Basically, I've made a faction suggestion (please read) based on the contest rules (80 point limit), and did all sorts of stuff for it. Made lore, imagined what their heros and technologies will be, did a rough sketch of what they would look like, etc... As for traits however, they are for the most part finalized. However there are a couple things I'm still debating about. Namely on how to spend the last 10 trait points on it. After the decision is made, It will put me in the right direction and I can figure out the rest myself. FYI, It's my faction idea that I worked on very hard, it has a certain gameplay style in mind, and the traits at least try to generally follow the lore. If I change it up too much, it won't be my faction anymore. I.E. I don't want to hear; "You should drop X for y".







It boiled down to three main choices on how to spend those last ten points.

1) Get another trait(s)

2) Take away one level from one or both leveled negative traits

3) Remove one negative trait entirely.



If 1 is picked, this will be the pool of traits I'm choosing from:

Stellar Guardians: Huge detection radius, you hurt the opponents' if their system is engulfed by it, cannot colonize in influence area; "saving" harder to colonize planets for later.

Cloning: Another level of cloning would help growth on harsher systems, which nicely compliments their opulation: traits and bonuses.

Misc. Some other trait that will round out their style aside from combat, population, and research.



If 2 is picked:

-Take a level off of micromanagers and spendthrifts.

-Or drop one level off and get a minor 5 point trait.



If 3 is the choice:

-Remove an entire weakness, probably spendthrifts since I really don't care about my heroes leveling slower. And I realise how bad it is, because it takes away before the taxes. If I made 1000 a turn and lost 700 of it to the empire, that would be a net profit of 300 , but with minus 20%. I'd only get 800 dust a turn, and my empire would still be at -700, leaving only a 100 for net profit.

I've never liked Unlucky Colonists, although I know some people swear by it. So, assuming you want to keep that, I'd be tempted to up your scientists to 3/3.



I think designing races is one of the best parts of this game since there is no "right" answer.

Just verifying, but wouldn't the race you described

The organic nature allows the very structures of the dusk to draw from the terrain itself. Minerals and nutrients are still obtained where crops and livestock have a hard time otherwise.

be Tolerant? I realize you don't have the points for it, but I was wondering why that trait was absent.

JIntegrity wrote:
Just verifying, but wouldn't the race you described be Tolerant? I realize you don't have the points for it, but I was wondering why that trait was absent.

I guess it could roll either way. But really, being able to grow food better in a harsher climate is very different than being able to establish a whole society in a hostile environment you have not researched the technology for. The lore is by no means finalized, and will probably go through an overhaul *if* another faction contest pops up. Right now it's just background world building for the actual "briefing" you get in a stock factions descriptions.

coyote303 wrote:
I've never liked Unlucky Colonists, although I know some people swear by it. So, assuming you want to keep that, I'd be tempted to up your scientists to 3/3.

Unless it's stupid high gravity, Unlucky colonists is usually give a sidegrade anomaly that I don't mind working with.

coyote303 wrote:
I've never liked Unlucky Colonists, although I know some people swear by it.

According to the Wiki's Custom Factions page on Unlucky Colonists.

The following anomalies are possible: Hostile Fauna, Swamp World, Seismic Activity, Long Season, Meteor Strikes, High Gravity.

The number before the anomaly's name is its number in the xml files so you can verify these figures if you'd like.

35 Hostile Fauna -10 Approval (wiki and PlanetDescriptor.xml)

36 Swamp World +1 Food per pop, -1 Industry per pop, -10 Approval (wiki and PlanetDescriptor.xml)

37 Seismic Activity -1 Dust per pop, +1 Science per pop, -10 Approval (wiki and PlanetDescriptor.xml)

38 Long Season -1 Food per pop, -1 Dust per pop (wiki and PlanetDescriptor.xml)

39 Meteor Strikes +1 Industry per pop, -1 Science per pop, -10 Approval (wiki and PlanetDescriptor.xml)

40 High Gravity -1 Industry per pop, -20 Approval (PlanetDescriptor.xml) (wiki not updated to match xml change)



As you can see, Long Season is the only one that doesn't lower approval, but it's also the only one that has 2 negative FIDS. Hostile Fauna only lowers approval. High Gravity lowers approval twice as much, has 1 negative FIDS and no positives making it the worst of the bunch. All the others have 1 negative and 1 positive FIDS with -10 approval.



Here's how I would to rank these from best to worst.

Meteor Strikes -- More Production to get those colony ships built faster and the industry to science conversion almost makes up for the lose of science.

Seismic Activity -- More science to help plow thru the early techs at the cost of a little dust.

Hostile Fauna -- Just some disapproval.

Swamp World -- More food for faster growth, but loss of industry slows down all production, which in turn slows expansion.

Long Season -- Slower growth and less dust.

High Gravity -- Highest disapproval, loss of industry slows down all production, which in turn slows expansion. The only one that needs Soil Revivification (tier 7 tech) to clear it instead of just Adaptive Colonies (tier 4 tech).





@OP The faction creation contest rules that says 80 trait point limit is from 2 years ago before they made all the adjustments and lowered the trait cap down to 65 points for all custom races. That thread and the contest thread itself haven't had any new posts for almost 2 years. So how can you be certain the 80 point limit is still valid?

Monthar wrote:


@OP The faction creation contest rules that says 80 trait point limit is from 2 years ago before they made all the adjustments and lowered the trait cap down to 65 points for all custom races. That thread and the contest thread itself haven't had any new posts for almost 2 years. So how can you be certain the 80 point limit is still valid?

The trait cap was always 65. Custom factions have a lower trait limit than the stock ones to prevent min/maxing. (sloppy sawbones+feeble warriors+dust impaired on top of what they already have). How many people try to round out their traits and/or just limit themselves to 2 maybe 3 weaknesses? I tried to make my faction stock alike, by not taking more than 3 weaknesses (Automatons have 4, but smaller though), having a rounded strength pool. Fleets/combat are the main focus, but also touch on; population/food, research, defense, and building, though fleet related.



Factions that are playable with the custom faction limit:

Sheredyn: 64

Cravers: 64

Sowers: 61 (they've been reported as UP by the save the sowers thread, now fixed, but still)



Factions that are playable by the contest rules:

UE: 68

Sophons: 77

Hissho: 73

Amoeba: 74

Automatons: 77

Harmony: 69 (Regarded as the new sowers)

Vaulters: 72



Factions that break even that limit:

Horatio: 84 (mostly because of stupid headhunter traits though, kinda of an outlier)

Pilgrims: 88



Average of all factions: 72.5. So if exact 80 is unreasonable, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch of a 75 point limit to get only 5 points to spend seeing as a majority of the stock factions go well above 65. Too boot, two of the ones that don't go above the custom faction limit have glaring weaknesses, 'Nuff said about the sowers. The cravers have to constantly expand, and can't sue for peace.

So, anymore advice before I pick?