You are being wrongfully contemptuous with everyone that shared their idea on this thread. Not only you don't understand what we are doing here, but you are also being aggressive.
i'm not mocking you. You don't mock me.
do you not realize I was the very first reply to this thread?
You're saying yourself that you don't feel concerned by what the OP said, so it's quite logical that this thread is not interesting for you, and this is why the only interesting thing for you is the comment that says that it is not interesting. You're only refusing to understand here. Probably because you're not enough familiar with the problem. Though I don't blame you for that, I blame you for your attitude. Please try to be open-minded.
This thread, quite literally, is one of semantics. The OP is trying to semantically argue that a label for a game mechanic, a set of effects and options that will almost certainly amount to a very minor portion of the game, MUST be changed because of his perceived definition/connotation to several terms.
No. I explained why just above. And I'm not the only one. We also don't know at all if slavery is a very minor portion of the game - in CK2, raiding is not a very minor portion of the game, because we see in most of the games and it's a central mechanics for Norse pagans (even if I don't use it very often). If it's the same for xenophobian Stellaris empires, then it's also a very important mechanics.
The OP was being humble when he said that, for him, slavery is not necessary for xenophobian empires, and even that's a bit contradictory. he doesn't want to change the mechanics because of his own definition of the game. He says that slavery and xenophobia are two different things that should be treated as such in game. And seriously, if this thread is about empty semantics, many threads on this forum are about empty semantics, including the one about Parallel ship building, which works exactly in the same way as this thread. But it doesn't bother you, since you find the subject interesting. I think that you're just being aggressive here because you don't understand what it's about (you say "it's semantics" but you could also say: "that's only fanfiction" or "that's just litterature, it has nothing to do with our world"). This is a vain attitude, which is funny given that you don't seem to like vain things.
Its like saying that the Marshall in CKII shouldn't have the mission named "train troops" because it increases the *size* of your levy, rather than the *quality* of your levy and thus should be called "recruit troops" instead. Its nitpicking at most and straight out wrong at the least.
No. Because to train, first you need to recruit. Recruits are trained. The levy is composed of trained men. So it makes sense.
But there is indeed an example of vain semantics if you want: cultures. There have been many threads about how culture is more about language or about military customs, or about a variety of factors. In the end everyone was angry and the only gameplay proposals were about adding or removing certain cultures in game (there was a huge gap between the degree of abstraction of the discussion and the gameplay of the game). For Stellaris it's more complicated, because all we are doing on this forum is purely speculative, since nobody here played the game. You can say that this is a very minor mechanics if you want, but there is no way to prove that. And Paradoxians know how even a minor aspect of the game can be annoying if it's not well designed (I'm looking at you, seduction focus).
And what if it pleases us to discuss things that have a minor impact on the game ?
Xenophobic cultures shouldn't be required to have slaves but it makes perfect sense for them to have the option.
Sigh... Please re-read the full thread. I'm tired of this so i'll only summarize. It has been debated if
- it makes "perfect sense" for all xenophobian empires to have to option to enslave, trade slave
- it makes "perfect sense" for some non-xenophobian empires to also be able to enslave, trade slave
Because it has also been debated if xenophobian and slaver should be different things in game. And if it makes sense for a non-xenophobian culture to have slave. And you know that we need to define xenophobian before we can tell that it makes perfect sense for all of them to be able to have slaves.
Historical and logical examples have been given and debated. I don't know for everyone else, but in the beginning, my opinion was that there should be two separate traits, and that the slaver traits should be given under certain circumstances to any empire with the compatible ideology/government system/etc..., no matter if it is xenophobian or not. In the end, my opinion was that it should still be two separate traits, but that only a part of the xenophobian empires should have the option to have slaves, since a lot of people can't imagine a non-xenophobian slaver empire (though I'll probably try to mod that myself later), but can easily understand that all xenophobian empires are not slavers. (as I said I'm sumamrizing here. If you want more details, please re-read the thread).
Now tell me if the sentences are too long or unclear, because I feel like I've been explaing the same thing many times now. I don't think that I'll look at this thread again if the next answer is this one again. The topic is interesting but now it feels like debating about the God-Emperor of Dune with my cat.
