[Freezair]

Basically, it's a way to stop people from loading up on powerful traits, and the fact that a huge portion of them are restricted. XD Basically, we would remove the limit on the number of Battle Traits you could assign (which is 6 right now, right?) and instead, you'd get a kind of "Skill Points" pool. Each Trait would have a Skill Point cost to it, and some Traits could become unrestricted by simply giving them a high Skill Point cost. You want Stoneblood? OK, you can have it... but it'll eat up over half of your points, leaving you with ultra-rudimentary traits for your last one or two. Or just one. That kind of thing.

Basically, the number of traits you can have is limited by the trait's power.

[Shieba]

Yay, Freezy, let's bash heads again! 8D;;;
I...don't like this idea. Why? Because it defies the whole point of Traits. The current, restricted Traits are only given out when good reasons are given why the pet should have them. Because Traits are there to describe your pet. That's the main point. Some are just for fighting as well. Now what if my pet has, say, thick blood because she's a demon and demons have essence instead of blood? I want Stone Blood to show that, yes. But I would also like to describe my demon-pet further by maybe saying her heritage makes her hit harder. Well, boo, if I take Stone Blood, I can't take Powerful Strike anymore because they both take up too many skill points? That sucks. I want to describe my pet's powers and abilities well without being limited.
And...loading up? Look at the granted, restricted Traits. Sure, some pets have three restricted Traits granted, but there's no one who tried loading up on five or six. Everyone is free to do so, too, if it fits their pet. The system is very good in my opinion how it is right now.

[Freezair]

Thing is, though, Battle Traits have moved way far away from being "descriptors" (given how much passive traits have been fleshed out) and have now purely become battle abilities. And since they're generally only used for official battles, I don't think restrictions like that would hurt them.

(Let the flames be fanned! )

[Shieba]

I heartly disagree. We have the passive traits for magic and healing and physical things, but what powers pets truly have is described through battle traits alone. Yes, I can give my pet fire element "Elemental Manipulation", but that says nothing about its abilities with fire yet. These get described only through battle traits. Can it only summon fire? Or does it also resist it? Can it even make meteors fall or is that beyond its abilities? I use my battle traits solely to describe the physical and magical powers my pets have. Because, quite frankly, passive traits are totally lacking there.
That said, I would love an option where battle traits can be put into the description as passive traits. Especially the shrine ones. I don't want them for fighting, I want them to show how my pet is like and what it can.

[Kodai]

Well, the people that replied here seem to like the 'Ex-' idea, and I like it too, and I don't think people are going to flip out if I implemented it, so... I'm going to do that. o uo I'm going to try working on the Alignment thing, too, and see if I can't make something that works.
MOAR EDIT: Working on the Absorption Trait idea. I know some limits need to be put on them, but I still need to decide what. P=

Hm, it's an interesting idea, Freezy, but I do agree with Shieba's point about using them to describe your pets' powers. I... really have no idea how to make Battle Traits both Battle and Passive, since... they essentially are already. Battle Traits are just Passive Traits that have the added bonus of doing stuff in battle. I mean, I don't battle (except that one time in the war – really, I think I did only one battle), yet I still give my pets Battle Traits based on their personalities, powers, and such because these Traits help describe them.
EDIT: Addressing the 'Battle Traits seem more geared towards battle now'... Is that because of the descriptions? For example, Meteor Fall says, "This creature summons small flaming spheres that crash into the battlefield – and anything standing on it." This does seem a lot more battle-oriented (and specific) than Pyro's description, which is, "This creature uses the power of fire to attack its opponent." Still, the specificity is meant to be more flavorful text than any indication that the Trait shouldn't be considered as a Passive-type possibility. To me, Meteor Fall's description is more interesting than Pyro's, but Pyro's allows the user to use his/her imagination more. I don't really want people to think that, should they choose Meteor Fall, their pet has to summon little fireballs – the Trait works the same way in battle whether they RP their pet as summoning fireballs or making a giant wave of fire sweep across everything. But just saying "This creature uses the power of fire to attack everything on the battlefield." is... a bit plain. XD; That is just my personal opinion, though... Thoughts?
Let's see... If my counting is correct, 36 out of 139 Battle Traits are Restricted. That's about 26%. P=

[Shieba]

I don't see battle traits as battle oriented at all, so Freezy has to answer that. I use them for descriptions mainly. I see Pyro as "is powerful enough to potentially hurt a person with fire" and Meteor Fall as "is powerful enough to burn an area to a crisp". I don't mind the mentioning of battlefields or meteors. It's like I handle Stone Blood. From what I've gathered, it was originally meant for Temple pets, since they're kinda made out of stone. I'm currently revamping my pen and making a list of restricted Traits I want to apply for. I've so far listed for Stone Blood a robot, who has thick oil instead of blood, Ailys, who has half-essence and a Tomb Imeut because their description says they were thought to be statues. All very different cases and I don't let Stone Blood's name or description affect me there. It just means to be "bleeds slower".

