E'iten background

[arcticnightwolf]

[..] Sorry, UU/UB/UMs? I am somewhat new to the Civ modding world. Does that mean Unique Units/buildings/mmmmonorails? [..]

unique monorails!!

 

[Valkrionn]

unique monorails!!

....I totally want that cat.

 

[travathian]

Preservers, Druids, and Defilers

 

[Valkrionn]

Preservers, Druids, and Defilers

Definitely can't use that; Paints the "defilers" in too bad a light. They have what they believe are good reasons for what they do; Their main issue is a refusal to listen to the other side. Same as the "preservers".

 

[Adante]

So if you can think of any names for these factions, please feel free to post them. If we can use them we will.

Tree-Huggers: The Novus

Neutral:

Preventers: The Tritus


Some background here, I have always been a fan of cryptic sounding latin names. I believe that might be somewhat going out of style however. So here's my suggestion for two of the three. The Novus, Novus being latin for "unused" and The Tritus, Tritus being latin for "used". It might seem simple and obvious to some but I atleast think they sound like credible names. It might even work better if I could have some more background about the two organizations? I find names that somehow express organizational characteristics sound better, i.e. The Novus Consortium, The Tritus Confederation, The Novus Collective. All just suggestions keep in mind, but I will happily discuss what people think of them!

 

[Valkrionn]

While those are good suggestions (very good, actually), we're going to stick with Preservers, Pragmatists, and Preventers for now.

Very simple reason for this: Most people playing do not understand Latin, and would see those names as "made-up". That's not a bad thing at all, but if we're going to use names that give that impression I would prefer to literally make them up, as that way they "fit" with names for at least one civ (likely the Ek'enaen, as I like that civ and E'iten comes from their language already).

So basically, while the names are good, if we don't use english terms we'll make names up. In this case, the names don't need to be descriptive.

 

[Jheral]

Preservers, Druids, and Defilers

The whole idea did seem to spring up when I brought up Dark Sun to Valkrionn...

 

[Valkrionn]

Eh, not all of it. But yes, a good portion of it. Was a good way to create believable 'factions' or more accurately 'alignments' without falling into the good/evil trope. One which Dark Sun seems to fall into actually; no redeeming qualities of the defilers.

Also: didn't even remember those were the faction names in Dark Sun Barely skimmed it honestly. Jheral outlined the important bits.

 

[travathian]

One which Dark Sun seems to fall into actually; no redeeming qualities of the defilers.

Defilers have the redeeming quality of relentless pursuit of power at all costs. Whether or not they use that power to promote 'good' or 'evil' is up to them.

And I was joking about the names, glad Jheral caught it. But reading the OP, I kept thinking, this is totally Dark Sun.

My only concern from what I have read so far, the AI won't be able to handle the complexity of the magic system. Choosing when to 'defile' a tile, where/how to manipulate the energy in a tile to another tile, efficiently using stored energy before it goes off all sound like things that the AI won't be able to adequately cope with. Civ5 at least has the redeeming quality of being multithreaded, so you can potentially just throw more processing power at it, but seems like it is going to require a crapload of programmer time to write a barely competent AI.

And no, I am not volunteering for that task

 

[Valkrionn]

Yeah. AI will stick to flavors at least, so it should stick to one of the factions (whereas players run on a Broader Alignments style system), but getting it to use them intelligently will be... Interesting.

 

[Calavente]

maybe a way to do it would be to have the different factions have totally different units or mechanics for "magic" :
1 is units with spells, the other faction only has "city spells" the last only uses "civ-wide spells" ... or something.
then you only have to teach the AI to use each "mechanics" and not to use :
unit A in such way if preventer
unit A in such alternative way if protectors
..Etc

however I never tried so improve AI... so my comments may be stupids

 

[Valkrionn]

Kinda that way already; each faction has two mana types. Not that extreme though.

 

[Calavente]

(I was thinking of a way for the AI to "understand" how to behave differently...)
with different units or even completly different mechanics, they are forced to behave differently.

 

[Valkrionn]

The issue is teaching it to use the underlying mechanic well; namely, when to drain energy from a plot and when to place energy into a plot.

 

[Calavente]

well.

what I meant is that maybe you can "channel" the mechanics to the factions by imposing some conditions. thus instead of tailoring faction to mechanics, do the reverse.

