Concerning traits

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » February 23rd, 2006, 1:49 pm

In Multiplayer, all it'll do is make units cheaper on average. (although Elves will not be affected quite as much.)

That's not really a great thing for a trait to do...

Lu Mong · Post by **Lu Mong** » February 23rd, 2006, 1:51 pm

Deathblower wrote:
Oh... I thought that recall and recruit are differnet commands not only in game but even in script...
Hmm. That's not what I meant, but the fact is that the trait has two aspects to it rather than one like the rest - one aspect when recruiting and one when recalling. The point is that it's different not that it's hard to program.

On your other point though, 30% would be good. Don't forget that when we said earlier about having 10 units instead of 5, that would only be if all ten had this trait! Very rare.

But 30% is nice.

DB

Oh sorry, I didn't understand at first, my bad... heh...

Well of course... But I am choosing which units to level up from what Traits they have... But I agree it is only possibility very unlikely to happen...
This can be two traits then... Volunteer and Veteren
Volunteer: -50 percent recruit cost
Veteran: - 30 percent recall cost(only campaign)

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » February 23rd, 2006, 1:53 pm

volunteer is totally overpowered. I mean, say you recruit two Spearmen. Which is better: Having them both have 8-3 attacks instead of 7-3 and more HP, or having a third spearman?

deonjo · Post by **deonjo** » February 23rd, 2006, 2:34 pm

I got a new idea. How about the trait of "virtuoso"

In the past vituosos were the masters, and top of their art. In music for example, the virtuosos in the violin would be unmatched by any other. How about if we nmade that a trait, and have it increase the power of it's other traits and abilities.

So a strong, virtuoso, Elf marshel would have a +2 damage, and also, his leadership ability would go up to the next level. Maybe it's too over powered. In that case we can take out either the bonus on "strong" (which I think would not be that great), or on the abilities, leadership, healing, skirmisher. (would be more resnoable i guess, but still wouldn't be that great to remove.)

And about the voluteer, I actually like the idea. After all, it is going to be applied to both sides anyways, so in the end it will even out.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » February 23rd, 2006, 2:55 pm

deonjo wrote:And about the voluteer, I actually like the idea. After all, it is going to be applied to both sides anyways, so in the end it will even out.

No it won't - it'll make Elves weaker and Trolls stronger, which is exactly what each race doesn't need.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » February 23rd, 2006, 3:23 pm

On the Loyal/Volunteer front, perhaps the gold used to recruit/recall is given back 1 each turn until it's all paid off? In the long run it ends up having been free, but in the short run you're still out the purchase price.

I also have some racial trait ideas.

Frenetic -- Goblin trait -- +1 strike on ranged attacks
(pillagers and spearmen/impalers are the only affected units, and giving a +50% or +100% respectively to their ranged attacks does not break them, IMO)

This could be applied to other unit types too -- find their weaker attack and give it a substantial boost. Mages that really know how to use their staff, for example. But that would require fine-tuning and isn't exactly 'racial'.

Or we can just create an attack and give it to the unit if it doesn't have a strictly better one.
Like, Orcish grunts or Trolls that can throw stones to have SOME retaliatory ability at range (Troll Rocklobbers's stone throw would be much better, and would supersede it)

Problem is, if we give this trait to Orcish Grunts, we also give it to Orcish archers, and they already have a much better ranged attack.
Counterargument A: so? Strong mages barely get a benefit.
Counterargument B: If it's an impact attack, it could be worthwhile against skeletons. Probably not, though -- Orcish archers already have a flame arrow. Of course, if the damage-type balance changes EP is trying out are adopted, skeletons will resist fire.

Well, you get the idea of what I'm aiming at.

Then there's always the 'valiant' trait idea I put forward a while back. I came up with another way of phrasing it that might make it WML-able (or not)
Morally Flexible -- human trait -- unit turns neutral when it's the wrong phase of day.
Problem A: that's a LONG trait name.
Problem B: Is it possible to restrict this from mages? I wouldn't want to let White Mages be morally flexible just on principle, and it's useless on the red-line.
Problem C: If there are other neutral recruitable humans besides Red-Mages, then it'll be useless on them too. Not that I know of any, but in non-default era there could be...

Deathblower · Post by **Deathblower** » February 23rd, 2006, 3:41 pm

There are a lot of interesting ideas in that post, and I'd like to work on one.

You suggested having an additional attack. If this attack was a very low damage poison attack, and it was only available to a race with no poison attack amongst their ranks - you might be on to something.

Personally I would like this idea. Can anyone think of a race that needs a balance slightly in their favour that doesn't have a poison attack though?

DB

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » February 23rd, 2006, 3:59 pm

Why poison?
At first, I was also thinking of a 'bum rush' tackle attack with 'slow'. But then I remembered that if there are as few as five traits, then A LARGE NUMBER of these units will have these special attacks. We can't go around completely changing their nature.

