Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
However in doing so it makes Unique Units less special. If you are an Aggressive civ and have Combat I for free and then get a UU that's benefit is Combat I, then the unit is not really unique.
Extra Traits for C2C
- Thread starter strategyonly
- Start date
However in doing so it makes Unique Units less special. If you are an Aggressive civ and have Combat I for free and then get a UU that's benefit is Combat I, then the unit is not really unique.
I think almost every Culture Unit I've made has come with either a terrain promotion free or a bonus vs a single Unit Combat promotion free, and not Combat I free.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Can I ask what is insufficient about the proposal I put forth?
Wait... I think I can tell from your suggestions so far:
My responses (and hey... this is just my position. You're proposal coming through as text on the page and not just as a spreadsheet that took 5 days to generate has an advantage in that it will be paid more attention to by casual viewers):
Your proposals, so far as I can see, would put traits into the vast background of the game. The power level on each would be so miniscule it wouldn't matter what traits you selected... all leaders would be roughly the same. I guess I'm just judging that primarily on the Aggressive proposal, which was enough to see where you were going. (0%???/10%/20% Combat bonuses on units? Ugh... Nothing to fear there!)
Ok, I think I covered aggressive... The free military instructors are kinda cool though.
Protective: IF we are going to use so few tags, why would happiness even be a part of this traits outlook? It'd be a minor side effect of having well protected cities and there's a lot of traits down the road that would have more cause to use happiness. Using so few traits means you would need to be extremely selective about using any of them on any trait and keep only the MOST pertinent to the trait.
You also hobbled the city defenses of units on Protective such that even at the cap it would have very little impact on real conflicts. (5%/10%/15%) Not much of a real deterrent.
The domestic GG pts are cool but since you aren't half as good at defending your cities as you might think and would have to wage a war at home to get any benefit out of it, you'll be dead before you really make much use of it most likely.
Imperialistic: I'm not sure what tag you're referring to on the first line there... is it the Free Units on Percentage of Population tag? Ok, so they get fewer costs on upholding their military.
The happiness per largest city ensures you NEVER have an issue with happiness in your core cities - a very strong bonus to the point that it imbalances the happiness system in the rest of the game for that player, making Imperialistic a choice purely for happiness more than anything else... I'd prefer Imperialistic were more about conquering and expanding, like the term suggests.
I also wanted to make sure Hydro's concept of the trait unique promotions was held to. Its helpful from a great many angles. I had a hard time letting go of Aggressive's one step up on promotion prereqs but I did realize it's not THAT valuable any more. Vanilla's main benefit to being Aggressive was just that fact but that was ONLY because Commando was so hard to get (Combat V prereq) and it took an all out effort to get Commando units out of the gate for those nuclear wars. That's no longer an issue so the prereq factor is a lot more minor now. Now I just see the units benefits as making the trait overall fairly weak in relation to the other traits. But with my proposal, I'd actually fear an aggressive leader again (as I feel I should.)
The bonuses on Military Instructors are cool... good symmetry with Aggressive there but the ultimate effect is very selective to the military production city or cities so isn't a very widely impacting effect on the nation. The production helps with unit production speed and that's a good thing, even though unit production modifier isn't employed so it's purpose is somewhat masked.
The negatives? Meh. Why have an option to play without them if they have no real effect?
I'll stop prattling on now... Maybe I should, for the sake of those who won't download and open a spreadsheet, post my proposal in text so it can be held up against others like these. I am only one opinion. I may just have to say, go ahead guys... whatever you want, go for it. I'll put a separate traits workup in the modmod forum so I can step back from this and work on other things. Wouldn't bother me. You may notice I rarely ever get involved in tech and civic discussions... I just really don't care what those amount to. But traits... I care deeply. They were always one of my favorite elements of the game. So I'm sorry for coming across rudely if I have... I'm just passionate about having very influentially powerful traits that make big differences in how you have to strategize with other leaders, and your own nation as well. If you'd prefer traits to blend into the background, I'll just need to do a modmod for them and I'd be happy with that.
Wait... I think I can tell from your suggestions so far:
- You feel they're too complex
- You feel they're too powerful
- You find the balancing scale structure there is insufficient
- There's just too much to look at to try to go through it all
My responses (and hey... this is just my position. You're proposal coming through as text on the page and not just as a spreadsheet that took 5 days to generate has an advantage in that it will be paid more attention to by casual viewers):
- Cutting down on the minor tag uses also cuts down on synergies between trait selections and makes our traits overly simplistic for C2C application. You can see some of this at work in taking -5% of the usual -25% Experience Needed for Next Level on Units away from Charismatic and giving it to traits like Aggressive, Defensive, Protective, Imperialistic etc. Combine them for the full benefit you'd usually have. But this kind of thing is taking place all over the proposal as it is now. Taking us down to 5 tags, or SgtSlick's 'just 2' per Trait is going to basically eliminate the blending effect.
- Limiting our tag use is also going to greatly limit our ability to balance traits against each other. These minor tag uses enable us to find a more pinpointed measurement of strength on each trait. People have noted before that there have always been some traits stronger than others and that should be brought to an end here. But such limited tag use will bring it right back in a hurry.
