agreed that it is too expensive. I proposed in the forum to decrease it to 1200, but let's bargain it at 900 (as you propose 600). But anyway, i expect that we will have a balance patch after a bit of testing.
On the other comments, i don't believe this feature will be heavily (if any) used in competitive games. I rather see it useful for players who like longer games and appreciate to take time to build their cities and armies. So although I value inputs from "competitive players" which are very useful, the details of features should not be dictated by their needs.

"The details of features should not be dictated by their needs" even more from "lobby fanatics".

The cost 600 is still a significantly high, 900 very high and I'm not sure casual or new players have the resources for that.
The use is only significant if the enemy has fully walled their city.

IMO the trailer should show this feature as it will be a highlight of the new alpha and I don't want the majority of players to become disappointed when they notice the cost/use ratio.

Maybe @scythetwirler has an opinion about the price? (900 metal for 15 seconds visibility of a trader being proposed)

Also fanatic seems to be the right word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_(person)

(Yadda yadda, you have misunderstood my point. IMO 1500 metal is too much for all players independent of skill. Competitive players have more metal and might use it more often than newcomers. I have pinged people as I want a discussion, not a dictatation. I think experienced players are more capable to see shortcomings than than inexperienced players. The balancing requirements are mostly the same for all players. Where are those 900 metal coming from? It's a 1/5 metal mine and military units are expensive and mandatory. I don't insist on anything, chose as you wish, I just want to give a recommendation. 900 is much better than 1500 and it opens actual use cases in late game if one has thousands of excess metal in the bank (which is actually more likely for experienced than inexperienced players). (It's nothing emotional, I just think its the truth,, so I feel obliged to state it))

The use of this feature should stay exceptionnal, not be overused, otherwise it is all the concept of vision which could be distorted. So the price should stay big enough.
But once again, i think i have said several times here or on the forum that:

• it would be nice to complement it by a counter-espionnage tech which increases the price for civs spying you. When that is done, we could decrease the initial price
• all the numbers (prices, durations, ...) should be experimented really in game, and only then we can have a balance patch when everything is in place. Now we are just of the level of implementing the functionnality.

That's a bit connected to what i answered to the comment on "following the bribed unit": we do not have to wait to have a fully, complete and well-balanced patch to test a new feature.

Identity.js

No because no unit will ever have this template. If there is some information to make visible, it is the Bribable one. I will add it in the Trader's VisibleClass template.

It's not optional in VisionSharing, so need to have it (or make it optional). usually i prefer non-optional, but no strong opinion.

oops. It's ok then (I was confused with the duration wich was optional).

The main advantage i see with this approach is that we can vary easily the cost or the duration with tech as for any other component. But maybe there is a better way i don't know.

Ok, I didn't think of that.

I'm happy with this approach, personally.