Separate catagories makes it far harder to balance was my point.

Its easy to balance a few different weapons and armor against each other.

But try balancing a trait.. vs a stat...

The balance problem is not unique to custom sovs, though. Say that traits A and B and C are overpowered, traits X and Y and Z suck. So if you can create a custom sov with A, B, and C, well then that's really overpowered, especially compared to a custom sov with X, Y, and Z. But even if you're limited to premade sovs, you can still pick a premade sov with trait A and he'll be stronger than a premade sov with trait X - the problem still exists, it's just not as extreme. Custom sovs are just an easy way to see how overpowered those traits are by taking it to an extreme that highlights the problem.

Edit: on a side note, there are also balance problems brought up in the OP that have nothing to do with sovereign customization, although I realize that's not what you're talking about, let's not forget the caravan and armor problems that exist no matter what you do with your sovereign. I'll agree that those kind of problems, the ones that are a factor in any game no matter how you play it (especially the armor one, there's just no avoiding that), should take priority over issues like sov traits that only might be a problem depending on your choices. I'm just saying that balancing the sov traits shouldn't be completely ignored just because we don't have to take the overpowered ones, I'd like to have equally viable choices there too.

Speaking from experience, it's no different from balancing a piece of equipment that does damage vs a piece of equipment with a rule-changing ability.  It's the effect that matters - not what you call the category.

Oh, and while you're busy complaining about customization options, why don't you complain that you can't just fireball the whole map at will and win whenever you'd like?  Games are made from rules and restrictions - that's what makes them games.  If you want unrestricted play, fire up the modding tools - then you're limited only by hard software limits on modding.  If those are too troubling, learn programming and be constrained only by hardware. If that's too much, then learn engineering and be constrained only by the laws of physics.  Pursuing freedom from restrictions leads one beyond the realm of games.

your the one who goes out of his way to exploit the rules.. not I. Then say i'm the one who wants unrestricted play? lol

You can restrict yourself.. you know.. don't use the exploit in your custom sov build. There is no rule that says you must min max. Just because you see the creation process as an exercise in maximizing the benefit doesn't mean the rest of us do. Nor does it mean your methods should lead to the restriction of our methods.

Yes, you are arguing against restrictions.  You've been busily saying that there's nothing wrong with an overpowered strategy being permitted by the game rules.

However, creating my own restrictions in which to play would be an act of game design (or modding, if you prefer), not gameplay.  If we're making up restrictions, we're already re-writing the game - whether or not the rule is enforced by code.  And yes, there is a rule that games are played to win - it's called the goal rules, the rules encoded into the program that tell you that you win if you achieve a certain configuration of data.  If you're not playing to win, you're playing - and that's distinct from gaming (or playing to win, if you prefer that term).  I would prefer to game: to test and push against a set of rules created by another, and in the process altering my own perceptions and imagination through the representation of those rules.  Modding would instead be a process of pushing against the rules of reality, with no representation involved.  I've been there, done that, and if I ever want to do that further, then I can return to it though any number of existing modding tools or game engines.

Its called house rules.. people use them for games all the time. Its neither gameplay nor gamedesign. Its simply placing restrictions on yourself to improve your experience. Since apparently you feel the insatiable need to maximize your gain in the SOV creation.. limit yourself. Theres no reason you should ask the devs to limit me when I neither USE your particular exploit nor care for/about it. Simply because any attempt to balance the game to prevent your exploitation is bound to limit my options outside of that particular exploit.

Its not that i want no restrictions. I am simply the type of player who plays a game to have fun.. not to worry about if X and Y is a better choice than A and C. I quit MMOs because of the same mentality you have. If the game lets you do X and X is better than Y then everyone must do X. Cause its the best thing. Its a fallacy simply because you assume that everyone wants to play that way or has that mentality. I could care less about balance... i simply want to play the game and have fun doing so. exploiting the rules to win and min maxing is never part of my equation. What you don't seem to understand is your insistence to change the game play mechanics to better suit you may very well have a negative effect on me.

You seem to think that games are made to be won. Winning isn't what games are about... games are made to be played. If it was about winning we all would just click a big button and it would say you won.

Suggested solutions being what?

Increase the point costs of X trait Y and Z trait?

Now if i choose X i get l less points to use on stats bonuses etc limiting me.

limit the number of traits that can be used? Now instead of taking 3 traits unrelated to the exploit i'm limited to 2 traits.

every change in the name of balance has implications for options outside of simply effecting the exploit.

The only thing i could honestly think of to only prevent exploits without effecting options outside of those exploits is an opposition system of some type.

Meaning if you choose trait X you cannot choose trait Y or Z. If you choose trait Y you cannot choose trait Z or x etc. in order to limit exploitative combos without reducing non exploitative options.

Or alternatively you could choose 2 of them but not the third. X and Y means you cant choose Z. Or X and Z means you can't choose Y.

Depending on how many of them you would want to limit at one time.

