Traits: Toughness, Sharpeye, Dodge & Frenetic

[Angry Andersen]

For balance purposes not only single traits, but also trait combinations need to be considered, e.g. a sharp-eyed dextrous elvish archer (...who can also gain marksman at lvl2 ).

In such cases the two traits might increase each other's power, thereby creating a too powerful combination. Such problems can arise when two traits improve the same thing in different ways, as most of the proposed traits do.


I find the idea of allowing some traits to be given twice very interesting for three reasons:
a) the above problem should not occur
b) it increases variability
c) it remains "simple", i.e. players do not need to memorize more traits and what they do.

Allowing such double-traits could be considered for strong, resilient, intelligent and maybe dextrous.
Other traits like quick, fearless, loyal and healthy should probably only be allowed once per unit.

Most normal units can get either I(intelligent), Q(uick), R(esilient) or S(trong).
This allows for 3+2+1=6 combinations: IQ,IR,IS, QR,QS, RS (order of the traits should not matter)

If Very Strong (+2 damage, +2HP), Very Intelligent (40% or 34% reduction of XP, depending on how you calculate it) and Very Resilient (+8+2*lvl HP) were allowed we'd have a total of 9 possible combinations, which is a 50% increase.

The chance of getting a double trait would be somewhat lower than for other combinations, i.e. getting strong twice has a chance of 1/4 * 1/4 = 1/16, which is probably fine for such more specialized units.

[schedal]

And the elves? Do they get the chance of double dex? Or would that be too much?

[deoxy]

Toughness:

provides a +10% resistance increase to unit to all damage types.

Dodge:

unit is 10% harder to hit in all terrain types [up to a maximum of 70% defense]

Frenetic [or Frenzy]:

unit receives one additional melee attack but heals at -2HP/turn

In the Tamers era, I used "Tough" (+5% resistances), "Elusive" (+5% defense), and "Vicious" (+1 melee attack). I only gave them to one unit tree, and people have still suggested that they are over-powered (for many of the reasons listed here).

The ones you gave are definitely over the top.

[Viliam]

I think it would also be worth our time to remove the "strong" trait from a few units which can currently receive it. Though its not useless, it's certainly not very useful when a mage or orcish assassin gets the strong skill, and as far as I remember [could be wrong] this is still possible...

In my opinion, it is not necessary to make all traits perfectly balanced, though we aim for general balance. First: luck is a part of Wesnoth. Second: the traits should make only small change; that is, the difference between different unit types should be more important than difference between two units of the same type. The traits should just provide a minimum random variance between units of the same type. If two random variances are very small, then it does not matter too much if one of them is more useful than the other one. And you will always prefer some traits to others.

The traits could be removed from unit type if they are really absurd (they have no effect on this unit), or if they would make the unit overpowered. If mage gets the strong trait, at least he will do greater damage on counter-attack. Other possible solution could be that strong mage could get +2 bonus, so that the "usefulness of strong trait" would be constant across different unit types. But that may be too much.

[Jetrel]

Other possible solution could be that strong mage could get +2 bonus, so that the "usefulness of strong trait" would be constant across different unit types. But that may be too much.

Interesting.

I wonder if we could gin up a KISS rule for this?; like how most traits currently work.

[TL]

Hmm. I seem to recall someone once coming up with the idea of having strong giving extra HP to units with a smaller number of strikes, in order to help equalize the effects a little bit. Something like +0 HP for units with a 4-strike melee attack, +1 HP for 3-strike, +2 for 2-strike, and +3 for 1-strike. That way strong fencers/elf fighters/saurians/clashers would be marginally less powerful, while strong mages/orc assassins wouldn't suck quite as badly.

[Viliam]

I wonder if we could gin up a KISS rule for this?; like how most traits currently work.

Something like "the trait should behave exactly same for all units who have it" - either it always gives +1 something, or always +10% something, but never +1 for this and +2 for that unit type.

So either we say it is ok for mages to have almost useless strong trait; or we remove the strong trait from list of possible traits for mage. I could also be possible to change the description to something like "increased melee attack damage by 1, but at least to 3" (so that we do not mention mages by name).

[Clonkinator]

So either we say it is ok for mages to have almost useless strong trait; or we remove the strong trait from list of possible traits for mage. I could also be possible to change the description to something like "increased melee attack damage by 1, but at least to 3" (so that we do not mention mages by name).

I actually don't know any unit with a 2-x melee attack...

Hmm. I seem to recall someone once coming up with the idea of having strong giving extra HP to units with a smaller number of strikes, in order to help equalize the effects a little bit. Something like +0 HP for units with a 4-strike melee attack, +1 HP for 3-strike, +2 for 2-strike, and +3 for 1-strike. That way strong fencers/elf fighters/saurians/clashers would be marginally less powerful, while strong mages/orc assassins wouldn't suck quite as badly.

I actually like this idea, although it's not 100% KISS.