Agricultural Trait isn't working properly

[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 agricultural as third, I noticed that when its effects were starting to kick in the buildtimes really didn't matter that much just anymore - just catch/build a few more workers/gatherers...

 

[Thunderbrd]

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

They've been replaced for the most part. The more 'basic' approach is utilized moreso in ls6122's Focused Traits. Although I don't think that's the PRIMARY goal he had in mind.

But perhaps, for players that REALLY appreciate simplicity, yet another trait set "Basic Traits" might be good to develop. Maybe you could work that out yourself Joseph? I'd love to see what you'd arrange the traits as specifically! Particularly if the overall goal of the set would be to make them as simple and straightforward as possible. I'm sure if you simply expressed them out in a spreadsheet any of us would be quite happy to put the xml work in to enable them.

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.

It wouldn't be unbalancing to not cap the amount of differing traits a leader can begin to develop (diversify) because strategically it wouldn't be as valuable to diversify your trait selections into other trait types over further development on the lines you've already begun to take. The first levels just wouldn't be bringing as much to the table, though perhaps just AS good in that they might help to balance out the negative effects of the traits you've already begun developing. But as a Chinese proverb states, "One sharp sword is better than many dull ones."

Nevertheless, further development tiers along trait lines would open up via tech achievements as well as having prereqs of the previous trait (and there could be some interesting cross trait prereqs that lead to some quirky in-between traits at some junctures.) So a diversification selection will sometimes be all you currently have available to you, thus enforcing SOME rather than allowing a Leader to go ALL into one trait's development.

The AI will clearly understand that a more developed trait selection is generally superior to starting on a new line, and furthermore, they selected the initial ones they have up to that point due to those already being a good fit for their personality (and to some degree their situation. More AI work will probably ongoing for some time to keep taking more 'situational factors' in mind for them - currently how many coastal cities you have plays a big role in whether an AI would want to select Seafaring or not, for example.) So they'd be more likely to develop trait lines they already find a good fit for their game strategies (this factor will be more closely linked soon after the archetype system goes into effect.) and usually that will mean continuing along the lines they already appreciated enough in the first place to begin developing. That said, there is ALSO a severe added weight to furthering the lines they've already begun.

Then it's up to the player to do their own evaluation to see if they agree that its usually better to continue to develop their existing lines whenever possible over diversifying. If they are keen and the traits tiers are designed with the right balance structure, it should most commonly be that further development will be much better than diversifying.

Thus no artificial cap should be necessary.

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.

We already do need some entries in the civopedia for what we have I think. I'll give some of these interesting ideas more thought down the road. For now, other priorities takes a higher seat than making sure all possible trait options are immediately implemented.

 

[QuantumProjects]

I'm glad I could help a bit!

 

[JosEPh_II]

They've been replaced for the most part. The more 'basic' approach is utilized moreso in ls612's Focused Traits. Although I don't think that's the PRIMARY goal he had in mind.

What happens if you do not select Any Trait Options at game set up? Do you get the vanilla BtS set? Or something else?

JosEPh

 

[Thunderbrd]

You get:
No 'No Negative Traits' - you'd have a third trait by default then and that trait would be negative and established by the leader's definition.

No Developing Leaders - You would not develop any further trait selections throughout the game.

No 'No Positive Traits on Gamestart' - You'd have two positive traits, established by the leader's definition.

No 'Focused Traits' - You'd default to the mod's core traits definitions, SGTSlick's set.

There's no option for the vanilla BtS set, but THAT could be a very interesting application of the Option Edits method... We COULD provide that.

 

[JosEPh_II]

So by selecting No traits Options of any kind you get what the Civilopedia says each leader has (3 traits total) And they are SgtSlick's core set with his ongoing modifications, correct?

Being a real noob about this I know, but I want clarity.

And I should've asked this in one of the Trait threads too.

JosEPh

 

[Thunderbrd]

So by selecting No traits Options of any kind you get what the Civilopedia says each leader has (3 traits total) And they are SgtSlick's core set with his ongoing modifications, correct?

yep

I also forgot to mention Pure Traits. With this on, you get no negative effects on positive traits and no positive effects on negative traits, so with it OFF you get the traits as normally written, with a touch of negative on positive traits and a touch of positive on negative traits.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Too bad this all can't be posted someplace for reference, like maybe the FAQ thread, and/or in the Civilopedia.

Thank you T-brd for the explanation and clarification.

JosEPh

 

[Thunderbrd]

It will be eventually, I'm sure. It's just an element of the project that tends to happen once the project is mostly complete so it's not subject to constant rewriting as adjustments are made thanks to playtesting feedback and so on.

 

[Sgtslick]

Spoiler :

You get:
No 'No Negative Traits' - you'd have a third trait by default then and that trait would be negative and established by the leader's definition.

No Developing Leaders - You would not develop any further trait selections throughout the game.

No 'No Positive Traits on Gamestart' - You'd have two positive traits, established by the leader's definition.

No 'Focused Traits' - You'd default to the mod's core traits definitions, SGTSlick's set.

There's no option for the vanilla BtS set, but THAT could be a very interesting application of the Option Edits method... We COULD provide that.

This is what I use Josesph (none of the above).
Although I too am curious how joseph would go about doing some traits, don't go encouraging people to make anymore trait options thunderbrd , its already a bit ridiculous if you ask me

 

[Thunderbrd]

Well... I'm of the opinion C2C should cater to all preferences. No one set can be perfect for everyone and perhaps a Vanilla or Basic option would be good for some.

Hopefully we will soon have a new way to organize and express our options too so if we get more complexity like this then it won't be so bad. I know what you mean though.