Evil Decisions Having Greater than Normal Impact on Ethical Alignment

Are you sure it's not just the specific events you got? Different events affect your alignment by different amounts; it could be that the evil choices you made were really heavily alignment-affecting, and the good ones you made later were less important.

It's like that since GC2 v1.0 unless I'm mistaken. I guess it is intentional in order to make it harder to (pretend to) be the good guy. Not that unrealistic if you think about it.

Is there anyplace that would tell me the values of each event? Shtuff like that should be in the wiki.

Nowhere that I know of other than the XML file itself.

It's a lot harder to be good than evil and always has been in Gal Civ2. Theres really no point in being good pre and post ethics choice. The small benefits of being good are near worthless compared to neutral or evil.

Hopefully TA will change this, it's one of my biggest annoyances in Gal Civ2 that the ethics (esp post ethics tech choice) are no where near balanced.

I find being good easier...but i think im in the minority there.

Just curious ... how do you find it easier? I have played "good" mostly, but consider it a challenge, like playing at a higher difficulty level. I've been playing neutral and evil in the TA beta (since there is no good race in the mix yet), and have actually been a bit shocked by the level of advantages I'm getting as "evil," both pre-and post ethics tech. With the others, I wish that the alignments were balanced. I would think that they could be different without being so unbalanced.

In theory, the advantage of Good is that Good and Neutral races are less likely to declare war on you, and many UP votes are to your advantage.

I don't know about him, but I find that certain good tech can provide you with +35% defense bonus (+5% for 3 techs, +20% from a special good structure), and a +5% hitpoints. This useful if you are skilled at making ships with strong defenses.



I don't think we can expect any major changes. Ethics didn't seem to be on the list of priorities when I managed to get a responce from Frogboy. As such, I'm hoping that we get a no random ethnical events button, like we have no tech trading button, so the problems can simply be ignored.

Yep, if the galaxy is set up with mostly Good and Neutral races (or they're the most powerful ones), then playing Good helps delay war. It's a good turtling strategy, in that type of galaxy. Otherwise I usually go Neutral, or sometimes Evil just for the role-playing fun of it.

Compare that to 100% eco bonus and mil prod bonus or free tiles, morale boost and neutral learning centres. Good bonuses are terrible in comparrison.

The only reason to go good currently is for rolepay purposes or perhaps if you were playing 4max opponents and they were all good alignment. There are likely very few other worthwhile reasons.



Ethics is a very influential part of the game so it being balanced should be a big priority.

Well, I think I received more information than I bargained for, but I believe my observation has been confirmed and my question answered. I was simply unaware that the good v. evil choices one makes are weighted and that some count for more than others. This would explain what I was observing in TA. Don't know why I never noticed this in previous versions.

I just find 4v2 easier than 2v4.

I am still waiting for some benefits to being good. Do all the good decisions have to cost you some how? Can atleast 25% if not more be favarable to the good guy?

If you start off as good race you can always get away with mostly picking neutral and a few evil choices i ussually never pick a good choice unless it has zero consequence and the rest are too weak to be worth it.

Hi!

Like others wrote, it's in XML files. But from my experience the values are dynamic: the more severe the consequences of yor decision, the bigger is the impact on the morality scale. So an event can "shift" you less if it gives you only a few percent of change, than the same with several ten percents.

BR, Iztok

I still think the rewards for the ethical choices should take into account where you are on the scale already. As it is now, choosing the good option is rarely (if ever) as beneficial as the neutral/evil choice. There would be 2 ways to look at it.

1. If you're good already, you should be penalized for deciding on an evil option since that would be out of character or against the ingrained thoughts of the people whereas you should be rewarded for maintaining your "good" standards. On the flip side, if you're evil, picking a good option should be penalized, but choosing evil would be "the norm".

-OR-

2. Since most of the ethical choices involve exploiting someone or something to your gain at the expense of your reputation, it should work both ways. Good races become more evil and get better "rewards" for the evil choices, but evil races would get better rewards for picking the "good" choices, but suffer by looking weak or a goody-goody to their comrades.

I'm sure that would require a lot of code and computer-ese language that is well beyond my peon's understanding of computer speak. But perhaps that would balance it a little more and add some depth to the game relating to the impact of ethical choices.

I like the sound of that. I dont think ive ever come across a good choice being benificial and neutral choices dont really change your alignment at all. As it is you dont really ever have to act good to be good...but then agian if you benefit no matter what choice you make then it might make having a choice/alignment more redundant.



Yeah i figuerd that much, i did get lost though i think lol. I assumed the xml files would be in the xml folder but all i can find is webpages of gibberish...not how i remember it the last time i was checkin that shtuff out(a good while ago), heh. ?

Try using Notepad to open the files.

You dont even wanna know the gibberish that gives me. Anyway that doesnt belong here so ill ask elsewhere. Thx anyway.