/3rd bad than 50/50 of each.
 
Ok, so carry on this debate with me for a moment (purely because I know you may be able to offer some valuable insight into this viewpoint.)

However I do not think its good to have "gray" traits that have both good and bad in them. I would much rather have 2/3rd good and 1/3rd bad than 50/50 of each.
Click to expand...
You say that its good to have some negative. I think we both agree that the Negative Traits, generally representing a third of the leader's personality profile is a good idea. (I know there's dissenters there too...)

However, I was finding as we were going through the trait proposals, that some negatives are very easily directly related to the very positive in a profound manner, as in, what makes the leader positive also brings a way to see that positive in a slightly penalizing manner. If we only allow any negativity ON traits to come from the negative traits, there's a disconnect between the cause and effect where adding some small negative to all positive traits and having some slight positive to all negative traits can clearly establish a direct relationship between the bonuses and penalties involved. Not suggesting to do away with mostly negative traits mind you, just that it seems like the system comes out more... natural... when you give a minor glitch to the overall scheme of any given trait.

But what I'm hearing from you is something along the lines of: Traits aren't really supposed to reflect a realistic personality profile so much as they should be little more than game details, bonuses and penalties that you can fully pick and choose if you are careful with your leader selection and thus it should not matter if the punishment matches the crimes so to speak. Is that kinda where you're coming from on that?

You, and others, might wonder why I keep coming back to this point and its because I think we should really get a feel for why some feel so strongly on this issue one way or another so that we can determine which would be the default (for now) until the option is setup.
 
Well one can always play devils advocate and show the worst in good things and the best in bad things. However from a game balance stand point Negative traits should be purely of negative things and positive traits of purely positive things.

In doing so we must also take in account of what I will call "major" and "minor" traits. Some traits good or bad that for whatever reason are not quite balanced. This is by far the hardest aspect to do since each trait is being constantly adjusted and open to interpretation.

Which is why I feel that a more stylized approach may be better. In real life even the villain is the hero of his own story, but in classic good vs evil the hero and the villain are clearly marked. I feel we should do the same when dealing with the traits. To where if its a negative trait you can instantly tell its a negative trait and if its a positive trait you can instantly tell that as well.

Not only that but we should seek to have each trait have a signature feature. An really question, "what is this trait about?" Sure Seafaring is easy since its all about boats ocean travel or Spiritual is all about religion. But what about more vague traits like Idealistic or Foreign?

I hope that helps you understand my point of view on the subject.
 
However from a game balance stand point Negative traits should be purely of negative things and positive traits of purely positive things.
Click to expand...
I'm enjoying the conversation so I'm hoping its not exhausting but I wanted to press here a bit.

Isn't it more balance enabling to be able to use a little negative on a positive trait to bring that trait back into balance after giving it a little bit better benefit than the average? How does the purist approach add any 'Game Balance' at all?

In doing so we must also take in account of what I will call "major" and "minor" traits. Some traits good or bad that for whatever reason are not quite balanced. This is by far the hardest aspect to do since each trait is being constantly adjusted and open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
Are suggesting that the goal, lets say among the entire list of positive traits, is NOT to have them all equally valid and beneficial to the leader that has it?

Which is why I feel that a more stylized approach may be better. In real life even the villain is the hero of his own story, but in classic good vs evil the hero and the villain are clearly marked. I feel we should do the same when dealing with the traits. To where if its a negative trait you can instantly tell its a negative trait and if its a positive trait you can instantly tell that as well.
Click to expand...
Well put. But isn't the best villain the one you see a hint of redeeming quality in? Or one that you can reasonably recognize you may have not made many differing decisions on the road to becoming that guy yourself?

Is it really difficult to see a mostly positive trait as being such if that trait has a hint of negative? Or are you perhaps saying that the AMOUNT of negativity on Positive and Positivity on Negative traits has been too strong to make the distinction clear?

I guess in a sense you're arguing for game-simplicity, while my camp would prefer game theory reflective of real world theory. Honestly, this is the core difference between western and eastern thought, dichotomy (evil is evil and good is good) vs yin-yang (evil and good do exist but no essence can be purely one without inherently becoming a part of the other.) I think I'm seeing in this discussion, that my personal views and philosophy in every element of life is far more the second type.

