Agricultural Trait isn't working properly

[QuantumProjects]

I believe the Agricultural Trait (Developing Leaders) isn't working as I think it was intended to. Because of the -20% to general improvement building time this trait imposes, the +50% to building speed for gathering camps is useless. A leader without the Agricultural Trait can build one Gathering Camp on Eternity in 56 turns, but a Agricultural leader builds one in 69 turns, despite having a 50% bonus to build that improvement.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Sounds like the build time adjustment could be going in the opposite direction to what it's intended to. Perhaps its increasing, not the build rate, but the build cost somehow.

@Koshling: You tweaked with this recently and you know I'm stuck over here. If you have a moment can you confirm that the build rate modifier is adding to the build speed if positive rather than adding to the build cost?
NVM... its xml.

 

[makotech222]

I knew i saw something weird when i was reading through the traits file. It confused me, because i started to think that the negative value corresponded to an increase in build speed. Here's how it shows up in Civ4TraitsInfo under agricultural1:

<iWorkerSpeedModifier>-20</iWorkerSpeedModifier>

should be

<iWorkerSpeedModifier>20</iWorkerSpeedModifier>

 

[Thunderbrd]

Ah... that's it. It's in the xml. But does the display match this intent? It 'should', but apparently it confused QuantumProjects... (and perhaps SgtSlick too...)

 

[Sgtslick]

I have brought this up with you before thunderbrd I thought, the problem as I see it lies in the description - Workers build improvements with a ........... speed penalty. Naturally you would think 20% would be a penalty and -20% a benefit.

Its not intended to be a penalty so i'll change it. *fixed*

How are you traits coming along by the way thunderbrd? I'm anxious to see them.

 

[QuantumProjects]

I have brought this up with you before thunderbrd I thought, the problem as I see it lies in the description - Workers build improvements with a ........... speed penalty. Naturally you would think 20% would be a penalty and -20% a benefit.

Its not intended to be a penalty so i'll change it. *fixed*

How are you traits coming along by the way thunderbrd? I'm anxious to see them.

Sgtslick, I'm not sure that's the case. I understood that the -20% speed penalty was indeed a penalty.

What confuses me is: if I have the Agricultural Trait, I generally take 20% longer to build any ordinary improvement ("Workers build improvements with a -20% speed penalty"). However, if I'm building any "agricultural" related improvement, I get a 50% speed bonus, as stated in the trait description. So, although I'm not sure how the game does the calculation (adding or multiplying modifiers), I expect to be able to build a gathering camp faster than a player who hasn't Agricultural Trait.

However, it is the opposite that's happening (Agricultural = 69 turns, Non-Agricultural = 56 turns), and that is what troubled me. Perhaps the problem is not only with the iWorkerSpeedModifier tag, but also with the other tags that define the bonus speed to build agricultural improvements.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Please confirm that this is displaying as intended.

If it is positive it should state "Workers build improvements 20% Faster"

And if it is negative it should state "Workers build improvements with a -20% speed penalty"

I could take out the '-' if that's what's confusing here.


The new trait workup I had thought would be around the corner. I've had some more concepts, yes. But I'm solidly stuck on trying to debug some new tags, most of which are FOR traits.

After that, I've had a few more tag concepts come to mind to do for them, I've got the Leader Archetype coding structure to do (this comes immediately next), which the Trait selection AI will be improved by, and after that I will be working up my trait structure.

In the meantime, I'm also doing some playtesting of your traits as they stand with a Developing Leader hotseat game with my wife. This is helping me to get a better idea of the value on some tags. There have been a few I've changed my impression on, particularly Progressist's Upgrade Anywhere tag. I'd also like to mention that I'm actually feeling like the traits as you have them are a rather interesting structure in general. There's no SENSE of balance because they are so dissimilar, but at the same time, when you go to pick them, they all shout ME ME! So I'm thinking the 'balance' isn't all that bad really.

Anyhow, this modding business is the biggest patience trial ever. Sorry its taking me so long. But on the upside, I REALLY think I should have a lot of new tags for you to play with soon. And getting that new workup is and has been since I began with Developing Leaders, my highest priority. (Mostly cuz I feel I can knock that out and then get back to the Combat Mod stuff in earnest. This has proven to be a bigger side-project than I had anticipated already.)

 

[Thunderbrd]

Sgtslick, I'm not sure that's the case. I understood that the -20% speed penalty was indeed a penalty.

What confuses me is: if I have the Agricultural Trait, I generally take 20% longer to build any ordinary improvement ("Workers build improvements with a -20% speed penalty"). However, if I'm building any "agricultural" related improvement, I get a 50% speed bonus, as stated in the trait description. So, although I'm not sure how the game does the calculation (adding or multiplying modifiers), I expect to be able to build a gathering camp faster than a player who hasn't Agricultural Trait.

