Civ traits

[Micael]

If you do not succeed in any mission, or just one, there will be default rewards to fill up to two, as I wrote earlier when I presented my idea. Those won't be as good as the others.

That's my concern right there- by making the player get a better trait by performing certain "tasks" then these are essentially quests.

And then its more about reaching the quest goals than about your Civilization dynamically improving depending on their focus. I don't have a problem with your quests, I just think that its no longer your Civ's natural evolution.

Yes, I see that, but then then each mission have to be compared to the other missions to see which ones was the best, and then we are back at the metric balance problems.

Yes, but if we limit the amount of possible traits per age to 20 or so then there's a lot less to balance out, and it still remains dynamic.

Sorry if it feels I'm being difficult lol.

- Micael

 

[TowerWizard]

no longer your Civ's natural evolution.

Define to me exactly what you mean by that. Because I am fine with these missions. They will define your civ. What you pick will stick. Not all civs will succeed in all of the areas, and thus they will evolve to be different. But, at least for the players, they should succeed in two of them, unless something exceptional happens. The problem is for the AIs. However, I am fine with them getting random traits if they do not qualify for one or two. Keeps them up to par. But if a player does not manage to succeed in at least two of these goals, then I think they should be somewhat punished.

Remember that we have three choices. Either fixed traits, like we have now, or this idea we are developing, or the RIFE system of scaling each and every trait into 1% slices and giving them out during the game. For me, that would ruin the game. If that is what you mean when you talk about natural evolution of the civs, then I have misunderstood you thoroughly.

 

[Micael]

Define to me exactly what you mean by that.

I meant that they get the trait/award/bonus for what they aim towards, whether or not they manage to achieve the exact criteria for the reward (thus not biasing it on player start as much). For each age they get the certain trait that they have aimed their civ towards (regardless of how far this civ progressed in relation to other civs progressing along a similar path).

Maybe if we have these missions, just silently (so the player doesn't know- they're really just criteria for the script), and then we give them the options of the missions they are closest to achieving. That way they don't have to achieve the missions per se, and we don't need to worry about balancing the different metrics? Also, that way the player doesn't have to aim for anything, as just by playing the game normally they will progress somewhat towards some of these quests, so to them it will feel dynamic.

The code should be fairly easy to do to work out percentage towards completion of mission (and then provide them with the options based off of that counter). And it shouldn't be that hard to come up with a whole bunch of missions per age.

Little 1% bonuses are just irritating, so don't worry I certainly am not arguing for those. I think yours and AIAndy's idea of fewer, more powerful traits is a good one, so long as there is still variety (allowing for a feeling of randomness, hence the arbritary number of 20 or so).

Does that clarify what I've been trying to say? What do you think of the idea above? Best of both worlds?

- Micael

 

[TowerWizard]

I meant that they get the trait/award/bonus for what they aim towards, whether or not they manage to achieve the exact criteria for the reward

we give them the options of the missions they are closest to achieving

Does that clarify what I've been trying to say? What do you think of the idea above?

Yes, now I get it. The problem is the word "closest". While I understand how you think my idea is "clunky" in the sense that you have to achieve that exact criterion or fail the mission, it is by far the simplest way to do it. I now understand what you meant with "adjusting" up to the limit. But as AIAndy paints out, we then arrive at "How many woodsman promotions are equal to meeting one Civ for some exploration trait?" We need to know the answer to this question, and hundreds like it, to make the game understand the word "closest".

From my examples of missions, of course the number x will vary between the missions (and game speeds, presumably). The creators of the mod (if they decide to implement this idea into the game) will try to set this number so as to make each of the missions reasonably hard.

Now, I guess that when we have decided on the values for x, we could then make every mission be worth 100 points, and then figure out what this means for every single mission. Like, if the only criteria for succeeding in a mission is to train ten units, then each should be worth 10 points, and we are home. BUT this will not work for all of them. For instance, I think I can dance! needs a certain culture level, say level 4. But, then you can't say that every level is worth 25 points, since the cost for an upgrade is not linear. Same with This land is ours! where you have one hard criterion and one scaleable. Or That's a big horse! where just one special unit is needed.

I agree that my solution is not very elegant, but it is realistic.

 

[Micael]

Yes, now I get it. The problem is the word "closest". While I understand how you think my idea is "clunky" in the sense that you have to achieve that exact criterion or fail the mission, it is by far the simplest way to do it. I now understand what you meant with "adjusting" up to the limit. But as AIAndy paints out, we then arrive at "How many woodsman promotions are equal to meeting one Civ for some exploration trait?" We need to know the answer to this question, and hundreds like it, to make the game understand the word "closest".

From my examples of missions, of course the number x will vary between the missions (and game speeds, presumably). The creators of the mod (if they decide to implement this idea into the game) will try to set this number so as to make each of the missions reasonably hard.