- A touch of strategy text can highlight what gives the trait its primary game benefit. And in a lot of cases in the proposal, that primary benefit is simply where that trait stands out as being the 'best at' providing. Organized, for example, has always failed to measure up to other traits. Under the proposal, it has a number of effects, but reducing upkeep remains its primary benefit because it does it better than any other (scheduled to reduce all upkeep by -90% by the third tier! A touch of synergy and upkeep is not your problem in that game!)
- We MUST keep in mind that the first levels of the traits will be the same for both the game without the Developing Leaders option and for games with it. Thus, if we cut down the power on the first trait in preparation for the traits to grow to basically no stronger than they are now at the third tier, then we're severely penalizing the players that play without the option.
- There's nothing wrong with adjusting the game settings under the game option to compensate for powerful traits being ammassed. Sure, you'll get some leaders who have +75% production and tons of production bonuses near the end of the game. But you'll also have that leader with an opposing nation with +75% attack and +30% defense on his units who can, with much fewer units, tear through the multitudes the productive leader can throw into the fray. And you'd have another who's sitting back and out-teching both of them with 75% research. These bonuses sure do sound powerful (And that's IF the leader has been down a dedicated path and hasn't branched out to widen their bonus pool)... but they keep each other in check AND at that stage of the game are relatively minor compared to the other bonuses they are already potentially receiving. So if we add say, a 25% drag to all yields and commerce production on the whole of the system (which blends into the background as increased costs perhaps) under the option, you have a structure where if you DON'T take Production, Research etc bonuses, you're behind the maingame curve. But since you CAN'T capture all benefits then the game should stay fairly on track.
- Powerful traits make a player FEEL more powerful for their selection, and that's how we should get to feel when we make our trait selections, FAR more powerful than we were. But in reality, its all the traits you DIDN'T pick that are, in a sense, counting against you. If you take Aggressive, for example, and feel like a tough guy cuz you've got +25% Attack, 10% Defense on your units, you'll be pretty frustrated when your units are barely able to match the Scientific who's units are an upgrade higher than yours, pretty frustrated when you simply can't keep up with that Deceptive leader on espionage (you just know he can see all your cities and is about to steal a tech or do something horrible to you!), irritated when your units have to battle through dozens to one odds (which they can do at great frustration) against your Industrious opponent... Traits should be meaningful and greatly impact your whole game strategy. The game should play around traits as much as any other element (like technologies and civics) and only in Vanilla BtS did it ever feel like it did. But this was because under their much simpler systems, their basic traits were actually quite powerful (in fact, I don't think any version of Civ 4 has quite gotten it right since the earlier versions of civ entirely where traits are concerned. In Civ I-II the trait you chose made a HUGE difference in your game!)
- And where traits are concerned, truly powerful imbalances are targeted to a limited range. They all keep leaders roughly equal provided all leaders can stay in the same ballpark and if a leader can't its because he's WAY too far behind as the increments between New Trait selections on are extremely wide (wider the further you go.) So you'll rarely see the competitive nations in a game being more than one selection apart from each other (unless one is a Creative Leader and another is Unrefined perhaps...) because the road to the next Trait is always ten times as tough as the road it took to get where you're at.
Your proposals, so far as I can see, would put traits into the vast background of the game. The power level on each would be so miniscule it wouldn't matter what traits you selected... all leaders would be roughly the same. I guess I'm just judging that primarily on the Aggressive proposal, which was enough to see where you were going. (0%???/10%/20% Combat bonuses on units? Ugh... Nothing to fear there!)
Ok, I think I covered aggressive... The free military instructors are kinda cool though.
Protective: IF we are going to use so few tags, why would happiness even be a part of this traits outlook? It'd be a minor side effect of having well protected cities and there's a lot of traits down the road that would have more cause to use happiness. Using so few traits means you would need to be extremely selective about using any of them on any trait and keep only the MOST pertinent to the trait.
You also hobbled the city defenses of units on Protective such that even at the cap it would have very little impact on real conflicts. (5%/10%/15%) Not much of a real deterrent.
The domestic GG pts are cool but since you aren't half as good at defending your cities as you might think and would have to wage a war at home to get any benefit out of it, you'll be dead before you really make much use of it most likely.
Imperialistic: I'm not sure what tag you're referring to on the first line there... is it the Free Units on Percentage of Population tag? Ok, so they get fewer costs on upholding their military.
The happiness per largest city ensures you NEVER have an issue with happiness in your core cities - a very strong bonus to the point that it imbalances the happiness system in the rest of the game for that player, making Imperialistic a choice purely for happiness more than anything else... I'd prefer Imperialistic were more about conquering and expanding, like the term suggests.
I also wanted to make sure Hydro's concept of the trait unique promotions was held to. Its helpful from a great many angles. I had a hard time letting go of Aggressive's one step up on promotion prereqs but I did realize it's not THAT valuable any more. Vanilla's main benefit to being Aggressive was just that fact but that was ONLY because Commando was so hard to get (Combat V prereq) and it took an all out effort to get Commando units out of the gate for those nuclear wars. That's no longer an issue so the prereq factor is a lot more minor now. Now I just see the units benefits as making the trait overall fairly weak in relation to the other traits. But with my proposal, I'd actually fear an aggressive leader again (as I feel I should.)
The bonuses on Military Instructors are cool... good symmetry with Aggressive there but the ultimate effect is very selective to the military production city or cities so isn't a very widely impacting effect on the nation. The production helps with unit production speed and that's a good thing, even though unit production modifier isn't employed so it's purpose is somewhat masked.
