What do people think of the traits system?

Zendra · Post by **Zendra** » February 27th, 2007, 4:41 pm

RCG Tiburon wrote:sorry, 'you' are?

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

'We' are crazy. Lets just leave it at that. Makes everything else much simpler.

And as for what we do, we mostly just add and change units to multiplayer games, tweak and edit some basic rules for the game, and then focus our efforts into making one huge map with almost everything possible to experience on. Followed by testing it over and over, changing details and removing problems as they appear, and then finally we play it through seriously. Then to see how far we can push this game before our imagination gets bored.

mrchadt · Post by **mrchadt** » February 27th, 2007, 10:25 pm

I said "yes, but a little unbalanced"
Sometimes the difference between a Resilient/x(not quick) and a Quick/y(not resilient) is too large a gap in hp. Sometimes more then 10hp and an extra 1 move is not much use and does not compensate for this and the unit is much less useful.
Not a big problem for me though.

truffant · Post by **truffant** » February 27th, 2007, 11:54 pm

Maybe some of these propositions could be offered as AMLA-options?

So you'd start with the usual random attributes, but you'll have the choice of developing your toons in some direction you'd like.

And every good trait should have some drawback, as in quicker means less hp, or more armoured could mean slowed down, etc.

In some user made campaigns this is already done in some way (see for example in "A New Order").

truffant

Sombra · Post by **Sombra** » February 28th, 2007, 9:39 am

I like the new traits in the develoment version still some questions and impressions:

The new traits seem to be very strong:

- Fearless makes your units a round the clock fighter I think these new units will have a huge impact on the ability to hold positions in the unfavorable time of day

-Vital is an awesome trait especially for Knalgans sitting on their mountains

Why dont get drakes the fearless trait?: If it overpowers them... Should it not be overpowering for other races as well? For me it is kind of logical that the "warrior race" should get the fearless trait (for sauriers it fits the description at least that they do not get it)

Personally I have kind of problem with the name of the new trait: Fearless... Does a human see better at night because he is fearless and can fight better in the dark?

In the few game I have played in 1.31 I havent seen neither a vital drake... Just bad luck or dont they get this new trait?

Konrad II · Post by **Konrad II** » February 28th, 2007, 2:51 pm

Well yeah, I remember making a thread about the choatic / lawful thing. If I remember right I think we concluded it was between stereotypical things (chaos = evil = better at night cause boo boo ghosts, opposite with lawful) and the ability to see in the dark / day better. Here it seems to go in the stereotypical part

Btw, is stereotypical a word?

Sombra · Post by **Sombra** » February 28th, 2007, 7:20 pm

Well the new fearless trait is a killer for the drakes for sure.... round a clock hunt for their precious skins...

Post by **irrevenant** » February 28th, 2007, 9:43 pm

I agree that "Fearless" is an awful name for the trait. It makes some sense if you argue that the chaotic/lawful bonus occurs because the unit feels more comfortable at that time of day, but it's still not an intuitive name.

'unsleeping' or 'wakeful' aren't perfect either, but are probably better than 'fearless'. At least they suggest an exception to the normal day-night cycle.

JW · Post by JW » February 28th, 2007, 10:18 pm

irrevenant wrote:I agree that "Fearless" is an awful name for the trait. It makes some sense if you argue that the chaotic/lawful bonus occurs because the unit feels more comfortable at that time of day, but it's still not an intuitive name.

'unsleeping' or 'wakeful' aren't perfect either, but are probably better than 'fearless'. At least they suggest an exception to the normal day-night cycle.

I think think Fearless is better than either of those suggestions.

ArmOrAttAk · Post by **ArmOrAttAk** » March 1st, 2007, 1:53 pm

I think the traits are fine just the way they are now.

troodon · Post by **troodon** » March 3rd, 2007, 12:40 am

1. The trait system used in Wesnoth 1.2.2 is fine as it is. I like it.
2. "Fearless" sounds like "neutral with a constant attack bonus." That is a bad idea, because a bunch of fearless resilient units could overpower the enemy.
3. @Konrad ll: Yes, stereotypical is a word.

Post by **irrevenant** » March 3rd, 2007, 1:46 am

JW wrote:
irrevenant wrote:I agree that "Fearless" is an awful name for the trait. [...]
'unsleeping' or 'wakeful' aren't perfect either, but are probably better than 'fearless'. At least they suggest an exception to the normal day-night cycle.
I think think Fearless is better than either of those suggestions.

Seriously?

"Fearless" just has nothing to do with the ability described. It sounds like some sort of resistance (vs fear attack) or attack boost (like berserk).

Alright then, how about:
* Immutable
* Reliable
* Unflagging
* Enduring

?

[EDIT] Correction: Unflagging -> Unlagging

Konrad II · Post by **Konrad II** » March 3rd, 2007, 2:01 am

I want the "unlagging" trait

That would solve so many problems... Emm, well the 2 first propositions(wakeful, unsleeping) really don't sound...right. I like Reliable, Enduring, and eventually Immutable in your propositions, personally. (and unlagging, but that's only cause I want my connection to have that trait, geez)

Gus · Post by **Gus** » March 3rd, 2007, 2:07 am

irrevenant wrote: Seriously?

"Fearless" just has nothing to do with the ability described. It sounds like some sort of resistance (vs fear attack) or attack boost (like berserk).

Alright then, how about:
* Immutable
* Reliable
* Unlagging
* Enduring

?

"Unsleeping" is bleh, sorry =/ I don't think units on the battlefield do -25% damage because they are sleeping =D
"Fearless" actually makes sense, if you consider that lawful units don't fight well at night because they are afraid of the dark, and chaotic units because they are afraid of the sun (being used to caves/night). You're right in that it's the only trait which isn't obviously self-explanatory (resilient, quick, healthy, strong, intelligent, you can't get clearer than that). However, take loyal: it's not self-explanatory, but once you're told that loyal units are in for the cause, and not for the money, it makes sense. Same for fearless, IMO.
The other names you proposed are not any more self-explanatory.

Post by **irrevenant** » March 3rd, 2007, 3:56 am

The one I thought of but didn't list "Timeless" is a little icky, but is probably the most self-explanatory suggestion to date.

-> What i might be working on · Post by **Eleazar** » March 3rd, 2007, 4:06 am

troodon wrote:2. "Fearless" sounds like "neutral with a constant attack bonus." That is a bad idea, because a bunch of fearless resilient units could overpower the enemy.

It's not.
Fearless units have the attack bonus at the same times all their non-fearless fellows do. They are merely immune to the attack malus that other lawful/chaotic units get at unfavorable times.

The Battle for Wesnoth Forums

What do people think of the traits system?

Does the traits system work well?