Yes, you're both right there, which is why I thought about it and figured it could work like this:

If you have a "mission" for "Natural Woodsman", with the following Criteria:

• Apply x number of woodsman promotions.
• Gain x amount of experience fighting in the Forest.
• Have x number of forest tiles near your cities.

Say we give them the following values for this example:

• Apply 5 number of woodsman promotions.
• Gain 10 amount of experience fighting in the Forest.
• Have 15 number of forest tiles near your cities.

Then the script goes through the list of achievements one by one, so say we have the following values:

• 3/5 promotions.
• 8/10 XP
• 15/15 Forest tiles.

The script will run through this list of achievements and realise you are:

60% through for promotions.
80% through for XP
100% for Forest Tiles

It would then average this out, giving you 80% total completion for this mission.

It would then compare this with your average mission completion for all the other missions, and the top x number of traits (still using our earlier examples of 5) ranked by "average mission completion" is offered to the players. If they have completed more than 5 completely (i.e. 100% completion) then 5 of the tied missions are displayed randomly.

Would that be a fair compromise? Random, yet easy enough to code- missions, yet as little discrimination as possible in relation to starts.

- Micael

 

[Micael]

I was also thinking you could have similar opposite missions for the negative traits (obviously getting a negative would preclude you from being able to choose that positive, and vice versa).

E.g. "Phobia of the Forest":

• Lose x number of Units in Wooded Terrain.
• Burn\Chop down x number of Forests.

 

[TowerWizard]

Would that be a fair compromise?

Yes, it would be, but then every mission needs to be scaleable like this. Which will put a HUGE limitation on them. Like I said in the post, That's a big horse! won't work. All you need is one unit. One. Sure, you can say "Ok, then let's remove the mission, or demand that you train x units instead of one". Not the point. The point is that this limitation is stopping variations in the missions. They will all need to be about x numbers of things for your idea to work.

What about a mission that says you have to have a city on another continent? Awesome mission for the age of discovery, very in line with what went on then in Europe. But this mission has just one thing that needs to be done, which is not scaleable. Or, like I also wrote, culture levels in cities. Same thing. Or if we want to make some of them "be among the x first to do y" missions, to make sure not very civ develops exactly the same? We can't with this limitation. Or, if we want to make sure that some minimum is fulfilled, like you have to have researched these techs, or built this national wonder, or like in This land is ours! you need at least 3 cities. None of this is possible either.

 

[Micael]

Yes, it would be, but then every mission needs to be scaleable like this. Which will put a HUGE limitation on them. Like I said in the post, That's a big horse! won't work. All you need is one unit. One. Sure, you can say "Ok, then let's remove the mission, or demand that you train x units instead of one". Not the point. The point is that this limitation is stopping variations in the missions. They will all need to be about x numbers of things for your idea to work.

True, but to get that one unit you need to have either found a source of ivory, or subdued an elephant/mammoth, brought it back to your city, created the herd, then created the "trainer" building. So you could just as easily write it as:

That's a big horse!

• Have at least x sources of Ivory within your culture borders OR Subdue at least x Elephants / Mammoth.
• Work at least x sources of Ivory within your culture borders OR Build a Herd-Elephant/Herd-Mammoth.
• Create at least x of "Elephant Trainer" (can't remember what the building's called).
• Create at least x units which require Megafauna Domestication.

Its the exact same mission, but by giving it some more steps it's completion can scale more gradually. Sure, I've written x down here, but it could work just as well if x=1. Your people will still be pretty impressed (and as such it would influence your culture) just by having a herd of elephants in your lands/ a herd in your city, even if you don't get round to building the units.

What about a mission that says you have to have a city on another continent? Awesome mission for the age of discovery, very in line with what went on then in Europe. But this mission has just one thing that needs to be done, which is not scaleable.

What about... Manifest Destiny (again, we can assume that x is as low as 1 in this case).

• Discover x new continents.
• Build x colonists (I think Colonists would be your settlers by then right?).
• Build x number of cities on the "New World".
• Subjugate x number of Natives (kill x barbarians). - Okay, so I added this one in, but it makes sense if we're following the European model of expansion.

Wouldn't something like that work- again making sure that the mission has 4 or 5 steps, even if most are kind of pre-requisite steps to what you were thinking of (obviously you need to find the new lands before colonising there, and build a settler unit etc).

Or, like I also wrote, culture levels in cities. Same thing.

We could have some steps referencing x amount of Culture Buildings (or their outputs), we could have a step for Great Artist Points, etc. They all count towards the city's culture anyway.

So to me, that could be like this: I can dance!

• Build x number of buildings which generate culture.
• Gain x number of points towards a Great Artist (can you get that in the prehisoric age?).
• Build x turns of Meager Culture.
• Have a city with level x Culture.

or

I can dance!

• Build x number of buildings which generate culture.
• Build x turns of Meager Culture.
• Have x number of cities with Level x/2 Culture.
• Have x number of cities with Level x Culture.

