Extra Traits for C2C

[Thunderbrd]

Ok, I can understand some of your sentiment. Understand, though, that many of the tags as used in the proposal are designed to blend with other traits creating symmetry. You can find some really powerful combinations that combine lesser uses of tags, counteract weaknesses by pairing up with a trait that overrides the negative, things like that. There's a lot of 'minor' tag uses, yes. And I can understand how that can be a bit complex to look through. But if we state, in the strategy text on the traits in the pedia, what the traits' primary benefits are, it should be enough to make it possible for newer players to angle themselves into decent strategies that deepen the more they see the nuances (minor tag uses) and how they can be paired to enhance those.

I'd like to try it that way anyway if you don't mind. Being C2C, I don't think a fair number of tags in use on any given trait is too much for our players. Almost all had some kind of justification, some might've been weaker than others but some kind of justification nevertheless...

Another reason for it is as we develop new tags, it gives us some leeway for some tag removals while keeping things in balance.

Ok, so from here, if you would review the evaluations spreadsheet I posted a few posts ago and let me know where you think there are some inappropriate valuations on tags and what you feel they should've been evaluated at instead, that could be helpful. Additionally, you still say we need some more tags and I think to some extent we could use some more. So letting me know what you have in mind there could help too... there's a spot there on the bottom left where I'm trying to compile a list of tags to-do.

I also noticed that we have a trait ability I wasn't aware of when I was doing the review (the ability to modify yields from particular improvements...) and those need to be taken into account.

So if you look through the traits as proposed and you notice any tag uses that stand out as being something you feel really should be changed, or you have some suggestions for the above noted gap in my evaluation, that'd be really cool! Additionally, you'll notice I didn't do anything regarding the specific building modifiers. I figure those are to be handed out willy nilly with very little regard to the overall 'balance' of things. Since there are a number of new traits here, perhaps you could identify what buildings should be given some build speed manipulators on those.

BTW, you and ls612 (among others I'm sure) will be happy to note that I've been spending my time here doing a thorough debug check on all the trait tags (not just my own - there were significant errors in ones we already had too!) and I'm finding a lot to fix. My next and last check there is to make sure all the minor help popups these tags play into are calculating and displaying with perfect precision not only the bonuses or penalties but from what source.

And I have a seriously annoying bug with promotions regarding this system and a 'free promo' review that takes place for units periodically, particularly when new traits are selected... so that's got to be solved like asap.

I also have a few more base traits to propose (based on above conversations) so I'll try to get those proposals in this weekend too.

Once we have a final FINAL workup for our base traits on that spreadsheet (which hopefully can happen within a week or two from now at least) then we can maybe divvy up some programming effort to fill it all in if you like. I know I'll have a lot of graphic work to do. Then we can work on the second and third tiers and start discussing the traits that come in thereafter.

Does this sound like a game plan that could work for you Sgt?

 

[strategyonly]

TB

Timeframe, Pls.

 

[Sgtslick]

Does this sound like a game plan that could work for you Sgt?

Sure, ok.
In terms of other tags, are any of the tags used by platyping's in his http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=482337
usable?

Im sure we could think of some others if we needed to, just thought some of these could be easier.

Im still not 100% sure I understand where the negative traits fit in all of this. So currently we get 1 negative trait at the beginning of the game, and then your looking to implement an event that gives out another one? Also when you 'level up' you have the choice of a new trait or to remove a negative?

In an average game, say renaissance era - how will a leaders traits look?

 

[ls612]

BTW, you and ls612 (among others I'm sure) will be happy to note that I've been spending my time here doing a thorough debug check on all the trait tags (not just my own - there were significant errors in ones we already had too!) and I'm finding a lot to fix. My next and last check there is to make sure all the minor help popups these tags play into are calculating and displaying with perfect precision not only the bonuses or penalties but from what source.

And I have a seriously annoying bug with promotions regarding this system and a 'free promo' review that takes place for units periodically, particularly when new traits are selected... so that's got to be solved like asap.

I also have a few more base traits to propose (based on above conversations) so I'll try to get those proposals in this weekend too.

