What do people think of the traits system?

[turin]

then have 'dextrous' give +2 to the RANGED attack. (oh, and only let units with a ranged attack get it. probably it even has to be their best attack- it would suck to have a spearman get it, since it can't use it once it advances).

[Dave]

then have 'dextrous' give +2 to the RANGED attack. (oh, and only let units with a ranged attack get it. probably it even has to be their best attack- it would suck to have a spearman get it, since it can't use it once it advances).

There's no way dextrous would give +2 to ranged attacks; +1 at most.

If it gave +2, then an Elvish Archer would go from doing 5-4 to 7-4, which is almost a 50% increase; that's as much damage as a respectable second level unit can do! In fact, it's exactly as much as an Elvish Ranger's long range attack does.

Even at +1 damage, I fear that dextrous would become a trait that people will feel very frustrated in when none of their archers get it. I can just hear it now...."All my Elvish Fighters get dextrous but none of my archers do! " (although personally I think a +1 to ranged attacks given to an Elvish fighter would be rather powerful. To a human spearman would not be so cool).

One possibility is to make it that dextrous is an Elf-specific trait (and Elves now have all ranged units).

David

[Dobob]

Negative traits could be nice, but only if :

1- Any unit always get a constant amount of negative traits and a constant amount of positive ones : normally 1 positive and 1 negative, but that could vary from race to race (ex : undead could only have negative traits, while elves could only get positives,...).

2- No negative traits break unit. So no slow trait, as it will make some units unable to cross some terrains (ex : heavy infantryman in water). Or, do not make a trait increase upkeep, as the player could then want to quickly let the unit get killed.

But, since I don't think those two conditions can be fulfilled, I guess negative traits shouldn't be added.

[Dave]

If there were negative traits, I'm not even sure what they would do. Since there have been so few decent suggestions for positive traits, I assume they'd just be the negative versions of positive traits.

The problem with this is it would make traits have too much effect on units. If a unit could be 'quick' or 'slow', then that means a fighter would vary in movement between 4 and 6. If a unit could be 'strong' or 'weak', then a fighter would vary in damage from 6-4 to 4-4. There is just too much variation from what a unit 'normally' has for this to be practicable.

David

[Ave]

Negative traits should always have an additional positive trait as balancing factor.
For example: strong, intelligent, +1 gold upkeep
Maybe it would be nice to always have 2 positive and one negative traits.

[Darth Fool]

I think it is better not to have negative traits. In a game when you recruit, you want the soldier to meet certain minimum requirements/expectations. negative traits destroy that. Positive traits are a happy bonus, as long as they are sufficiently infrequent that people don't learn to expect to always get a quick, strong, intelligent elven archer... As far as realism (or is it wesnothism) is concerned, I think it is reasonable to say that any recruit that didn't meet certain minimum requirements were sent away/ slain in training/ never raised from the dead/ whatever....

[jtong77]

I think negative traits are quite redundunt if the so call "positive" traits already have its negative quality to balance it. For example, we have "quick" which adds on move and decrease on Hp. There really is no need to make something like "slow" and make a unit slower but maybe tougher.

It maybe be cool to modify the existing traits like "intelligent" and give it a little bit of negative "effect".

[jbmesserly]

The traits system is great. Right now Wesnoth has traits for:

Melee damage - strong
Hit points - resilient
Experience - intelligent
Speed - quick
Upkeep - loyal

That's one for every property that (almost) all units have. And they're all orthoganal (they don't overlap).

The question that needs to be asked with regards to traits is: "When does the player feel cheated?" It's not fun to feel like you've got a "bad" selection of traits. IMO, this totally rules out any sort of negative traits, except as part of very positive ones (e.g. quick).

Keeping the player from feeling cheated is hard, because everyone has their own favorite traits. For example, I favor the combat traits, Strong and Resilient (and Quick if it's paired with one of the other two). Judging from poll results, quite a few people like the loyal and intelligent traits. So while I might feel "cheated" when I get a "loyal, intelligent" unit, someone else might think that it's a great unit.

Wesnoth's five traits do a good job for melee units. However, I would like it if units with ranged and magical attacks could get an alternative trait in place of strong. +1 magical or +1 ranged without a HP bonus would be fine, because those attacks usually have a higher rate of fire. The correct trait would be substituted in place of strong, based on whether the unit was classified as "magical" or "ranged." So Elvish Archers would get "dexterous" while Elvish Shaman would get "wise." An Evish Archer could even get both "strong" and "dexterous" as a choices--because it has a balanced melee/ranged advancement class. Mages, on the other hand, would only have "wise" and not "strong" or "dexterous."

BTW, I'm not set on those names. Especially "wise" which doesn't sound like the sort of trait that helps wizards make hotter fireballs!

[sparr]

I find that the biggest problem with the trait system is, as others have described, that certain traits benefit certain units far more than others. I think that these traits, especially Strong, should have alternate versions that apply to different units. Strong is far better on a unit with a X-4 melee attack than X-1, on X-1 units it should either give more than +1, or it should be replaced with a complementary trait that affects their ranged attack, which will usually be X-3. This became most apparent to me in mages, where 7-1 instead of 6-1 on the melee attack is completely worthless.

[Elvish_Pillager]

...where 7-1 instead of 6-1 on the melee attack is completely worthless.

Not completely! I once had a mage's life saved by her extra 1 damage against an attacking Skeleton. Also, don't forget the +1 HP!

[Zhukov]

Drastic thread resurrection.
You do realise that this thread was started over two years ago, and many of the ideas within have already been implemented?
(It's kind of amusing watching traits that I see as standard, like dexterous, being brought into being.)

[sparr]

I admit, it can work in your favor. At least 0.0001% of the time. But it is not even remotely close to the other traits for a mage. I'll take 90 random mages without the Strong trait up against your 100 fully-random mages, and I will win.

As to resurrecting the thread... If I hadn't, the first reply would have been 'search the forum, this has been discussed before'.

[irrevenant]

Ah well, since this thread has been resurrected, how do people feel about traits that duplicate unit abilities?

eg. I quite like the idea of an "Inspirational" trait that's a weaker version of leadership (+10%?). (If a unit got both they would presumably stack).

[Draciron]

I personally like the traits. Keeping them random does change your stratigy to an extent. I often don't pay enough attention to them yet. Still I'm pleasently surprised. I would like to seme traits purchasable by hiring a merc for example who is good in mountains, or water or some similer terain specialty or perhaps even a dragonslayer merc to help hunt dragons. The mercs would of course be expensive and tend to be single purposed as well as costing full value to hire for the next level. However I think they should retain expereince and if recalled say 3 times become a full time unit but with extra upkeep. In this way you can hire one a couple levels before you need them, get them some limited expereince and possible advance them before counting heavily on them against a specific foe(s) or terrain. Mercs should be very unique and even as a racallable unit be expensive in upkeep.

[tadpol]

I like the current trait system, adding more would make each of the current ones less likely, and I sooo do like the current ones. IF you are going to add trait(s) I would add dexterous-like traits, something in that race's style only for that race.

also mostly on topic:
I am curious about the reasons why woses do not get traits. I grant quick would be a major unbalencing, but is there a flavor of the game answer?