"orcish" trait revisited as its own idea

[turin]

With reckless, when you say resistance, you mean defence, right?

[Elvish_Pillager]

Reckless should only apply to melee.

Fine, then reckless Orcish Archers will be screwed by attacking meleeers instead...

[FleshPeeler]

With reckless, when you say resistance, you mean defence, right?

Err, yeah. My bad.

And EP, the weakness to archers may be a good balance to this. However, it might be better to restrict Reckless just to the melee units. Being reckless with a bow is bound to hinder accuracy rather than increase it. The idea to Reckless is that the warrior is less concerned with his own well-being and thus runs right into the enemy full force, throwing his opponent off balance while simultaneously making sacrifices against defending himself.

Since it's a random trait rather than an ability, I think it's self-balancing because other units without the trait would be better used against the ranged enemies.

A problem I'll admit to my own suggestion is that this is a trait that stands out against others, and players need to pay special attention when this one comes up. It increases the need for strategical placement based on unit traits, which could either be desirable if you like strategy, or it might be bad if it becomes frustrating.

[Darth Fool]

And EP, the weakness to archers may be a good balance to this. However, it might be better to restrict Reckless just to the melee units. Being reckless with a bow is bound to hinder accuracy rather than increase it. The idea to Reckless is that the warrior is less concerned with his own well-being and thus runs right into the enemy full force, throwing his opponent off balance while simultaneously making sacrifices against defending himself.

a reckless archer might be one that charges closer to his target to get a better shot, also making him easier to hit in retaliation. I see no problem with reckless being applied to both melee and ranged.

Since it's a random trait rather than an ability, I think it's self-balancing because other units without the trait would be better used against the ranged enemies.

balance when it comes to traits also implies the balance between having this trait versus having a different trait.

A problem I'll admit to my own suggestion is that this is a trait that stands out against others, and players need to pay special attention when this one comes up. It increases the need for strategical placement based on unit traits, which could either be desirable if you like strategy, or it might be bad if it becomes frustrating.

This can be balanced by the precise value that is applied. If it were a 50% bonus, it would clearly effect gameplay and strategy. If it is a 0.00001% bonus it clearly would not. Ideally traits should be sufficiently minor that they effect strategy and gameplay only in games with the most advanced of players. Also, traits should be sufficiently minor changes that they do not blur the distinction between unit types. For example, a strong goblin should not deal out more (or even the same) melee damage as a normal orcish grunt.

I think that reckless seems a reasonable trait for orcs/goblins at the 10% level. If that is too powerful, 5% would also be acceptable.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Goodness, what was I thinking. If anything Reckless is more powerful because you can protect reckless units with normal ones.

I support this trait on the basis of "traits for more races (given a certain standard of quality, balance, etc) are good."

[zol]

I like it.
edit: I mean "reckless"

[maliciouskorean]

if an archer attacked a reckless grunt, would the archer have a better chance to hit, even though the grunt cannot retaliate?

[Zhukov]

If a reckless usint attacks another reckless unit, do their defense values go down by 20%...?

Also, shouldn't traits always improve the unit? This one would only change it, as it's own defence is lowered just as much as the enemy.

Anyway, I like the idea of an Orcish trait.

[YbeRn00b]

Edit: I posted this while not fully aware about what this tread was about.


If there was a unique "orcish" trait, it should have its own unique effects just like the undead trait (immune to poison, plague and drain). Fixed traits that modify stats have no point, we could rather just change the unit. In short: I am against such traits that modify dmg, hp, xp, move, resistance, defence and strikes on permanent basis.

This does not mean I nessesary is against an "orchish" trait. Such traits should only modify different things. Some ideas that might be combined or alone represent a "orcish" or "goblinoid" trait:
Effect1 "the horde": Slightly lower upkeep costs (orcish hordes, eg 0.5 for first level, makes 2x lvl1 cost 1, 2x lvl2 cost 3, 2x lvl3 cost 5)
Effect2 "chaotic strategy": Make enemy lose leadership bonus when fighting it
Effect3 "banding": +10% damage on attack if another unit with the same trait is next to it and the enemy

For example could "orcish" consist of effect1, and "goblinoid" consist of effect2 and 3, or maybe effect2 and the suggested "reckless" idea.

