What do people think of the traits system?

General feedback and discussion of the game.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply

Does the traits system work well?

Yes! Keep it as it is!
46
35%
Yes! But add more traits! (specify ideas below)
69
53%
Yes, but it's a little unbalanced (specify why below)
9
7%
Well, it needs serious modifications (specify why below)
4
3%
No. It should be removed from the game.
2
2%
 
Total votes: 130

Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

What do people think of the traits system?

Post by Dave »

The traits system - where every unit would be given two random traits out of a selection of five possible traits, to make each unit slightly different, even from the units of the same type - was added to the game to try to make it a little more interesting, and to avoid units of the same type being homogenous.

What do people think of this system? Does it work well? Are traits too influential, and should be cut back? Should they just be removed completely?

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

Kamahawk
Posts: 583
Joined: November 9th, 2003, 11:26 pm
Location: Foggy California

Post by Kamahawk »

Traits realy make the game more interesting. I think it would be cool to have racial traits that are available to a specific race, but a unit of that race might not necesarily have it. For example "blood rage" for orcs, they could do extra damage when very wounded. Or "nocturnal for elves", those that had It would get a small attack bounus at night.

Also there needs to be a general trait the benefits archers (and posibly mages (or mages could benefit from being intelegant)).
My contributions to the Wesnoth Project over time are inversly proportional to the number of registered forum users!
Piet Hein wrote:Knowing what thou knowest not is in a sence Omniscience

quartex
Inactive Developer
Posts: 2258
Joined: December 22nd, 2003, 4:17 am
Location: Boston, MA

Post by quartex »

I think there should be more traits added, of course the problem with increasing randomness is that you get more unbalanced units. I'm not sure how we can balance the urge for more diversity in units, with the fear that having a few units be extra powerful will be the difference between winning and losing a game. I also agree that having traits than old certain races can get would be really cool as well. Nightvision would be straight out of Warcraft 3, but it seems we don't use a fog of war much, so I'm not sure how useful it would be.

Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Dave »

quartex wrote:Nightvision would be straight out of Warcraft 3, but it seems we don't use a fog of war much, so I'm not sure how useful it would be.
What does nightvision do in Warcraft 3? I'm unfamiliar with it...
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming

quartex
Inactive Developer
Posts: 2258
Joined: December 22nd, 2003, 4:17 am
Location: Boston, MA

Post by quartex »

It's just that all night elves can see farther at night than normal units. They have a day/night cycle like in wesnoth. In wesnoth you might make it that normal units can only see 4 hexes away, whereas elves with nightvision could see 7 hexes away. This is only useful if we start implementing a fog of war to keep you from seeing across the map. I've only seen such a thing in a few levels (such as in the mountain pass) and I kind of like being able to look at the entire map when I plan my strategy.

fmunoz
Founding Artist
Posts: 1469
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 10:04 am
Location: Spain
Contact:

Post by fmunoz »

new traits idea.
Aim/nimble/dextrous +1 damage to ranged attacks (pick name) -1 damage melee.
Nightvision and such are already talked.. maybe name it keen eye. add +2 move only for vision range.
Luck 50% to advoid killing blow, instead of diying left with 1 hp. This could be given as skill to 1st level Konrad.
...

Circon
Posts: 1200
Joined: November 17th, 2003, 4:26 am
Location: Right behind Gwiti, coding

Post by Circon »

Split vote between "Add more" and "unbalanced". Had I been able to split, the votes would have been even at this point.
Then again, the unbalance is only because certain units are much better with certain traits.

More:
Rich. This unit has 1 upkeep at lvl 1, 0 at lvl 2, and earns you 1 income at lvl 3. However, it has 5 hp less than usual.
Teasing (or Artful/Overagile and Overconfident) 10% less chance to be hit in all terrains, -10hp. This could be a nightmare, giving units 20% chance to be hit in some terrains. If the 10 hp loss doesn't make up for it, how about taking 1.5x damage from all attacks? (Or giving 1.5x and taking 2x...rather like a chrage ability.)
Bulky opposite of Quick. -1speed, +3hp.

KK_r
Posts: 277
Joined: November 17th, 2003, 4:25 pm
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Post by KK_r »

It creates variation but it needs to be balanced since some traits are way better than others, I would for example always choose quick instead of loyal.

Feldegast
Posts: 92
Joined: December 13th, 2003, 9:10 am

Post by Feldegast »

The current traits can be the main factor in whether to win or lose, because they are assigned randomly.

When I could need a strong/resilient unit to fortify a village, I get a quick and intelligent unit instead which has so few HP it's killed in one turn.

When I could need a few loyal units, because once trained to level 2 I might need them in a scenario with sparse income, I get all other traits instead.

When I hope a Horseman, who is quick by nature, has enough HP, too, I get an intelligent and quick or loyal one. It is intercepted and beaten by enemy units too easily.

Upon recruiting a unit, I cannot roll the dice again without save/reload technique. Hence my suggestion for "easy" play, give the user the choice between two random units to recruit. That might help.

Alternatively, I would rather let the user choose traits upon advancing to another level.

Sithrandel
Posts: 537
Joined: September 15th, 2003, 2:54 pm
Location: Sheffield (UK)
Contact:

Post by Sithrandel »

I'm not sure if it is feasible, but how about grouping traits into two groups (e.g. 1 combat based, i.e. offence / defence / damage and one self based e.g. loyal, leadership, etc). Then ensure one trait from each group. It might help a little towards balancing as the number of traits increases.

miyo
Posts: 2201
Joined: August 19th, 2003, 4:28 pm
Location: Finland

Post by miyo »

Leadership is ability, not trait.

vetgirig
Posts: 40
Joined: November 19th, 2003, 1:20 pm
Contact:

Post by vetgirig »

I think the best is to not have too many traits - its better to have a select few welldefined and different attributes.

One thing I wonder is why give them all 2 attributes - should not 1 suffice ?

Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Dave »

KK_r wrote:It creates variation but it needs to be balanced since some traits are way better than others, I would for example always choose quick instead of loyal.
It is interesting that you would say this, since some people have told me that in the campaign, loyal is by far their favorite trait.

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

methinks
Posts: 283
Joined: September 18th, 2003, 2:14 pm

Post by methinks »

You haven't aqsked me :)
I see that loyal may be useful but I do not base my strategy upon calculating how much will upkeep cost me. I use intuition when it comes to gold.
I would always choose quick instead of loyal.
-Adam

fmunoz
Founding Artist
Posts: 1469
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 10:04 am
Location: Spain
Contact:

Post by fmunoz »

A great mage in some long levels... ie.e in the cavers (60 turns) could cost you 3*60 180 gold less at the end of the scenario.

Post Reply