The negatives? Meh. Why have an option to play without them if they have no real effect?
I'll stop prattling on now... Maybe I should, for the sake of those who won't download and open a spreadsheet, post my proposal in text so it can be held up against others like these. I am only one opinion. I may just have to say, go ahead guys... whatever you want, go for it. I'll put a separate traits workup in the modmod forum so I can step back from this and work on other things. Wouldn't bother me. You may notice I rarely ever get involved in tech and civic discussions... I just really don't care what those amount to. But traits... I care deeply. They were always one of my favorite elements of the game. So I'm sorry for coming across rudely if I have... I'm just passionate about having very influentially powerful traits that make big differences in how you have to strategize with other leaders, and your own nation as well. If you'd prefer traits to blend into the background, I'll just need to do a modmod for them and I'd be happy with that.
Woah, Woah, no need to blow up at me. I'll explain each of my three trait design rules briefly.
I'm not certain either why you are upset that my suggestions are easier to read, isn't that a good thing? I was giving input, I don't need to have my head bitten off for that.
- The part about 5 features per trait serves two purposes. The first one is to make the effects of the Trait immediately visible to the player and avoid confusion as to what a trait does. That is very important IMO to keep the game fun. The second purpose of that is to make each trait unique. We have about 80 tags now taht we can apply to traits, so 5 per makes it so each is more or less unique while also allowing us to use all of the capabilities of the traits now.
- The part about less impurities is when you have 2 impurites you have 3 "core" features, which makes it so that the trait is almost neutral in terms of its effects. That is not good for balance.
- The part about using every capability at least once is probably self evident, I want to show off all of the things that can be done now.
I'm not certain either why you are upset that my suggestions are easier to read, isn't that a good thing? I was giving input, I don't need to have my head bitten off for that.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
As I said, I'm not meaning to bite your head off here. It's just... you're building houses where I'm building skyscrapers, y'know?
It's a bit frustrating that you seem to feel my proposal was somehow insufficient.
As for easier to read, no I'm not upset by that at all... I'm just saying that some here will only see those and not the spreadsheet so it may not be given equal due consideration as a result. So perhaps I need to put them in place here in text.
You will notice, on my proposal, that I have 27 pts pure, 7 pts impure, so I'm not against your proposed ratio as its fairly similar to mine. But you're suggesting to trim the traits down to near meaninglessness on the game stage so at the same ratio, the impurity comes across as completely ignorable.
It's a bit frustrating that you seem to feel my proposal was somehow insufficient.
As for easier to read, no I'm not upset by that at all... I'm just saying that some here will only see those and not the spreadsheet so it may not be given equal due consideration as a result. So perhaps I need to put them in place here in text.
You will notice, on my proposal, that I have 27 pts pure, 7 pts impure, so I'm not against your proposed ratio as its fairly similar to mine. But you're suggesting to trim the traits down to near meaninglessness on the game stage so at the same ratio, the impurity comes across as completely ignorable.
I'd use the analogy of mountains and molehills, but yes, I understand what you are saying.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
@Thunderbrd & ls612
I very much like the idea that Traits are more "potent". And I agree with TB that the Aggressive Trait should be feared. In addition I am glad TB is standing by my trait promotions idea. I was not sure if I had any backing anymore.
I very much like the idea that Traits are more "potent". And I agree with TB that the Aggressive Trait should be feared. In addition I am glad TB is standing by my trait promotions idea. I was not sure if I had any backing anymore.
Before you made the extra tags thunderbrd, hmm how to describe this, I used lots of small paint strokes rather than broad strokes - with the tags. This was needed to be able to paint the picture - that this is industrious or creative - while hiding the fact that I was often using the same colours.
When I said two tags per trait, I just meant in relation to having so many traits that they would all just blend into slightly different versions of the same things.
Anyway, im not trying to be critical, its just a concern. I also think that having so many traits just makes our job at balancing them and defining them way harder.
I still don't think I understand where the negative 'counterpart' traits fit in. Is it just that because they are an opposing mirror of another trait that they are therefore more balanced / make more sense?
Personally what I wanted was that a leaders traits started off basically non-existent. Then you get 2 weak versions like industrious I and creative I, then you can upgrade one to industrious II but you will also pick up Untidy I, or if you chose Creative II, you pick up Timid I. Something along these lines.
Anyway, as I said to Thunderbrd in pm, im happy to follow through with his 'overall plan', I don't think I quite understand where he is going fully quite yet, I think a few rereads of posts are inorder
.
I think I can help balance and tweak it along the way. Its all good, we'll get there eventually-
I don't think just rushing to simply 'copy pasting' thunderbrd's proposal into the game would be a good idea. I do think its worth building on though, for sure.
When I said two tags per trait, I just meant in relation to having so many traits that they would all just blend into slightly different versions of the same things.
Anyway, im not trying to be critical, its just a concern. I also think that having so many traits just makes our job at balancing them and defining them way harder.
I still don't think I understand where the negative 'counterpart' traits fit in. Is it just that because they are an opposing mirror of another trait that they are therefore more balanced / make more sense?
Personally what I wanted was that a leaders traits started off basically non-existent. Then you get 2 weak versions like industrious I and creative I, then you can upgrade one to industrious II but you will also pick up Untidy I, or if you chose Creative II, you pick up Timid I. Something along these lines.
