Extra Traits for C2C

Sgtslick · Dec 22, 2012

All the traits use the same flat amount im pretty sure, except humanitarian.
I can't remember if AI Andy explained humanitarian to me, but either way I don't understand it.

Humanitarian:

Spoiler :

I don't understand it there or when it shows up in the pedia.

Spoiler :

JosEPh_II · Dec 22, 2012

The only reason I brought up Revolutionary and Washington is because it's a matter of perspective. How so? The Colonial Americans with G Washington didn't not create crime for themselves but were only seen as criminals by the Motherland England. Therefore under G Washington there was not the crime generated that even this "small" amount given to Revolutionary Trait now carries. The Revolutionary Trait under Leaders like Washington, Bolivar, etc. is actually an Inappropriate trait as set up now.

I can see how ppl would equate Revolutionary Trait with the Mod Option REV but that's a false interpretation of these type Leaders. Washington and his kind of Leader is the Kind that brings a ppl out of Oppression and therefore does not create more crime for the ppl he leads.

The way Revolutionary Trait is set up doesn't follow the Leaders character nor the people that he leads.

Does this make sense to you what I'm trying to say? Don't equate a Revolutionary leader with REV (the mod option).

JosEPh

ls612 · Dec 22, 2012

JosEPh_II said:
The only reason I brought up Revolutionary and Washington is because it's a matter of perspective. How so? The Colonial Americans with G Washington didn't not create crime for themselves but were only seen as criminals by the Motherland England. Therefore under G Washington there was not the crime generated that even this "small" amount given to Revolutionary Trait now carries. The Revolutionary Trait under Leaders like Washington, Bolivar, etc. is actually an Inappropriate trait as set up now.

I can see how ppl would equate Revolutionary Trait with the Mod Option REV but that's a false interpretation of these type Leaders. Washington and his kind of Leader is the Kind that brings a ppl out of Oppression and therefore does not create more crime for the ppl he leads.

The way Revolutionary Trait is set up doesn't follow the Leaders character nor the people that he leads.

Does this make sense to you what I'm trying to say? Don't equate a Revolutionary leader with REV (the mod option).

JosEPh

I've though about Revolutionary and REV as well, as currently most of its drawbacks are in REV, which makes it OP for non-REV users. Crime I don't think is the answer.

I don't know if Thunderbrd added a Min Anarchy tag to Traits, but that may be a good idea for Revolutionary.

Thunderbrd · Dec 22, 2012

JosEPh_II said:
The only reason I brought up Revolutionary and Washington is because it's a matter of perspective. How so? The Colonial Americans with G Washington didn't not create crime for themselves but were only seen as criminals by the Motherland England. Therefore under G Washington there was not the crime generated that even this "small" amount given to Revolutionary Trait now carries. The Revolutionary Trait under Leaders like Washington, Bolivar, etc. is actually an Inappropriate trait as set up now.

I can see how ppl would equate Revolutionary Trait with the Mod Option REV but that's a false interpretation of these type Leaders. Washington and his kind of Leader is the Kind that brings a ppl out of Oppression and therefore does not create more crime for the ppl he leads.

The way Revolutionary Trait is set up doesn't follow the Leaders character nor the people that he leads.

Does this make sense to you what I'm trying to say? Don't equate a Revolutionary leader with REV (the mod option).

JosEPh

That makes total sense to me. I struggle to see downsides to the appropriate Revolutionary trait concept and am beginning to wonder if it should be a positive trait that is only available on Rev that is focused on making the nation more stable as a result of being led by a strong revolutionary leader that leads them to deeper freedoms.

Then we could represent Revolutionary as a negative trait more as it is now with a term like Usurper, which would be the leader that sees his rise to power as a benefit for himself, a grasping for power and control that often takes place at the expense of the people and tends to lead to greater oppression of those people's freedoms as they resent the rule of such a leader and must be beat down and kept in check for him to maintain his rule.

This is one of the many points of feedback I'll be compiling but I just wanted to pause and bask in a brief moment of pleasant absolute agreement with Joe there. Doesn't happen toooo often so I figure I should really take advantage of it when it does

JosEPh_II · Dec 22, 2012

Thunderbrd said:
That makes total sense to me. I struggle to see downsides to the appropriate Revolutionary trait concept and am beginning to wonder if it should be a positive trait that is only available on Rev that is focused on making the nation more stable as a result of being led by a strong revolutionary leader that leads them to deeper freedoms.

Then we could represent Revolutionary as a negative trait more as it is now with a term like Usurper, which would be the leader that sees his rise to power as a benefit for himself, a grasping for power and control that often takes place at the expense of the people and tends to lead to greater oppression of those people's freedoms as they resent the rule of such a leader and must be beat down and kept in check for him to maintain his rule.

