Selectable Unit Traits: A Proposal for Future Versions

[donkey_noob_trash1]

On the other hand I totally agree that normally being able to pick your stats would throw off the balance of the game. We'd see tons of strong/resilient units or whatever happened to be the most advantageous for a certain unit type.

Sooo... players being able to pick their traits would throw off the balance of the game??? Maybe players being able to move their troops also throws off the balance of the game. The idea I've proposed is a logical advancement of a concept that the developers of Wesnoth created. However, it removes the "being screwed by luck" aspect.

Although the virtues of the RNG and luck have been expounded upon before by moderators, I think that the luck that you get when it comes to traits is just dumb luck. There's nothing good, nothing strategic about it. In fact, it detracts from the strategic and tactical elements that attract players such as myself to this game. It's bad enough to have a game where you're -30 inflicted, +30 taken. Getting a bad mix of traits on top of that is all the more frustrating. I had such a game last night.

The idea of out-thinking your opponent is undermined when one opponent gets traits that clearly benefit the type of units he is recruiting while the other opponent gets traits that are clearly detrimental.

The point is- if you like strategy, if you like being able to customize your army and "train" them to better serve the roles that they will likely serve in your army, then you should prefer selectable triats to random traits. It's an aspect of game-play that can favor one player over another... a fact which I do not think that anyone can argue against.

[JW]

What if you could pick one of the traits for 25% more in cost or 4 more, which ever is greater, just a thought (for what ever campaign you make or what ever)

Too expensive.

I would say pick traits for 1-3g depending on the base unit cost. Even 3 is a little unreasonable IMO.

[PsychoticKittens]

Theres also the fact that things are meant to be simple in wesnoth. And having to go through 3 menus (unit- trait1- trait2) would be tedious.

If every unit you recruited you had to pick two traits, it would take longer to recruit. Theres already tons of problems with people rushing other players.

Any good strategy player should also know that to be a proper strategist you must know to work with the good and the bad. Its not just about "out thinking" people.

unless "this is sparta" most armies don't breed their soldiers to be just so. They take what they get, and they deal with it. Traits aren't things you can teach someone, its what they're born with and how they grow up.

[melinath]

Part of what makes strategy games interesting is overcoming obstacles. Poor terrain, overpowered enemy forces, and bad luck. You want to make the game less random. Welcome to FPI #1.

I thought you were suggesting letting the player choose at the beginning of a scenario which traits would be more common - an interesting UMC idea. Go for it. But if you're suggesting removing random traits from mainline, then - well, I find it hard that you can say this 'problem' is

a fact which I do not think that anyone can argue against.

when this thread is full of people arguing against it. This isn't chess. This is wesnoth.

[Caphriel]

when this thread is full of people arguing against it. This isn't chess. This is wesnoth.

Chess? This is SPARTA! Er, Wesnoth.

I don't expect this to go anywhere, although I'm toying with the idea of a pick-your-traits era, but my biggest complaint with traits is that all combinations are not equal on all units. Traits can be a particularly subtle and annoying form of rng-screwing. When your damage rolls are bad, that's easy to point out to your opponent to forestall trash talk. Pointing out traits is pointless. This is particularly true in a few cases, like whether or not a drake fighter can be killed by a single DA, or, as I mentioned before, the strong mage. Certain combinations of traits make me feel like I was cheated out of gold, because the unit is so much worse than it could be with another combination, or even worse than it would be with no traits (that'd be those quick-intelligent) units in certain cases.

Actually, the only combination that reliably bothers me is quick-intelligent. That HP penalty, plus the opportunity-cost penalty of not having any bonus HP, adds up to units that take one less hit to kill, and few units benefit from intelligent, and some don't really benefit from quick.

As someone pointed out, if we could pick, most units would be strong-resilient. I feel, although not strongly enough to do more than discuss it, that the traits are not just not equal, but substantially not-equal. I am aware that this adds randomness and balance to the game, it's just not to my taste. Ideas I've considered in prior balance discussions are adjusting the HP penalty of quick to the amount the trait increases the unit's MP, and increasing the effects of intelligent in multiplayer. Both were discarded because they'd be overpowered in certain cases, but as it stands they're frequently underwhelming. I also toyed with the idea of removing the strong trait from the mage, but that would increase the number of quick-intelligent mages...

Just some musings, I'm not proposing any of those seriously

[Yoyobuae]

BTW, does all the traits (that a unit can get) are equally probable? (ie: 25% each with the 4 default traits)

In that case, getting one single trait that you want has a 50% chance:
25% getting it as the first trait. From the other 75%, there's a 33% (one out of the three remaining) of getting it as the second trait, 75% x 33% = 25%. And 25% + 25% = 50%.

If I'm correct, then having the ability to pick one out of 2 possible trait pairs should give a 75% chance of getting at least one trait that you want. Much better than a "flip of the coin" kind of chance.

The bad part is that Undeads almost don't benefit at all from traits, which might cause unbalance.

[donkey_noob_trash1]

Part of what makes strategy games interesting is overcoming obstacles. Poor terrain, overpowered enemy forces, and bad luck. You want to make the game less random. Welcome to FPI #1.