Once we have a final FINAL workup for our base traits on that spreadsheet (which hopefully can happen within a week or two from now at least) then we can maybe divvy up some programming effort to fill it all in if you like. I know I'll have a lot of graphic work to do. Then we can work on the second and third tiers and start discussing the traits that come in thereafter.

Does this sound like a game plan that could work for you Sgt?

I've posted the serious bugs with the Pure Traits in this thread. My solution to that would be to make a bNegative tag on traits and use that to check the proper effects to remove from traits under the Pure Traits gameoption.

Also what on earth is this stuff about tiers?

 

[Thunderbrd]

TB

Timeframe, Pls.

Hopefully we can have the majority of the above sorted out before the next release so we have til the 20th or so before a freeze right?

Sure, ok.
In terms of other tags, are any of the tags used by platyping's in his http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=482337
usable?

Its all in python so much of it would have to be converted. I was hoping to use a lot of Playtyping's concepts for 3rd tier traits and the combination traits to really give them a kick. Sound good? That buys me some time to work on those AFTER the next release cycle.

Im sure we could think of some others if we needed to, just thought some of these could be easier.

Well, thinking in terms of basic details then... I was going to look over the civics tags, since those are SO easily converted to trait use as well. See if there's anything in there that would be exceedingly useful to our traits structure. One I KNOW I want to add right now is the tag that allows for Inquisitors to be built - I feel that'd be a very good idea for Zealous and Anti-Clerical, and possibly even for Pious (I can't recall off the top of my head if I've given Pious strong problems with multiple religions or if its fairly neutral there. If its more neutral then I'd think we'd want to just keep the Inquisitor tag to Zealous.)

Im still not 100% sure I understand where the negative traits fit in all of this. So currently we get 1 negative trait at the beginning of the game, and then your looking to implement an event that gives out another one? Also when you 'level up' you have the choice of a new trait or to remove a negative?

In an average game, say renaissance era - how will a leaders traits look?

I have a mini-project here to get negative trait impacts to hold off until the first trait is selected if both Developing Leaders AND No Positive Traits on Gamestart is on, just enough to keep from absolutely crippling leaders before they have even an opportunity to eliminate the negative trait or choose to live with it.

But yeah, Negative traits won't have increasing tiers. They don't need them. However, we should discuss how we want to go about adding them to leaders throughout the game.

I'm not sure how much national culture an average leader would have in the Ren era so that's hard to say without a full playthrough. But I'm thinking they'd probably either have about 3-4 traits with either their negative still in place or having been removed. And that's if we haven't figured out any way to add extra neg's to leaders.

I've posted the serious bugs with the Pure Traits in this thread. My solution to that would be to make a bNegative tag on traits and use that to check the proper effects to remove from traits under the Pure Traits gameoption.

Also what on earth is this stuff about tiers?

I've resolved the bugs on Pure Traits and it'll be part of my next update which should be this weekend. We apparently hadn't been applying any of the bImpurePromotions or bImpurePropertyManipulator tags yet so yeah, that was a problem. And I had a bug in my filter coding on capital commerces and capital yields. Also, there IS a tag on traits now for bNegativeTrait and yes, the whole method relies on it! So we're thinking alike in our coding strategies. I can't replicate the report on Megalomaniac being all positive on pure traits but maybe that was already fixed by someone after it was mentioned

Ok, so tiers...

I think you get the idea already but the term was referring to additional steps up the same lines, like Aggressive II, Aggressive III.

 

[ls612]

I think you get the idea already but the term was referring to additional steps up the same lines, like Aggressive II, Aggressive III.

Yes, that makes much more sense. See the PM I sent you about that for more of my ideas on that.

 

[Thunderbrd]

You posted as I was writing my reply

 

[ls612]

@Vokarya:

Here is Thunderbrd's complete Traits proposal.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I have to say... ls612 pointed out how MANY traits we'd need to represent a combination trait on each positive trait combination and it does appear to be TOO much.

However, some select combinations could still be useful and could help to point players towards the strongest synergies. So I'm at this point suggesting combination traits to be included but sparingly.

