Civ traits

[bill2505]

So the negative traits from Realism Invictus are ...

- Anti-Clerical = +1 from Religious buildings.
- Cruel = 20% more XP needed for Unit Promotions
- Arrogant = -20%
- Idealistic = 25% Slower Production of Military buildings.
- Revolutionary = -2 to Diplomatic Relations
- Megalomaniac = 20% Slower Wonder Production
- Barbaric = -25%
- Isolationist = -25% Foreign Trade Routes, 25% Slower Production of Trade buildings
- Fanatical = -25% Birth Rate
- Populist = +25% Civic Upkeep
- Executive = -10%
- Foreign = -25% Worker Speed, -25% Production of Workers
- Temperamental = -50% Great General Emergence Inside Cultural Borders
- Schemer = -40% Great General Emergence

These all seem like good 3rd traits to have to help balance the leaders.

what instead of having 2 good and one bad trait make all traits have both good and bad efects

for example Populist = +25% Civic Upkeep + 1 happy face

why an executive traid bad effect is lose gold?

 

[strategyonly]

So the negative traits from Realism Invictus are ...

- Anti-Clerical = +1 from Religious buildings.
- Cruel = 20% more XP needed for Unit Promotions
- Arrogant = -20%
- Idealistic = 25% Slower Production of Military buildings.
- Revolutionary = -2 to Diplomatic Relations
- Megalomaniac = 20% Slower Wonder Production
- Barbaric = -25%
- Isolationist = -25% Foreign Trade Routes, 25% Slower Production of Trade buildings
- Fanatical = -25% Birth Rate
- Populist = +25% Civic Upkeep
- Executive = -10%
- Foreign = -25% Worker Speed, -25% Production of Workers
- Temperamental = -50% Great General Emergence Inside Cultural Borders
- Schemer = -40% Great General Emergence

These all seem like good 3rd traits to have to help balance the leaders.

ahaha I see your ahead of me again

 

[Sgtslick]

Only thing I would be VERY worried about if I was you guys - is pigeon holing the players gameplay.
Players don't want to be told how to play. Rewards and encouragement is nice but too many negatives especially severe ones can really steer how the player 'should' play, style wise.

I really like the idea of having a new leader each era and him/her being one that has 'learned' from your game approach/civics/production tendencies. If you are waring alot, your nation is more likely to create a warlike leader etc.

 

[Praetyre]

This whole talk of an evolving traits system reminds me of Tropico 4. In past Tropico games, the player would pick two positive and two negative traits, each static and usually purely positive or negative in their effects. In Tropico 4, the player would pick three traits, and these traits would start weak at one-star (i.e. Charismatic might give +2% Respect) and grow more powerful with each completed game (so five star Charismatic might give +10% Respect). The main issue with that system was that most traits were purely positive, leading to an imbalance of power. In this vein, might I suggest that the era-level up system should be kept (with the choices available being influenced by player actions, ala Total War: Shogun 2) but that all traits should bring both positives and negatives? Thus, Aggresive could keep it's positives, but be given diplomacy and penalties, while conversely, Humanitarian would give similar penalties to military production that Idealist does, Deceiver would go with Schemer's penalties, and so on? Just a thought..

 

[Hydromancerx]

I saw a Let's Lay of Tropico and liked that kind of trait system. Also in MOO2 and The Sims 3 they have a bunch of positive or negative traits.

 

[AIAndy]

I saw a Let's Lay of Tropico and liked that kind of trait system. Also in MOO2 and The Sims 3 they have a bunch of positive or negative traits.

The nice thing about the MOO2 trait system was that most traits had a very significant influence on your game. So depending on what traits you took each game had to be played in a different way.

 

[strategyonly]

The nice thing about the MOO2 trait system was that most traits had a very significant influence on your game. So depending on what traits you took each game had to be played in a different way.

Now that sounds perfect actually.

 

[Sgtslick]

Moo2 had a list of traits (each with a weighting outta like 100) and you simply picked what you wanted. Everyone just picked the same two or similar combination coz they were by far the best *if I remember correctly.

