Allowing player a choice to set new recruits' attributes
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:
-
Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
That's entirely the wrong thing for the commander to say. That way, he'd still get all kinds of troops, he'd just pay some of them more.romnajin wrote:Paying gold for traits is realistic(WINR) because, the commander says "I'll pay you two(or whatever is chosen) more gold if you are strong(/inteligent/quick/resilient/usedtobeloyal).
What he does say, to his recruiter, is "Just get me Resilient, Strong ones. And to make sure they accept the offer, offer increased pay too."
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
-
partydelights
- Posts: 9
- Joined: March 21st, 2005, 2:16 pm
- Location: Singapore
- Contact:
I heard the word "balancing" being use in this discussion. What exactly constitutes "balancing"?
I can appreciate not having two many levels (I think the current three levels for most units are just nice). This is certainly a "Balanced" point.
But what about the many view points regarding traits in this topic?
Is it balance to forfeit the rights of a real "Strategist" the rights to choose traits so that an easy win is achieved? Perhaps this question can be balanced by asking "How much 'randomness' is permitted in a game of strategy?" (Personally, I am a chess player. I know if I am a stronger player than my opponent, I will win if I did not make mistake. Similarly, I know too, my opponent will win if I'm not as good.)
I agree that if given choice, Intelligence will less likely be chosen over traits like Loyal, Strong, Resiliance and Quick. So what if we allow the option to choose traits, but the value to change becomes random?
For example:
Loyal can cost 1 or 2 golds to maintain (determine randomly)
Strong can add between 5% to 25% damage (randomly)
etc.
In real life, recruiting requires candidates to pass a test. Two individuals might pass the test, but yet one can still be better that the other, and both get employed.
Wonder any comments from the public.
Party Delights.
I can appreciate not having two many levels (I think the current three levels for most units are just nice). This is certainly a "Balanced" point.
But what about the many view points regarding traits in this topic?
Is it balance to forfeit the rights of a real "Strategist" the rights to choose traits so that an easy win is achieved? Perhaps this question can be balanced by asking "How much 'randomness' is permitted in a game of strategy?" (Personally, I am a chess player. I know if I am a stronger player than my opponent, I will win if I did not make mistake. Similarly, I know too, my opponent will win if I'm not as good.)
I agree that if given choice, Intelligence will less likely be chosen over traits like Loyal, Strong, Resiliance and Quick. So what if we allow the option to choose traits, but the value to change becomes random?
For example:
Loyal can cost 1 or 2 golds to maintain (determine randomly)
Strong can add between 5% to 25% damage (randomly)
etc.
In real life, recruiting requires candidates to pass a test. Two individuals might pass the test, but yet one can still be better that the other, and both get employed.
Wonder any comments from the public.
Party Delights.
Exactly. All units of a type have already passed the test (they are, after all, fully trained units). Intelligent mages are just a little bit quicker to learn, while strong fighters are just somewhat stronger. Traits are always relative to the abilities of the unit type. I don't see why you would be able to choose in such great detail. Army commanders were probably not so concerned about who was going to put their life at risk for them, as long as they could fulfill their role.partydelights wrote:In real life, recruiting requires candidates to pass a test. Two individuals might pass the test, but yet one can still be better that the other, and both get employed.
Besides, I'd really hate a clunky pop-up window that would ask for traits every time I recruited a unit! For leaders, this could be done, but here choices are often so obvious that I don't think it'd add any depth to game to do so.
Try some Multiplayer Scenarios / Campaigns
Randomness does not make a game fun in itself. It can be a more or less effective way of introducing the concept risk into your tactical decisions though (Will this unit survive until my next turn?).partydelights wrote:How much 'randomness' is permitted in a game of strategy?"
Today, I had my brother play Wesnoth (0.8.11) for the first time. He made his recalling and training decisions based on the traits his units had received. (not just loyalty) If more players do that, having randomness just makes the game more work, not more fun.
For me, selecting traits would work. The danger is, however, that the player will have to decide on too many things, making the game too complex. An option in the preferences menu would be better. *I love many options.*
Amor omnia vincit.