Solving the lack of trait diversity problem- double trait?
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Solving the lack of trait diversity problem- double trait?
Problem: not enough diversity in unit types with existing traits
with two from strong, quick, resilient and intelligent there are only 6 options.
if the random number generator can pick a trait twice, ie double strong, double intelligent etc we get 4 new options without having to add another trait, hence more diversity.
with two from strong, quick, resilient and intelligent there are only 6 options.
if the random number generator can pick a trait twice, ie double strong, double intelligent etc we get 4 new options without having to add another trait, hence more diversity.
That's interesting considering that a couple of the trait suggestions in the past have basically been double-traits in themselves. Double-Quick would have to be prevented somehow though.
I'm not sure how I feel about the rest of the doubles. For example: a double-strong EF would be 7-4...the only ones I think would work would be Intelligent and Resiliant.
I'm not sure how I feel about the rest of the doubles. For example: a double-strong EF would be 7-4...the only ones I think would work would be Intelligent and Resiliant.
by the laws of probability doubles will be rarer by half than the non-doubles, if that helps.
ie if you randomly pick the first trait then the second, quick, strong would have probability 1/8 and double strong would have probability 1/16
I don't really see a problem with double strong- is double strong really that much better than strong+quick?
double quick might be a problem, but note it also gets double the attack penalty.
ie if you randomly pick the first trait then the second, quick, strong would have probability 1/8 and double strong would have probability 1/16
I don't really see a problem with double strong- is double strong really that much better than strong+quick?
double quick might be a problem, but note it also gets double the attack penalty.
IIRC double traits were allowed in previous versions of wesnoth, and were eventually removed because they were unbalancing...
when units are balanced, we assume some capacities, and a slight variation of these due to traits... if they are too far from that tehy become too out of norm to be balanced....
double traits could make a unit way better in some aspect (double quick was the main one, but a double strong could be unbalancing too)
when units are balanced, we assume some capacities, and a slight variation of these due to traits... if they are too far from that tehy become too out of norm to be balanced....
double traits could make a unit way better in some aspect (double quick was the main one, but a double strong could be unbalancing too)
Fight key loggers: write some perl using vim
so how bout just the four we have now
plus double resilient and double intelligent?
personally i think double strong is OK, but 8 trait variations would still make things more diverse and interesting
Or we could have double strong but with a speed or defense penalty
and increase the penalty for double quick
plus double resilient and double intelligent?
personally i think double strong is OK, but 8 trait variations would still make things more diverse and interesting
Or we could have double strong but with a speed or defense penalty
and increase the penalty for double quick
1. You assume a problem of trait diversity without even attempting to support it
2. This idea has been proposed and soundly and unambiguously rejected in the past
3. Letting it be rare doesn't strengthen the argument for the feature
2. This idea has been proposed and soundly and unambiguously rejected in the past
3. Letting it be rare doesn't strengthen the argument for the feature
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
Didnt want to rehash the arguments given in a recent thread here. Nobody disputed Drachefly in a 5-page thread that there weren't enough trait variations.scott wrote:1. You assume a problem of trait diversity without even attempting to support it
My apologies- haven't seen it in in past three pages or so. Not in FPI either2. This idea has been proposed and soundly and unambiguously rejected in the past
Even if stuff like double strong and double quick were a little stronger than normal, if its rarer a threat of imbalance is minimized. Not every elf fighter would have 7-4, just a lucky 1 in 16 of them. Would that be THAT bad? It's not like anyone would be able to assemble a horde of double strong EFs.3. Letting it be rare doesn't strengthen the argument for the feature
Yes, it would be. because it would make traited units alot more powerful over non traited ones, (the undeads), which would be unbalancing... you'd just increase the possibility of luck for units in the game. Moreover by adding in more than one "super" traits, you increase the possiblity that a unit will get one... 7-4 or +15 hp ect. A player could hit a streak of luck and get all super units, and the game would be over.borisblue wrote:Even if stuff like double strong and double quick were a little stronger than normal, if its rarer a threat of imbalance is minimized. Not every elf fighter would have 7-4, just a lucky 1 in 16 of them. Would that be THAT bad? It's not like anyone would be able to assemble a horde of double strong EFs.scott wrote:3. Letting it be rare doesn't strengthen the argument for the feature
Finally I don't think more traits is necessarily a good thing. By adding in more traits you just dilute the possiblity of getting the main good traits. Getting something like "eagle eye (sight range increase)" would to me be a fairly useless trait compared to resillient, strong, or dextrous.
Well, sure, Eagle Eye would be flat useless unless Fog was in play. But just one new useful trait- as Drachefly said - would dramatically increase the variety of units on the battlefield, which can only be a good thing, IMO.
The problem is that, at present, it's very easy to just keep recruiting until you get the specific number of units with the exact traits that you were looking for, and then level those guys up.
A new trait would make this harder, which would force people to learn to use the units they have available more effectively. Traits should be random, rather than something you can just buy if you have enough gold available.
Anything that makes me think harder and better is good, because I enjoy the game more when it's challenging.
Your example of a new trait is a very bad one when compared with, say, Strong, certainly. But plenty of equally useful things have been presented and dismissed on the basis of being too complex or too powerful. Maybe this thread's suggestions don't solve the problem either, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
The problem is that, at present, it's very easy to just keep recruiting until you get the specific number of units with the exact traits that you were looking for, and then level those guys up.
A new trait would make this harder, which would force people to learn to use the units they have available more effectively. Traits should be random, rather than something you can just buy if you have enough gold available.
Anything that makes me think harder and better is good, because I enjoy the game more when it's challenging.
Your example of a new trait is a very bad one when compared with, say, Strong, certainly. But plenty of equally useful things have been presented and dismissed on the basis of being too complex or too powerful. Maybe this thread's suggestions don't solve the problem either, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
How letting a random choose how your army will be is more srategic than choosing it yourself.
You must adapt your play to the situation and your opponent, not to the random traits of your units.
If you like random that much and think it make you think harder you should like that all recruited unit be a random one?
You must adapt your play to the situation and your opponent, not to the random traits of your units.
If you like random that much and think it make you think harder you should like that all recruited unit be a random one?
2d games FTW
Well, okay. I'll come at it from another angle, then.
Dave said somewhere else recently that he sees a lot of stuff in here as solutions in search of problems. So I'm trying to lay out the problem as I see it. I do think there is a need for more traits.
In MP, it's still quite possible to have six precisely identical units in play at once. This would be much less likely if another trait were added.
If both players have more things to keep track of in MP, it's a better test of their ability to make effective strategies. And that can only be a good thing. I don't want forty-five new traits, and I don't want an era with seventy ultra-specialized factions.
But I do think tweaking unit variety a little more would be nice.
Dave said somewhere else recently that he sees a lot of stuff in here as solutions in search of problems. So I'm trying to lay out the problem as I see it. I do think there is a need for more traits.
In MP, it's still quite possible to have six precisely identical units in play at once. This would be much less likely if another trait were added.
If both players have more things to keep track of in MP, it's a better test of their ability to make effective strategies. And that can only be a good thing. I don't want forty-five new traits, and I don't want an era with seventy ultra-specialized factions.
But I do think tweaking unit variety a little more would be nice.