Anyway, as I said to Thunderbrd in pm, im happy to follow through with his 'overall plan', I don't think I quite understand where he is going fully quite yet, I think a few rereads of posts are inorder
. I think I can help balance and tweak it along the way. Its all good, we'll get there eventually-
I don't think just rushing to simply 'copy pasting' thunderbrd's proposal into the game would be a good idea. I do think its worth building on though, for sure.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Yeah, I mean they flesh out the spectrum of negative personality features really.
Furthermore, it should be that if you have any negative trait, you shouldn't be able to select it's positive counterpart until you've overcome that negative trait (selected for removal when you gained a new trait.) There's a few other combinations that should be fairly incompatible entirely (most of the religious traits for example) and I've got a tag in design now that will allow us to establish that you can't select a trait if you already have any of the traits designated.(Inverse to a prerequisite.)
And I don't. Not because I need to disagree with Thunderbrd about everything, but because of balance issues. All new systems we add need to be balanced in the context of what already exists. It sometimes seems that I am one of the few people looking out for that.
As for dealing with trait leveling and the option for static traits, how about all traits have a level 0? That one is used when Leaderhead Levelups are off, and 1/2/3 are used when that option is on.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
hmm... The only problem is that the developing leaders option does not require the No Positive Traits on Gamestart option, so if you would like to play with leaders having their initial assignments you can. This would then give the leaders more cause to continue developing those traits.
It would be possible to do some code magic that could sort all that out, but wouldn't it be better to simply go the other way with any balance issues and apply a bit of drag (enhanced costs on everything - production, research, all of it increased by say a flat 25%) under the developing leaders option instead?
As for game balance and 'what currently exists'... we won't have a truly functional balance until we have a mostly complete design overall and start to then zone in on fine line balance issues at that time. Until then, some 'imbalances' are to be expected as the mod continues to grow and expand and during that process everything needs to be under continuous adjustment. We cannot fear this ripple effect but rather remain constantly ready to adapt. The push to restrain growth so that we can maintain some minimal grasp on what balance we now have is premature at this point and could be exceedingly hobbling to our mod's full potential if taken to an extreme.
What I'm trying to say is that ever since we began with C2C we've been constantly tweaking and adjusting things to suit new projects as we go and we're nowhere near the point where we need to make sure everything stays completely balanced in the context of what already exists as everything that already exists is subject to future change anyhow. The completion of the mod is still years away.
There is a value in trying to create a fairly harmonious blend into the current fabric, yes, which is why I think the added 25% overall drag should be enough to achieve that.
Far more important however, is that the systems we generate are fun and enjoyable and a trait structure that is far more influential to the game than anything we've seen yet would be a lot more fun and enjoyable. If we weaken traits to account for game balance we're taking away from the sense of reward and achievement and new strength that comes with selecting new traits. It's not like pouring all commerce into culture is going to change the fact that research is still generally more valuable, but it should be able to be enough of a draw to motivate players to adjust the slider some. Weaker traits means it doesn't really matter much that you've earned a new one.
Note: I could accept shaving down some of the strengths on my proposal as it is now but not TOO far... Perhaps 1/4 of the overall strength off the top would be acceptable.
It would be possible to do some code magic that could sort all that out, but wouldn't it be better to simply go the other way with any balance issues and apply a bit of drag (enhanced costs on everything - production, research, all of it increased by say a flat 25%) under the developing leaders option instead?
As for game balance and 'what currently exists'... we won't have a truly functional balance until we have a mostly complete design overall and start to then zone in on fine line balance issues at that time. Until then, some 'imbalances' are to be expected as the mod continues to grow and expand and during that process everything needs to be under continuous adjustment. We cannot fear this ripple effect but rather remain constantly ready to adapt. The push to restrain growth so that we can maintain some minimal grasp on what balance we now have is premature at this point and could be exceedingly hobbling to our mod's full potential if taken to an extreme.
What I'm trying to say is that ever since we began with C2C we've been constantly tweaking and adjusting things to suit new projects as we go and we're nowhere near the point where we need to make sure everything stays completely balanced in the context of what already exists as everything that already exists is subject to future change anyhow. The completion of the mod is still years away.
There is a value in trying to create a fairly harmonious blend into the current fabric, yes, which is why I think the added 25% overall drag should be enough to achieve that.
Far more important however, is that the systems we generate are fun and enjoyable and a trait structure that is far more influential to the game than anything we've seen yet would be a lot more fun and enjoyable. If we weaken traits to account for game balance we're taking away from the sense of reward and achievement and new strength that comes with selecting new traits. It's not like pouring all commerce into culture is going to change the fact that research is still generally more valuable, but it should be able to be enough of a draw to motivate players to adjust the slider some. Weaker traits means it doesn't really matter much that you've earned a new one.
Note: I could accept shaving down some of the strengths on my proposal as it is now but not TOO far... Perhaps 1/4 of the overall strength off the top would be acceptable.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Indeed!
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Ok, so I reviewed my proposal and I can see a number of ways I can cut back on some of the power scale and how as it stands now it might be a bit too strong indeed.
I've got a few new tags coming in and I realized I forgot a whole currently existing ability and there's a couple traits suggested I'd like to add in with some additional concepts that have been mentioned.
I'm also adapting my thoughts to this concept of evolving traits a bit stronger now. And I can see some value in trimming down the number of tags in use with each - some could be adapted into use in the 'evolution' of the traits, aka only to be used on higher tiers so as not to throw off the game progression in the earlier game.