Note about reckless: shouldn't it only apply on melee offence?

[FleshPeeler]

I think that reckless seems a reasonable trait for orcs/goblins at the 10% level. If that is too powerful, 5% would also be acceptable.

Actually 5% would have been my original suggestion, but considering that all terrain defense is based on factors of 10% . . .

If a reckless usint attacks another reckless unit, do their defense values go down by 20%...?

Yes, and I think the resulting ugly battle well reflects the intent of the Reckless trait.

Also, shouldn't traits always improve the unit? This one would only change it, as it's own defence is lowered just as much as the enemy.

-10% defense is a pretty sizeable jump to make. There may be times when this jump grants an orc a 100% chance to hit (There is at least one unit that has only 10% defense in shallow water. I think Wose, but I could be wrong). Removing 10% from the unit with the trait is supposed to be a counter-balance. Note that Quick has a counter-balance. If taking 10% from the Reckless unit's defense is too big of a change to make the trait an advantage, perhaps something else could be changed. I would hate to make it an XP penalty.

Does anybody feel that the trait would need an appropriate counter-balance?

[FleshPeeler]

Sorry for double-post, thought I would add this to put the proposed trait into perspective. This should help decide whether or not it needs balanced.

In these examples, Reckless has no counter-balance. That is, the only change it makes is -10% to enemy defense with no negative effects to the Reckless user.

Reckless + Strong: -10% enemy defense, +1 damage per strike, +2 HP
Reckless + Quick: -10% enemy defense, +1 MP, -10% HP
Reckless + Resilient: -10% enemy defense, +7 HP
Reckless + Intelligent: -10% enemy defense, -20% XP required to level

When you look at it this way, Reckless works really well no matter what second trait goes with it. Let's get some dev opinions on this current table, and if it sounds too powerful I'm sure there's a counter-balance that could be used. Maybe -1 damage per hit?

[turin]

If there was a unique "orcish" trait, it should have its own unique effects just like the undead trait (immune to poison, plague and drain). Fixed traits that modify stats have no point, we could rather just change the unit. In short: I am against such traits that modify dmg, hp, xp, move, resistance, defence and strikes on permanent basis.

This does not mean I nessesary is against an "orchish" trait. Such traits should only modify different things. Some ideas that might be combined or alone represent a "orcish" or "goblinoid" trait:
Effect1 "the horde": Slightly lower upkeep costs (orcish hordes, eg 0.5 for first level, makes 2x lvl1 cost 1, 2x lvl2 cost 3, 2x lvl3 cost 5)
Effect2 "chaotic strategy": Make enemy lose leadership bonus when fighting it
Effect3 "banding": +10% damage on attack if another unit with the same trait is next to it and the enemy

For example could "orcish" consist of effect1, and "goblinoid" consist of effect2 and 3, or maybe effect2 and the suggested "reckless" idea.

Note about reckless: shouldn't it only apply on melee offence?

Just FYI, the reason everyone is ignoring this post is that you completely misinterpreted the idea.

[YbeRn00b]

I just saw, sorry about that.

Reckless seems like an ok orc/goblin only trait to me.
Possible twist: -10% enemy defence when attacking

[zol]

I notice that reckless would not become proportionally less 'enhancing' as a unit advances, whereas the other traits appear to.

I don't know for sure whether this is so, it just seems like something that would have to be considered.

[turin]

I notice that reckless would not become proportionally less 'positive' as a unit advances, whereas the other traits appear to.

I don't know for sure whether this is so, it just seems like something that would have to be considered.

It's my understanding that resilient adds a percentage of the unit's health, not a set number. Quick also subtracts a percentage, and though it adds a set number of movement points, most units do not gain mps as they advance. So I think it is safe to say that quick and resilient do not get proportionally worse as the unit advances. With intelligent and strong, you are definitely right.