 

[Micael]

So have a combination of the two? Allow players to pick from traits (similar to the traits in MOO2- I'll admit, I only played it once or twice so don't know the full list), but give them a limited list of traits to pick from, depending on their play style in the past era (correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand there are already counters in game for most actions).

In my mind (and since I'm not a member of the mod team obviously you don't have to listen to my suggestions, but I'd like it ), it would make sense if it worked like this:

So if in the last era the player focused more on Building Archery Buildings/Units, Religious Buildings/ Units, Espionage Buildings/Units/Slider Percentage, Diplomacy (Open borders/ trades etc) and Defence (building Forts, Walls, etc), then show them a list of the 5 relevant traits, and allow them to only pick one or two.

Have a little boost to this counter if they've built a certain building in all their cities (because obviously it would have to be relative- an empire with 5 cities should be able to get the same "Reinforced Masonry" trait than one with 10, to keep it balanced- else the larger civs would always get better traits).

Or better yet, have the new "trait" be an advanced method/technique (like a tech) that they've learnt from focusing so heavily in this area.

So going back to that example above, present the players with an option to pick one or two of the following traits:

e.g.

Bracers: All Archery Units +10% .
Zealous Teachings: State spreads 10% faster in all cities.
Secret Language: Espionage Actions cost 10% less .
Local Interpreter: +1 (diplomacy) with all Civs.
Reinforced Masonry: +5% when building Earth Walls/ Walls etc, + 5% quicker Fort Production. + 5% (defence) in Earth Walls/ Walls/ Forts etc (Need Masonry?)

When the Civ moves to the new Age, present them with a dialogue option (like you do for the Random Events) which lets them pick one (or two) from the above list. That way your Civ slowly becomes more unique (yet not over-powered) depending on what your play style is.

Let me know what you think- I don't have time to help you guys but I'm happy to provide suggestions/ ideas .

- Micael

 

[AIAndy]

Moo2 had a list of traits (each with a weighting outta like 100) and you simply picked what you wanted. Everyone just picked the same two or similar combination coz they were by far the best *if I remember correctly.

The trait system of MOO2 works like this:
When you start the game, you have 20 points to use on traits for your race. Positive traits cost points, negative traits give points but you can have a maximum of 10 points of negative traits.

Some trait examples:

• Creative (positive): You always get all 3 technologies when you research a new tech level (usually you have to choose 1 of 3 and cannot get the other 2 by research)
• Uncreative (negative): Instead of being able to choose a tech, you got a random one of the three
• Telepathic (positive): Instead of invading enemy planets, you just mind controlled them after destroying planetary defense and no assimilation needed (also a spy and diplomacy bonus)
• Lithovore (positive): No farming needed at all, instead population consumes production
• Repulsive (negative): No diplomacy possible with other races beyond war and peace
• Tolerant (positive): No pollution (which eats up high production), more population on planets, no penalty in hostile environments

The problem in balance is that some are too powerful for their point value. But in single player that does not matter and it makes a big difference to the feeling of the game and what works/does not work.

 

[TowerWizard]

So if in the last era the player focused more on Building Archery Buildings/Units, Religious Buildings/ Units, Espionage Buildings/Units/Slider Percentage, Diplomacy (Open borders/ trades etc) and Defence (building Forts, Walls, etc), then show them a list of the 5 relevant traits, and allow them to only pick one or two.

This is exactly what I mean. Spot on. And as the game progresses, you will have more and more of those smaller, dedicated perks. I think this system will make the eras much more interesting. I remember from first playing Civ IV that I never really understood what happened when you advanced an era, since everything looked and felt the same. If this system is implemented, eras will really mean something.

This system could also be used to balance things out, tech wise: the more civs that have entered a new age, the less the techs of the previous age might cost for all civs who have not yet advanced. So, if you want to race towards the rewards, you will at the same time help your backwards enemies get there faster. Meaning you will have to think about when to advance eras, so as to not help the others to much. Just a thought.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Bracers: All Archery Units +10% .
Zealous Teachings: State spreads 10% faster in all cities.
Secret Language: Espionage Actions cost 10% less .
Local Interpreter: +1 (diplomacy) with all Civs.
Reinforced Masonry: +5% when building Earth Walls/ Walls etc, + 5% quicker Fort Production. + 5% (defence) in Earth Walls/ Walls/ Forts etc (Need Masonry?)