Or. Since the issue seems to be material gain traits. Simply put a limit to the number of free materials per turn you can gain through traits. You can choose all the traits you want.. but you have to set which traits are active and those bring in materials each turn. This one would require more work since you would need some sort of UI to select which traits are active.

There is not.. unless your ignoring stat gains completely. Maybe sovs SHOULD require INT to cast spells.. then maybe you wouldnt ignore stats. Which actually brings up a valid point in this discussion.. since your totally ignoring stat gains.. your pretty much relegating your sov to be an administrator.. you know hes gotta suck in combat. But since he can still cast spells its almost a moot point. I'm willing to agree that stats need a boost in usefulness in ordr to compete with traits. But that does not require a rebalancing of either point costs or a reduction in the number of traits allowed.

As far as the house rule discussion goes.. mine would require modding. Yours would simply require self control. Big difference in amount of work so not exactly an equal comparison.

I always boost int anyway

But i've actually thought Int was needed as a limit on sov casting while playing. Lower than the int required on spells for heros that they are now.. but some sort of sov int spell relationship other than minor boosts.

Now that i'm thinking about it.. the changes in 1.1 pretty much removed any significant relationship between stats and spells which led to the overpowering of traits. Thats where the issue lies in my mind.

Its not that traits are overpowering simply there is no significant reason to boost any particular stat now. It used to be Traits vs wisdom and int. But with the removal of int and wisdom being of such importance to spell casting its traits vs ??

neither of these are inherent issues with sov creation.. its issues with deeper game mechanics imho. Although from a dev perspective its probably far easier to reduce or remove/rebalance sov creation than fix the issues brought on by the 1.1 changes.

In a way that ties into the armor problem. Con? No need for health if armor makes you invulnerable. Dex? No longer helps def, no need for dodge if armor makes you invulnerable. Str? Well an attack boost is nice, but you can afford to take a couple extra hits to kill things if armor makes you invulnerable. Int? Never much good anyway to be honest, sure champions have a reason to worry about it now but not sovereigns, a problem entirely separate from armor that needs some serious work. Not that an administrator sov needs to ever fight, but I think it's a problem that you could fight pretty well with minimum stats so long as you had good armor and either a good weapon or all those awesome no-int-required spells a sovereign can cast, there's just not much incentive to have those stats.

Really I think armor is the most serious problem with the game now, in that it causes other imbalances to ripple out from it. Bear in mind I like long battles, they make it harder for a single lucky hit/dodge to change the outcome, they minimize the effects of out-microing the AI to get the first attack in, they make tactical battles more.. well, tactical. I hated tactical battles back when armor was too random and an unlucky sov could die in one attack, and argued for exactly this kind of change - more reliable armor. Still, I have to admit that armor's effectiveness has gone much too far in the other direction, fix this first and we can take a second look at a lot of the secondary problems it causes (such as the devaluing of any stat that doesn't affect armor, which is to say, all of them).

Of course, armor or no, stats or no, you can always sit at home and rely on the economic traits while never entering battle - and there's nothing wrong with sitting in your city helping your economy, I'm glad that playstyle has become viable, just that perhaps stats should boost those traits in some way so that an administrator sov can't completely ignore them. Really there's two problems: first that a 5 str/con/dex/int sovereign can don the latest armor and be a pretty effective explorer/quester/combatant/spellcaster, and second even if you nerf the armor so he's not invulnerable, he can sit at home and be an effective administrator while ignoring stats.

In short, armor is too good and stats do too little (especially outside of combat).

Game theorists are not necessarily game designers.

Expanding options indefinitely causes some obvious problems, though not quite as drastically as you imply.  Mainly they cause a barrier to entry, rather than a barrier to strategic play.  In complex competitive games, certain proven combinations of tactics become standardized as normal strategies even if the total problem space is enormous.  Normal strategies then evolve as people discover combinations that defeat them, or that combine with them in even better ways.  This is pretty much a snapshot of Magic: The Gathering's legacy-type formats (the ones that allow almost any card ever printed).  There's an enormous space of possibilities, but there are normal, proven strategies (decks, in the case of Magic) against which new potential combinations are tested.  You get this - you've said as much.  It is not, however, any significant issue for experienced players.  The problem is that new players would have to learn the normal strategies first, and that's a barrier to entry.  It's a barrier to entry in Legacy Magic; it's a barrier to entry in high-level Starcraft; it's a barrier to entry in complex fighters like Tekken; it's a barrier to entry in strategy games like Dominions 3; and, yes, it could become a barrier to entry in Elemental if feature creep goes overboard.

On the other hand, players like me often love that type of game.  There are two ways in which gaming reveals novelty: variety and depth.  The first is obvious: being introduced to a new game offers a whole new set of ideas.  However, depth is also compelling.  Whenever one layer of play is mastered, it inevitably opens another.  The fighting game is classic about this: at first one struggles with basic move execution, then moves on to positioning, and ultimately begins to play on the level of mind games.  Each level of mastery presents you with a new challenge.  I've felt this dynamic both in games and in life: it applies to Street Fighter; it applies to Battletech; it applies to philosophy; it applies to electronics; it applies to writing; and it applies to martial arts.

