Solving the lack of trait diversity problem- double trait?

JW · Post by JW » March 9th, 2006, 12:08 am

Garion wrote: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 you think that a 0.00214% chance of recruiting 6 similarly traited units is quite possible, then your definition of quite possible is rather loose. Even if you're taking Trolls the percentage is only 0.137% of getting 6 similar ones.

I would like to see one more trait though simply to reduce the number of times you get 1 single duplicate recruit. Currently that chance is 44.4% if you recruit 3 similar units on the first turn. For Elves this percent is 28% and with another trait that would drop to 19.1%.

More math. Chances of getting 2 similar units recruiting:

2 Trolls: 33.3%
3 Trolls: 88.9%
4 Trolls: 100%

2 units: 16.7%
3 units: 44.4%
4 units: 72.2%

2 Elves: 10.0%
3 Elves: 28.0%
4 Elves: 49.6%

With one more trait, the chances of getting 2 similar units recruiting:

2 Trolls: 16.7%
3 Trolls: 44.4%
4 Trolls: 72.2%

2 units: 10.0%
3 units: 28.0%
4 units: 49.6%

2 Elves: 6.67%
3 Elves: 19.1%
4 Elves: 35.3%

Garion · Post by **Garion** » March 9th, 2006, 12:48 am

My utter inability to perform statistical analysis to one side, you see my point.

I was responding to Noy's assertion that:

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.

It seems to me that this argument is flawed. Diluting the possibility of getting the current traits is a desirable goal, as long as our theoretical new trait is useful, unlike "Eagle Eye." He set up a straw man by using a worst case example, and then said that his bad example proved that what we're trying to do here shouldn't be done.

JW · Post by JW » March 9th, 2006, 1:29 am

The real problem is in creating a good new trait. I think, statistically speaking, 5 traits are as high as they should go. 4 is good, but 5 would be better. I personally think this is part of the appeal of Elves. 6 would be dilluting the field a little too much imo, as the percentages of getting any particular trait decrease as well.

If you can come up with a really good trait idea that the devs like, I'm sure they would put it into the game.

Post by **Maeglin Dubh** » March 9th, 2006, 2:10 am

This topic is dangerously close to being moderated into oblivion.

I'm leaving it up for now, in hopes that you actually come up with a worthwhile trait. So far, your original idea has been opposed by what looks like the entire dev team. From here, I'd recommend trying to come up with -1- new trait.

SmokemJags · Post by **SmokemJags** » March 9th, 2006, 3:42 am

Yummy double strong on a duelist. +2 damage to each of those five attacks.

Post by **Noy** » March 9th, 2006, 4:18 am

Garion wrote:My utter inability to perform statistical analysis to one side, you see my point.

I was responding to Noy's assertion that:

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.
It seems to me that this argument is flawed. Diluting the possibility of getting the current traits is a desirable goal, as long as our theoretical new trait is useful, unlike "Eagle Eye." He set up a straw man by using a worst case example, and then said that his bad example proved that what we're trying to do here shouldn't be done.

Umm I'm not setting up a strawman because this is actually what has happened before. We actually removed traits that existed before like loyal because they were useless and provided limited benefits for the game.

The truth of the situation is that this forum is littered with ideas for traits, few, if any, being useable. Most are unbalancing, do not follow the wesnoth design philosophy (Stuff like "posion resistant) or are downright idiotic. This thread falls into the first catagory. Don't insinuate that we're against new traits, because we've been trying to come up with new ones for quite some time, and its very difficult. When someone comes up with a poor idea and we tell them why its wrong, its not because we're against new traits; Its because its a bad idea.

romnajin · Post by **romnajin** » March 9th, 2006, 4:22 am

Uh, IIRC, loyal was removed because it was too STRONG not because it was too weak, removing upkeep for a unit, even up until lvl 3, was way overpowering.

Post by **Noy** » March 9th, 2006, 4:31 am

romnajin wrote:Uh, IIRC, loyal was removed because it was too STRONG not because it was too weak, removing upkeep for a unit, even up until lvl 3, was way overpowering.

