Oberlus wrote: ↑
Mon May 27, 2019 5:20 pm
You either keep track of the opinion of each species on each empire (the opinion is the "meter" affected by the actions of the corresponding empire based on the species values, that are fixed traits; you have Species X Empires meters) or keep track of the empires' alignments (the alignment is the "meter" affected by the empire's actions, the opinion of the species is calculated based on the empire's alignment and the species values; you have Values-pairs X Empires meters). I'm not sure one is better than the other in terms of number of things to keep track of (player-wise), but regarding the number of meters to be calculated, both are comparable but for big games with many species the one based on alignments uses less meters to be updated on every turn (although the GUI would be showing species-empire opinion values calculated on demand).
So firstly, I was presuming that alignments would be tracked in addition to opinion, not instead of opinion. If it's one or the other I'd be firmly on the side of tracking opinion. I think opinion would be more useful to keep track of, plus there is already groundwork laid for it.
I don't know why you say it would not work for species. Maybe you mean it would not record/represent the empires' actions on each species in particular? Like not differentiating between "this empire bombs enemies, he is cool (warlike species)" and "this empire boms enemies, that's cool, but this time this moron bomber us! (warlike species)". That is a drawback indeed, unless you add such distinctions to the opinion calculation (the same that you would do it in the system with species opinions as meters).
Much of the behavior and interactions described really only work for empire's or empire controlling species. It very much seems to be going off of a one species per empire model. It seems to presume each species will be controlling an empire with an ethos, before talking about how they might function in an empire. While it might be able to be adjusted in some ways to account for native species, as they aren't going around building their own empires they functionally have no ethos, or even alignments for that matter. On the other hand
And native species are like other species. Do you think there is need to differentiate their mechanics in terms of values and the such?
I do not think there is a reason to do that, but the problem with the older proposal is that it doesn't seem to take them into account.
He is supposed to have discarded the nonsensical or less interesting combinations. But I agree with you, I prefer something more free and flexible.
Trust me someone will try to make a "nonsensical" combination and break the system. Also, yes a much more flexible system would be preferable, if not necessary.
Well, all this is a bit ambiguous. The "sliding scale" of alignments are the same than we would have with opinions (the slide from neutral to good or bad). The natives can be accounted for in BigJoe5's proposal (unless I missed something). The planet of hats I don't think is a problem here.
Opinions are a different thing from values or alignments. I think that there is definitely something of a system of personality tropes built into the 8 ethos so I think they are kind-of hats.
But for me the key point of that proposal is the listing of possible values.
I can see that, but I'd also counter that much of it is the same sets of values.
Anyway, nothing from what we've been suggesting (including BigJoe5's and all other previous contributors) is simple enough for FO 1.0.
I think I can come up with something, at least as far as values go, that might be.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.