Positive and negative traits?

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Hermooz
Posts: 14
Joined: February 24th, 2005, 2:48 pm

Positive and negative traits?

Post by Hermooz »

I find the "personalization" of unit obtained with traits one of the most peculiar aspects of wesnoth.

I was thinking: could it be considered "acceptable" to game dictators :P to extend even further this mechanism?

Actually each unit gets two random traits. All of traits are beneficial, even if there is embrionally some sort of balancement (i.e. quick units get less HP).
What i'm suggesting is this: give each new unit THREE traits, of which two are beneficial and one is an handicap. This would extend the randomization of statitistics, so you could indeed have some very good units (you get two useful "good" traits and a not-so-bad handicap) and crappy ones (you get to almost unuseful bonuses and a crippling handicap), but as far as I've understood wesnoth is all about randomization :-)

the trait list should not get much longer then the actual one. I guess the "positive" trait list should more or less be the same (but of cource "quick" would'n have the "innate" balancement).
The negative traits list could be something like
"weak", "slow", "stupid", "avid"
or something like that (the effect of the trait should be obvious: i'm simply thinking of reversed "good" traits), or even being something completely different, so you could avoid the effect of contradicting traits, like if a unit gets both "quick" and "slow" traits.
--
Fabrizio "Hermooz" Ermini
Pythagoras
Posts: 72
Joined: February 17th, 2005, 12:53 pm

Re: Positive and negative traits?

Post by Pythagoras »

Hermooz wrote:I find the "personalization" of unit obtained with traits one of the most peculiar aspects of wesnoth.

I was thinking: could it be considered "acceptable" to game dictators :P to extend even further this mechanism?

Actually each unit gets two random traits. All of traits are beneficial, even if there is embrionally some sort of balancement (i.e. quick units get less HP).
What i'm suggesting is this: give each new unit THREE traits, of which two are beneficial and one is an handicap. This would extend the randomization of statitistics, so you could indeed have some very good units (you get two useful "good" traits and a not-so-bad handicap) and crappy ones (you get to almost unuseful bonuses and a crippling handicap), but as far as I've understood wesnoth is all about randomization :-)

the trait list should not get much longer then the actual one. I guess the "positive" trait list should more or less be the same (but of cource "quick" would'n have the "innate" balancement).
The negative traits list could be something like
"weak", "slow", "stupid", "avid"
or something like that (the effect of the trait should be obvious: i'm simply thinking of reversed "good" traits), or even being something completely different, so you could avoid the effect of contradicting traits, like if a unit gets both "quick" and "slow" traits.
I like the idea, however, I think its already hard enough to keep track of the two fold traits of a dozen plus units, adding this might increase the amount of stuff to remember/figure into the equation.
AT
Posts: 476
Joined: May 6th, 2004, 9:44 pm

Post by AT »

Myself and (I belive) the other devs generally think negative traits are an interesting, but bad idea. I'd elaborate, but instead, im trying to find the thread where a bunch of people already did.
Gandalf-"I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun. Go back to the Shadow. You cannot pass!"
AT- "That sounds like more trouble than it's worth."
Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Dave »

The main thing to consider is that negative traits create so much variety for a unit that it'd make it very difficult to balance units. For instance, if units can potentially be both 'quick' and 'slow', then a unit with a movement of 5 could actually have movement between 4 and 6. This is a rather large range.

David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
mmHg
Posts: 16
Joined: February 23rd, 2005, 12:09 am

Post by mmHg »

The main thing to consider is that negative traits create so much variety for a unit that it'd make it very difficult to balance units. For instance, if units can potentially be both 'quick' and 'slow', then a unit with a movement of 5 could actually have movement between 4 and 6. This is a rather large range.
Then would it be possible to add a development tool that disables the effects of traits for the purposes of campaign balance? The world is neither fair, nor balanced, but the idea of a large random variety of units adds realism and forces commanders to consider units based on individual merit rather than an abstract mathematical statistic.
"There are no stupid questions, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots!"
User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin »

mmHg wrote:
The main thing to consider is that negative traits create so much variety for a unit that it'd make it very difficult to balance units. For instance, if units can potentially be both 'quick' and 'slow', then a unit with a movement of 5 could actually have movement between 4 and 6. This is a rather large range.
Then would it be possible to add a development tool that disables the effects of traits for the purposes of campaign balance? The world is neither fair, nor balanced, but the idea of a large random variety of units adds realism and forces commanders to consider units based on individual merit rather than an abstract mathematical statistic.