This is one of the many points of feedback I'll be compiling but I just wanted to pause and bask in a brief moment of pleasant absolute agreement with Joe there. Doesn't happen toooo often so I figure I should really take advantage of it when it does

Is it a "Blue Moon" tonight? That's about what it takes doesn't it? :mischief:

JosEPh

Sgtslick · Dec 23, 2012

ls612 said:
I've though about Revolutionary and REV as well, as currently most of its drawbacks are in REV, which makes it OP for non-REV users. Crime I don't think is the answer.

I don't know if Thunderbrd added a Min Anarchy tag to Traits, but that may be a good idea for Revolutionary.

This is true, and a good idea.

I do agree with you joseph too. The thing is, you gotta give the game some slack. There are only so many options mate. If you don't like REV as an feature of the revolutionary trait, it kinda would need a different feature- and the thing is.. There are no other features - apart from the ones that have been frequently already covered by other traits, you see what I mean?

It may seem logical to analyse the traits this way, as in, is it realistic for such and such to have this feature. However its better if you ask yourself, would it be more realistic to have such and such feature instead.

Sgtslick · Dec 23, 2012

I want to rewrite some of the trait descriptions, in particular some of the new negative traits.
Here is some of what i've done thus far.

Foreign
This leader rules his/her nation with the preconception that through a deep understanding of foreign affairs and that by heavily investing in trade and international relations - the nation and its people will ultimately be better off. This is true to an extent, but due to a lack of domestic investment and concentration, certain areas are on the contrary - backward and lacking. This correlates directly in a number of tangible ways, some beneficial, some detrimental - overall it leads to cultural disadvantage and domestic neglect.

Idealistic
This leader's belief in an exalted ideal leads to strict guidelines to follow. This spills out across the government meaning gross inefficiency, longer civic anarchy and higher upkeep. This exalted ideal does however possess a certain quality that lingers in the minds of the great thinkers from within the nation, meaning a greater affinity towards the desire to actually 'think' and the aspiration to be a 'thinker'.

Temperamental
Having a leader that is temperamental leads its nation toward general inefficiency. The nation is burdened with a leader whose temperamental differences with certain projects or advancement, comes at a cost. In particular those individuals within his/her nation who are deemed worthy of 'promotion' or a status of greatness are few in the eyes of its leader. The culture of his/her people inevitably suffers and the dedication and training of his/her military will remain unmotivated.

Barbaric
This leader never got any real education, and sees sponsorship of poets and playwrights as a needless waste of money. They should be happy he doesn't order to execute all those spineless wimps for swaying his troops from their spartan ways! Foreign infidels are viewed as just that, inferior scum who better get down with his ways, or lay down at the hands of his sword.

Revolutionary
This leader came to power through a coup or revolution. This society he leads is therefore in its very nature revolutionary. This affects the nation in a number of ways ; having a natural tolerance to anarchy ; a tendency towards civil disobedience ; a natural affinity to espionage and the covert. Finally, the talents of the individuals here are often latent, leading to increased great generals inside his/her borders, free instigator promotion on spies. These attributes come somewhat at a price though. Cities take a hit in there economy and negative revolution implications are symptomatic of being "Revolutionary".

if you want to contribute - feel free!

Hydromancerx · Dec 23, 2012

Foreign
This leader rules his/her nation with the preconception that through a deep understanding of foreign affairs and that by heavily investing in trade and international relations - the nation and its people will ultimately be better off. This is true to an extent, but due to a lack of domestic investment and concentration, certain areas are on the contrary - backward and lacking. This correlates directly in a number of tangible ways, some beneficial, some detrimental - overall it leads to cultural disadvantage and domestic neglect.

I thought it ment that the leader of the nation was not a native of that nation but from another nation. Such as when in one civ takes over another civ, or when an immigrant from another country comes into power of that nation through more non-aggressive means. An example of this on the small scale would be a Governor of a State being elected to a state they are not from.

Sgtslick · Dec 23, 2012

I like this interpretation better.

JosEPh_II · Dec 24, 2012

Sgtslick said:
This is true, and a good idea.

I do agree with you joseph too. The thing is, you gotta give the game some slack. There are only so many options mate. If you don't like REV as an feature of the revolutionary trait, it kinda would need a different feature- and the thing is.. There are no other features - apart from the ones that have been frequently already covered by other traits, you see what I mean?

It may seem logical to analyse the traits this way, as in, is it realistic for such and such to have this feature. However its better if you ask yourself, would it be more realistic to have such and such feature instead.