So what I'd like to do is a personal re-evaluation on that proposal once the new tags are in place and see if I can't adjust it so it feels like a better fit to all opinions expressed here. I can't say the revised proposal would be anywhere near as weak as ls612 proposed but I can believe that I may have gone a bit over the top as the proposition stands now.
I've got a few new tags coming in and I realized I forgot a whole currently existing ability and there's a couple traits suggested I'd like to add in with some additional concepts that have been mentioned.
I'm also adapting my thoughts to this concept of evolving traits a bit stronger now. And I can see some value in trimming down the number of tags in use with each - some could be adapted into use in the 'evolution' of the traits, aka only to be used on higher tiers so as not to throw off the game progression in the earlier game.
So what I'd like to do is a personal re-evaluation on that proposal once the new tags are in place and see if I can't adjust it so it feels like a better fit to all opinions expressed here. I can't say the revised proposal would be anywhere near as weak as ls612 proposed but I can believe that I may have gone a bit over the top as the proposition stands now.
No offence but I really hate this idea. Lets not think in those broads terms.
So can we agree on the system we are going to use then and then how we are going to incorporate your proposal.
I don't really want to include all of your proposed traits, we can certainly add more as time goes by and specifically, once we have done some other stuff first.
I think instead of going off and redoing a whole new proposal thunderbrd, I think just grab a few of your favourite new traits, like 6 or 7 new ones, and we'll delete progressist.
If you choose some traits and perhaps look over them quickly if you want too, maybe throw in the new tags if you like.
I want to do this too over the course of the next few days - once you choose the traits you want to begin with- we'll include them.
and then..
--> We'll look to implement some more balance 'symmetry' and evenness across all the traits. Including making changes to the current traits in play.
-- I want to clarify that our system will be level 0 traits with no negative - and then your leaders traits will be able to level up and negatives will come too?
I also really dislike the idea of having more than 2 or 3 positive traits. The idea of having 5 traits possibly more makes me think that the leaders will just be watered down 'jack of all trades'.
If your leader did manage to attain 5 traits hypothetically, I think it should be through some mid/late game events - to do with the environment sounds good to me. Like your untidy trait etc.
Anyway, back to what I was saying, you pick out some traits and add/make some changes. I will go through them and make changes I feel necessary (if any) as well as maybe making some quick changes to the current ones.
Then together we'll go through and see where we want to make the values/features more symmetrical and such.. with the level up system in mind.
Sorry, bit of a ramble.. hope it made sense.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I just had a night of zero sleep with this topic rattling around in my brain every moment of it... I'm apparently having some trouble adapting to returning to work.
But I had a rather big epiphany as to what was really screwy about my valuations on the proposal in the first place.
I realized, and I know in so many ways this is much of what you and ls612 have been trying to convey, that not every tag is equally valuable during every era of the game. The values of a tag benefit CAN CHANGE as the game progresses. Some tags start off very strong and later in the game are rather weak, whereas others are quite the opposite. And the fundamental flaw in my proposal plan has been that this aspect was completely overlooked. Instead, I struggled to evaluate the value of tags based on an overall impression of a whole game picture.
And I can see that what both of you are trying to infer here is that if we can restrict leaders to a few positive traits we can enforce that those positive traits will evolve and adapt, becoming not just stronger but more pertinent to the current situation as the game progresses.
I guess since this is the angle you're coming from, it shouldn't be a surprise that my approach has been ... insufficient.
To address this, one idea I had was to have every trait actually adapt over time - a modifier to each trait's layout applied at every era change. But then I considered the overwhelming amount of effort this would require both in coding and xml. ugh... no. Might be the best solution for an accurate blend of all our concepts but no.
I don't blame you for wanting to take the drag equation out of the picture either. It doesn't sit right with me as well because its not equally impacting all traits, just the ones focused on yields and commerces as primary benefits.
I still am, however, rather attached to the design concept that there should be that 'interesting decision': do I branch out into another trait and widen the scope of my benefits, or do I strengthen the ones I have? Get more dull tools or sharpen the same tool my strategy has been reliant on so far?
So it doesn't disturb me at all that the potential is there to, after 5 trait selections, have a leader that has chosen 5 base level traits rather than to strengthen any of them. However, the AI leaders have been programmed to apply a fairly heavy additional weight to deciding to strengthen one trait chain rather than branch out and the higher the tier they've reached, the heavier that weight is to reach for the next one.
So, for example, if a leader has Aggressive II, he is rather unlikely to select anything but Aggressive III. This was assuming that at the pinnacle of our trait chains we'd be opening access to the best traits. I also assumed players would be compelled to branch out minimally considering the highest levels (what were initially going to be the combination traits) would be so potent.
BUT, I may need to adjust that a bit. Combination traits must be curtailed. And this epiphany I had made it clear that what I'm thinking along the lines of NOW is to adjust the valuation ratings on the tags and rebalance the proposal so that the first levels of a trait are, while not terribly weak, valued as if the game was in its opening stages.
Then the second levels of the trait would be worked up according to entirely different balance schemes on the tags and would be valued as if the game was in the late classical to early industrial eras.
Then the third levels of the trait would be valued as if the game was in the modern+ eras.
This means some tags in our traits toolkit would not be used at all on the first levels of traits because they would simply be too strong for that start game or weak for that start game.
