Traits: Resilient & Very Strong

[ismd1988]

Species traits have been getting better and better as new content has been added to the game. Origins like Syncretic Evolution and the new Overtuned are great fun. However there are a few traits that are just stinkers. The two least fun/useful positive traits are probably Resilient and Very Strong.

For 1 point Resilient provides a +50% bonus to damage for defensive armies. It has an extremely limited edge case for use on fortress worlds and that's pretty much it. Army bonuses are very underwhelming at the best of times but this trait doesn't even boost all armies. If the goal is to change the trait as little as possible its bonus should apply to all armies but that seems lackluster. A second option is to apply the bonus to all armies but change it to a +50% bonus to both health & moral instead of damage; as an added benefit this change would actually fit the flavor decently too but it probably still isn't worth a point. A third option is to give Resilient the same hybrid treatment as Strong so as an example: +3% habitability and a +20% bonus to both health & moral for all armies.

For a whopping 3 points Very Strong provides a +40% bonus to army damage and a +5% bonus to worker jobs. Everyone asks the same question. "Why does it cost three points?" The Strong trait provides half the bonuses but is only one point and so the first option for improvement here will surprise no one. Very Strong should only cost two points. There are further problems with a three point trait being hard to justify at the start of the game and being completely overshadowed by the time you have enough gene points to spare. On the other hand the logic behind it costing more is that it only takes up a single trait slot but this perspective only held water before we got so many better options made available. Contrary to linear thinking trait slots becoming more valuable makes lackluster traits like Very Strong even less appealing. If Very Strong must cost three points the bonus needs to be changed to something like +40% army damage & +7.5% to worker jobs. Although if we wanted to make the trait almost good at 3 points it should be more like +30% army damage & +10% to worker jobs.

Well if you read all this thank you for your time.

[sono]

There's plenty of bad traits. That said, even if they're not balanced they're nice to have for roleplay purposes. Is Very Strong a bad trait? Yup. But it's nice to have on your space dwarves.

In a game like this, it's okay to have bad traits. Even 'balanced' games have good and bad traits, and at least here they still have a purpose.

[Jarlaf]

Agreed.

Even for role-playing purposes they need to be a bit better, don't have to be the best trait ever but shouldn't be utter poop either. With Very Strong there are a very few builds where I almost considered it, but yeah the worker % increase would have needed to be a bit higher for 3 points, 7.5-10% and then it would have still been sub-optimal but fun for the build.

Also, Not part of the OP, but trait related: Paradox have consistantly added positive traits; its time to add a few more negative traits to give us a bit more varity on the downside also.

[titanopteryx]

Very strong might be good on a driven assimilator cyborg. Driven assimilator cyborgs can get a few negative traits without experiencing the downside to get extra points at creation. Like consumer goods consumption increase, since they don't use consumer goods. Or Deviants when gestalts don't pick government ethics. So right there they can increase their trait points to 4. I don't know if it's good to pick for them, but it's easier to afford with them.

[ismd1988]

Originally posted by titanopteryx:

Very strong might be good on a driven assimilator cyborg.

You make a good point. This trait also has some very edge case utility for the Life-Seeded origin because it gets the planetary features for a crystal mine, gas well, & mote trap. The Strong trait is still way better and easier to fit in at the game's start.

[ismd1988]

Originally posted by Jarlaf:

Paradox have consistantly added positive traits; its time to add a few more negative traits to give us a bit more varity on the downside also.

Good suggestion; that would be a welcome addition. I'd also like to see negative traits with tiny upside benefits. "Variety is the spice of life" and all that.

[ismd1988]

Originally posted by sono:

In a game like this, it's okay to have bad traits. Even 'balanced' games have good and bad traits, and at least here they still have a purpose.

I agree that "perfect is the enemy of the good" but I think these traits fall far from their potential for fun. For example, the Resilient trait would still be suboptimal if it applied to all armies but it would be way more fun. I do agree with you that not everything needs to be a good pick. I would like most things to be a fun & beneficial pick for sometimes builds and role-players alike.

[steven1mac]

I agree that the cost value isn't there, but I do put it on a few species for Role Playing purposes, same with the Venerable trait.

[Lost Latios]

I'm also concerned about the traits as of late, specifically negative traits.

You of course want to try and use all the traits you are allowed at creation, but often I'm stuck using the same negatives for nearly everyone. There are twice as many positive picks, and sometimes I really wish I could have a wider selection of negatives.

As far as positive, I agree Resilient is pretty much a dead pick. Armies matter so little in this game the buffs to them are completely worthless, making the trait subsequently worthless. I'd almost consider it a negative since it takes up a slot for an otherwise useful trait. I'd use it for RP, but considering how detailed I end up getting...there is a dozen other things that the race can RP with besides Resilient.

Come to think of it, was Resilient EVER useful? Cause I don't even remember using it when I first started playing back on release, and if I did I was under the impression that armies actually mattered.

[ismd1988]

Originally posted by Lost Latios:

was Resilient EVER useful?

Not really no. The reason I chose to focus on Resilient and Very Strong is because they almost never fit. People (myself included) do try to use Very Strong, but Resilient is just nothing. Worse still, Resilient cannot be removed without the right technology because it is a positive trait.

Originally posted by Lost Latios:

often I'm stuck using the same negatives for nearly everyone. There are twice as many positive picks, and sometimes I really wish I could have a wider selection of negatives.

Ditto

[ismd1988]

Originally posted by steven1mac:

I do put it on a few species for Role Playing purposes, same with the Venerable trait.

I do the same with Very Strong and Venerable. I do feel that Venerable also needs a cost reduction but it still does its job as a trait. Very Strong is much harder to slot in at the game's start and is lackluster in its performance when compared to the Strong trait. If you go Genetic Ascension you will have the points for Very Strong but you also now have many good options and Very Strong is only an okay option at that point.

[Exarch_Alpha]

Very Strong never was that good either.

[Locklave]

The devs vastly over value ground combat bonuses when they have minimum impact on the game.

[ismd1988]

Originally posted by Locklave:

The devs vastly over value ground combat bonuses when they have minimum impact on the game.

True; we shouldn't be expecting a ground combat fix; that's lots of work and might detract from core game play. Changing these traits is much simpler and could be achieved as a part of any patch without hassle.

[ismd1988]

Originally posted by Exarch_Alpha:

Very Strong never was that good either.

Right that's why I think it would be more fun at 2 points or with an appropriate bonus adjustment.

[Jormundgand]

Originally posted by ismd1988:

Originally posted by Locklave:

The devs vastly over value ground combat bonuses when they have minimum impact on the game.

True; we shouldn't be expecting a ground combat fix; that's lots of work and might detract from core game play. Changing these traits is much simpler and could be achieved as a part of any patch without hassle.

A proper fix for ground combat would mean a signficant change to ships as well, to make them have a more supporting role, instead of being simple (slow and ineffective) bombers.