I could care less about the REV effects on the Trait Revolutionary and that was not my point at all. My point was that the leaders I mentioned would not add crime to their "empire/nation". They are a rallying, inspiring type leader. Not a dissident producing one.

My point was that for Leaders Like Washington, Bolivar, etc., maybe Revolutionary should not be one of their traits at all, even though they led a Revolution of Independence.

JosEPh

Sgtslick · Dec 24, 2012

Ok I can change them if you want, what should they be instead do you think? In terms of what's available maybe revolutionary is the most appropriate, idk.

Thunderbrd · Dec 24, 2012

Well, again, I say split Revolutionary into:
1) Revolutionary as a positive trait: represents the leader of a revolution for freedom
ex: George Washington

and

2) Usurper as a negative trait: represents a leader of a resented coup
ex: Napolean

Work with that and I think you'd find it much easier to assign various values. (let me know if you take this route!)

Sgtslick · Dec 25, 2012

There are already too many traits imo, I don't want to make more. Do you guys have any other specific feedback, I wanted to have pushed into svn already. I think i'll do a final range of changes tomorrow and put it in svn and see how we go.

strategyonly · Dec 25, 2012

Sgtslick said:
I think i'll do a final range of changes tomorrow and put it in svn and see how we go.

Now that sounds like a good plan

Thunderbrd · Dec 25, 2012

Sgtslick said:
There are already too many traits imo, I don't want to make more. Do you guys have any other specific feedback, I wanted to have pushed into svn already. I think i'll do a final range of changes tomorrow and put it in svn and see how we go.

Hmm... go ahead and push your changes (As I mentioned in the PM I'll need you to anyhow) but I think we have more discussion here.

I actually feel there is a lot of room for new traits. And some room for some of the traits we have to be removed, re-purposed or split into separate concepts.

We apparently have some design theory differences where traits is concerned, particularly where # of traits is concerned. And I want to take a moment to explain a perspective and see what you think of it and see if I can't get your perspective in return.

I feel that many traits aren't clear enough as to:
1) What they mean to the leader's personality and leadership style
and
2) What they mean as a game benefit.

I believe our ultimate goal here should be to make sure that not only each trait adheres strongly to the above 2 noted values, but that we have each 'Type' of benefit represented by a trait that is strong in that benefit.

Traits that we have that do already evidence those above points and are very good at displaying it are Aggressive (Very clearly is about getting more combat benefit, particularly for an aggressor), Aggricultural (Very clearly is about getting more food), Scientific (Very clearly enhances your overall research rate), Economic (Obviously for gold benefit), Deceitful (For those who prefer to play towards espionage strengths) etc...

But we have some traits, like Progressist for example, that do not do well with either goal. Progressist not only fails to indicate the leader style very clearly, but also fails to adhere to any particular benefit category. Its all over the board because its tough to understand what its for in the first place. It can be interpreted too many ways. Populist is another. It seems the immediate presumption is that populism is about gaining population, but in fact, politically, the term (a rather obscure one at that) indicates a rather paradoxical anti-elite movement among politicians themselves, leadership for the people over the wealthy few.

Most of the 'flawed' concepts I think are clearly among the Negative Traits section.

Another goal we should look at in our trait design as a whole is mirroring. This process helps to ensure that traits not only are kept in fine tuned balance with each other but are also quickly understood by the player.

There are a few ways to apply mirroring. One is to make design packets that can apply the same but to differing yet equal values. As an example, the benefits from Scientific should be nearly identical to the benefits from Economic, except that they apply those benefits to gold and research yields respectively. They mirror each other.

Another way to apply mirroring is to create a nearly opposite counter-trait (presuming both positive in this case). This would be like making Protective the opposite Counterpart to Imperialistic. Give Imperialistic a promo that makes its attack forces gain +25% City Attack, while Protective units gain +25% City Defense. Aggressive should have an opposite mirror like a Defensive trait, that gains most of the same benefits but gets +20% Defense, +10% Attack.

Then another form of mirroring comes into play between positive and negative traits. Similar concepts but different sides of the coin. Thus in the suggestion to have a positive Revolutionary Trait that is strong with happiness and national stability, and a Negative Usurper Trait that is equally strong with unhappiness and national instability.

All this mirroring ensures all the game elements are equally represented with the traits structure, makes the traits make sense, adds inherent balance, and makes the assignment of values to the traits much easier to rationalize and assign. I believe there would be few arguments under such a structure.

Without going through and identifying how I'd suggest tweaking each and every trait, I'm expressing this here as my general overall feedback, as what I would suggest would strongly reflect these design philosophies.