So if you're saying it needs to be clear by keeping the positive traits completely void of negativity, then you're really suggesting that absolutely never, in any situation, should any trait that is designated as positive have any negative elements, right?

Now... what are the arguments for making that the default approach? (I can think of a few even though its not my preference ;) )
 
@Hydro:

I wanted the Aggressive promotion to have both free Aggressive AND Combat I. I think that someone removed the Combat I free. Was there a reason for that, or just a miscommunication?

@Thunderbrd:

I also stand on the side of all positive promos being only positive and vice versa. That way it is clearer to the player what the bonuses and drawbacks will be from each LH, as well as far easier to balance than the promotions that are in the 'grey area'.
 
ls612 said:
@Hydro:

I wanted the Aggressive promotion to have both free Aggressive AND Combat I. I think that someone removed the Combat I free. Was there a reason for that, or just a miscommunication?

@Thunderbrd:

I also stand on the side of all positive promos being only positive and vice versa. That way it is clearer to the player what the bonuses and drawbacks will be from each LH, as well as far easier to balance than the promotions that are in the 'grey area'.
Click to expand...

1) Hydro wants to make sure Combat I (and any of the currently existing promotions) are not being handed out to units for free based on Traits so that it doesn't overlap with buildings and cultural unit special bonuses and so on. I suppose I can live with that but I've now proposed another design for the Aggressive promo.

If we are going to have Aggressive not giving out Combat I, then I think that a full +20% Combat is a little too strong but +10% is way too weak. I feel that Aggressives should have stronger attacking armies but since I'm listening to some of the above comments, I'm thinking that perhaps it should still be a notch better at defense than the norm as a result of basic overall improved warfare strategy from their leader. Thus, I'm proposing the Aggressive promo be:
  • +20% Attack
  • +10% Defense

This is possible with the new tags I added for generic only Attack bonus and only Defense bonus. It'd be nice to see them used here as their initial application.


2) Let me preface the following with the explanation that I'm stating this for the sake of discussion. I'm NOT dead set on either ALL positive nor ALL negative but find in this polar disagreement some fascinating underlying game design values being expressed that apply to a lot more than just this issue. So please take all of this as its intended, in a friendly discussionable tone ;) I'm probing for a deeper understanding of opinions here.

Ok, so I can understand the value in making it easier for players to more easily grasp the Positive/Negative traits. But do you really think its that hard to comprehend if there's some slight negatives on positives and vice versa? Its not like we have stupid players... some of the most intelligent gamers in the world would be drawn to this game no? Is simplicity really that valued a goal here? Particularly when simplicity is employed in such a manner as to eliminate meaningful depth of design?

Its one thing to have say, an Aggressive/Charismatic Leader with any old random negative trait attached, but its far more meaningful if the penalties they receive are the direct result of the positives they are getting, isn't it? Do you feel this meaningful linkage of penalty to benefit less desirable than making things more simple to grasp at first glance?

Is it better to have a game with a 'game' feel or one with a gritty feeling of 'model of reality' feel? I think that might be where the true value difference lies in this issue. And the funny thing for me is that in some cases I do feel that its possible to overly infuse realism to the point of making the game less enjoyable... I just don't feel this is really one of those areas.

3) You say they'd be easier to balance, but what if the bonus you wish to give is stronger than the norm? Doesn't it then make it easier to balance with a bit more negative to compensate for that? If we rule out having negatives on positive traits, I was finding in reviewing and proposing my suggestions that there was far less maneuverability in which to operate. Otherwise, if you give one trait a decent enough benefit that it breaks the balance between the positive traits, then we need to go through all other positive traits and add to them rather than pulling the trait back into balance by penalizing it a bit more. There were a few specific cases where the trait struck me as being capable of a lot more than most but also would've had more drawbacks than most so it made sense that way. Again, this is not to 'argue' but to give some thoughts for consideration and to drum up some equally pointed replies.
 
Thunderbrd said:
1) Hydro wants to make sure Combat I (and any of the currently existing promotions) are not being handed out to units for free based on Traits so that it doesn't overlap with buildings and cultural unit special bonuses and so on. I suppose I can live with that but I've now proposed another design for the Aggressive promo.