These would be better as new types of resources, buildings, wonders and/or promotions.

 

[TowerWizard]

These would be better as new types of resources, buildings, wonder and/or promotions.

Except, you know, there are hundreds of buildings already. Plus, if it is a building, everyone can build it. Plus, no buildings that I know of can be built only if you have achieved a goal first (other than to have prereq. buildings). Plus, it is fun to choose rewards.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Well actually they sound more like random events or game quests.

 

[Micael]

Bracers: All Archery Units +10% .
Zealous Teachings: State spreads 10% faster in all cities.
Secret Language: Espionage Actions cost 10% less .
Local Interpreter: +1 (diplomacy) with all Civs.
Reinforced Masonry: +5% when building Earth Walls/ Walls etc, + 5% quicker Fort Production. + 5% (defence) in Earth Walls/ Walls/ Forts etc (Need Masonry?)

These would be better as new types of resources, buildings, wonders and/or promotions.

But then wouldn't all Civs be able to (in theory) get this advantage? If you have them as this slowly "stacking" trait list over time then you slowly gain a more unique Civ - which could also tie in with the "generic culture" idea you guys have floated around (you are defined by your actions).

To balance them, you could also have a list of the 5 areas you neglected the most, thus giving players a similarly sized list of negative traits to choose from as they age up.

If they pick one of the positives I mentioned, and a similarly balanced negative trait, over time you'll get some semblance of cultural identity through these traits (every culture has its negatives as well as its positives) while keeping players balanced.

Basically, every time you transition through an age, you have to pick 1 positive and 1 negative trait for your cultural identity.

Just bouncing ideas here. I'd be more than happy to help come up with a list of positive / negative traits if you want (like the ones above) if you like the idea.

- Micael

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

If they are quests then it is a race to be first as only first completes the quest. We need some more quests.

 

[TowerWizard]

Micael and myself seem to be on the exact same page (although I like the idea of 2 positive and 1 negative each era better than 1 for 1, since it is fun to get better, and it is not as fun to get worse). I can maybe help to come up with this list too.

@Dancing Hoskuld: They are not meant as quests, but as a reward you get after every age. The mechanic used in the quests is the same, though. You have to perform some action in order to get the reward. The main difference is that when you start a new age, you have, like, ten missions for you to accomplish, and you know that these will always be there every game. Each of those that you succeed in doing, will grant you a possible benefit at the transition to the next age (a new trait will be added to a reward list at the end of the age, and from this list you can pick only one or two). Multiple civs can succeed in getting this benefit, so there is no race going on.

For the list on negatives, I think the easiest way to do this is to have an opposite list. Meaning that if you did not succeed in accomplishing a mission, you effectively failed it. So, if there is a possible benefit from building a lot of archers, there is also a possible detriment for not building them. Also, if you have accomplished five of the goals, that is, half of them, the rest is automagically failed, since you obviously did not make them a priority. Thoughts?

 

[Hydromancerx]

Except, you know, there are hundreds of buildings already. Plus, if it is a building, everyone can build it. Plus, no buildings that I know of can be built only if you have achieved a goal first (other than to have prereq. buildings). Plus, it is fun to choose rewards.

If not quests they could be linked to say cultures and made wonders. There are many ways to make things "rare" but still open to anyone. For instance the "Poison Tips" promotion is extremely hard to get.

 

[Micael]

If they are quests then it is a race to be first as only first completes the quest. We need some more quests.

Ah, but then you have the problem that only one Civilization can complete this quest and get this ability. If you think of the traits as part of your Cultural Identity, it makes sense to have small bonuses like this as Traits, rather than quests. Certain Civilizations in the past both designed / built / used similar technology/ skills even though there is no proof that they ever met (e.g. the Mayans and the Egyptians both built Pyramids, calculus and electricity were both invented/discovered completely separately).