-preservers get fewer "mana" (auto mana) as can't extract, can't terraform but get more auto mana when terrain is wilder and with reduced improvements...Etc (and you don't need to worry about draining/placing for them as their philosophy doesn't allow it)
they get many spells but those are all "terrain dependant". . all spells are mostly the same costs in different Tier, however the spells proposed are different depending on the terrain and more or less powerful depending on the "extremness of the terrain". (presence of a storm in nearby tile allow ....X spell and X spell and Y.), 8 surrounding desert spells allow : heat spell with a power multiplier or 8....Etc

they got a nation-wide spell that increases of extrems : any drain drains more, any source produces more (thus in the end : more aggressions of nature, more jungles, more marsh, more mountains, more desert; accentuation of contrasts).

-protectors get a nation wide drain of the land : they get more auto mana and the drain never gain any energy unless helped, and the sources produce less than for the other factions. Spells are available anywhere, spell is terrain dependant but only as a reduction of mana cost, not as power of the spell. in the end, the civ automatically goes toward deserts and tundras... the units can use spell to locally add energy but with a huge mana cost... (city spells that improves all tiles of the BFC toward plains or toward grass depending on the chosen spell).

for those two, such mechanics llimits the need to teach the AI : the "equilibrium" can be managed through an automatic civ-wide spell and imposing conditions on the spells.
on each tile, the AI would be at least able to use a spell. maybe not the most effective as going 1 tile farther would do something better, but at least something.

For the pragmatics, the question is harder.... midrange automana. no auto change in energy of terrain; any terraformed tile reduces the mana gain; but stability increases mana gain?

 

[Valkrionn]

Doesn't work that way; the first faction wouldn't draw mana from a plot, but they do place mana into one (repair damage done by others or cause a disaster.

Magitech will focus on civspells but the other magic type for that faction does not.

Basically: it's an idea, but not one we're likely to use. At that point, might as well just have 3 magics, and completely rewrite the way magic interacts with plots. So not something I want to do.

 

[Valkrionn]

We discussed quite a bit of stuff today; How to make civs unique while maintaining the adaptability of our system, how magick should work, and how we can introduce heroes. Should be able to post some of the results of that within a few days; Need to get feedback from a few people who missed the discussion first.

Also, yes, you read that correctly. Magick, not magic. Blame Shoggi, he's the one who campaigned for it. We've also gone with "Thaum" rather than energy or mana. Same source.

 

[Valkrionn]

Now that we all seem good on it, I'm going to just quote a team forum post I made.

For the record: Governors and Factions will be discussed later on (don't believe Governors have been as yet, and factions may not be implemented). Also, we're going with the "card game" mechanic for heroes (and whatever else we apply it to).

To summarize a few of the things we settled on:

