Theory: Conformist/Deviant will now boost/lower POP attraction to the governing Ethos of their owner.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I can't do a "real" quote because the thread is locked.Wiz said:
Darn, oh well, someone might mod that in if that happens to be the case. Otherwise that just means I'm going to be losing out on some head canon for my primary species.
The new implementation does basically the same thing, just through the new mechanics.
Currently in 1.4, Deviant makes a POP have higher ethics divergence and thus more likely to diverge to opposing or unaligned Ethos than the government that controls it.
In 1.5, Deviant will (likely) make a POP less attracted to the Ethos of the government that controls it, meaning outside factors can more easily sway it to joining a different Ethos.
Same in reverse goes for Conformist.
Hive Mind gov has it worse. They are limited to only biological ascension so you don't have an alternative choice.
Well, you have one alternate choice. Not ascending at all.
Spend those points getting your hive mind 5 extra core worlds, the ability to build space habitats, drastically reducing the cost of terraforming worlds, a massive increase to your fleet strength, extra attack power against Fallen Empires, extra attack power against end game events, or any of a number of awesome powers.
Spend those points getting your hive mind 5 extra core worlds, the ability to build space habitats, drastically reducing the cost of terraforming worlds, a massive increase to your fleet strength, extra attack power against Fallen Empires, extra attack power against end game events, or any of a number of awesome powers.
I know what you mean. I do hope someone mods it so we can do all three.
Hey I just thought of something: do computer controlled empires try to ascend as well?
This is true, but the Synthetic Ascension path is not an inevitable consequence of AI. The Tau have shown little interest in major cybernetic augmentation, and their memory engrams treated more as tools than as intelligences.
Still no dev responses. That excuse you were all giving about "It's GDC week!" is starting to look rather untenable.
And before you fanbois reflexively call me a troll, take a look at my profile to see how many Paradox games I own. I'm concerned because I want the game to be a success and not be abandoned.
And before you fanbois reflexively call me a troll, take a look at my profile to see how many Paradox games I own. I'm concerned because I want the game to be a success and not be abandoned.
People take you a lot less seriously when you try to dismiss people who disagree with you as "fanbois".
Funny, as I take people a lot less seriously when they try to dismiss people who disagree with them as "trolls".
And three that are very not empire-wide; one planet-based, one completely individual, and one species-based (if there's no way to enslave only part of a species). The wording is also that a Pop is attracted to it, implying on an individual level - not broad-based movements across the whole empire. Having slaves on a planet increases attraction to authoritarian, but only for that planet. So the attraction value is aggregate, else there's no point it even existing as it would be irrelevant with different planets having different situations.
I feel I really should point out they never said getting rid of ethics divergence. At any point. Just getting rid of the randomness factor and making it more meaningful where they diverge to. That 100% does not in any way preclude pops that are fundamentally less attracted to the main ethos, which means there are more pops who are attracted to the others, who will still be a problem to address in non-individualist empires - which was the entire point that you're restricted to either individualist, or spiritualist to pull them into your own ethos strongly enough.
I'm looking through individuals on a basis of "okay, their bar is about here, so they're fine but these ones are a problem. Why, where did they come from, when, will this resolve itself given more time or do I want to more actively address it?"
How? Synths still exist without synthetic ascension - they are the prerequisite for the first stage of it. AI wouldn't have to ascend at all and this will still be a massive pain when both your normal synths, their synths, and uSynths all look exactly alike
yay! *makes my primary species delicious, so that we can canabalistically eat ourselves out of existance* 
No, what they did was describe a complete overhauling and reworking of how pop ethos works that makes the idea of ethics divergence incompatible.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-54-ethics-rework.987286/page-2#post-22182723
Someone quoted this post earlier, the thread is locked now since it's an old developer diary, but earlier you claimed the existence of Conformist and Deviant icons proved ethics divergence was still a thing. By the same reasoning, finding out now that Conformist and Deviant no longer affect ethics divergence must give you some inkling that you're wrong about this?
I'm thinking this was supposed to be a response to someone else.
Yeah, that'll get you a response. Because if a developer rushing against a deadline with a long list of things he'd like to include and the knowledge he can't implement all of them no matter how hard he tries wants anything, it's to establish a precedence where people in the forums can summon hm by name.
Oh Wiz, I summon ye appear for me!
*lights incense candle and chants nonsense*
This will surely solve all my problems... Surely.
It stands to reason.
*rotates patented Wiz prayer beads*
*lights incense candle and chants nonsense*
This will surely solve all my problems... Surely.
It stands to reason.
*rotates patented Wiz prayer beads*