Civilizations on opposite sides of the world could happen to discover the same skill (e.g. Advanced hunting techniques) if their situation (say the local wildlife was more dangerous) was similar. Having it as a trait modifier would allow both of these Civilizations to get the bonus- rather than limiting it to just one.

Also, and this is from my personal experience, but medium sized / powerful empires seem to win the Quests more often. If you have it as a variable option as people "Age up", then you allow every Civ to gradually evolve. It's like an evolution, rather than another bonus.

In regards to quests, what exactly do you need for a quest? Is there an XML file or a guide or something I can look at to possibly add quests (though I do much prefer this "traits" notion that I'm suggesting), since there are already some quests in game, and little real Civ differentiators.

The main difference is that when you start a new age, you have, like, ten missions for you to accomplish, and you know that these will always be there every game. Each of those that you succeed in doing, will grant you a possible benefit at the transition to the next age (a new trait will be added to a reward list at the end of the age, and from this list you can pick only one or two). Multiple civs can succeed in getting this benefit, so there is no race going on.

For the list on negatives, I think the easiest way to do this is to have an opposite list. Meaning that if you did not succeed in accomplishing a mission, you effectively failed it. So, if there is a possible benefit from building a lot of archers, there is also a possible detriment for not building them. Also, if you have accomplished five of the goals, that is, half of them, the rest is automagically failed, since you obviously did not make them a priority. Thoughts?

Personally I think its better if the player / AI doesn't know what trait options are being considered for their Civilization- that way it can't influence their potential game play- their "culture" should be dependant on their action history, not on what they're aiming for. Basically don't show them a "quest list", just show them the (arbitrary number, still saying 5) options that their Civ went towards in that turn. I was suggesting only one positive because I've only ever seen one option selectable in the event dialogue boxes before.

About the negatives- you can't really punish them for not completing a quest if its not relevant to their situation (say if they needed to build workers instead of archers, you can't just automatically punish them for not building archers). I'm not sure how you'd pick the (again, 5 is an arbitrary number) negative trait options though, as Caveman to Cosmos has so many potential options at any one point in time I can certainly imagine there'll be times when a Civ has made 0 progress towards more than 5 different things (assuming that negative traits are chosen from the 5 worst areas of progress by that Civ).

If not quests they could be linked to say cultures and made wonders. There are many ways to make things "rare" but still open to anyone. For instance the "Poison Tips" promotion is extremely hard to get.

Maybe it's just me having some nostaliga for the days I used to play Age of Mythology (I know, its not exactly an old game in the grand scale of things), but when you went up the Age in AoM, you had to choose which god to worship- each god would give you a slightly different ability / troop. I guess having a similar choice of traits for you Civ here would just add a sense of accomplishment to reaching each age. As it is, you just get access to new buildings etc- the "ages" don't seem to mean that much.

Also, having them as promotions doesn't make much sense- I was thinking that you could link these traits with the promotions. For example, if you've upgraded the vast majority of your army with say Woodsman, then realistically, some of that skill and knowledge would filter down through the generations (fathers would teach their sons, etc, until it became part of your national/cultural heritage). So for the above example, you could have the following trait option:
Native Woodsman: +1 for all infantry units through Wooded Terrain.

Sorry if it was a tad rambling- does that make sense?

- Micael

 

[AIAndy]

If not quests they could be linked to say cultures and made wonders. There are many ways to make things "rare" but still open to anyone. For instance the "Poison Tips" promotion is extremely hard to get.

The idea here is not to make them rare but the combination of a forced choice with reactions to what you have done before.
Some could still be linked to cultures or wonders but I'd suggest not fixing them to one specific culture or wonder but a list of some alternatives that enable the choice.

So if you have made several cities in desert regions it might enable you to choose a trait that increases the yield in deserts.

Your actions enable a list of positive and negative trait choices when you reach a new era. You have to choose two positive and one negative trait (number can be tweaked).