• Uniqueness
  • UU/UB/UMs come from the various Policy trees. Each of these trees is meant to encapsulate an individual mechanic and the units/buildings which go with it; It does not represent a playstyle. Playstyle comes as a result of the way you mix these mechanics.
  • Governmental aspects are unique to the civ; Leaders, City Governors, Field Marshals if those are implemented.
  • The "Pantheon" class of religious perks are unique to the civ; For more info on Civ5 religion, see this post, but in short, there are Pantheon, Founder, Follower, and Enhancer perk categories.
  • New Mechanic: "Civilization Development Index" (obviously to be renamed).
    • As a civ gains policies/techs, they earn points towards this counter. At specific intervals, they "rank up"; this should happen about four times. At each rank (aside from the initial rank at game start, of course) the civ is able to choose out of a range of unique options. These could be a simple bonus (+%science or culture, for instance), a bonus to a specific type of unit, or a wholly unique mechanic inaccessible to any other civ.
    • Using this mechanic, we are able to flesh out the uniqueness of each civ, while still maintaining their ability to adapt; They are able to pursue any policy combination without penalty, as well as being able to select their own bonuses each game. Should add quite a bit of replay value, if balanced adequately.
• Magic
  • Caster units are not built, but spawned. Details on spawning system to be discussed. This keeps the unit rare/difficult to acquire, allowing magic to be a strong influence on gameplay. I picture maybe one caster for an army of twenty or so other units.
  • Novice casters are unable to channel as much "thaum" (energy) per turn as experienced ones. This means they cast fewer spells, and are unable to impact the plot counter (in either direction) as much as more experienced casters. Given their scarcity, introducing promotions that contribute to micro-management of the units (such as equipment, promotions increasing casting effectiveness, promotion trees such as those used by heroes in WC3) is, imo at least, a good thing. These units should be treated more like heroes than a standard unit.
  • Messing with the thaum level of a plot is not without consequences.
    • Dumping thaum into a plot reduces the amount of energy a unit can use to cast with; This is it's own drawback, imo.
    • Draining thaum from a plot increases a counter on the unit. At specific intervals, negative effects are applied to the unit, ranging from lowered defense to a crazed-style effect. This counter has a halflife decay mechanism; in other words, it decays by half every X turns (x is up for discussion). In this way, it primarily penalizes draining large amounts of thaum in a short period of time, rather than simply draining thaum; that is a core mechanic and should not be penalized.
  • The basic ranged attack ability shared by all caster units does not cost thaum, as it is intended more as a fallback than as a spell. Any abilities which improve this basic attack (applied effects, for instance), do cost thaum; this will either be a flat perturn cost, or cause the ranged attack to have a cost.
• Heroes
  • FfH-style heroes do not really fit E'iten, but the hero mechanic itself is a good gameplay mechanic; micromanaging the equipment and abilities of every single unit in the game rapidly becomes tedious, but doing so for a small group of units is engaging. I have several different possible hero mechanics we could use; I'm open for more suggestions here as well. I want SOME form of hero beyond the casters, but the specifics are very much open to debate.
    1. Simply have a hero representing each leader. This way, a unique civilization hero isn't jarring to the other mechanics of the game. Probably the simplest method.
    2. One tier of the "Development Index" would grant a choice between multiple different heroes. This method is likely the best of the two "simple" versions, though I greatly prefer the more complicated option.
    3. Friendship with a city state (military only, or any type?) grant access to a champion belonging to that city state. Alliance improves the champion.
    4. Introduce a "Champion Deck" card game. There is one deck, common to all players; each card may be played by only one player at a time, but all experience/promotions/enhancements accrued is stored to the card itself. In this way, the champion maintains it's identity even when controlled by a new civilization. Each card, while visible at all times, would need specific requirements to be met before it becomes available for use; these could be the completion of a specific policy tree, a specific level of civilization development, play a specific civilization, befriend a certain city state, or complete some in game action. In other words, every other suggested mechanic can be emulated through this one. It is, by far, my favorite.
       
       This mechanic is also extremely versatile; it could be expanded to other systems. Going to list a few quick ideas:
       • Governors. In this case, the deck would be unique to the civ. Each card carries specific bonuses, and can be assigned to one of your cities; at any time, you are able to change the card in use, but a penalty will apply. This penalty could be listed on the card alongside it's effects; maybe a penalty should apply for swapping heroes as well?
       • Great People. This could be a VERY fun bit of gameplay, but I'm not sure how exactly it would work. Too many ideas :mrgreen:. Each gp spawned grants access to a card of the same name? When spawning a gp, you get to choose out of a random selection of cards? In any case: Unique effects tied to each GP would be a good way of extending the mods lore without sacrificing the game mechanics.
       • Leader Traits. Each trait could be a card applied to a leader; This would allow us to limit how many leaders can have a trait in a way non-binary way that is intuitively grasped by players. "Only 2 Hyper-Aggressive cards exist? I need to unlock that before someone takes them!" Admittedly this one is a stretch.
       • Factions. We've talked about having factions within each civ (governors came from that in fact, as at least one form of faction); with a card mechanic, we could create a very simple faction mechanic. Draw a card, complete the requirement, gain the bonus.
       • Random Events. We could have this without a card mechanic, but it could be easily re-purposed to work here. Each turn, there is a chance for a card to be drawn from this deck.
       
       In other words, card systems are versatile, and intuitively understood by nearly all gameplayers. I cannot emphasize enough how much I like this idea. Having one mechanic encompass all of these systems would also make presenting the information to the player fairly simple; Only need one screen, with a few different pages.

Okay, I think that's everything. Most is from the discussion; I expanded (a lot) on the hero aspect, though.

 

[arcticnightwolf]

i still think that the analogy to "card" system is stupid

 

[Valkrionn]

Whereas Shoggi and I have you outvoted.

I like card systems, and it's a simple, intuitive way to represent a diverse array of systems.