its said that the building system works well in the multiplayer sessions, i might be wrong but dont they usually leave the multiplayer sessions till later on in development when the games more stable and playable? i seem to recall reading a dev say something like that?.
CK3 has been in devlopment for 4 years now and I hope they learnt their lessons from Stellaris, HoI4 and Imperator. Not only the game shouldn't be release too long after the announcement (otherwise you build way too much hype and people get crazy expectations), but it should also be functional at release. It's a good thing that CK3 seems already quite advanced in development, at least when it comes to important features.
In the case of traits, quantity IS quality.
The more traits you have available, the more ways there are to represent a character.
I'm going to strongly disagree with that. More traits is nice to use your imagination (which isn't the same thing as roleplay), but in the end a lot of traits in CK2 were just modifiers. And even when they were not, most of the time they just open a better option in dialogues. There are very few traits that really open new opportunities for roleplay.
I prefer when traits actually matter in the gameplay. Quality over quantity is a good policy.
It makes me think of Stellaris. Lots of civics are just lame modifiers - I would gladly have less civics overall if they all changed something in the playstyle.
The problem with fewer traits is that it leads to only two possible outcomes and both are bad.
Outcome one is that there are a small number that are still relatively attainable over time, which means every old character ends up with more or less all the same traits and RP is destroyed.
Outcome two is that there are a small number that are NOT relatively attainable over time, which is arguably worse because it means you'll go 60 years getting an extremely small handful of traits, your characters will never really differentiate and again RP is destroyed.
There needs to be enough traits that you can routinely get a healthy number over his lifetime to feel like your character is developing/unique while also being enough so that the guy next to you also has his own healthy number that are different than yours. THAT is how each character feels unique and you get attached to them.
You're assuming that RP is dependant on the amount of traits you got. I disagree for two reason:
First, because it's a lie. Characters with a lot of traits are just optimized characters. You can't define a personality with 15+traits. Good characters are defined by how they behave accordingly to their traits. If a character only has 5 traits but there are combos and opportunities which each one of them, then it is definitly better for RP.
Second, because too many people assume that roleplaying means "I have X trait, so as a player I will do that". But no. Roleplaying isn't "using your imagination to take decisions". Roleplaying works best when there's a solide gameplay to support it. If my zealous anger-prone character kills infidel on sight without my need to intervene, then it's good for roleplay.
I would also add that even with a small number of traits, combined with the new skill trees, we probably already have a lot of diversity. And anyway, it's not like yopu have many possibilities in CK2. Generally a character with many traits was good in every situation. Most of those trait-heavy characters were built on a handful of specific traits anyway. Like I said, too many traits means that there's no dominant trait defining the character. The powerful warrior, the master of intrigues, the cruel dictator, the virtuous knight... Those are some of the main archetypes in CK2 and I don't think less traits means they'll disappear. It will just remove the countless boost traits.
.png){kind=avatar}