Examples that immediately spring to mind:
Capital Commerce Modifiers - since all you have is your capital at first, this is just as good as a national commerce modifier at the beginning of the game, while lategame it isn't quite as influential to the whole picture.
Free Specialist (overwhelmingly strong in a newborn capital), Largest City Happiness (as above, same as happiness in all cities in the early stage of the game), even trade routes (useless in the very beginning but ungodly powerful in the later stages!)
But then there's those ones that don't really make a big difference what era its used in, or the ones that do and, while using it sparingly, is intended to. Most of these form what I considered the core of the main traits anyhow, the free promos, the yield and commerce modifiers (percentages scale pretty well for the whole game but not the static bonuses or penalties as those can have a very differing effect by era!)
So to summarize what could be fairly erratic thinking here as I just got no sleep and am about to go to work...
If we can take a moment to identify which trait tags operate on what kind of sliding scale (does it get more or less powerful as time goes on...), identify which ones to withhold for particular eras, and design our trait scheme according to that outlook, we can create a scenario where steps up in the chain can have both evolving scales and static increases and at the same time keep in tune with the pace of the eras as they advance.
Furthermore, the ai should be instructed in the earlier eras to select a few traits of specialty since they would gain the most benefit from the simpler versions in those eras of the game than they would from growing the traits they have, then as the game progresses, start wanting to build upwards on the ones they have. And we challenge players to read into the traits enough to see this factor at work.
Now... this means that I will need to do some coding magic, as mentioned earlier, so that there can, as ls612 suggests, be a completely different set of traits in play when the developing leader option is off that are an attempt to be more whole game generically balanced.
That doesn't mean the traits shouldn't be somewhat strong however, at least not where it comes to their core benefits like Yield/Commerce modifiers and promos which would basically just compound with doubling up of the same added benefit once again as you climb each trait chain. So a master of a given trait is truly powerful at one aspect of the game.
Keeping the developing leaders option in balance with the rest of the game as a whole? Well... alright perhaps our developing trait chains should be toned down a bit and our core traits used outside of the developing leader option toned up a bit. But I think its fair enough that we can simply expect a more fierce game with some leaders having much faster progressions in some areas than others and our timeline will end up a bit skewed and you know what? That's ok. Thus why its a game option.
But I'll admit what I proposed would do far too much of that skewing for comfort. Which is a big part of why I wanted to do a rework of the proposal... so I could share in visible terms what I'm now thinking would be optimal.
But I don't want to take away the No Positive Traits on Gamestart option because I would like to be able to play the developing leaders option with two starting fixed traits on leaders (playing without the No Positive Traits option already cuts out the first two trait selections that would come up if the option was on and suspends the first selection until you'd otherwise be making your third.) Reason: the leaders should be hand assigned initial traits based on their historical representation - they need to be anyways in the xml - and it can be nice to have the leaders be that attached to their originals even during a developing leaders option game. Therefore, Ragnar might become more than Seafaring/Aggressive (or whatever) but at least he starts that way so he can maintain his historical significance as a viking.
Then I started seeing how many other positive traits could use a similar negative mirror and a ton of new negative traits were thus discovered.
BTW, I'm also opening up to the idea that negative traits could similarly have chains since we seem to have near concensus in the other thread that we will be selecting 1 negative trait for every 3 positive trait selections. (BTW, 1 positive traits selection CAN mean removal of a negative trait previously selected, therefore, after 3 levels, you could be left with the standard vanilla bts 2 positive traits.) And with this concept that tag uses could change by chain tier, perhaps the same thinking should apply with negatives somehow.
And I've yet to really decide on what to do about the first Negative Trait. I've been mulling over whether it's effects should be suspended until the leader gains his first positive trait selection (level 1), simply be in place from the beginning, or possibly be removed along with the positive traits if the no positive traits on gamestart option is on.
That last one would probably be the best option but would irritatingly necessitate a change in the option's name and a touch of an adjustment to its function - No Traits on Gamestart. And it would remove the option to play with ONLY NEGATIVE traits, which we have now if you play with only No Positive Traits on Gamestart, but I doubt anyone would miss that much.
I definitely don't feel we should be introducing new events to add/remove traits at this point, not with how much option the system will give to strengthen or widen as it is. But unlocking side traits with either trait prereqs, combinations, or just techs straight up... could be intriguing side channels to go down rather than picking from what should be slightly weaker base original traits or just charging to the top of your trait chain before the next stage is really worth as much to you now as it will be in a future era.
So what do you guys think? Are we starting to get on similar pages here somewhat? I'm offering some serious concessions to you both here and asking for some in return. Is it enough negotiating for now until we see things in more concrete proposition formats?
But I had a rather big epiphany as to what was really screwy about my valuations on the proposal in the first place.
I realized, and I know in so many ways this is much of what you and ls612 have been trying to convey, that not every tag is equally valuable during every era of the game. The values of a tag benefit CAN CHANGE as the game progresses. Some tags start off very strong and later in the game are rather weak, whereas others are quite the opposite. And the fundamental flaw in my proposal plan has been that this aspect was completely overlooked. Instead, I struggled to evaluate the value of tags based on an overall impression of a whole game picture.
And I can see that what both of you are trying to infer here is that if we can restrict leaders to a few positive traits we can enforce that those positive traits will evolve and adapt, becoming not just stronger but more pertinent to the current situation as the game progresses.
