I'm with labgnome in this matter. But I guess the other approach is also good.labgnome wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:57 pmI personally would like to see the mechanic come first. With values/ideals as a foundation I think we are in a much more solid place to build from. For now values/ideals could directly effect stability, instead of effecting opinion and then having opinion effect stability.Vezzra wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:24 pmWell, of course. If/once we introduce a value/ideals mechanic, assigning that to species and policies and thereby determining what policies species like/dislike would most definitely replace any direct/manual assignment of liking/disliking certain policies to species.labgnome wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:38 amI was mainly interested in incorporating the idea of values/categories for species that match to ideals/categories for policies. I think that would provide a good framework for players to make judgments about policy selection, and for programmers to set the system up; as opposed to randomly assigning likes and dislikes to all the species for all the policies.
I acknowledge that scripting the policies preferences (like/dislike) in each species is straightforward and will allow us to experience with the policies-affecting-species-stability thingy without having to get a (mature) policies-affecting-values-affecting-species-stability mechanic, which might help us get better ideas of what should the values be (in the sense of being able to relate better the values with the game mechanics). But adding the values already doesn't seem like much more work and will save work when doing the migration from policies-preferences-scripted-in-species to policies-preferences-scripted-in-values & values-scripted-in-species.