Building a better leader: The Adaptive trait

[Halancar]

So try it out and let me know what you think. If the feedback is positive we may allow Adaptive leaders to change traits a few times during the game.

Indeed, being Adaptative is about changing with circumstances, not starting different. But this would have to be limited, probably by time. It makes sense, for example, to start with Creative, to change to Agressive or Raiders during the mid-game while fighting for dominance, and to end-up as Organized or Financial to manage that huge empire in the end game... But it does not make sense to switch from turn to turn.

 

[BCalchet]

From what I can tell, it's more about adapting to the game settings (and in the case of multiplayer, the opponents) than adapting to the current situation.

For example, when playing on land-heavy maps with raging barbarians on, I might want to pick Raiders in order to better defend my lands and to get highly experienced units doing it.
If I'm playing multiplayer and the other players go for the summoner and/or arcane leader traits, I might pick Magic Resistant to counter this.


I like the trait, at least.

 

[chocmushroom]

HHHHhhmmmm, I'm not sure, Adaptive does mean that they are better at changing during a game, and to me this does not seem to be what you have chosen to do.
You have given some leaders the Variable trait, which means one aspect of their abilities can change each game (which is a great idea for them civs that only have one leader) I like it, keep it.

But, maybe you should also add an Adaptive trait.

Adaptive trait: I don't think it should mean you can change traits during the game, as this makes them very very powerful. Also, how would it work, do your unit loose their ability to move faster or resist magic that they gained when you had the trait. No, all seems to powerful and complicated.

Adaptive: Ability to react to new situations and come up with a solution quickly. Maybe this should be a unit ability and a civ ability.

Adaptive unit: Gains a free promotion adaptive. This gives the unit.... not sure, maybe they count all terrain as half movement penalty cost, or get the tile terrain defiance if they have been in tile for two stationery turns (so hill or forest or desert) or they upgrade and 2/3 cost. All these show the ability to adapt to a new challenge

Adaptive Civ:
No anarchy for changing civs (they take to new ideas quick).
Pay half the cost for civ upkeeps. Or maybe they get the most expensive civ for free, or just on civ for free
Adapt to adverse conditions better than most civs, and have half the negative city effects (so, can deal with overcrowding better, adverse buildings and not having their religion in city)

These are just my 15 mins at work thinking, what do you think.

 

[Bad Player]

We are also considering an "Insane" trait for Perpentach where he randomly picks 3 traits when the games start and he has a 1% chance per turn of randomly picking 3 new traits.

But one step at a time. Let me know what you think.

Having played Perpentach a bit I would prefer he stays as is. The reason is that the current combination suits my strategy well (especially the philosophical trait). The reason is you get the freak show out and then use a bard to get a great bard relatively quickly then expand you early borders fast!

I'd be willing to trade Perpentach's current traits for 4 random traits however.
What? What? Civ diplomacy in action!

 

[bebematos]

I like overpower ideas, that have a switch to balance it. The switch in this case woud be the time needed to change to the new trait and the traits that can be changed into, for example only the vanilla civ traits. For example, Varn starts the game Fin/Crea, but decides the Malakim needs to be more aggressive if they want to survive, he decides, lose the crative trait, stay 15 turns with only the financial trait, and then become aggressive. The 15 turns is a example, the most important think is that it is a big hit in the civilization tempo. If you have a plan that needs a Agg/Fin leader you should go to Kandros, not to Varn, otherwise, I think, Kandros lose a little of flavor.

 

[Grillick]

I'd like to be able to see the map before I choose my trait, at the very least.

 

[Lord Vermillion]

hmmm, dont know what i think about this, I guess I will have to try it out to decide. Sounds cool, but balance may be a factor.

Seems like the "insane" trait will be quite interesting, but atm I personally love perpentach's traits as they are. But then again... thats just my opinion

 

[Lord Vermillion]

I'd like to be able to see the map before I choose my trait, at the very least.

Heh, I must also agree here.

 

[chocmushroom]

Heh, I must also agree here.

