Earned traits

C

civhelp121

Prince
Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Messages
397
Location
United States
I was thinking about how civilization is suppossed to be your own world and your own history, but we still use civilizations that are in our history. That said, they should probably stay there because that works, but what if there was an option where you can create your own civilization, and the traits that you gain are based on your playing style. For example, lets say the player builds tons of units and the military is the player's biggest advantage, then the player would get the militaristic trait. Or if the player is best in terms of the economy, then the player would earn the financial trait.
 
It would be difficult to tune the AI personality right IMO. I mean, let's say you spawn next to Gandhi and someone declares on him, making him build a lot of units. If the war lasts long enough, Gandhi's traits and personality may become similar to Tokugawa's.

But I agree that these things should be more dynamic than they are in Civ4.
 
Rather than traits themselves I like the idea of civ-wide bonuses based on some criteria for action. Like a 3rd "mini-trait" or something.

It's definitely an idea that could be fun if built upon.
 
I don't like the idea of creating what are essentially fictional leaders, 'cause it's just not civ. But whatever floats your boat, so long as it isn't the norm. Within this construct, however, earned traits could work well, so long as they didn't lead to a particular game strategy becoming even more powerful due to an added bonus associated with it.
 
I'm very much in favour of something like this, provided it is reassessed regularly over the course of the game; if you get an early warmonger bonus, it should not endure for the next hundred turns of you sitting peacefully building stuff up, frex.
 
I suppose so long as it's very elastic, as rysmiel suggests, it shouldn't present too much of an issue (apart from the 'it's just not civ' bit). I could just imagine, however, an early rush resulting in a huge advantage for your military for the rest of the game, on top of the advantage you've received early on.
 
Camikaze said:
I could just imagine, however, an early rush resulting in a huge advantage for your military for the rest of the game, on top of the advantage you've received early on.
Click to expand...

I don't think it should work that way; I think an early rush should give you an advantage, but that that advantage should fade when you are no longer rushing.
 
But an early rush already does give you advantage- you are the biggest and strongest civ in the world. Adding another advantage to this would be horrific for game balance.
 
Camikaze said:
But an early rush already does give you advantage- you are the biggest and strongest civ in the world. Adding another advantage to this would be horrific for game balance.
Click to expand...

Not if you balance the traits better, and, as I keep finding myself coming back to, balance other aspects of the game better against military; because an early rush that lets Civ A conquer Civ B really should not give Civ A and advantage over what Civ C can gain sitting at home doing tech development in the same span of time.
 
Well, yes, if traits and game strategies were balanced better then this idea would be a possibility (albeit one that I wouldn't really go for, preferring uniques and all), but I don't really see that happening. Whatever the developers do, there is always going to be stand-out strategies and more power in some aspects of the game than others, and, adding an extra advantage towards this would only compound the initial problem.
 
civhelp121 said:
I was thinking about how civilization is suppossed to be your own world and your own history, but we still use civilizations that are in our history. That said, they should probably stay there because that works, but what if there was an option where you can create your own civilization, and the traits that you gain are based on your playing style. For example, lets say the player builds tons of units and the military is the player's biggest advantage, then the player would get the militaristic trait. Or if the player is best in terms of the economy, then the player would earn the financial trait.
Click to expand...

It sounds pretty doable. The problem is with the dumb AI. I dont think I would be playing this game if I couldnt take the challenge of Immortal AI, everything less has become like cheating for me....
I mean when I play AI in chezz I do actually have a problem and I can also learn something, not so much here... Well I am taking that partialy back I meant stratagicalwise from the AI
 
Camikaze said:
Well, yes, if traits and game strategies were balanced better then this idea would be a possibility (albeit one that I wouldn't really go for, preferring uniques and all), but I don't really see that happening. Whatever the developers do, there is always going to be stand-out strategies and more power in some aspects of the game than others, and, adding an extra advantage towards this would only compound the initial problem.
Click to expand...

And since the game already has many instances of this, one more probably won't hurt.
 
rysmiel said:
I don't think it should work that way; I think an early rush should give you an advantage, but that that advantage should fade when you are no longer rushing.
Click to expand...
can be achieved by adding decay. say 10% per turn of all the bonuses.
some traits can be united into exclusive groups. e.g. increasing one trait in a group will decrease all others. the sum of decreases must be bigger then the increase, otherwise a player can max out all the traits in an exclusive group.

Camikaze said:
Well, yes, if traits and game strategies were balanced better then this idea would be a possibility (albeit one that I wouldn't really go for, preferring uniques and all), but I don't really see that happening. Whatever the developers do, there is always going to be stand-out strategies and more power in some aspects of the game than others, and, adding an extra advantage towards this would only compound the initial problem.
Click to expand...
devs care about sales. the issues of balance do not bother them as long as it does not hurt sales.

Ramesses said:
And since the game already has many instances of this, one more probably won't hurt.
Click to expand...
:D
 
Ramesses said:
And since the game already has many instances of this, one more probably won't hurt.
Click to expand...

Probably not the best way to look at possible improvements to the game. Sure, there are many instances of game imbalance, but that is no excuse to include even more.

Hail said:
devs care about sales. the issues of balance do not bother them as long as it does not hurt sales.
Click to expand...

I don't see how leaving it the way it is will hurt sales. And I certainly don't see how changing it will help sales.
 
Hail said:
can be achieved by adding decay. say 10% per turn of all the bonuses.
Click to expand...

I'd been thinking something more like "reassess every age" with a game that had seven or eight ages - so that nothing stopped you being a warmonger with warmonger bonuses in ancient times and being a builder with ficnacial bonuses in the Industrial Age - but what you suggest could work too.

some traits can be united into exclusive groups. e.g. increasing one trait in a group will decrease all others. the sum of decreases must be bigger then the increase, otherwise a player can max out all the traits in an exclusive group.
Click to expand...

That's a thought.

I also wonder whether there could be balance between some traits that were assessed based on how well you were doing based on an external standard, and some that were assessed based on how well you were doing relative to the other civs in the game.
 
Agreed. I often find that I have to revise my plan, maybe based on available resources. Quick access to stone and marbe tend to make me a different player than if all I got was copper and iron. Ragnar of the Vikings might have been bad news to peaceful neighbours in the past, but I don't think we are so furious anymore :D

Maybe the current Civics could be influential in what updated traits a leader gets on era change? Then throw in a little bit of randomness. Maybe this randomness could be set as a difficulty slider, changing my traits? Game: You've been a wormonging POS since day one and are obviously using war positive civics. The end of this era changes you, Catherine, from a financial player to an agressive player. Me: WTH? Oh no!! I was going for a cultural win, better rethink my strategies :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GeneralZift
CCS: Alternate Victory Conditions
Replies
0
Views
146
GeneralZift
GeneralZift
B
Civilization splitting and coalition, and merging leaders with governors
Replies
4
Views
823
BlessedBull
B
D
Future Civ Changing Mechanic Suggestion
Replies
0
Views
347
desk
D
T
Modern Age Exploration Victory As Humanity Coming Together Vs. Ideology Tearing Apart
Replies
1
Views
440
Krikkit1
K
Lord Lakely
TIMELINE: A Civilization concept by Lord Lakely
2
Replies
37
Views
938
Lord Lakely
Lord Lakely
Back
Top Bottom