I thought you were suggesting letting the player choose at the beginning of a scenario which traits would be more common - an interesting UMC idea. Go for it. But if you're suggesting removing random traits from mainline, then - well, I find it hard that you can say this 'problem' is

a fact which I do not think that anyone can argue against.

when this thread is full of people arguing against it. This isn't chess. This is wesnoth.

People who prefer randomness over strategy are, by and large, poor players. And it makes sense that they would be. If you're an above average player, why would you want an aspect of the game that would give your opponent a non-skill based edge? And as Caphriel has already articulated, there are definite cases where an unlucky trait can dramatically affect your plans for using that unit.

By the way, there are people who play Wesnoth competitively:
http://ladder.subversiva.org/

And as I had already stated in my OP, it could take many forms. Maybe a drop-down menu called "training" that would reflect a particular emphasis in the traits that your units would get. Perhaps 5-6 different training emphases. The "training" emphasis would very significantly increase the likelihood of units getting the traits associated with each training emphasis. Maybe even pay for training? I don't know. But for sure it would add an interesting element to an already fun game and give the player more of a say in the traits that their troops ended up with.

[donkey_noob_trash1]

BTW, does all the traits (that a unit can get) are equally probable? (ie: 25% each with the 4 default traits)

In that case, getting one single trait that you want has a 50% chance:
25% getting it as the first trait. From the other 75%, there's a 33% (one out of the three remaining) of getting it as the second trait, 75% x 33% = 25%. And 25% + 25% = 50%.

If I'm correct, then having the ability to pick one out of 2 possible trait pairs should give a 75% chance of getting at least one trait that you want. Much better than a "flip of the coin" kind of chance.

The bad part is that Undeads almost don't benefit at all from traits, which might cause unbalance.

Yah, that's what I'm slightly worried about- UD don't really benefit at all. I'm not sure it would imbalance it, though.

[Noy]

The answer is still no.

[xivarmy]

What about just toning down the size of the HP swing from traits? Strong Resilient vs Quick Intelligent currently being 6-10ish hp in the difference which could be 1-2 extra hits. what if it were say 4-6 hp in the difference and unit hp bumped up 1-3 hp to make up for some of what resilient would lose and reduce some of the superfrail units?

Seems easier to put into an era to get a feel for, less hassle about too many options when recruiting, and less balance concerns about every strong resilient clasher running around with 49 hp doing 9-4 at day.

[JW]

What about just toning down the size of the HP swing from traits? Strong Resilient vs Quick Intelligent currently being 6-10ish hp in the difference which could be 1-2 extra hits. what if it were say 4-6 hp in the difference and unit hp bumped up 1-3 hp to make up for some of what resilient would lose and reduce some of the superfrail units?

Seems easier to put into an era to get a feel for, less hassle about too many options when recruiting, and less balance concerns about every strong resilient clasher running around with 49 hp doing 9-4 at day.

Go ahead, make the era and see how it plays! I think it's great that you've volunteered to take on such an inspiring project - I wish more people would quit their whining and do something to change what they want different themselves, just like you are.

[xivarmy]

What about just toning down the size of the HP swing from traits? Strong Resilient vs Quick Intelligent currently being 6-10ish hp in the difference which could be 1-2 extra hits. what if it were say 4-6 hp in the difference and unit hp bumped up 1-3 hp to make up for some of what resilient would lose and reduce some of the superfrail units?

Seems easier to put into an era to get a feel for, less hassle about too many options when recruiting, and less balance concerns about every strong resilient clasher running around with 49 hp doing 9-4 at day.

Go ahead, make the era and see how it plays! I think it's great that you've volunteered to take on such an inspiring project - I wish more people would quit their whining and do something to change what they want different themselves, just like you are.

I can't help but notice a touch of sarcasm in your voice We'll see if i'm bored some day though

[donkey_noob_trash1]

Go ahead, make the era and see how it plays! I think it's great that you've volunteered to take on such an inspiring project - I wish more people would quit their whining and do something to change what they want different themselves, just like you are.

I can't help but notice a touch of sarcasm in your voice We'll see if i'm bored some day though

I don't think anyone has been whining thus far. I just think it's an area of the game that could be easily improved and would make things more interesting- if even just a little bit.

I will say, on a side note, that the trait aspect doesn't usually end up deciding matches... but it is one more variable that is left to chance, and therefore presents the possibility of favoring one player over another in that respect. I think xiv is on to something, and I could be happy with his modifications.

[Max]

random traits are one of those things that keep this game interesting. i'm quite confident that a majority of players like the way it is today.

a quick/intelligent isn't such a bad trait combination for a footpad. it's got 7mp, so with quick it's 8mp. that also means it can move 4 instead of 3 hexes on terrain with movement cost of 2. given the good defense on most terrain and the extra mobility to get to villages/healers to heal should make it a lot easier to level them.

good micromanagement should always help to smooth out "bad traits", at least to a certain extent...

[Soliton]

This isn't chess. This is wesnoth.

People who prefer randomness over strategy are, by and large, poor players.

People who prefer wesnoth over chess are, by and large, poor players.