No, thats incorrect. the MP devs made that decision because it has no use for a unit in a typical MP game. Given that campaign designers didn't like it was ancillary.

romnajin · Post by **romnajin** » March 9th, 2006, 5:19 am

Noy wrote:
romnajin wrote:Uh, IIRC, loyal was removed because it was too STRONG not because it was too weak, removing upkeep for a unit, even up until lvl 3, was way overpowering.

No, thats incorrect. the MP devs made that decision because it has no use for a unit in a typical MP game. Given that campaign designers didn't like it was ancillary.

Ah, useless in MP, overpowered in campaigns, a truly horrible trait.

Post by **Noy** » March 9th, 2006, 5:36 am

well here's a retraction, we can't remember. I am sure we had a discussion on this, although DK can't remember and the removal date seems to suggest that it might not be us.

However we do agree that it was useless in the previous incarnation that was removed.

Gane Lant · Post by **Gane Lant** » March 9th, 2006, 1:35 pm

I only started playing Wesnoth a few days ago but have already been wondering how traits could be diversified. Reading through the thread I thought it might be a good idea to have two new traits, one that adds an additional attack "turn" (or whatever the slang may be) to a unit's melee attacks and another to the ranged.

Of course this is a little unbalancing when it comes to units like the Dwarven Dragonguard and the like, so how about doing this the opposite way around and add a trait called "Dodge" or "Agile" that increases a unit's defence % on all tiles by adding 5-15%? (i'm not sure what a good balancing number would be).

This would of course have implications for both attacker and defender in terms of tactical choices. Feel free to flame me if this has been brought up before, as I said, I've only played a few days, so I wouldn't know any better.

Deathblower · Post by **Deathblower** » March 9th, 2006, 4:08 pm

I believe in general the devs don't like traits that mess around with percentages, be they defense, resistance or whatever. It starts messing with the KISS rule.

I think I have seen this exact one before though. Check the FPI list in future.

DB

Garion · Post by **Garion** » March 9th, 2006, 5:14 pm

... I'm sorry? My healing suggestion doesn't change any percentages in any way.

And all the FPI says on this topic is:

Most traits that have been suggested sound contrived, overly-powerful, lacking in variety, confusing, or awkward. The current traits are all fairly simple, and the developers agree that only simple traits should be added. Suggestions for new traits are welcome, but it is noted that unless they are very simple, they are unlikely to make it.

Well, I won't deny that it's contrived. I contrived it so that there could be a fifth universal trait. And denying it to trolls would be okay from a gameplay perspective, but hard to justify logically ("trolls are dumb" makes sense. "trolls are unhealthy" makes less sense).

But it's not confusing or awkward, it doesn't mimic any current trait, and it's very simple.

It's possible that my discussion with JW and Noy needs to be split out of the thread about double-traits, since it's a complete threadjack- for which I apologize. It went somewhere I wasn't expecting.

Deathblower · Post by **Deathblower** » March 9th, 2006, 6:05 pm

Sorry Garion,

I was talking to the last person to post - Gane Lant, not you. His idea deals with percentages, which in general isn't liked.

Sorry to see you did all that research on the FPI list and everything

Usually on a forum, a post (unless stated otherwise) replies to the previous one - in this case Gane Lant. Sorry for your confusion.

But on the note of healthy, I agree with Irrevenant and I definitely don't think trolls should get it if it becomes a trait.

DB

Post by **irrevenant** » March 9th, 2006, 9:39 pm

Note:I've split out Garion's post on "Healthy". It's a new, decent trait idea and this is (at least nominally) a thread about double traits.

Gane, the main objection to increasing defence is that it can have a very large impact.

eg. a +10% to defence takes a Fencer on village terrain from 70%->80%. ie., from 30% chance of being hit to 20%. 70% was deliberately chosen as a practical maximum, AFAIK (that's presumably also why "Magical" has 70% chance to hit).

Maybe I should add this to the FPI list.