And I also wanted to explain all this so that you would understand where I'm coming from in suggesting new traits in some areas. I don't feel there are too many, but I do feel like they are a bit disorganized and some are very lacking for a strength of identity. Selecting a trait on your leader, or selecting a leader for their traits, should be like selecting what two 'spheres of influence' you are going to command as a deity in the game. Each should have strong parallels to others in an interconnected web of personality essences.

So to me, the question of if we should have more or less traits is not about a count of how many we have or how much time it takes to examine them all (they should be generally understood at a glance at the name itself) or how complex our structure is vs how complex we want it... its about representing all the applicable essences fully.

Does this make any sense?

Sgtslick · Dec 25, 2012

Yes it makes perfect sense, and in essence I agree with what your saying. Its not as easy as saying 'improve strength of identity' - this is exactly the reason why I want to reduce the number of traits. There aren't enough options to make them dissimilar / maintaining a strength of identity and having this many traits (possibly more). In order to differentiate some of the traits, they have to have varying levels of similar aspects, that's why I agree with what your saying in essence but disagree that its possible.

Hydromancerx · Dec 26, 2012

@Thunderbrd

Well some are obviously the anti-trait of other traits such as Anti-Clerical is the opposite of the Spiritual Trait. Thinking along those lines might help. Or Barbaric being Anti-Charismatic.

BlueGenie · Dec 31, 2012

Were these ever pushed? I've been playing under the impression that they were but I can't find where these new trait changes are made and some things seem very off with them, aka either not working or giving other effects than those seen in Civopedia.

I see in the SVN that they were indeed implemented. Here's what I find off with the three traits I am using currently then (as those are the only ones I can actually fully compare):

Scientific:
Civopedia states
+20 War Weariness. Yes.
+1

/City. Yes.
+10%:Science: in Capitol. No. Not in the Trait XML file either.
+10%

. Yes.
+2 :science:

from Scientist. Display shows +3 :science:

not +5

so I'd say No.
-20% Military Production. Yes.
+50% building speed of Solar Panels. Don't know yet.
Double production speed of School of scribes... and a bunch of other buildings. Don't know yet. Not in the Trait XML file.
10% faster building of Church School. Don't know yet. Not in the Trait XML file.

In the game I've also seen
-20% Great People for Scientific Leader.

Meh, too much work to fully compare BUT:
Basically none of the three; Civopedia, true effects, or XML file, match up. They all end up showing different things. Specialist changes are not in effect, additional effects not shown anywhere else are in effect OR just shown as display bugs (according to my current game I have with Scientific, Organized, and Cruel Traits -20% Great person rate from each, and -50% from Civics(Caste), for a total of -110%. Wut?)

Has anyone else experienced or noticed these discrepancies?

Cheers

EDIT: Checked from one turn to the next on Great Person rate. Only the Civic changes actually play a part, the displayed reductions for Traits don't affect the actual rate, not even the one that is supposed to be there, -20% from Organized.
Numbers were of total +20 I got +14, or -30%. Civics are -50% from Caste and +20% from Prophets with State Religion in City.

Cheers

Thunderbrd · Dec 31, 2012

I will attempt to disseminate your post and fix the problems you've mentioned. If you would, please do a bullet point summary of exactly what discrepancies you see. I'm getting confused by comments like

Numbers were of total +20 I got +14, or -30%

Clarity would be valuable here.

Some of these effects might be there and correct, just not correctly showing in the help breakdowns in the game as coming from the trait - may be showing as part of the 'Base' value.

Others may be a result of the way traits are maintained, data wise, on the player now. Some processing changes may have left some loopholes for data to get lost in and I'll need some help rooting those out.

Its also very strange to hear that the xml isn't reading the same as the game display on the trait.
Note that you won't see any negative effects on positive traits or vice versa if you're playing with Pure Traits. But it doesn't sound like this is quite the case here is it?

BlueGenie · Jan 1, 2013

No, not playing with either Pure or No-Negative traits.

Ok, I'll try to disseminate the various bugs and display bugs I get.

Scientific Trait:

Spoiler :

Organized:

Spoiler :

Cruel:

Spoiler :

Various:

Spoiler :

I hope this helps a bit to narrow down the discrepancies.

Cheers

Extra Traits for C2C

Emperor

TBS WarLord

Deity

C2C War Dog

TBS WarLord

Emperor

Emperor

C2C Modder

Emperor

TBS WarLord

Emperor

C2C War Dog

Emperor

C2C Supreme Commander

C2C War Dog

Emperor

C2C Modder

Emperor

C2C War Dog

Emperor

Similar threads