I guess since this is the angle you're coming from, it shouldn't be a surprise that my approach has been ... insufficient.
To address this, one idea I had was to have every trait actually adapt over time - a modifier to each trait's layout applied at every era change. But then I considered the overwhelming amount of effort this would require both in coding and xml. ugh... no. Might be the best solution for an accurate blend of all our concepts but no.
I don't blame you for wanting to take the drag equation out of the picture either. It doesn't sit right with me as well because its not equally impacting all traits, just the ones focused on yields and commerces as primary benefits.
I still am, however, rather attached to the design concept that there should be that 'interesting decision': do I branch out into another trait and widen the scope of my benefits, or do I strengthen the ones I have? Get more dull tools or sharpen the same tool my strategy has been reliant on so far?
So it doesn't disturb me at all that the potential is there to, after 5 trait selections, have a leader that has chosen 5 base level traits rather than to strengthen any of them. However, the AI leaders have been programmed to apply a fairly heavy additional weight to deciding to strengthen one trait chain rather than branch out and the higher the tier they've reached, the heavier that weight is to reach for the next one.
So, for example, if a leader has Aggressive II, he is rather unlikely to select anything but Aggressive III. This was assuming that at the pinnacle of our trait chains we'd be opening access to the best traits. I also assumed players would be compelled to branch out minimally considering the highest levels (what were initially going to be the combination traits) would be so potent.
BUT, I may need to adjust that a bit. Combination traits must be curtailed. And this epiphany I had made it clear that what I'm thinking along the lines of NOW is to adjust the valuation ratings on the tags and rebalance the proposal so that the first levels of a trait are, while not terribly weak, valued as if the game was in its opening stages.
Then the second levels of the trait would be worked up according to entirely different balance schemes on the tags and would be valued as if the game was in the late classical to early industrial eras.
Then the third levels of the trait would be valued as if the game was in the modern+ eras.
This means some tags in our traits toolkit would not be used at all on the first levels of traits because they would simply be too strong for that start game or weak for that start game.
Examples that immediately spring to mind:
Capital Commerce Modifiers - since all you have is your capital at first, this is just as good as a national commerce modifier at the beginning of the game, while lategame it isn't quite as influential to the whole picture.
Free Specialist (overwhelmingly strong in a newborn capital), Largest City Happiness (as above, same as happiness in all cities in the early stage of the game), even trade routes (useless in the very beginning but ungodly powerful in the later stages!)
But then there's those ones that don't really make a big difference what era its used in, or the ones that do and, while using it sparingly, is intended to. Most of these form what I considered the core of the main traits anyhow, the free promos, the yield and commerce modifiers (percentages scale pretty well for the whole game but not the static bonuses or penalties as those can have a very differing effect by era!)
So to summarize what could be fairly erratic thinking here as I just got no sleep and am about to go to work...
If we can take a moment to identify which trait tags operate on what kind of sliding scale (does it get more or less powerful as time goes on...), identify which ones to withhold for particular eras, and design our trait scheme according to that outlook, we can create a scenario where steps up in the chain can have both evolving scales and static increases and at the same time keep in tune with the pace of the eras as they advance.
Furthermore, the ai should be instructed in the earlier eras to select a few traits of specialty since they would gain the most benefit from the simpler versions in those eras of the game than they would from growing the traits they have, then as the game progresses, start wanting to build upwards on the ones they have. And we challenge players to read into the traits enough to see this factor at work.
Now... this means that I will need to do some coding magic, as mentioned earlier, so that there can, as ls612 suggests, be a completely different set of traits in play when the developing leader option is off that are an attempt to be more whole game generically balanced.
That doesn't mean the traits shouldn't be somewhat strong however, at least not where it comes to their core benefits like Yield/Commerce modifiers and promos which would basically just compound with doubling up of the same added benefit once again as you climb each trait chain. So a master of a given trait is truly powerful at one aspect of the game.
Keeping the developing leaders option in balance with the rest of the game as a whole? Well... alright perhaps our developing trait chains should be toned down a bit and our core traits used outside of the developing leader option toned up a bit. But I think its fair enough that we can simply expect a more fierce game with some leaders having much faster progressions in some areas than others and our timeline will end up a bit skewed and you know what? That's ok. Thus why its a game option.
But I'll admit what I proposed would do far too much of that skewing for comfort. Which is a big part of why I wanted to do a rework of the proposal... so I could share in visible terms what I'm now thinking would be optimal.
But I don't want to take away the No Positive Traits on Gamestart option because I would like to be able to play the developing leaders option with two starting fixed traits on leaders (playing without the No Positive Traits option already cuts out the first two trait selections that would come up if the option was on and suspends the first selection until you'd otherwise be making your third.) Reason: the leaders should be hand assigned initial traits based on their historical representation - they need to be anyways in the xml - and it can be nice to have the leaders be that attached to their originals even during a developing leaders option game. Therefore, Ragnar might become more than Seafaring/Aggressive (or whatever) but at least he starts that way so he can maintain his historical significance as a viking.
What I think I may have failed to mention about these mirrored negative traits... it really came about as a reaction to feeling like the negative traits we currently have are completely floundering for game effect focus (a primary penalty all others revolve around). By attaching them to positive mirrors that had stronger game effect focus, I was able to find a suitable equivalent negative focus for them, thus for example: the Philosopher who was really good at speeding up GP rates helped the Populist to find itself in a position to be 'the trait that makes getting GPs nearly impossible'.