If we are going to have Aggressive not giving out Combat I, then I think that a full +20% Combat is a little too strong but +10% is way too weak. I feel that Aggressives should have stronger attacking armies but since I'm listening to some of the above comments, I'm thinking that perhaps it should still be a notch better at defense than the norm as a result of basic overall improved warfare strategy from their leader. Thus, I'm proposing the Aggressive promo be:
  • +20% Attack
  • +10% Defense

This is possible with the new tags I added for generic only Attack bonus and only Defense bonus. It'd be nice to see them used here as their initial application.


2) Let me preface the following with the explanation that I'm stating this for the sake of discussion. I'm NOT dead set on either ALL positive nor ALL negative but find in this polar disagreement some fascinating underlying game design values being expressed that apply to a lot more than just this issue. So please take all of this as its intended, in a friendly discussionable tone ;) I'm probing for a deeper understanding of opinions here.

Ok, so I can understand the value in making it easier for players to more easily grasp the Positive/Negative traits. But do you really think its that hard to comprehend if there's some slight negatives on positives and vice versa? Its not like we have stupid players... some of the most intelligent gamers in the world would be drawn to this game no? Is simplicity really that valued a goal here? Particularly when simplicity is employed in such a manner as to eliminate meaningful depth of design?

Its one thing to have say, an Aggressive/Charismatic Leader with any old random negative trait attached, but its far more meaningful if the penalties they receive are the direct result of the positives they are getting, isn't it? Do you feel this meaningful linkage of penalty to benefit less desirable than making things more simple to grasp at first glance?

Is it better to have a game with a 'game' feel or one with a gritty feeling of 'model of reality' feel? I think that might be where the true value difference lies in this issue. And the funny thing for me is that in some cases I do feel that its possible to overly infuse realism to the point of making the game less enjoyable... I just don't feel this is really one of those areas.

3) You say they'd be easier to balance, but what if the bonus you wish to give is stronger than the norm? Doesn't it then make it easier to balance with a bit more negative to compensate for that? If we rule out having negatives on positive traits, I was finding in reviewing and proposing my suggestions that there was far less maneuverability in which to operate. Otherwise, if you give one trait a decent enough benefit that it breaks the balance between the positive traits, then we need to go through all other positive traits and add to them rather than pulling the trait back into balance by penalizing it a bit more. There were a few specific cases where the trait struck me as being capable of a lot more than most but also would've had more drawbacks than most so it made sense that way. Again, this is not to 'argue' but to give some thoughts for consideration and to drum up some equally pointed replies.
Click to expand...

1. That sounds like a reasonable idea for Aggressive. I do think though that most of the Culture Units don't have free Combat I, but do have free terrain or other promotions, so I don't think my old idea would be too bad.

2. I have the opposite position on this one. I work on and (more importantly) play C2C because it is a game and therefore is fun. And I think we have sacrificed some of the fun in order to make it more realistic. It is like SO always says, the whole point of the mod is to 'just have fun', and that IMO is where our disagreements come from on the Combat Mod. I agree, it would make things more realistic and complicated, but I think it would also make things less fun.

3. I agree, we have a lot of smart players. However, it makes sense in my mind to say "Your leaders will do two good things for you and one bad thing to you" and then have 15-20 traits of each type to keep things interesting. Again, I'm looking at this from a game perspective here, not necessarily a realism perspective (although when they overlap that is good).

4. Which traits do you think should get +- WW? I'm thinking less WW for Imperialist and Charismatic, and more for Idealist OTOH.
 
ls612 said:
1. That sounds like a reasonable idea for Aggressive. I do think though that most of the Culture Units don't have free Combat I, but do have free terrain or other promotions, so I don't think my old idea would be too bad.

2. I have the opposite position on this one. I work on and (more importantly) play C2C because it is a game and therefore is fun. And I think we have sacrificed some of the fun in order to make it more realistic. It is like SO always says, the whole point of the mod is to 'just have fun', and that IMO is where our disagreements come from on the Combat Mod. I agree, it would make things more realistic and complicated, but I think it would also make things less fun.

3. I agree, we have a lot of smart players. However, it makes sense in my mind to say "Your leaders will do two good things for you and one bad thing to you" and then have 15-20 traits of each type to keep things interesting. Again, I'm looking at this from a game perspective here, not necessarily a realism perspective (although when they overlap that is good).

