Extra Traits for C2C

[Sgtslick]

ok good stuff. So if you want to put some of your traits in like I said in an earlier post, then ill have a go redoing them for a day or two. Then together we'll finalise the structure and how we are going to adjust them for the different versions/level ups.

Feel free to be as comprehensive or as scant with your next step as you like. We can/will change it over time anyway, lets just get something together within the 12 days we got.

Once u throw in your additional traits ill step in, so let me know.

 

[ls612]

We still got 2 weeks, ask later. I think we'll be fine though, even if its not completely finished that won't be the end of the world.

Freeze begins this saturday (the 19th), so no, not really. This is too big a thing to do during the freeze, and there won't be enough time for discussion.

 

[Sgtslick]

hmm forgot about the whole freeze thing..

 

[strategyonly]

Freeze begins this saturday (the 19th), so no, not really. This is too big a thing to do during the freeze, and there won't be enough time for discussion.

hmm forgot about the whole freeze thing..

that was why i suggested it be a modmod for now, best to give it some time for discussion/gameplay.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Then leave the traits as is. I don't feel what's being proposed so far is all that much of an improvement anyhow. And even if they were, its still too close even for that. If we're going to do anything with them, then it should simply be tweaks what we have for now.

The developing leader system will work fine as is for one version and shouldn't need to be made a modmod (and shouldn't because it'd screw up current SVN games if we did.) It'll work ok with simply widening access rather than added tiers. I've prepped the leaders for the linepriority 0 vs 1 or -1 issue already. The trick there is to give the leaders both the base traits and the equivalent starting level developing leader traits (you'll see what I mean if you look at a leader info after the merge.) The options will sort out which they actually have.

Over the freeze I'll not only work on whatever debugging is necessary but also some additional proposals for discussion as you requested Slick.

 

[strategyonly]

Then leave the traits as is. I don't feel what's being proposed so far is all that much of an improvement anyhow. And even if they were, its still too close even for that. If we're going to do anything with them, then it should simply be tweaks what we have for now.

The developing leader system will work fine as is for one version and shouldn't need to be made a modmod (and shouldn't because it'd screw up current SVN games if we did.) It'll work ok with simply widening access rather than added tiers. I've prepped the leaders for the linepriority 0 vs 1 or -1 issue already. The trick there is to give the leaders both the base traits and the equivalent starting level developing leader traits (you'll see what I mean if you look at a leader info after the merge.) The options will sort out which they actually have.

Over the freeze I'll not only work on whatever debugging is necessary but also some additional proposals for discussion as you requested Slick.

OK so if i understand you correctly, only tweaks are needed now? Well if its only tweaks, thats what the freeze is all about then, getting the stuff that doesn't work correctly to the forefront of the mod, and making it more balanced. (Correct?)

 

[Thunderbrd]

Yeah... I think we really only have time to refine the current traits but we shouldn't take any our or add any because it takes too much time to update the leaders if we do. And the traits aren't terrible now... could just use some additional consideration and a few edits, particularly with the promos they provide imo.

 

[Sgtslick]

Some time over the next few days then, I'll make a few changes and includes some of thunderbrd's new TAG's etc.

 

[ls612]

Some time over the next few days then, I'll make a few changes and includes some of thunderbrd's new TAG's etc.

Hm, I'd still say wait for V28. It sounds like SO wants the new traits stuff to be a modmod to start and have 'simpler' (I can't think of a better word) traits in the core for now, and I'd like for V28 to be reasonably stable, which will be hard without Koshling or AIAndy to help debug stuff during the freeze.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The Developing Leader and other trait options are fine and I believe are ready for inclusion. It does NOT absolutely require that we add further traits to represent individual trait upgrades. It's not a bad game as it is being able to diversify your trait selections as you go. That's at least sufficient for a game option in the next release.

All we need to do now is take a look at how we can enhance our current traits to balance against each other a bit better and it should then be ready for the release. I don't even feel its necessary to make sure all the added tags are in use. They were put in place for deeper further consideration than the upcoming release really gives us much time for I think.

Our trait structure is not all that far off track now for this release as is I don't think. They CERTAINLY don't need to be entirely rewritten and redefined between now and then, particularly since those new structures would go so untested before release. But we could definitely attempt, between now and then, to enforce Hydro's concept on the promotions and take out the promos traits are awarding that are already in the game elsewhere (there's particularly good reason to do this on ANY impure promotions or Negative Trait given promotions! If they aren't unique and designated as a traitonly promotion according to the new promotion boolean tag for that, then they won't update if a leader chooses to remove the negative trait.)

 

[ls612]

The Developing Leader and other trait options are fine. All we need to do is take a look at how we can enhance our current traits to balance against each other a bit better and it should then be ready for the release. It's not all that far off track now for that I don't think. They CERTAINLY don't need to be entirely rewritten and redefined between now and then, particularly since those new structures would go so untested before release.

Then perhaps the developing leader option should be made invisible for release as it is not quite ready for primetime yet for an actual game.

