What do people think of the traits system?

Squig · Post by **Squig** » April 25th, 2006, 8:56 am

Adding traits for the sake of adding traits is ridiculous, and potentially very dangerous for the unit balance.

eerm, why were traits added at the beginning? i thought it was to give small personalisation to each unit, enough to make them have different stats, but not enough to transform the units type(by example dextrous is not enough to make an elvish fighter as good in range as an elvish archer)

sure, that means that traits must respect these constraints, but shooting the whole traits-adding idea is kinda extreme. after all, more traits bring their own justification, since they help to bring that variety to the units.

the problem is that most stats have already been modded. short, range, move, hp, xp, upkeep. what is left is defenses (which should not be modded), resistances and cost.

i suppose that the idea that some units would be recruitable/recallable at a lower cost has already been proposed.

i don t see why you say that:

Giving an ulf extra resistances would be another example.

after all, resilient is already very much like some extra resistances. to avoid it being just a duplicate of 'resilient', i imagine that the amount of damage avoided should be high enough to make it better on a specific dtype, but only one specific dtype.

i don t like the idea of adding abilities as traits, even with a low chance of working.

to conclude, even if any addition of new traits (who respect the traits standard described above) is interrested, there are not much solutions possible to avoid (bad) repetitions of existing traits.

Post by **Noy** » April 25th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Squig wrote:
Adding traits for the sake of adding traits is ridiculous, and potentially very dangerous for the unit balance.
eerm, why were traits added at the beginning? i thought it was to give small personalisation to each unit, enough to make them have different stats, but not enough to transform the units type(by example dextrous is not enough to make an elvish fighter as good in range as an elvish archer).

Traits are added so that factions have specific game effects that increases the variability of factions. Adding them for the sake of having more traits is pointless and ridiculous.

Squig wrote:sure, that means that traits must respect these constraints, but shooting the whole traits-adding idea is kinda extreme. after all, more traits bring their own justification, since they help to bring that variety to the units.

Where in the whole post did I say that we shouldn't have more traits? Read before jumping to conclusions please.

Squig wrote:the problem is that most stats have already been modded. short, range, move, hp, xp, upkeep. what is left is defenses (which should not be modded), resistances and cost..

i suppose that the idea that some units would be recruitable/recallable at a lower cost has already been proposed.

i don t see why you say that:
Giving an ulf extra resistances would be another example.
after all, resilient is already very much like some extra resistances. to avoid it being just a duplicate of 'resilient', i imagine that the amount of damage avoided should be high enough to make it better on a specific dtype, but only one specific dtype..

Is it a duplicate of resilient? Resilient = more hitpoints "hardness" (as some people have proposed) = more resistance. They are not the same. In any case, all I'm hearing here is alot of complaining about not having more traits, yet no good traits are proposed at all. No matter what "system" gets proposed or changed for the adding of traits, its not going to accept bad traits, I can assure you that much. and thats pretty well all we've seen.

kshinji · Post by **kshinji** » April 26th, 2006, 11:36 am

I didnt knew such topic exists. Well, traits are okay, but... 'quick' is not balanced.

Why? Its ( correct me if i am wrong ) only trait that causes some losses. So if unit you dont want to, gets 'quick' trait, it is just worse.

And second matter is that additional movement point is used only in 50% of situations.

When you have scout unit, this additional point isnt a lot. Just 10% faster unit. And scouts mostly arent very heavy, so HP loss is worse for them.

When you have Have Box, like HI of loyalists, this 7 hp is not big loss, but 1 MP doesnt give big advantage, as you dont expect HI to move a lot. If you knew, he will be faster, you might have made plans including him moving more. But if you didnt, its just loss of HP, especially when he is meant to travel in group, keeping positions - he just cant use his additional move. ( i dont wnt to point out, that loss is big, i want to point out that its loss not bonus )

Its all not just empty rethoric - i experienced it in game. I just always gets a bit angry, when i notice my HI to be quick and intelligent.

Thank you.

Squig · Post by **Squig** » April 26th, 2006, 2:29 pm

heh, i guess we agree on the "add only good traits" idea even if we presented the idea differently.

hmm, you didn t answer whether the cheaper-to-recruit trait had been shot down before and why (or simply point to the appropriated thread).

Is it a duplicate of resilient? Resilient = more hitpoints "hardness" (as some people have proposed) = more resistance. They are not the same.

then what about some resistance traits?

and, why not, an 'unnoticeable' trait (or whatever name would seem adequate) , which would make the death of a unit give less experience?

to kshinji:
when a unit is fighting and maneuvring, being quick allows it to redeploy more quickly. the only case where quick would be a problem is with completely static units, like ZOCed one. On an other side 1MP is often enough help one unit to get a village one turn faster, and when the map is big(even according to MultiPlayer standards, which are kinda low), the advantage for slow units like HI is quite impressive. Of course, if you recruit groups of 5 HI all travelling at the same pace, you don t get that advantage, but i think you re missing some point, here.
Maneuver is a major point in how to win a game.

kshinji · Post by **kshinji** » April 26th, 2006, 2:36 pm

Yes, but HI is used as blocker on my side of map. If i start winning, id try rather Fencer for defence ( despite of low HP ), if i need reinforcements on opponents side. In my opinion loss of those HP is too much for HI, and makes it 33% weaker in its role of Box. I never seen Heavy Infantry maneuvering.