4. Which traits do you think should get +- WW? I'm thinking less WW for Imperialist and Charismatic, and more for Idealist OTOH.
Click to expand...

1) I didn't dislike the idea to have Combat I + Aggressive either but I can also respect Hydro's opinion on that and find oftentimes there are wonders or other bonuses that I don't care to go for because I'm already getting that benefit from being aggressive. So his concept does make sense and the same thinking goes for many other trait free promos which we'll address as we go through I figure.

2) Fascinating statement. Thanks for sharing that perspective. Its true that sometimes making the feel less like a game and more like a model replica CAN take away some of the fun. I also think there's a side of fun and enjoyability that comes from the reverse so this really is a place where game options should rule. I guess the question comes down to 'what's our default value there in C2C?' Perhaps, and I'm sorry to say it SGT Slick, the default should probably be the Game feel over the Reality feel.

Plus, and I'll say this to back the Trait purist agenda here, it would be easier to modularly optionalize the partial negative Positive traits and partial positive Negative trait details than it would to go the other way around. Modular overriding would be the first key in working this into an option. Again... REALLY hoping AIAndy can develop the method for modules to be converted to game options in the loading process, but if he can't I DO have another proposed way to go about it that I can do myself. (Its just not as good a method really, but I'm not as skilled and can't envision how to do what needs to be done under his concept there.)

Still, I'd like to make sure that those of you who feel the partial opposing elements aren't your preference are still giving them due consideration in our proposals and negotiations on these traits. In otherwords, we should all still be able to consider each model and the pros and cons of ideas that involve each right?

Anyhow, I'm still of the opinion that the final decision on which version should be the default is in SGT Slick's hands but I'd beg him to take this opportunity to show us all that the group's opinions do matter.

As to your comment on the Combat Mod... you're absolutely right that its very much intended to bring combat and unit management much more into the realm of the real and I do realize not everyone would want that, not because of any level of intelligence or amount of appreciation for complexity but because I realize sometimes more complex just isn't as fun. But then again, sometimes its far MORE fun for some, so its definitely the grounds for being presented as a set of options.

In fact, I've been thinking... C2C has a lot of those differences where options are concerned, whether its to be more game-like or more real-like... I've begun to think it might be neat to have the two as option sets somehow, where we could just choose Realistic GameOption set and it acts as if all the 'realistic' game options are set to on and if off, vice versa. Just a thought that's been rattling around in the skull lately.

4) Those sound like some good ideas but until I take the time to really go through each with that in mind it'd be tough to make proposals there.



@ ALL: My primary concern this weekend is getting SGTSlick's requested tags up and running(and possibly more!) I'm also including an iCivicAnarchyTimeModifier Tag and an iReligiousAnarchyTimeModifier tag because I don't think simply setting up a maximum anarchy time is an effective and scalable method to work the traits that influence anarchy times (such as Spiritual for example).
 
Isn't it more balance enabling to be able to use a little negative on a positive trait to bring that trait back into balance after giving it a little bit better benefit than the average? How does the purist approach add any 'Game Balance' at all?
Click to expand...

That's the problem. Lets say that each trait is a different color. By adding more stuff that is not that color then overall all the traits become brown and not their own unique color anymore. By laying out a clear vision of what each trait is about will make them better. Rathe than just a mess of every trait has a little of whatever other trait has.

Are suggesting that the goal, lets say among the entire list of positive traits, is NOT to have them all equally valid and beneficial to the leader that has it?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I am saying that all the traits should be equally powerful in whatever they are good at. Thus a religious trait should be equally good as a scientific trait.

Well put. But isn't the best villain the one you see a hint of redeeming quality in? Or one that you can reasonably recognize you may have not made many differing decisions on the road to becoming that guy yourself?
Click to expand...

Misunderstood villains of course make good stories but for game balance the "bad guys" have to stay "bad guys". I mean in a zombie game are you having remorse for killing the zombies because they were real people like you and me once? Or are we going to be outraged at Mario for stepping on turtles? We have to draw the line some where. Otherwise why even have "negative traits" if they are all going to be "gray" traits.

Is it really difficult to see a mostly positive trait as being such if that trait has a hint of negative? Or are you perhaps saying that the AMOUNT of negativity on Positive and Positivity on Negative traits has been too strong to make the distinction clear?
Click to expand...