Then I started seeing how many other positive traits could use a similar negative mirror and a ton of new negative traits were thus discovered.
BTW, I'm also opening up to the idea that negative traits could similarly have chains since we seem to have near concensus in the other thread that we will be selecting 1 negative trait for every 3 positive trait selections. (BTW, 1 positive traits selection CAN mean removal of a negative trait previously selected, therefore, after 3 levels, you could be left with the standard vanilla bts 2 positive traits.) And with this concept that tag uses could change by chain tier, perhaps the same thinking should apply with negatives somehow.
And I've yet to really decide on what to do about the first Negative Trait. I've been mulling over whether it's effects should be suspended until the leader gains his first positive trait selection (level 1), simply be in place from the beginning, or possibly be removed along with the positive traits if the no positive traits on gamestart option is on.
That last one would probably be the best option but would irritatingly necessitate a change in the option's name and a touch of an adjustment to its function - No Traits on Gamestart. And it would remove the option to play with ONLY NEGATIVE traits, which we have now if you play with only No Positive Traits on Gamestart, but I doubt anyone would miss that much.
Barbarians aren't untidy? lol I have new trait setblocks that wouldn't level up in mind that would come up instead on tech prereqs as further options.
I definitely don't feel we should be introducing new events to add/remove traits at this point, not with how much option the system will give to strengthen or widen as it is. But unlocking side traits with either trait prereqs, combinations, or just techs straight up... could be intriguing side channels to go down rather than picking from what should be slightly weaker base original traits or just charging to the top of your trait chain before the next stage is really worth as much to you now as it will be in a future era.
So what do you guys think? Are we starting to get on similar pages here somewhat? I'm offering some serious concessions to you both here and asking for some in return. Is it enough negotiating for now until we see things in more concrete proposition formats?
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
@ TB
Can you do all this in a MODULE format, and for NOW make it a modmod, i think that this would presently be the best for this, because it seems like a BIG change in gameplay?
That infact is how CIVPlayer8 got the Civics started, and with another person (DH) looking through and seeing if the OLD Civics were ok for installation into the core of C2C, (Which it WAS at that time.)
Can you do all this in a MODULE format, and for NOW make it a modmod, i think that this would presently be the best for this, because it seems like a BIG change in gameplay?
That infact is how CIVPlayer8 got the Civics started, and with another person (DH) looking through and seeing if the OLD Civics were ok for installation into the core of C2C, (Which it WAS at that time.)
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Putting the levels and choosing your traits aside I think the fact you have developed negative mirrors is very powerful and helps balance the game a TON. Sure there are a lot of traits but I think there needs to be if we want to truly balance the negative traits.
In short I would give up the trait levels and choosing your traits if that ment we had the mirror traits (ex. Timid, Zealous, Minimist, etc). Its the core feature that sets your idea apart from say the Dynamic Traits mod.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
And this year i intend to add 50 more Civs well maybe less, but that adds in another 50 (maybe less) Leaderheads then also.
Main word being: Intend.Maybe i'll shot for 20 or so then . .? 10?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
If there's enough conflict to warrant it, sure. But I think we may be able to come to a surprising degree of agreement between SGTSlick, ls612 and I (and Hydro too
). By doing a proposal, I don't have to spend quite as much time working out xml, only to have to change it later (which takes more time to evaluate as its not in spreadsheet format.) and can use that to share the concepts I'm discussing here more point blank. I agree with Slick in that to begin we can keep ourselves limited to a more select group of traits just to get started at least. With those first we can establish a proper balancing mechanism that will enable a process based design for further traits to come which will speed up the whole process and keep things in check as we move forward into more concepts.Truth be told, both of them and the apparent 'bickering' that is actually just very strong debating going on here have really opened my eyes to major flaws in my initial proposition and they may continue to do so and vice versa and before you know it we might find a nice place of harmony between us yet
True but no need to give up the rest of the plan in lieu of that. Slick seems to be in agreement with the mirroring method in general and that's good... just means we need to start getting selective about the traits we really want to focus on FIRST. I'll go in and offer some opinions there tomorrow as he asks for but tonight I'm so exhausted I could collapse... no sleep last night and a 10hr work day today (ACK!!!)
All of that is awesome. I'm hoping we can start getting some harmonious efforts going between you and Hydro to eventually have all our civs with a culture in the game and all cultures in the game represented by a civ... would help for that option I'd like to eventually install. But having more traits will be more helpful in a larger leaderhead environment, yes. (BIGTIME!)And this year i intend to add 50 more Civs well maybe less, but that adds in another 50 (maybe less) Leaderheads then also.
Maybe i'll shot for 20 or so then . .?
BTW, SO, you should take a look at the conversation in the R&R thread about the diplomacy modifiers and how leaderheads are interacting with them (only a few posts back from where that conversation is at now). There could be some very worthwhile auditing to do on some of those settings and things to keep in mind in going forward with more leaders.
Sounds good.
When you say aggressive III does that mean no just plain aggressive, they'll start as aggressive I? I hope so
coz 4 is much too much Overall the only sticky point for me is the negative at start, its not a huge issue or anything, I just would much prefer that there be no negative trait at the start (for balance and game play reasons).
My trait toolkit is ready to go thunderbrd, just need to put your new tools on my belt and you to let me at 'em
Similar threads