Which would again be a list of 4 or 5 items.

Or if we want to make some of them "be among the x first to do y" missions, to make sure not very civ develops exactly the same? We can't with this limitation.

We can, it just means that they complete that mission as soon as they do it, and this unique one doesn't scale with the others as well (it would instantly be 100%, and only for one Civ). It doesn't mean we have to make the reward any better, it would just be a more unique path for your Civ. It would simply become one of the 5 options (or in the random list for this if you have more than 5 at 100%).

Or, if we want to make sure that some minimum is fulfilled, like you have to have researched these techs, or built this national wonder, or like in This land is ours! you need at least 3 cities. None of this is possible either.

Have a pre-requisite tag. Obviously, as has been mentioned earlier, this could preclude some Civs from certain traits, but I think it makes sense that the Civ with colonies in 4 separate continents should have access to a trait which reduces distance from palace maintenance or whatever, and the civ with only 2 cities can't get that. Or if a particular trait requires a particular tech, it makes sense to have that tech as a pre-requisite (if they haven't got the pre-requisite, this would be an invalid trait choice for them regardless of how much progress they may have made towards some part of the mission).

For some traits, you will *need* to have a certain start, or a particular start would give you an advantage. But it wouldn't be that unbalanced- take Natural Woodsman and Desert Adaptation for example. A player who starts near a lot of desert and not much forest is highly unlikely to give any units the Woodman promotion, choosing the desert promotions instead. By not having any forest, they won't have combat in the forest, and they're less likely to have the promotions, effectively stopping them from getting the Natural Woodsman trait and naturally making them more likely to get the Desert Adaptation trait.

Also, would it be possible to count how many times a certain event has happened- for example I've had some games where I've been unlucky enough to be hit by Tornadoes 8 or 9 times in just one age (I had a fair few cities). There could even be a "mission" for that for a negative trait- say:

The Sky is Falling: [Mission] Get hit by x number of tornadoes. [Negative Trait]: Cities near any tornado strike go into anarchy for x amount of turns.

Thoughts?

- Micael

 

[TowerWizard]

What can I say. You are right, Micael. I guess for most of the possible missions it is possible to scale them in some way. And it just makes sense that some of them is harder for some civs to get, like Desert Adaption. I think once again we are on the same page.

Ok, so I guess what will need to be done is the following:

1. For every age, think about what makes it special.
2. From that information, write a list of 15-25 possible positive missions of varying character, and a similar list of possible negative missions.
3. For each mission, find the metric required to accomplish them, trying to get at least 4 different scaleable measurement metric points. If this is impossible, so be it.
4. For each mission, find a suitable reward, keeping in mind that the reward will stick with the player for the rest of the game, thus trying not to make it either OP or worthless.
5. Balance the lists. Add, replace or change items until it feels just right.

I will pm Micael about this, since I don't think all of this work needs to be done in the forum. If we do make some advances, we will post them here in this thread, to see what others think.

 

[Micael]

What can I say. You are right, Micael. I guess for most of the possible missions it is possible to scale them in some way. And it just makes sense that some of them is harder for some civs to get, like Desert Adaption. I think once again we are on the same page.

I think we've been on the same page for most of this with what we've wanted to do, just had differing opinions on how to manage it.

You were right before when you said that having lots of different metrics / traits etc would have unmanageable to balance and maintain (I may have been a little bit optimistic lol). I think that by taking your idea of missions and using them as our balance scale that it should work .

Ok, so I guess what will need to be done is the following:

1. For every age, think about what makes it special.
2. From that information, write a list of 15-25 possible positive missions of varying character, and a similar list of possible negative missions.
3. For each mission, find the metric required to accomplish them, trying to get at least 4 different scaleable measurement metric points. If this is impossible, so be it.
4. For each mission, find a suitable reward, keeping in mind that the reward will stick with the player for the rest of the game, thus trying not to make it either OP or worthless.
5. Balance the lists. Add, replace or change items until it feels just right.

1. Agreed. Each age should have a "theme" of traits.
2. Again, agreed. If we manage to make that many and still have ideas for more we can always expand, but that sounds like a very good start (and will keep the game very varied). That's what, 8 ages, each with at least 15 trait options... gives us 2.594592e+8 permutations .
3. Yes. Perhaps we should compile a list of what metrics we think are available? So we try and utilise all of them in one way or another.
4. Indeed. I think we should aim to either keep them roughly as powerful as the Leader Traits, or do what AI Andy suggested and make them as powerful as Wonders (would the traits get more powerful as we scale them with the relevant wonders of that age?).
5. Again, agreed.

I will pm Micael about this, since I don't think all of this work needs to be done in the forum. If we do make some advances, we will post them here in this thread, to see what others think.

I'll wait for a PM then .

EDIT:

We have now expanded on this idea and are calling it Cultural Heritage. See the Cultural Heritage thread for further information: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=454186

- Micael