So, no attack specials if we're going to grant new attacks.

Letting an Orcish Grunt or Troll Whelp do 3-1 damage or so at range doesn't change its nature. You're going to use it in pretty much the same way.

Letting a Horseman, for instance, slow or poison the enemy DOES change its nature.

That is too big a change.

Deathblower · Post by **Deathblower** » February 23rd, 2006, 4:08 pm

Fair point.

The problem is that this trait won't work unless allunits who have it get equal benefits. Therefore an extra attack (unless radically different - which is not a good thing) would definitely be useless to some units.

I suppose this is out of the question then.

DB

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » February 23rd, 2006, 4:23 pm

Doesn't need to be equally useful to all. You can get Strong Mages or Intelligent Footpads. You can even get Strong Dark Adepts.

It just has to not be TOO strong, and not GENERALLY suck.

Deathblower · Post by **Deathblower** » February 23rd, 2006, 4:37 pm

Are you saying that strong mages and intelligent footpads are worse than others? I think they're both fine!

A trait should give equal benefits to all, like the existing ones.

I actually quite like strong mages.

DB

Garion · Post by **Garion** » February 23rd, 2006, 5:30 pm

What about a trait (call it "affinity," perhaps) that simply increased the effect of the phases of day on a unit?

Lawful units with affinity would get +30% to damage during the day, and -25% at night. Vice versa for chaotic.

Neutral units would derive a 5% benefit at dawn and dusk and suffer no penalty at any other time.

A small change, to be sure, but it would encourage levelling these units up to take full advantage of the percentages. Adds an interesting choice, IMO. Do I level my Strong mage with Affinity, or my Intelligent Quick one?

JW · Post by JW » February 23rd, 2006, 5:40 pm

Deathblower, your logic on these matters appears to be generally flawed.

Not all traits are equally good for all units. Strong on a Dark Adept is not nearly as good as Strong on an Elvish Fighter. Dextrous on an Elvish Scout is not as good as Dextrous on an Elvish Archer.

Giving units a Poison attack as a Trait is a ridiculous idea. Poison is an incredibly powerful tool that should not be randomly given out to any or all units.

Just because all sides have the potential to get untis with a certain trait does not make it balanced. Example: let's say there is a trait that gives a unit 100 moves, a 100-100 Drain attack and allows it to move when recruited. Since any player could wind up recruiting a unit with this trait it is fair, right? Wrong. There is more into balancing traits than just the fact that both (all) sides have potential to get the trait.

This whole business about getting gold back when recruiting a unit is interesting, but you people are going at it all wrong. You're just throwing numbers around it seems. You've apparently looked at the game numbers when considering the recall cost, which is great, but have you actually considered recruit costs when discussing those numbers? It appears that you have not.

50% off recruit cost is a gigantic advantage. I would not pay 7 gold to give my Elvish Fighter Strong. Let me put it that way. Think of thing s in that respect. Look at game numbers to base your numbers, not just what you "feel" is right. Yes, use your feelings to come up with a starting point, but then do an investigation into the actual effets that would take place if you were to implement them and reconsider your proposals before you say "yes, this sounds perfect." (No one said those words btw.)

I think a reasonable number would be far closer to 10% than 50%. The difference of a few gold can drastically change your recruitments on any given turn. Gold as a major factor in any game of BfW. Think of how ridiculous it would be to grant a 50% bonus to any other major aspect of the game.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » February 23rd, 2006, 6:37 pm

This whole business about getting gold back when recruiting a unit is interesting, but you people are going at it all wrong.

I think I got this covered with my suggestion above,

On the Loyal/Volunteer front, perhaps the gold used to recruit/recall is given back 1 each turn until it's all paid off? In the long run it ends up having been free, but in the short run you're still out the purchase price.

That is, when you purchase a Volunteer unit, you have to pay full gold. Some portion of this gold (50%? whatever) is set aside to pay for this unit's upkeep. Once that gold is used up, it upkeeps normally.

This is essentially a Loyal trait, but weakened to the point that it wouldn't be imbalancing.

Deathblower · Post by **Deathblower** » February 23rd, 2006, 7:13 pm

JW, I have apologised already for mentioning the idea of poison, and in fact an extra attack altogether.

I haven't actually said anything about studying game numbers, you'll notice I've never said "this is perfectly balanced" and I was just coming up with a starting point. Thank you for noting these things but I am already aware that they are unnecessary, and I have dropped the idea of pursuing them earlier.

Also, I have never used the idea of a trait being fair if both sides have it.

However, Your point about dextrous is a good one, and one that I hadn't noticed before. I am simply saying that traits should be as even as possible for all units. Like quick, which in general, is equally good for any unit with this trait.

DB