As I said before if we are going to have positive and negative traits then we need to draw the line. Otherwise we should just have 3 traits that are neither positive or negative. Its not fair (or balanced) to have 2 positive traits and then 1 "sort of negative" trait.

I guess in a sense you're arguing for game-simplicity, while my camp would prefer game theory reflective of real world theory. Honestly, this is the core difference between western and eastern thought, dichotomy (evil is evil and good is good) vs yin-yang (evil and good do exist but no essence can be purely one without inherently becoming a part of the other.) I think I'm seeing in this discussion, that my personal views and philosophy in every element of life is far more the second type.
Click to expand...

Well I think the problem is that they were brought in as "Negative" traits from Realism Inviticus. With the assumption they would give a malus to traits. If we wanted to just add on more traits we should not attempt to pretend its something that it isn't. We should either agree that all traits are just traits with good and bad in them. OR say these traits are "good" and these traits are "bad". because having something in-between is both confusing to the player and unbalanced as a game.

So if you're saying it needs to be clear by keeping the positive traits completely void of negativity, then you're really suggesting that absolutely never, in any situation, should any trait that is designated as positive have any negative elements, right?
Click to expand...

Yes if we are commiting to having "negative traits" then they should be completely negative. And positive traits be completely positive. Otherwise we should just call them all just "traits" and have them have both.

I wanted the Aggressive promotion to have both free Aggressive AND Combat I. I think that someone removed the Combat I free. Was there a reason for that, or just a miscommunication?
Click to expand...

i thought it was agreed that all the Traits would get their own unique promotions and not use existing promotions because it would make culture units less useful. Combat I alone gives a HUGE and unfair advantage just by the fact it unlocks other promotions.

Its one thing to have say, an Aggressive/Charismatic Leader with any old random negative trait attached, but its far more meaningful if the penalties they receive are the direct result of the positives they are getting, isn't it? Do you feel this meaningful linkage of penalty to benefit less desirable than making things more simple to grasp at first glance?
Click to expand...

You should take a look at some of the traits in MOO2 or The Sims 3. They have both positive and negative traits. Rather than each trait having +/- qualities the end product has both good and bad. Like a recipe; alone the ingredients are only what they are. But when combined they become much more and different than what they were separately. That's how I see each individual leader. Not as the 3 traits but as the combination of these 3 traits.
 
I don't think we should remove the negative traits, no. Give an option for those who don't want to have them on their leaders perhaps, but I wouldn't remove them from the game design.

So... wow... I'm finding the new tags are coming along QUICKLY! So much of the structure is already set up - anything that Civics has allows me to bypass a number of steps - quite nice. I'm actually already done with the ones he put forward as a priority and am developing a couple of ones of my own I think should be included. Then I'll go back and see what others he wanted and I think by the end of the weekend I should have an update with all of them! We'll have some maneuverability here :)

I like the points you brought up guys. What I have a hard time getting past, I think, is that I would like traits to be more representative of their names. We have positive traits, like Aggressive, that so naturally lend themselves to some natural negatives to go along with them. And the same can be said for the negative ones (especially!) It's hard to see 'Revolutionary' or even Rebel or Revolutionist as not having SOME small benefit even if the trait is, by definition, negative.

When I think of the trait design, I think, how would this type of leader personality have an effect on his empire? Immediately, with any given term, I can see both positive and negative. This doesn't mean that I don't see them as being mostly positive or mostly negative. Take Arrogant for example. The term tends to invite a lot of negativity, but can also be a leader who makes more decisive actions and is not delayed by managing the concerns of others into his outlook (I have to chuckle at myself here - I'm not bringing that one up to speak between the lines or anything, was just the first to come to mind.)

To me, to take that kind of design thinking outside of traits is to be forced to stretch myself to ignore the obvious counterbalances that would be inherrent in the concept of the trait itself. Sure, some aren't so difficult. Politician, Protective, Aggricultural... there's a number of them that don't immediately lend one to seeing the other side of the coin. But so many of these terms just literally scream out for a more honest representation of such a leadership style.

So in short, THIS is why I fall in the camp I do. But that's not to downplay or devalue anything either of you brought up which I feel is equally valid. Thus the game option I suppose. (The only problem with THAT solution is how much harder and more frustrating yet another option adds to the process when we setup multiplayer games... lol)

Anyhow, we've expressed things effectively on both sides of the fence here so I'll leave the decision on which should be our 'default' Trait set in Sgt Slick's hands. Nevertheless, we really should work on developing both sides of the coin simultaneously.