 

[Hydromancerx]

I have to say... ls612 pointed out how MANY traits we'd need to represent a combination trait on each positive trait combination and it does appear to be TOO much.

How do you mean?

 

[Thunderbrd]

With 29 (and most likely 31 after another few are developed) positive traits, a combination trait existing between each combination would be... an astronomical number of combination traits. (406 by my count)

That's just a few too many eh?

 

[BlueGenie]

Well, you should not need to make a combination trait between all the traits really, only those that somewhat follow the same line or basic intention/philosophy.
Like
Aggressive/Imperialistic
Agricultural/Expansionist
Humanitarian/Protective

This will cut down on the combo traits quite a bit. Here's how I would envision possible pairing:
Trait: (already listed further up), Goes with Trait. (# of combos) # new combos.
Aggressive: Charismatic, Deceiver, Expansive, Imperialistic, Seafaring. 5
Agricultural: Expansive, Humanitarian, Organized. 3
Charismatic: (Aggressive), Creative, Humanitarian, Philosophical, Progressive, Spiritual. (6) 5
Creative: (Charismatic), Philosophical, Scientific, Progressive, Spiritual. (5) 4
Deceiver: (Aggressive), Financial, Politician. (3) 2
Expansive: (Aggressive, Agricultural), Industrious, Progressive. (4) 2
Financial: (Deceiver), Industrious, Organized, Scientific, Seafaring. (5) 4
Humanitarian: (Agricultural, Charismatic), Philosophical, Protective, Progressive, Politician. (6) 4
Imperialistic: (Aggressive), Industrious, Organized, Seafaring. (4) 3
Industrious: (Expansive, Financial), Organized, Politician. (4) 2
Nomad: Protective, Spiritual. 2
Organized: (Agricultural, Financial, Imperialistic, Industrious). (4) 0
Philosophical: (Charismatic, Creative, Humanitarian), Spiritual, Progressive. (5) 2
Protective: (Humanitarian, Nomad), Progressive. (3) 1
Scientific: (Creative, Financial), Spiritual, Progressive. (4) 2
Seafaring: (Aggressive, Financial, Imperialistic). (3) 0
Spiritual: (Charismatic, Creative, Nomad, Philosophical, Scientific). (5) 0
Progressive: (Charismatic, Creative, Expansive, Humanitarian, Philosophical, Scientific). (6) 0
Politician: (Deceiver, Humanitarian, Industrious). (3) 0

For a total of 41 Combination Traits instead of some 400+.
Of course this is just my view and others might think there are some more fitting combinations for Combination Traits, or that some of the examples I've set up are not quite compatible or sympathetic with each other. This is just examples to give you an idea of what I mean.

Cheers

 

[Thunderbrd]

Yeah, you got the idea. There's a few more combinations that would make for nice traits in the new proposal but that's a fairly good list off the originals.

 

[Hydromancerx]

With 29 (and most likely 31 after another few are developed) positive traits, a combination trait existing between each combination would be... an astronomical number of combination traits. (406 by my count)

That's just a few too many eh?

Sorry maybe I did not read well enough but whats a "combination trait"?

I thought it was just each trait is its own trait and some can upgrade. But you could not do say Aggressive I + Seafaring I and get Pirate I (I just made that up). But you could have Aggressive I and Seafaring I which would unlock Aggressive II or Seafaring II. Right?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Well.. the idea originally was to have a combination between each trait type once you reached the III'd tier in those traits but yeah, ls612 is right, that'd be too many traits to have there.

But some select combinations would be cool.

 

[ls612]

@Thunderbrd:

OK, I'm going to go through traits 3 at a time with my proposals. I have a couple rules that I am following with these ideas, and I think that they will help keep traits unique and easy to understand.

1. No more than 5 separate effects per trait.
2. Every possible effect is used at least once on a trait (eventually).
3. Only 1 impure effect max per trait.

Here we go.