However, it is the opposite that's happening, and that is what troubled me.

On the exact same type of plot? That's right, from that description, you should be building 30% faster overall... something may actually be a bit wonky in the code. Hrmph.

 

[QuantumProjects]

On the exact same type of plot? That's right, from that description, you should be building 30% faster overall... something may actually be a bit wonky in the code. Hrmph.

I'll check that. Hold on.

Yep, on the same base terrain (grassland).

 

[Sgtslick]

Please confirm that this is displaying as intended.

If it is positive it should state "Workers build improvements 20% Faster"

And if it is negative it should state "Workers build improvements with a -20% speed penalty"

I could take out the '-' if that's what's confusing here.

When I first used the tag I had it as 20% not -20% but upon reading the in game description I changed it. It says "Workers build improvements with a *** speed penalty" either way (when I changed it some months ago).

There's no SENSE of balance because they are so dissimilar, but at the same time, when you go to pick them, they all shout ME ME! So I'm thinking the 'balance' isn't all that bad really.

Isn't all that bad?? Don't you mean its simply amazing and jaw droppingly exceptional!??
That said I was thinking of doing a few changes soon, like I think philosophical should go back to +100% gp's and probably give scientific another nerf. I don't like a few of the negative traits and think they need a few changes. Some of them are still a little too 'beneficial' I think. Generally I still feel like I need to delete a few traits but i'll wait it out till your ready (especially since there are new tags incoming ).

I don't like the developing leaders tbh, I mean, I like the concept and all but I don't play with it. I definately prefer the idea of the traits becoming stronger in levels/teirs, perhaps you can add another base trait too (still not convinced on this), or remove negative. I know i've said this before but the main advantage to having the developing leaders will be the ability to make the traits significantly weaker at teir1 (so its much easier to balance in respect to the early game [prehistoric/ancient]). Lots of tags are just not usable imo because they wreck the balance in this fragile stage of the game. For a teir3 trait however we can have stuff like +or- +or- +or- etc. The way it is at the moment where you can add a whole new trait - I don't like coz they are all so powerful and it somehow spoils the fun.

I'll check that. Hold on.

Yep, on the same base terrain (grassland).

I updated the svn yesterday, is it faster for you now Quantum?

 

[Koshling]

When I first used the tag I had it as 20% not -20% but upon reading the in game description I changed it. It says "Workers build improvements with a *** speed penalty" either way (when I changed it some months ago).

Positive numbers make them work faster. It's a speed modifier in the code whatever the help says.

 

[Thunderbrd]

When I first used the tag I had it as 20% not -20% but upon reading the in game description I changed it. It says "Workers build improvements with a *** speed penalty" either way (when I changed it some months ago).

Please do me a favor and test and check that again in the civopedia. It should not be saying penalty at all when there's a positive value there. I need to know if its a flawed text reference.

I don't like the developing leaders tbh, I mean, I like the concept and all but I don't play with it. I definately prefer the idea of the traits becoming stronger in levels/teirs, perhaps you can add another base trait too (still not convinced on this), or remove negative. I know i've said this before but the main advantage to having the developing leaders will be the ability to make the traits significantly weaker at teir1 (so its much easier to balance in respect to the early game [prehistoric/ancient]). Lots of tags are just not usable imo because they wreck the balance in this fragile stage of the game. For a teir3 trait however we can have stuff like +or- +or- +or- etc. The way it is at the moment where you can add a whole new trait - I don't like coz they are all so powerful and it somehow spoils the fun.

So I've been enjoying the developing leader mechanism a lot but I also fully agree with you on most of that assessment, particularly given how many traits it seems you can select by the end of the Prehistoric era alone. It definitely begs additional layers with increasing strength as they go. Either that or cut down on the frequency of selections by increasing the leveling thresholds, but I think its simply more fun to have more frequent selections and have them be individually less influential on your game overall than 1 trait normally means in a non-DL game.

It's still going to be a bit from my angle before I can work on developing that out. So I'd urge you AND ls612 to work things out EXACTLY how YOU best think they should be. It's not a competition so much as it is two (and eventually three with me) very differing game theories in application and I think, from what I've seen of all concepts so far, all are fully valid but not necessarily compatible.

So by all means do go forth and work out a developing leaderhead scheme of traits as you see fit! Hopefully the new tags that are coming should help. I've also got some more I've listed out and I'm looking to see if others have yet more ideas for trait tags so I can truly let this stay fully established for the sake of moving on to other projects to come.