 

[Thunderbrd]

What do you think makes it not ready?

 

[ls612]

What do you think makes it not ready?

It hasn't been balanced yet. It should work fine technically, but we haven't worked out details for what higher level traits do yet.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Well... as stated, without the higher level traits it still works just fine for simply enabling a growing diversification of traits on a given leader. The traits aren't very strong as they are right now anyhow. And if it changes the flow of a game with the option on it doesn't really matter that much because other leaders are getting those bonuses too so they will tend to keep each other in check at least. So really, the only imbalance it would provide would be to make the world achieve more overall faster, which, on its own, is probably less impacting an option than allowing tech trading where that's concerned.

 

[ls612]

Here are my next three trait proposals.

Industrious:

+ 1 on tiles making (6/5/4) or more
+ (20/40/60)% Worker Speed
+ (25/50/75)% from Trade
+ (10/20/30)% Military Production
- (3/2/1)

Industrious: (Normal)

+ 1 on tiles making 5 or more
+ 30% Worker Speed
+ 40% from Trade
+ 20% Military Production
- 2

Financial:

+ 1 on tiles making (6/5/4) or more
+ (1/2/4) Trade Routes per City
+ (10/15/20)%
+ (2/2/1) Crime per Population over 20


Financial (Normal):

+ 1 on tiles making 5 or more
+ 1 Trade Routes per City
+ 10%
+ 1 Crime per Population over 20

Agricultural:

+ 1 on tiles making (5/4/3) or more
+(1/2/2) on all Specialists
+ (20/40/60) production of Agricultural improvements.

Agricultural (Normal):

+ 1 on tiles making 4 or more
+ 1 on all Specialists
+ 40% production of Agricultural improvements.

 

[Faustmouse]

I like those, just a few points:

Are there really so many improvements that end up with 4 hammers? I think Mines and Lumbermills will get easily more than 6 hammers at the time you could select industrious III and farms and stuff not even get you 3 hammers. This making Industrious III not much better than Industrious II.

Also, don't you think 2 food from specialists could be an overkill? When you get a lvl III trait this could be easily 3 Food per specialists during food procesing plant and such, making specialist more or less "for free".
And what exactly are "Argicultural improvements" for you?

And I think trade-routes will mostly effect science (at least more than they effect gold).

 

[Thunderbrd]

The Extra Yield Thresholds probably aren't going to work as intended through trait tier increases like that... I presume you're looking to simply make sure the threshold is lower but it's probably going to end up with +3 total production on all plots with 6 or more on that first example.

Also, the negative happiness on Production is pretty extreme while there is no modifier for pollution which I always felt made a lot of sense too for that trait line.

I really believe we should be splitting up Financial into two traits, one for Commerce and one for Gold, which are very different things, particularly in game effect. If we're trying to get all these done before the end of this cycle, than limiting ourselves to just the usual base traits seems reasonable but I don't think we have time to even tweak just the base traits unless Slick has been working up a plan all this time and is about to share it with us before the release.

Another tag use area (+1/2/2) per Specialists on food and such... Unless you mean that the first level gets +1 per specialist, and the second gets another +1 per specialist and the third gains no further bonus, you're looking at +5 food per specialist by the time you've taken the last one. So I'm not sure what you mean there but from one angle of that, you'd end up with a terrifically overwhelming amount of food and from another you'd have a third tier that wouldn't be nearly as attractive as the first two. Each specialist? Keep in mind that'll add up to about population - 20 (if the city is only working out to the first 2 spaces) or population - 36 (if the city is working out to the 3rd space) so if a city has 100 population and is working out to the third rung, then we have +53 food * however much food you are adding per specialist at that point. If that amount exceeds 2, you have a scenario where the city will only find its maximum population via pollution. Given there are ways to remove all pollution from population, you'd finally have a truly unlimited city size in Civ4.

I say all that with the realization that my own proposals suffered from this stuff too and are also desperately needing some more consideration!

 

[ls612]

The Extra Yield Thresholds probably aren't going to work as intended through trait tier increases like that... I presume you're looking to simply make sure the threshold is lower but it's probably going to end up with +3 total production on all plots with 6 or more on that first example.

That can be changed in the DLL can't it? If the option is on the alternate behavior takes place, otherwise the original BtS handling of the Extra Yield Thresholds operates.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'm not sure. I'll take a look at the code and see exactly what its doing. It may be possible it already only allows for one bonus and gets the best value instead now that I think about it but both are very different methods for sure so I'll have to check again to see which was employed.

 

[Thunderbrd]

4 new trait tags

• iCoastalTradeRoutes
• PrereqTech (for specific traits - will help with keeping additional tier traits selectable only once meaningful
• bCoastalAIInfluence - denotes that this trait is beneficial mostly to nations with a lot of coastal cities - helps the ai in determining value of that trait selection
• bBarbarianSelectionOnly - limits the trait to being learned only by barbarian leaders (who should start with it as a default and not gain additional selections under Developing Leaders)