No, you don't need to see the map, all you need do is play a custom game and decided what type of map you want to play on decided on traits depending on the set-up

 

[Lord Vermillion]

No, you don't need to see the map, all you need do is play a custom game and decided what type of map you want to play on decided on traits depending on the set-up

I guess thats true, but I was thinking MP games.

 

[Lord Vermillion]

On a side note... Im confused as to which patch is available/current? Ive heard of patch "e" but patch "d" is the only one I see available

 

[feydras]

It would be truly wonderful to create a custom leader all together. Have a number of leaderhead pics to choose from and let the player pick the trait combo. This would work well for the Grigori, i think, but in keeping with the idea it would be nice to pick the civ also.

The downside i see is that you are sacrificing some flavor in the form of the creators maintaining a vision. In return you are gaining a lot of flexibility and another unique addition to the game. That alone would likely draw a ton of new players to the mod, not that FfH has a problem attracting players..

- feydras

 

[QES]

While, in general, I like this idea. Does it not ruin, in a way, the selectivity of choosing a civ to begin with? While customization is cool in most respects, when one no longer has to choose between two hard choices, and can simply "adapt" to whatever they want, choice becomes easier, as you'll most often pick whatever you want with whatever civ you want. Getting a lot of what we want can be fun initially, but it removes a bit of strategy. "Do i want philosophical? and yadda yadda? Or would i rather have blahblah but not philosophical? Etc.

I still prefer the idea of "force choices." Perhaps one or TWO civs could have the adaptive trait. But, I would prefer simply more Leaders instead. Maybe the Malakim should get another leader, while it makes sense that he kuriotates and grigori only ever have the one. I say more leaders is better "in general" than allowing players the massive freedom this would bring.
-Qes

 

[vorshlumpf]

. .

As mentioned by others, I like the idea of adaptation in game. I just don't see how play-testing a one-time variable trait will affect that opinion.

- Niilo

 

[Xanikk999]

I havent posted in the FFH forums in awhile but this is a very good idea. I am happy about this!

 

[Xanikk999]

Kael, i just thought of a great way to make the adaptive trait more realistic and better!

How about you give them the orginal two traits at the start and have the adaptive trait do nothing until turns 100-200 in the game.

At that point the player gets to choose what trait he will replace with the adaptive and lose one of his first two traits.

It makes more sense this way. In the middle of the game he will choose his traits. Means more to the word "Adaptive".

 

[Kael]

As mentioned by others, I like the idea of adaptation in game. I just don't see how play-testing a one-time variable trait will affect that opinion.

- Niilo

Mostly I just need to know that the code employeed to make it happens works and is stable (doesn't cause OOS in multiplay, CTD's on some trait call I forgot about, etc). Once that is know I can get more complex and allow trait switching in game, etc.

 

[Kael]

Kael, i just thought of a great way to make the adaptive trait more realistic and better!

How about you give them the orginal two traits at the start and have the adaptive trait do nothing until turns 100-200 in the game.

At that point the player gets to choose what trait he will replace with the adaptive and lose one of his first two traits.

It makes more sense this way. In the middle of the game he will choose his traits. Means more to the word "Adaptive".

Yeap, thats what we are going for. One step at a time.

 

[coko]

I'd rather go with the ideas that Adaptive presents the ability to cope with changes within the civilization. For instances you could limit the number of changes, stating you can only do it maybe once every 200 turns? (or more?).

Also by changing you'd force on anarchy for, I'm not sure, 5 turns? This would then lead to a limiting factor on your changes, so you could swap them around as you wished depending on the circumstances, you'd have to see a bit into the future and plan yourself.

That way it would fit the idea of getting the civlization to accept the new format. Also I agree with the idea it can only change one trait, and the other becomes standard, this means there is some set rules for that player type.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Not sure if I'm sold on this yet or not, seems like it's really not filling in any necessity.

That said, adaptive allowing the leader to switch traits might be nice. However, the leader should have neither the trait they started out with nor the trait that they want to have for a 5 (or 10, or 20) turn period during the switch. It would limit switching without being overly penalizing.