WINR.*


Deal with it.

*: Wesnoth is not realistic
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

My Resilient, Strong, Sluggish Grand Knights, with 96 HP, good resistances, 6 moves, and 13-4 swords, would own the day every time.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
AT
Posts: 476
Joined: May 6th, 2004, 9:44 pm

Post by AT »

If you need to justify it with 'realism', wesnoth commanders discriminate against dumb, slow, whatever troops. Its not that much of a streach to think that maybe they wouldnt allow troops that were bad.
Gandalf-"I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun. Go back to the Shadow. You cannot pass!"
AT- "That sounds like more trouble than it's worth."
Darth Fool
Retired Developer
Posts: 2633
Joined: March 22nd, 2004, 11:22 pm
Location: An Earl's Roadstead

Post by Darth Fool »

I believe that traits should only have positive effects*. From a realism perspective, you can consider it the case that units who do not meet certain minimum requirements to be a dwarvish fighter(or whatever) are never given that title. From a gameplay perspective, I want to know that a unit I recruit will have certain minimum stats.

*yes, I know that some current traits have both positive and negative effects, but I think that they should be fixed.
Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Dave »

Darth Fool wrote: *yes, I know that some current traits have both positive and negative effects, but I think that they should be fixed.
Only 'quick', and it has the negative hitpoints thing because it's thought to be a rather powerful trait. Removing that would make it too powerful.

David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
romnajin
Posts: 1067
Joined: February 26th, 2005, 7:26 pm
Contact:

Post by romnajin »

Yes, but what is the real purpose of this, as in realistic purpose. In this post, I realize that WINR :lol:
Sorry for the meaningless post
Hermooz
Posts: 14
Joined: February 24th, 2005, 2:48 pm

Post by Hermooz »

First of all, thanks to you all for your comments. I'd like to stress that I was not suggesting the introduction of negative traits for "realisticism" reasons (yep, I know WINR :)); I was aiming more at a diversification of units' stats. After all, each wesnoth unit already has a given name, so it's perfectly reasonable that each have a distinct character sheet, so to speak.
But I can see what Dave says: since a +- 1 modifier can do quite a difference, balancing could become difficult; moreover, the system could be exploited too easily, as EP suggests, I think.
I withdraw quietly my suggestion :-)
But be prepared, I've got some other buzz in the head to submit...

bye!
--
Fabrizio "Hermooz" Ermini
martenzo
Posts: 564
Joined: August 8th, 2004, 9:01 am
Location: Northern Europe, Estonia, Kardla

Post by martenzo »

But WCBR (Wesnoth Could Be Realistic). It's not said anywhere outside the the forum that Wesnoth is or has to be unrealistic. If it's realistic, it doesn't have to be 'bad'. Mabye there should be an optional mod that makes the game realistic
me: Welcome to the real world. If everyone says your art and opinions suck, it's because they DO suck. Even if you're too damned proud/stupid/both to realize it.
danny_california: yep keep telling fairy tales.
Sangel
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2232
Joined: March 26th, 2004, 10:58 pm
Location: New York, New York

Post by Sangel »

martenzo wrote:But WCBR (Wesnoth Could Be Realistic). It's not said anywhere outside the the forum that Wesnoth is or has to be unrealistic. If it's realistic, it doesn't have to be 'bad'. Mabye there should be an optional mod that makes the game realistic
Sounds good - and you're highly encouraged to make it. As of right now, however, the developers would prefer to work on getting the current version of Wesnoth to 1.0; as such, there won't be much assistance for side-projects at this stage.
"Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit." - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Dave »

martenzo wrote:But WCBR (Wesnoth Could Be Realistic). It's not said anywhere outside the the forum that Wesnoth is or has to be unrealistic. If it's realistic, it doesn't have to be 'bad'. Mabye there should be an optional mod that makes the game realistic
At the moment in Wesnoth development, we try to put gameplay above all other factors, most particularly 'realism'.

If there was a 'realistic Wesnoth', presumably it would put realism above gameplay, or at least on par with it.

My personal opinion on this is that when designing a game, you must put gameplay first. I personally would only want to play a game in which the designers put gameplay first.

Though anyone is free to try to make their 'realistic' mod of Wesnoth. I don't think I would play it personally, but maybe many other people would...

David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
Post Reply