Once I've done my workup, you may have already adjusted some of my concepts with what I'm able to observe of your own efforts! And then once I've got mine in place, I'm sure it will be basically another set of feedback for you to, in turn, consider. Nothing bad about that.

Also... in play application, I must admit I suddenly VALUE culture now. It's no longer just meh... I can do without THAT when a building brings extra culture to the table. I still don't value it AS highly as research (though its a nice valuable priority to take over research WHEN you are falling desperately behind in production... but that relates to another conversation.) So I consider the concept a victory but yes, still needing more development. And it is very true that the base traits should be really nowhere near as powerful on DL as they are when you're stuck with only the two base positive and the one negative for the extent of the game. I've begun to consider perhaps up to even 5 tiers per trait and really breaking them down at each step.

 

[QuantumProjects]

I updated the svn yesterday, is it faster for you now Quantum?

I play the release version. I would need to download from the SVN repository and test it.

In my opinion, the Developing Leaders is one of the best innovations you made to the game, alongside removing the UU and UB and replacing them with Unique Cultures.

Both features make the development of civilizations more realistic, with natural resources, terrain, initial position and weather better defining how a civilization will evolve and prosper. I'm no longer bound to a useless seafaring UU if map placement didn't put me near the coast, for instance, or if exploiting the surrounding land is much more beneficial to me than exploring the ocean. Likewise, I'm no longer in disadvantage if I select a leader (which originally favored culture) and then find out, after some terrrain and resources are revealed, that I would benefit much more if I prioritize financial growth, or farms.

In this regard, for instance, I started a game with a civilization whose leader do not usually have the Expansive Trait, selecting Developing Leaders, Start with no Positive Traits and Focused Traits. On Turn 01, I found out that most of the surrounding land was jungle, which means a LOT of unhealthiness. Therefore, Expansive became a necessity for my civilization to overcome those mosquitos and diseases. Without it, I would have to migrate (as I chose to do, nevertheless) to greener pastures.

Therefore, both systems are great innovations to the game. As great, I risk saying, as the Prehistoric Era gameplay.

Anyway, If I was to suggest changes to these two features, I would suggest that:

1. No civilization get a Unique Culture, and instead all start the game with Culture (Human). After the research of a certain technology (or after some culture is gained, as it happens with the Developing Traits), let the player choose to which main culture his civilization will belong. I would only implement it if all the subcultures of a given main culture favor a specific strategy - for instance, if all the African cultures favor war. On the other hand, If all main cultures have "subcultures" designed for war, commerce, culture development, etc., I would leave it as it is.

2. I would reduce the number of times the player gets to choose traits (until the implementation of the tier system, although I'm not fond of it), and make all of them useful during the entire game. As they stand now, some traits are not useful in the beginning - specially Industrious, Seafaring, or Politician, while others are invaluable in the early game, like Expansive.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Thanks for the kind words on Developing Leaderheads.

I'll take your feedback into consideration though I have some ideas on both fronts there that are a bit different. It's interesting you say you're not fond of the tier idea. I wonder how you'll feel about that once its implemented and given a go. Let me know then k? The tier system is there and code ready... just needs the xml development.

For my trait set, I'm first giving further consideration to new tags to fill in some concepts a bit better. I want to be able to plan it out, execute it, and there it is, potentially to be subject to little tweaks here and there but for the most part, not subject to year's worth or more of constant adjustment. That's where I'll be turning it over to SGTSlick to take all my ideas as shown there, the concepts that prove successful in ls612's Focused Traits, and Slick's own modding ideas and ideals, and blending them all into a functional harmony for the core.

If, once the tiers are built in, which was always the intent of Developing Leaders, it is found that we still are getting too many leader levels to keep some good game balance in play, or we find we actually need more frequent selections (unlikely), that will be tweaked at that time.

 

[Sgtslick]

Start with no Positive Traits and Focused Traits.

Stopped reading here lol just kidding.

You have a point about being able to select a whole new trait which better suits your surrounding. However, for people who want to select entire new traits as apart of developing leaders they could just use the start with no positive traits option, then they can advance to the point where they have their core traits and then can only advance them (not being able to get additional ones). This would be my preference, but its not my baby - its thunderbrds and he ultimately get's to call the shots. By the way i'm pretty sure isl612's focused traits when combined developing leaders doesn't work properly, its only just getting fixed in the svn, so stick with the default traits if you want to use DL and the version release would be my advice for now.

 

[Thunderbrd]

hmm... making start with no positive traits 'on' and Developing Leaders 'off' lead to a scenario where you get the first two levels basically and no more (and the traits selected being from the pool of LinePriority 0 traits, 2 pos, 1 neg?) hmm... not a bad idea and could be fun in practice, but a bit hard to convey to players how that works during setup don't you think?