Cuyo Quiz · Post by **Cuyo Quiz** » April 26th, 2006, 4:24 pm

While i enjoy having an HI which can keep up with the rest of my army for some unexpected heavy punch after the first round of combats. It is also a golden trait for cavalry units, even when they have so much mevement (no one expects the Horseman!).

kshinji · Post by **kshinji** » April 26th, 2006, 5:05 pm

might be a point. yeah

UngeheuerLich · Post by **UngeheuerLich** » May 1st, 2006, 8:33 pm

I would say: add some more traits, but only for specific unittypes...

maybe undead should also get some traits (other than living creatures perhaps, but robust and strong would be ok for them, only one in adition to undead (rebalance needed of course), mybe not for all

maybe not all units should get quick (scouts are naturally quick)

maybe casters should not get strong, but +1 magical attack damage

maybe different chances for different traits...

myabe there should be more racial abilities (maybe orcs could have fast healing (1 or 2 hp per round regained)

but if you have no good idea, leave it as it is... its fine

wisdomless · Post by **wisdomless** » May 2nd, 2006, 3:29 am

Race specific traits are a must! This will make each race stand out more and make them much more unique. I like that!
I also think that it would be interesting to have (perhaps as an option, you pay more money) for a unit to get a trait that is actually an ability. For example, I choose to by an archer for, say, 20 extra gold, and one of his traits will be randomly forefit and an ability will replace it. This would only be available for units that have no abilities already (example, a leader or healer may not have a chance to recieve another ability).

littlebeast · Post by **littlebeast** » February 25th, 2007, 9:23 am

Yeah, race specific traits are good

Also, there are those five unit types, right? (fighter, mixed fighter, archer, healer, and scout, IIRC) You could use those to determine the possible traits... therefore, an archer would be less likely to get strong and could get dextrous(or maybe some paraphrase of that for a mage[meaning same use but different name]), a mixed fighter could get either, etc....
I don't see why not to change dodging, but oh well... i guess it'd be a bit imba for a thief or something

. But really, a mini-leadership trait would probably make sense... they don't get made into leaders just cause they survived, they're made leaders because they're good at being leaders! And even if they're not officially, they still might have people look up to them and stuff. yeah, WINR, but oh well. Maybe make it 10% at 2 levels lower? except then it'd be useless for L1s... well leadership in general is fairly useless for L1s anyway... a "sharp-eyed" trait which adds 10% accuracy wouldn't be bad IMO, use them to kill those pesky thieves! Though that would take away a bit of the having to use mages... but then... I don't think every faction even has mages! Neither Knalgans nor Northeners have any mages, I think... but then Knalgans are the ones who have the thieves in the first place, course there's nothing stopping two players using the same faction... but a "sharp eye" for orcs might be a good thing. They might need it

I would think an added leadership abil would be humans only... but I'm not entirely sure why... just... kinda my thought... let's see what else is there... undead... well... they're already unique... drakes... you could ... well if clashers had firebreath you could make a "hot fire" or something... better name... but for with clashers, i got nothing... dwarves... I don't know, my only thought would be to make strong and resilient be the more common ones but that'd be kinda stupid... that's pretty much the major races right? ehh... i don't really know why my post is so long... must be the time... it's 1:30 am...

Post by **Velensk** » February 25th, 2007, 1:33 pm

I think that 5 traits per units is optimum lots of veriety but still a good chance of getting favored combonations. Racial traits are neat however I would not give each race a special trait just to have Racial traits. I don't think that the traits we have are unbalanced, (though the - to hp for quick is annoying). If you can find a good trait to make number 6 I'm with you if not then I'm against it.

Just for the token my trait idea was that the unit (whatever unit it is) gets +5% or +10% chance to hit at all times (including magic) a unit with this trait (skilled) would add whatever you dicide to his too hit roll after it is calculated

User:Grzywacz Wiki Site · Post by **grzywacz** » February 25th, 2007, 7:34 pm

Bloody thread necromancy...

Post by **F8 Binds...** » February 25th, 2007, 7:53 pm

my idea for a trait is "resistant", not to be confused with "resilient". It gives a 10% bonus resistance to blade, impact, and pierce. (fire, cold, and holy are unaffected)

Zendra · Post by **Zendra** » February 26th, 2007, 7:26 pm

Neat as they are, but always room for improvement. We mostly just added a few to make the game more enjoyable for ourself, but nothing we thought would make the game any less playable.
Two for most races in general, and as we had put an effort into making the actual red dragon into a game unit, we made four specific traits just for their kind. Since, well, they're supposed to be quite brilliant creatures to start with.

First went ahead and made "chubby", which essentially worked as a better resilient, but with a movement disadvatage. +20% health, +5 hitpoints, -1 movement. Some races, such as elves and nagas, were judged unsuitable for this one in particular.

Secondly, we always wished for something like "loyal" to exist in-game, but felt the need for disadvantages to logically suit such a character trait. Thought of "fanatical" for a while, but it didnt come across as problematic enough. And then it struck us: "Naive".
Basically, a unit who eagerly charges into combat without the proper training or knowledge to be good in battle, but does it for free (due to foolish mental ideas of the glory/fun/simple in fighting). So apart from the "loyal"-part, gave the trait -1 melee damage, -10% health, and +20% experience. Melee and health for lack of discipline, and the xp-penalty for a mind unsuitable for professional fighting.
Some races, as dwarves and drakes, were judged unsuitable for this trait in particular. Mostly for the "not getting payed"-part.

And lastly, made four for the true dragons.
Wont go into detail, as they're annoyingly good, but putting the names up anyway.
Ardent, tough, fierce and genial.

RCG Tiburon · Post by **RCG Tiburon** » February 27th, 2007, 12:50 am

sorry, 'you' are?

(as in: what do you work on? a campaign? who is 'we'?)

The Battle for Wesnoth Forums

What do people think of the traits system?

Does the traits system work well?