Aggressive:
- +(0/10/20)% Combat Strength for all Combat Units (Melee, Gun, Archer, Mounted, Wheeled, Tracked, Assault Mech, Hi Tech) (Promotion)
- Combat I for Melee, Gun, Archer, Mounted, Wheeled, Tracked, Assault Mech, and Hi Tech units.
- -(5/10/15)% War Weariness
- +(1/2/2) Free Military Instructors in City
- +1 Crime per (2/3/4) Pop in City

Aggressive (Normal):
- +10% Combat Strength for all Combat Units (Melee, Gun, Archer, Mounted, Wheeled, Tracked, Assault Mech, Hi Tech) (Promotion)
- Combat I for Melee, Gun, Archer, Mounted, Wheeled, Tracked, Assault Mech, and Hi Tech units.
- -10% War Weariness
- +1 Free Military Instructors in City
- +1 Crime per 3 Pop in City

Protective:
- +(1/2/3) Happiness
- +(20/30/40)% Domestic GG points
- +(5/10/15)% City Defense and +(1/2/3) First Strikes for Archer, Gun, and Hi Tech units. (Promotion)

Protective: (Normal)
- +1 Happiness
- +30% Domestic GG points
- +10% City Defense and +1 First Strike for Archer, Gun, and Hi Tech units. (Promotion)

Imperialist:
- +1 Free Military Unit per (20/16/12) Population
- +(4/6/8) Happiness in the Largest City.
- +(1/2/3) Culture on Military Instructors.
- +(1/2/3) Production on Military Instructors.
- +(15/10/5)% War Weariness.

Imperialist: (Normal)
- +1 Free Military Unit per 16 Population
- +5 Happiness in the Largest City.
- +2 Culture on Military Instructors.
- +2 Production on Military Instructors.
- +10% War Weariness.

The normal ones are what will happen when Leveling Traits is off.

 

[strategyonly]

OK, I'm going to go through traits 3 at a time with my proposals. I have a couple rules that I am following with these ideas, and I think that they will help keep traits unique and easy to understand.

The normal ones are what will happen when Leveling Traits is off.

I very much like the idea, of more people with coding experience coming together "for the greater good."

Looking thru all of this, the proposal is OK if its aloud to be changed/upgraded to each trait higher or like in real life, be changed in mid-stream (if possible)? Am i grasping at straws?

 

[Hydromancerx]

Aggressive:
- +(0/10/20)% Combat Strength for all Combat Units (Melee, Gun, Archer, Mounted, Wheeled, Tracked, Assault Mech, Hi Tech) (Promotion)
- Combat I for Melee, Gun, Archer, Mounted, Wheeled, Tracked, Assault Mech, and Hi Tech units.
- -(5/10/15)% War Weariness
- +(1/2/2) Free Military Instructors in City
- +1 Crime per (2/3/4) Pop in City

Aggressive (Normal):
- +10% Combat Strength for all Combat Units (Melee, Gun, Archer, Mounted, Wheeled, Tracked, Assault Mech, Hi Tech) (Promotion)
- Combat I for Melee, Gun, Archer, Mounted, Wheeled, Tracked, Assault Mech, and Hi Tech units.
- -10% War Weariness
- +1 Free Military Instructors in City
- +1 Crime per 3 Pop in City

I think all traits should avoid existing promotions. Such as in this case it should use the Aggressive Promotion rather than Combat I. I have already stated my reasoning why in earlier posts.

 

[ls612]

I think all traits should avoid existing promotions. Such as in this case it should use the Aggressive Promotion rather than Combat I. I have already stated my reasoning why in earlier posts.

The reason I want Combat I is taht it unlocks so many other things. THat is the real benefit of having it on a promotion, and a staple of Aggressive since Vanilla.

 

[BlueGenie]

The reason I want Combat I is taht it unlocks so many other things. THat is the real benefit of having it on a promotion, and a staple of Aggressive since Vanilla.

Basically it means an Aggressive Trait unit is one level ahead of any other unit. I agree.

The Negative Traits though should probably NOT have Free Combat I on any unit, better then to go with a unique promotion that makes them stronger while having that Negative Trait, but not Combat I as when it is removed it can mess up a lot of things.

Cheers