Culture / Idea / Traits - side idea =)

[Rmi]

I've been working on giving each culture all their metrics. One of them is a specialty like for example seafaring for the Phoenicians.

This could interact with the 'idea' project in some ways.

• These cultures could add a X/turn value to unlock a CIV TRAIT later.
• A culture which is dominant in a city could give its trait to that specific city.

Just an idea, but i think it's worthwhile to have a few metrics to group cultures with, it gives us angles to solve problems from.

 

[FlyingRainbow16]

So when you get cities with a high enough percentage of a certain culture you gain culture points which eventually could lead to a new trait? and if certain cities have a high enough percentage of a city then they get a unique building which acts as Local version of the trait? would this replace the current culture trait (2 good 1 bad 2 good 1 bad) or be alongside it?

 

[Thunderbrd]

It would need to be alongside it. The current traits are the way the leaders behave. But some culture traits are possible as well. I'll consider this and comment more soon.

 

[Rmi]

I play without any traits now. I loved developing traits but it's quite OP. That's why i have been thinking about starting without traits and having to unlock them based on your decisions.
If this messes with how the AI leaders behave it's a dead end.

Is there a direct link between the traits and AI behaviour scripts?

I thought the AI scripts were individually coded for leaders, but coming to think of it, that would be a lot of unnecessary work...

Also, does taking away their traits by playing without them
mess up their behaviour?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I loved developing traits but it's quite OP.

In your opinion, what makes it OP? All leaders are able to develop. Is it imbalances in the traits themselves perhaps?

That's why i have been thinking about starting without traits and having to unlock them based on your decisions.

Isn't that developing leaders when it starts without positive traits?

If this messes with how the AI leaders behave it's a dead end.

No... traits don't influence the leader, the leader's personality influences which traits they choose.

I thought the AI scripts were individually coded for leaders, but coming to think of it, that would be a lot of unnecessary work...

Which is why I have a project on the backburner right now that would modularize various different leader personality templates that can be mixed and matched much easier than manipulating all the many many xml settings leaders have. Unfortunately, this would be a very very big project considering how much I'd want to delve into the actual player AI stuff while doing so but at the point I address this, if I live long enough to, the leaders should thereafter truly think much differently to one another.

Also, does taking away their traits by playing without them
mess up their behaviour?

No. Just indirectly since behaviors are often based on circumstances in the game and traits in or out can mean very differing circumstances. Playing without traits entirely is a perfectly valid way to play too though.

 

[Rmi]

Every time i played with developing leaders (start with 0 traits) I ended up with a lot of traits quickly. And always ahead of opponents by 1 or more picks.
Not everything in the good traits is positive and vice versa, but if you pick carefully it's all incremental advantage, and that adds up.

I think picking your traits along the line is really fun gameplay and worth digging deeper into...

For now, we have plenty of other stuff to do though =)

 

[Thunderbrd]

Every time i played with developing leaders (start with 0 traits) I ended up with a lot of traits quickly. And always ahead of opponents by 1 or more picks.
Not everything in the good traits is positive and vice versa, but if you pick carefully it's all incremental advantage, and that adds up.

I think picking your traits along the line is really fun gameplay and worth digging deeper into...

For now, we have plenty of other stuff to do though =)

This is actually a big thing coming up very soon. I have detailed (mostly) on a spreadsheet a huge new batch of traits, intended for use with developing leaders. Now that I've charted out the buildings by general category I can finish that soon and start getting into the XML. That's a huge huge huge amount of xml and button graphic work to do soon that's going to have me stuck for a while. But at least the PLAN is nearly complete!

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

This is actually a big thing coming up very soon. I have detailed (mostly) on a spreadsheet a huge new batch of traits, intended for use with developing leaders. Now that I've charted out the buildings by general category I can finish that soon and start getting into the XML. That's a huge huge huge amount of xml and button graphic work to do soon that's going to have me stuck for a while. But at least the PLAN is nearly complete!

If you can define the traits in "trees" then the pedia code that shows the unit and building upgrades can be used to display the trees. If they are all "individuals" then that wont work.

The last time I played with Developing Leaders I got no sense that I was developing. The traits did not seem to be gong anywhere or had the same names at so I seemed to be selecting the same one all the time.

If you are playing with Developing Leaders there needs to be more feedback eg a bar like the tech bar showing how close you are to getting the next one. Perhaps a screen like the Tech Screen for selecting your new trait so you can see where you are going.

Currently in C2C there seem to be overlapping sets of traits in the XML and figuring out which belongs where is impossible.

 

[Thunderbrd]

If you can define the traits in "trees" then the pedia code that shows the unit and building upgrades can be used to display the trees. If they are all "individuals" then that wont work.

They are straight stalks. For now, according to the design, you'll have 3 tiers for each trait. IF you play without developing leaders, the traits will individually be stronger than they are with it on. But if you collect all three of one type, it's pretty powerful in the end, but then you have also trippled up on the downsides too and in most cases that can get pretty painful. You can alternatively get a little of a lot of different things and look for the synergies there. There WILL be tech prerequisites for the second and third tiers and numerous benefits are tied to the mid or late game for 2nd and 3rd tier traits, so taking a bunch of 1st tier traits will tend to have you missing out on some benefits that apply during the stage of the game you're in. It can also be possible to earn traits too quickly which forces you to take more Tier 1 traits than would be optimal, making it much harder to then earn the later Tier 2 and 3 traits.