@ SGT Slick... I think it would be helpful at this time to give what we have currently as our running 'final workup' on Aggressive (both models). I'm getting ansy to move on and I'd like us all to see what the final proposition is to make sure we're all in relative agreement on that trait.
 
Hydromancerx said:
As I said before if we are going to have positive and negative traits then we need to draw the line. Otherwise we should just have 3 traits that are neither positive or negative. Its not fair (or balanced) to have 2 positive traits and then 1 "sort of negative" trait.

<snip>

If we wanted to just add on more traits we should not attempt to pretend its something that it isn't. We should either agree that all traits are just traits with good and bad in them. OR say these traits are "good" and these traits are "bad". because having something in-between is both confusing to the player and unbalanced as a game.



Yes if we are commiting to having "negative traits" then they should be completely negative. And positive traits be completely positive. Otherwise we should just call them all just "traits" and have them have both.
Click to expand...

Agree. I think the terminology is the big sticking point here.
 
Hydromancerx said:
Honestly I like how Realism Inviticus originally set them up. It was easy to tell which traits were negative.
Click to expand...

I do too. Please don't change the traits, it seems that they are balanced for the moment, and I don't want to go and fix something that isn't broken.

@Thunderbrd: What tags are these? Is there a list of them somewhere that I could see? Also, I'd appreciate it if this update doesn't break anything, as Koshling has told me he is getting tired of picking up the pieces from others' breaking things.
 
I've mentioned the few I wanted to do (Anarchy % modifiers and Specific Worker speed bonuses by Build and Improvement Upgrade Rate bonuses by Improvement) and the rest, SGT Slick requested two pages back. He was quite detailed on the tags he requested.

I'm not committing anything at the moment as I want to get the rest of them completed first. But suffice it to say, what's been done so far is standing up to every play-stress-test I can put them through so far. The relative risk of a problem here is exceedingly lower than the usual - very strait forward stuff, most of which the paths have already been setup for me already and takes a minimal effort to 'plug-in' these tags for Traits.

So that you are aware, I already see creating a bug on the SVN to be a nightmare scenario without you having to say it should be. And I'm surprised, after all the drama this week and how nice it felt to feel like we were getting along (at least it did to me) that you felt the need to get another jab in.

Furthermore, if the traits stay as they are I'd think it'd be terribly unjust considering you did your changes with absolutely zero consent from anyone, including the guy in charge here. I'm not terribly happy with them in general myself so I'm not sure where you're getting this feeling of mass consensus from.

I'm not saying everything should be quickly switched back over either though. I think we should carefully evaluate every individual trait one at a time so that the changes from here are gradual and well thought out as a group!

I do believe its possible for everyone to be heard and made satisfied in the final designs. The tags coming into availability here will allow us a LOT more imaginative solutions to balance traits, regardless of whether they are proposals for the Purist Traits or Devil's Advocate Traits, and develop ALL traits to more fully reflect their thematic purposes.
 
For whatever it's worth, I'm strongly in favor of making positive traits all positive and negative traits all negative. Whether that's more realistic or not, it makes the gameplay better, or at the very least, easier to understand.

Sequestering this behind an option sounds almost impossible. I'd rather have the mixed traits than an option to use one or the other, since I can see that being anything other than a nightmare to develop around in every single aspect of the game. Traits can potentially influence anything and every time any of the things they could influence get changed they could unbalance the traits one way or the other.
 
I really liked the Excessive trait needing more XP to get a promotion it showed creativity. Now it is just a money malus - how boring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlapstickMojo
C2C Developer Podcast Interview
Replies
9
Views
2K
Thunderbrd
Thunderbrd
D
Another scientific victory
Replies
4
Views
729
damerell
D
BlueTemplar
What can be a Culture requirement ?
Replies
2
Views
822
BlueTemplar
BlueTemplar
bengalryan9
Civ Discussion - Antiquity Age Summary/Tier Lists
Replies
14
Views
1K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
Luke1195
32 Civs Earth Mod Development -- More Wonders
Replies
1
Views
812
Luke1195
Luke1195
Back
Top Bottom