That would, however, suggest another option should somehow fill that gap (cuz then we'd lose the NO Leader Traits option that exists when No Negative Traits and Start without Positive Traits are both on and DL is off - useful for those who'll want to play with only culture traits according to the Cultural Heritage project in the works.)

And then, if we add another trait option, it just gets over the top confusing to sort out how all the traits interact. It's already stretching the limits there and has invited some complaints about that.

Still... I could make a NO LEADER traits option to fill that gap (that would come across very clear) and replace the non-devel leader No Positives on Start function with the behavior you suggest. Would just take a bit of added programming is all... Maybe down the road I'll do that.

BTW: Also @QP: I wanted to also mention that the concept of the tiers is to also design them to be more applicable to the target era of their 'tier depth'. I realize that not all trait tag applications are equally valuable in all eras of the game and that was a major insight. Making sure that all 1st level traits are pretty much equal in benefit but varying in strategy according to a Prehistoric outlook, then all 2nd lvl are so according to an Ancient/Classical outlook, and so on is much of what adding the tiers is going to enable us to do.

Classically Traits must take the whole of the game into consideration when balancing against each other in value. But in a DL environment, we're recognizing the need to adapt to the changing eras to keep trait selections motivated as much by current needs as they would be made available as they are to be kept in balance against each other in general.

 

[JosEPh_II]

What do you select in the options to get just the basic traits? And by basic I mean either pre SgtSlick, or SgtSlick 1st set.

Do these even exist any more? Or Is that now ls612's Traits?

What, Where, How?

JosEPh

 

[QuantumProjects]

In fact, I've just changed my opinion on this topic. I'm not entirely against the tier system, but I basically fear that the possibility of having varying levels of all the traits of the game, even those which are mainly antagonic (Creative and Scientific and Religious and Humanitarian and Agressive...) would be unbalancing and rather unrealistic.

Therefore, I agree with Sgtslick in the way that there should be a cap on the number of different traits you can select (perhaps 4?). After reaching that threshold, you should be able only to improve your current traits.

Regarding the current options, I think that the following choices would cover every possible scenario:

1. Disable Leader Traits: leader do not get any starting traits and do not develop, for those willing to play according to the Cultural Heritage project (which I didn't know until now, will it be compatible with DL?).

2. Pure Traits and No Negative Traits: useful with DL on or off, doesn't matter, working as they do now.

3. Start with no Fixed Traits: At the beginning of the game, you select two classical traits. You also have to pick one negative trait, if No Negative Trait is disabled.

4. Developing Leaders: depending on the selected options, you would get:

a) A leader with no traits, choosing them from a list as the game progresses (Start with no Fixed Traits on). If No Negative Traits is off, then you should have to select a negative trait level for every x levels of positive traits you select.

b) A leader with 2 initial positive traits and 1 negative trait (if No Negative Traits is disabled), on tier 1, and he can evolve his traits as the game progresses. Again, if No Negative Traits is disabled, the starting level for the negative trait should be at least one level greater than the positive traits initial level, or you should need to improve it as well, otherwise it is just a matter of time (in fact, the first choice could suffice) for the negative trait to go away and change the game to a No Negative Traits game.

If it gets too confusing, some entries in the civopedia could clarify obscure combinations to the player.

Finally, I agree that a tier system in which traits become increasingly useful along the Eras is a great addition to the game, and I didn't think of this at first.

 

[ls612]

By the way i'm pretty sure isl612's focused traits when combined developing leaders doesn't work properly, its only just getting fixed in the svn, so stick with the default traits if you want to use DL and the version release would be my advice for now.

They should be compatable on the SVN, and he said he'd be getting that to test the changes.

 

[DRJ]

Having thought about ths topic, I have to say I changed my mind I think the "problem" was the actually right at first. The reason is: logic.

Why do agricultural nations have higher output? Because they invest more work, more precision more discipline
Having read Trotzki's autobiography lately this was excatly what he described about his childhood in southern russia when he told about the the Wolga - Germans in the aerea who he scetches as the most successfull settlers - with largest herds of sheep around and also the modern machinery etc (1880s!) - they invested more (civwise turns) and thus their output is constantly higher. The +1 food per tile over 4 is already near to OP IMHO, so longer buildtimes for higher output is absolutely justified. Just needs some explanation sentence like (higher efficiency at the cost of longer preperation/higher investment).

Just playing a GEM match as Japan, having picked cultural and scientific /idealistic as first 2 traits and (old "bugged") agricultural as third, I noticed that when its effects were starting to kick in the buildtimes really didn't matter that much anymore - just catch/build a few more workers/gatherers...