We can always have specialized combination traits thereafter but I have a LOT of basic trait selections, I mean a hell of a lot. So I don't think we'll be lacking for options.

I find with the current trait structure that you tend to go for the same traits because they aren't very well balanced. These have been balanced to a very fine measure to the point I cannot, myself, see which would be the best picks, and even if I did I'd want to play more games to explore more of the options available in terms of blending different ones. And the option between diversity and specialization will always keep you guessing which would've been the better pick.

If you are playing with Developing Leaders there needs to be more feedback eg a bar like the tech bar showing how close you are to getting the next one. Perhaps a screen like the Tech Screen for selecting your new trait so you can see where you are going.

We have that, not in a bar but the measure of how close you are and what you have yet to earn to get to the next trait selection and how many traits and which traits you've earned so far is all displayed on the flag hover. Would take one of you python guys to make a progress bar display.

Currently in C2C there seem to be overlapping sets of traits in the XML and figuring out which belongs where is impossible

There are.
1) a core set for non-developing leaders, which currently is identical to
2) a core set for developing leaders
3) an option set (Focused Traits) by ls612 for non-developing leaders, which is also identical to
4) an option set (Focused Traits) for developing leaders

These sets did not attempt to differentiate for DL but the traits need to be defined differently for each so they are currently just copies. The intention was always for the DL set traits to not be as strong so as to allow a more gradual progression into trait delivered powers and benefits.

There had been some disagreement between AIAndy and I on how these should display in the pedia. I wanted them all visible only if a game setting wasn't defined but if options were selected by default or a game was in progress, only the applicable traits would show up in the pedia. He disagreed and I feel his results are a bit confusing to look at.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

We have that, not in a bar but the measure of how close you are and what you have yet to earn to get to the next trait selection and how many traits and which traits you've earned so far is all displayed on the flag hover. Would take one of you python guys to make a progress bar display.

Which has the same problem as the Great General bar. How do we get the information needed if it is only in a hover over text?

Great General bar - It is possible to actually colour the bar so that you don't need to hover over to get an idea of what you most likely to get. We could have each type in its own colour - green for Great Hunter, Red for Great General, Blue for Great Admiral etc.

For the Trait Bar we would need access to the next level value.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Which has the same problem as the Great General bar. How do we get the information needed if it is only in a hover over text?

By reading the text?

Great General bar - It is possible to actually colour the bar so that you don't need to hover over to get an idea of what you most likely to get. We could have each type in its own colour - green for Great Hunter, Red for Great General, Blue for Great Admiral etc.

That's a cool idea. I could probably report to python the current leading type for you.

For the Trait Bar we would need access to the next level value.

That's also data the system reports to the text manager so it would be easy to expose it to python. I gotta admit, it would be REALLY cool to have a progress bar for that.

While we're on this subject, I'm going to need some UI display work for overflow values where total national commerces are currently showing. I'll be breaking off every millionth part into a new integer that will need to either be shown before the current amount but after the commerce's icon or as a separate greater value denomination of that type. Such as we could have Platinum representing the 'millions of gold' denomination. The design goal will be that whenever the system processes a change that goes above 1 million or below 0 and any amount over 0 of the greater denomination exists then it will make an exchange action that either takes away 1 million from the lesser denomination and gives 1 to the greater denomination or takes away from the greater denomination to exchange it back to the lower so it can cover the 'debt'. Identifying where on the screen these greater denominations need to be delivered to the player and helping to build out that part of the project is something I need some py help with soon. If you or Toffer could be considering how that will work on your end and giving me some feedback for that somewhere that would be awesome too.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

GG bar - No, I meant that the bar would be multi coulor. So if you had 75% of the points towards your next with 25% a GG and 50% a GH then 0-25 of the bar will be red, 25-75 would be green.

Gah! I have just remembered a team I worked in where we had two people who were colour blind; one red-blue and the other blue-green; that bar would not work for them.

 

[Thunderbrd]

GG bar - No, I meant that the bar would be multi coulor. So if you had 75% of the points towards your next with 25% a GG and 50% a GH then 0-25 of the bar will be red, 25-75 would be green.

Gah! I have just remembered a team I worked in where we had two people who were colour blind; one red-blue and the other blue-green; that bar would not work for them.

Like Koshling. Still, the hover data is there for those folks. It strikes me though that the bar is so short, do we even have enough pixels to let the bar represent the various types enough this way?

Oh... we've also got Great Aviators needed very soon. It's on my A list of priorities here because my wife's work will require it soon.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

As far as I know the art is ready for the Great Aviator.

edit no I can't find it. I thought that Sparth had done one but I can't see it in the SVN version of the FPK files.

 

[Faustmouse]

Still, the hover data is there for those folks.

Excactly. It is important that colorblind people can tell the percentages, but over 99% of the players playing are not colorblind and it would be cool to see that segmented bar

 

[Thunderbrd]

As far as I know the art is ready for the Great Aviator.

edit no I can't find it. I thought that Sparth had done one but I can't see it in the SVN version of the FPK files.

hmm... might have to use the admiral art as a fill in until we can find better. Maybe somewhere on the forum there would be some applicable stuff.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

hmm... might have to use the admiral art as a fill in until we can find better. Maybe somewhere on the forum there would be some applicable stuff.

Already searched there. We may have the unit I was looking for the specialist.