I've received a lot of suggestions about ways to reset/modify/respec traits, so I've been thinking a lot lately about the problems associated with traits being permanent, and trying to figure out a good way to make them more flexible without introducing too much power creep. After hours of pacing, this is what I came up with:
- Under certain circumstances which I haven't quite worked out yet, traits would have a chance to increase or decrease in notability (i.e. their position on the list of traits).
- An existing trait would be randomly chosen, with less significant traits being much more likely.
- Whether the trait moves up or down is determined the same way as whether or not a trait is good.
- If the chosen trait is positive, it will move up for a good outcome and down for a bad outcome.
- If the chosen trait is negative, it will move down for a good outcome and up for a bad outcome.
- If a trait on the bottom of the list is chosen to move down, it will be removed.
If all goes well, this mechanic would give players agency in 'fixing' their ships without granting too much control over trait outcomes. It would make it possible (although very difficult) to redeem even ships with 8 negative traits. It would also introduce a dynamic element that I think would reflect the reputation theme very well.
Let me know what you guys think.
These changes look really good - I especially like the incorporation of battle difficulty and damage dealt, as this supports getting positive traits with aggressive playstyles.
Ok, I'm glad you think so. I think you've brought up some serious concerns, so it's reassuring that you agree with the changes so far
Battle difficulty is already a factor in the current build, btw. It's just... not well documented.
The issue with perverse incentives and scrapping ships with negative traits is more an issue for the first trait that a ship receives, not so much later ones. This is because: 1) its always the strongest trait, so will keep getting worse. 2) Little experience has been 'sunk' into the ship, so there is very little cost to scrapping in terms of building ships with good perks. 3) The ship is worse than a stock version, so replacing it is a net power upgrade.
So all three of those points are actually by design. Here's my reasoning for thinking they're good things:
- Because older traits have the most effect, it's easier to predict how they'll turn out, making it easier to make an informed decision about which ships to invest in. Also, if a ship you have invested in gets a bad trait later on, at least its effect is reduced, making it less likely that your investment in the ship was fruitless.
- Similar reasoning as above; it's better to know whether a ship is worth investing in sooner rather than later.
- The possibility of ships being worse than stock versions is the balancing force against the possibility of ships being better than stock versions. If I wanted ships to always be of equal or greater power than they would be without this mod, then there simply wouldn't be bad traits. Also, I think the decision of whether or not to get rid of a ship with a bad reputation can be an interesting one. That is, unless money isn't a concern, in which case it's an obvious decision, as you say. I'm hoping money will become more relevant in 0.9.1, however.
Must everything be stat-based?
I'm afraid so, for the reasons stated above, as well as others. I don't think traits would have enough of a point to them without effects. I do think a mod that keeps track of a ship's feats that way would be very cool, but I don't think starship legends is a good fit.
While some buffs are good, one critical bad trait can make a ship permanently tainted to me, cast into the darkest depths of colonial storage. It might be petty, but I can't helping. Having the perfect officer skills, fleet skills, (lack of) d-mods, hullmods, just to get one bad trait and trip yourself at the finish feels not good.
Yeah, I hear you. I know there are people who will hate mechanics that force sub-optimal stats no matter what. This mod can't be for everyone, but I do want to make it work well for as many people as I can (within reason).
@BringerofBabes
First of all; welcome to the forum!
I wish I had read your suggestion hours ago. It might've gotten me thinking along the right track. It does seem like a good way to prevent the oldest traits from always being the most significant, but I don't really think that's such a problem to begin with (see my response to Thaago above)