[Kodai]

Just a quick thing on the Alignments. o 3o This is what I'd imagine them being like:
Lawful Good – Alignment – This creature believes in the purity of goodness and laws, and will strive to protect the rights of the innocent while upholding the rules of the land.
Lawful Evil – Alignment – This creature only looks out for itself, and does its best to use or bend the rules to its advantage.
Lawful Neutral – Alignment – This creature puts its complete faith in the law, following the rules absolutely while ignoring the struggles of good and evil.
Neutral Good – Alignment – This creature does its best to help others, following the rules or breaking them as necessary to achieve this goal.
Neutral Evil – Alignment – This creature doesn't care about anyone other than itself, following the law when that's to its advantage and breaking them when they aren't.
True Neutral – Alignment – This creature is truly neutral in its outlook, either because it recognizes that there must be a balance in all things and strives to keep this balance, doesn't care enough to take sides, or simply acts according to instinct and has no concept of law and chaos, good and evil.
Chaotic Good – Alignment – This creature helps others, but it feels that laws are limiting (and easily corrupted), which means it often breaks rules while following its goals.
Chaotic Evil – Alignment – This creature is the bane of everyone's existence, spreading discord as it seeks to fulfil its own personal desires no matter who gets in the way.
Chaotic Neutral – Alignment – This creature is completely unpredictable and unreliable – it may seem to be innocent and law-abiding one moment, then completely backstabbing and murderous the next.

So if you have any comments on that. o 3o

[Shieba]

They're better than they were before, but they would still leave my pets with too different alignments to make sense together with their other personalities. I don't like that all insane creatures would be limited to Chaotic Neutral. What if it's an insane pet that ends up doing only good things, though? Still too limited, in my opinion.

[Freezair]

The problem to me is not the descriptions, but the role Battle Traits play on the site. Ideally, yes; people would pick traits based on flavor and their pet's abilities. I've tried to do that, too. But I think the reality is that people still want to pick the most powerful traits, regardless of flavor. Even if they are obeying the flavor rules, they will tend to pick a strong trait over a weak trait. And because people want so many Traits to describe their pet, we have to ensure they're all balanced under the idea that people could be using all the powerful traits at once, which I think is part of what lead to the mad balance issues in the first place.

And even though they're supposed to be seen as just an extension of pet's abilities, we have so many traits (in the Physical and Magical areas, mostly) that cover stuff that the Battle Traits do, from a flavor perspective: We've got things like Dash and Elemental Manipulator, the various Spirit traits, etc. Yes, Elemental Manipulator is supposed to be "non-combat," but how do you define that? If you can "control" an element, it'd be pretty easy to weaponize, even if you're just throwing it in someone's face. I think part of the problem is that Passive and Battle Traits are so intertwined, even though they play such completely different roles. If someone is going to care about battling enough that they really consider their pet's Battle Traits, I think they're going to want to optimize them anyway. I think they need a bit more separation than they have now.

[Shieba]

I looked at the list of granted Traits again and from the looks of it, no one has an overpowered pet there. I dunno what makes you so paranoid that people abuse the system. Most people obviously don't even give a damn about traits. And I pick weak Traits over strong Traits if they fit the pet more (how are Dodge and Chameleon Skin the same? I would never pick Chameleon Skin, it doesn't fit any of my pets!) and Kodai has told you that she doesn't battle and still cares a lot about battle Traits.

And I keep my opinion that I have absolutely no chance to describe my pets Trait-wise without battle Traits.

[Freezair]

It's not just about restricted Traits, but in general. Especially with some traits before they were restricted, like Stoneblood and Carapice Shield.

And I personally still believe they should be separate, because I don't think people should be relying on Battle Traits to describe their pets.

[Shieba]

Yeah, we had problems, but that's why we changed the system and now do have restrictions on some Traits and why some Traits got seriously nerfed. You helped with that, so what's the new problem all of sudden? What made you suddenly think we have a new problem here? I seriously don't understand. The tournament, which has been the first real test, went well. After that, there have been no other battles. I...don't get it.

What, so you want another 139 Traits added to the passive Trait section so they can do what battle Traits do now? Seriously? The list is already so long that it breaks every newbie's brain.

[Freezair]

No, I don't want another crop of new Traits; I just thought it might be nice if they were more differentiated. This isn't really a big deal to me, I only mentioned it because I thought it might be good.

As for the reason I want it, it is simply because some things about the "final" battle trait sorting did not satisfy me. In particular, because I felt some of the "balances" implemented seemed either too complicated or too off. Also because I feel like there are better solutions than making over a fourth of the Traits be restricted.

Again, it was only an idea and not even one I was intending to push that much. I only brought it up because Kodai asked.