The other problem, from a design point of view, is that it's too easy to create a sterile game.  There's a reason why CCG designers have stopped designing cards for decks, and instead just design cards that then get playtested in decks.  If there is little or no potential for unforeseen combinations, if there are no unforeseen tactics, then the game becomes clinical and ultimately boring.  That's been the fate of many of my own designs: start with a grand idea, then prune out the bad strategies so heavily that the game almost plays itself.  People generally don't like it, because there's little or nothing to discover.  It's why CCG designers often knowingly print underpowered cards - figuring out that they're underpowered is part of the game, and you never know when someone could invent some awesome tactic using what you thought was a coaster (this is also why designers are often legendarily bad at their own games).

Designers have to walk a fine balance between presenting a brick wall to new players, or presenting a game that's demands nothing from the player.  My gut feeling is that Elemental has some of the worst of both worlds.  It looks hard, which can be intimidating at first.  If you're the type to dive in anyway, it feels fun for a short time until you realize how simple it ultimately is.  Every time I get into creating a wizardly sovereign, for example, I get into the game and realize that I'm simply going to have less to do than a warrior sovereign would.  It's just worse - I've done nothing but handicap myself.  It doesn't offer another playstyle to refine - it offers a way take longer in order to accomplish less.  I love deviating from normal strategies; I love coming up with some wonky terrible strategy and making it win, but that doesn't seem possible in 1.1 (and I've definitely tried!).  Yet, if there was no wizardry in Elemental, would it really be a better game?

My point is that pruning doesn't seem to be the right choice for a strategy game like this, particularly when it's such a dangerous road to tread from the designer's point of view.  Instead, increase the power level of those prunable options.  A game like Street Fighter can get away with a small problem space mentally because the physical requirements are so difficult to meet.  Elemental doesn't have that luxury, and simplifying it would mostly worsen the ultimate problem of depth.

[As an aside: I totally sympathize with the difficulty of avoiding jargon.  I learn and teach game studies (which is not game theory - we're more cognitive philosophy than mathematics), and the urge to drop technical terms in debates like this can become overwhelming.]

To put it simply. Balancing the mechanics changes the reason for people to choose a particular choice  (Ie the mechanics behind stats) rather than reducing or removing customization options.It simply attempts to balance the gameplay mechanics of X Y and Z rather than forcing a person to limit their choice of choosing X Y or Z by increasing the costs.

If you haven't understood my stance its simply that i am against the removal of options or a reduction in the number of options i'm allowed to choose. Both of which would be two of the easiest ways to implement more balance. Or to be more specific I refute the idea that customization needs to be altered due to the current gameplay mechanics.

To be honest.. and ya this is rather late in the dev process to even mention it.. I would have liked to see each stat tied to a particular spell book or line of spells. giving you a reason to buff up X stat. For example.. mobility spells are effected by Dex. Attack spells by int. Defensive spells con etc. With higher tier spells having more modifiers.

Giving a plethora of reasons one might want a stat. As it is now.. most stats other than chr as you pointed out are useless unless your in a melee with your sov. Hence any amount of changes to customization in the name of balance will simply result in reducing choices in order to force a person to not choose as many traits. Adding more traits would just result in the same balance issues with more than one option.. again stats are simply not as viable as traits for someone who is min/maxing which as i stated is in my opinion the major cause of your balance issue.

I still could care less about the exploit or min maxing personally as i've never been one to min max (although i have been known to chop rush in civ and fling a ball lightning in MTG... Ball lightning,bloodlust, attack, fling it before end of turn since it gets buried at the end of the turn 20 dmg for for like 5 mana for the win). But i'm trying to be judicial here, and the course of the conversation caused me to remember one of my major complaints which happens to tie into your particular issue. The uselessness of stats outside of melee or ranged combat.

Summary

I can agree with you that stats need adjusting in some way, but not that we need to alter customization simply because you can and do exploit it.

Afterthought edited in**

Regardless of my stance.. i'm sure we will see some changes that will address your concerns so our discourse is rather moot, other than the off chance that something we say sparks the idea for a fix in a dev whos reading. So.. hope your happy with what the way they decide to fix it. Good luck, best wishes and all that jazz.

Grouped units can work if they have clear disadvantages in some areas. So their tactical inflexibility needs to be exacerbated. It should be a tradeoff: in many situations, squads should be the better options, but in some they shouldn't. 

Either make them more vulnerable to area damage, or reduce terrain-based bonuses for them as the squad size increase (but reduce gradually with increasing squad size : a binary solution would create other problems). It's difficult to  create a forest ambush with 100 people in a square formation.

Otherwise, I agree about pruning useless choices. Which is why this armor-parts system needs to be removed. It adds almost nothing to the depth of the game, while making it clunky and inelegant.