[Kylo]

Just a quick thing on the Alignments. o 3o This is what I'd imagine them being like:
Lawful Good – Alignment – This creature believes in the purity of goodness and laws, and will strive to protect the rights of the innocent while upholding the rules of the land.
Lawful Evil – Alignment – This creature only looks out for itself, and does its best to use or bend the rules to its advantage.
Lawful Neutral – Alignment – This creature puts its complete faith in the law, following the rules absolutely while ignoring the struggles of good and evil.
Neutral Good – Alignment – This creature does its best to help others, following the rules or breaking them as necessary to achieve this goal.
Neutral Evil – Alignment – This creature doesn't care about anyone other than itself, following the law when that's to its advantage and breaking them when they aren't.
True Neutral – Alignment – This creature is truly neutral in its outlook, either because it recognizes that there must be a balance in all things and strives to keep this balance, doesn't care enough to take sides, or simply acts according to instinct and has no concept of law and chaos, good and evil.
Chaotic Good – Alignment – This creature helps others, but it feels that laws are limiting (and easily corrupted), which means it often breaks rules while following its goals.
Chaotic Evil – Alignment – This creature is the bane of everyone's existence, spreading discord as it seeks to fulfil its own personal desires no matter who gets in the way.
Chaotic Neutral – Alignment – This creature is completely unpredictable and unreliable – it may seem to be innocent and law-abiding one moment, then completely backstabbing and murderous the next.

So if you have any comments on that. o 3o

Thes , I want badly. They help so much as I'm very nit picky about things. Hence why I never get things done for my pets and everything is still on word and not in pen. I can understand where it's hard for newbs but we could always just have an easy premade thing for beginners until they get the hang of it and can move on to more advanced RP battles.

[Kodai]

Well, I feel I should say something here. P=

I do thank you for sharing your idea, Freezy. It is a nice idea (and not an unfamiliar one), but I just don't think it fits very well with how the Trait system currently works. As was pointed out, Battle and Passive Traits are simply two parts of the same system. Battle Traits are still intended to be just that – Traits. The only true difference between Passive and Battle is that the latter have specific, real effects in battles. Otherwise, they're meant to describe what your pet is capable of, which the Passive Traits also do.
Dropping that point of the discussion, I also have a problem with the amount of Traits people would end up being able to choose. Going from your example, if someone took one of the more 'desirable' Traits such as Stoneblood, the pet would only have two or three Traits total to use in battle. Even being allowed only six from the 139 Traits is probably difficult enough for a battler (I say that since, again, I don't really battle), so having this number potentially cut further would simply put more strain on choosing Traits than necessary. On the other hand, someone could turn this around and give their pets more Traits than the current six if they portion their points correctly. For example, if there was a base Skill Point amount of 100 and the Elemental Attack Traits cost 10, a person could give their pet 10 out of the 11 Elemental Attacks. I don't know how much of a problem that scenario would actually be, but I'm still uncomfortable that the amount of Battle Traits a pet could have would vary so widely.
I must admit that I actually did like the basic idea of skill point allotment at first, but then Shieba pointed out how that could potentially be restricting for character development, and because I don't want to restrict character development for the sake of battling (RPing is the main focus on the site and RPing is all about character development), I'm inclined to agree more with that idea. I might very well have decided to use a skill point allotment system if battling was completely and totally separate from Traits, but I have no idea if separating them is even possible. I certainly don't know how I'd even attempt to go about it. If you do have ideas for separating them, I'd be interested in seeing them, at least (in the regular Suggestions area), but do remember just how difficult it was to revamp the existing system before.
On the topic of 'optimizing'. If you feel that it might be a problem (I don't know if it really is, but that's why I'm asking)... Do you think that cutting out Battle Traits that are very similar to other ones would help? (As a note, we could add the cut Traits to the Passive list, if people wanted to keep them.) I don't mean groups like the Elemental Attacks that do the exact same thing (except in terms of Elemental type). I mean Traits such as Arterial Strike/Opportune Sneak Attack/Tail Sweep or Avoidance/Chameleon Skin/Dodge that do similar things but have a type of hierarchy as to how 'good' they are. If your concern is that having such a hierarchy makes people go for the 'best' ones, do you think only having one of each type would cut down on optimizing? Or would that just create new problems? Without having much of a choice, I'm sure battle-centric people would end up putting the same or most of the same Traits on their battle pets (although maybe they do that now anyway?).

About the alignments – as I suggested before, I could add a sort of 'wildcard' alignment into it. Or... perhaps it would be better to forgo all those and actually create my own? XD; These are very much based on the old D&D alignments, after all (I felt they were rather comprehensive), so perhaps with the input of others, I can make alignment-based Traits you'd like. o uo Actually, since that is the purpose of this thread... Let's all do that. 8D Let's hear what sort of alignment-type Traits you'd like to see~ Since I'm pretty sure everyone that weighed in on them liked the idea of having some sort of alignment-based Traits, yes?