Concerning traits

[Chris Byler]

In the past there's been much discussion on racial traits, but Dextrous is the only one that's ever made it.

Another good trait would be very good, you'd think we'd have decided on one already. There've been a bunch of decent ideas, but they all led to arguing and never decisions.

Hmm. I still think Dextrous should reduce the XP requirement by 2 or 5% to make up for its weakness compared to Strong.

What weakness? It's not much good on Fighters, but better on Archers and Shamans, about even on Scouts. (They gain more damage from Strong assuming 0 resists, but only if they use melee which is usually more dangerous to them.)

Quick is usually good, Resilient is always good, Intelligent is always good. Strong is *very* good on some units and a nearly complete waste of a trait slot on others - a strong elvish fighter is very powerful, a strong orcish grunt gains a decent amount, a strong mage or archer is obviously inferior to one with other traits. Dextrous could theoretically be like that, but since it only appears on elves, it's never at the pointless end of the spectrum. A dextrous elvish fighter is somewhat disadvantaged by not having 2 other traits, but not as much as a strong elvish shaman.

In any case, Strong on certain units is clearly better than other traits, I think Strong itself needs to be re-examined before adding new traits (or, at least, it should not be used as a standard). All units need to move and have HP and aspire to advance, but the power of Strong depends both on how often the unit fights in melee, and how many strikes the unit's melee attack has, both of which vary widely.

@Turin: Do you like resilient? It appears to have an effect all the time, but *really* only affects units that would have been dead by now if they weren't resilient. I find that units have narrow escapes from death often enough that I don't mind resilient.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I don't think Volunteer should apply to recalling at all. And I have no problem with adjusting the percentage. If 10% turns out to be more ballanced than so be it. I guess it depends partially on how often this trait shows up. With as few traits as their are, a very low percentage probably would be best.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Hmm. I still think Dextrous should reduce the XP requirement by 2 or 5% to make up for its weakness compared to Strong.

What weakness? It's not much good on Fighters, but better on Archers and Shamans, about even on Scouts. (They gain more damage from Strong assuming 0 resists, but only if they use melee which is usually more dangerous to them.)

Its weakness compared to Strong. Strong gives +1 damage and +1 HP. Dextrous gives +1 damage and +0 HP.

[JW]

Chris: Resiliant matters on all units. Sometimes battle decisions are based on how many strikes it will take to kill a unit, or CTK. These numbers change with different hp levels. Resiliant is pretty much a factor on all units.

Also, Traits are random for a reason. A Mage does not choose to be Strong, he either is or is not. Think of units as people. People are born with traits. Not always do these traits match up with the professions they choose. Wesnoth acts in the same fashion. Sometimes a buff Mage will appear. Sometimes an Intelligent Elvish Fighter will appear.

[Zhukov]

I dont know why people are suggesting a discount of 50% with my Volunteer idea. Thats downright ridiculous.
I think my initial suggestion of 10% would be balanced. For most units that's usually only a reduction of 1 or 2 in price. Keep in mind that a trait is supposed to be a nice little bonus to add variety, not a factor for winning the whole damn game. I think such a small lowering in price would do that job.

It could also apply to recalling. Volunteer units would cost 18 to bring back. That means in campaign play the trait continues to have an effect after the unit is recruited, like any other trait.

[specops]

Chris: Resiliant matters on all units. Sometimes battle decisions are based on how many strikes it will take to kill a unit, or CTK. These numbers change with different hp levels. Resiliant is pretty much a factor on all units.

Right, I think what he's saying is this:

Imagine you have a traitless Spearman, and an intelligent, resilient spearman. If they both take 35 damage, then they're both still alive. Admittedly, the latter has more HP than the former. However, if they both take 36 damage, then the traitless one dies and the resilient one lives. I think that's what he's saying: unless you're in a situation in which you need the extra 7 HP to stay alive within the combat, resilient's extra 7 HP doesn't kick in.

In a way, the resilient one has 36 HP just like the traitless one. It's just that once the resilient takes 36 damage, he's "critically wounded" and needs to take another 7 damage to kill him—and so it seems like resilient doesn't really matter until he's nearly dead.

[JW]

Specops: You apparently don't understand my logic. The extra hp may actually change the amount of damage he receives by altering the decision making process of your opponent.

Of course, I was looking at this from a MP standpoint and not a SP standpoint where computers make the decisions...from a SP standpoint I can see why you wouldn't follow my logic.

[Deathblower]

I agree. If a unit has more HP you are more inclined to have him on the front line in a battle, taking the blows. However, this may result in his death. Whereas a traitless one would perhaps be better use at the back dealing the finishing blows. This is why resilient makes a difference to all units all the time

DB

[specops]

Specops: You apparently don't understand my logic. The extra hp may actually change the amount of damage he receives by altering the decision making process of your opponent.

Of course, I was looking at this from a MP standpoint and not a SP standpoint where computers make the decisions...from a SP standpoint I can see why you wouldn't follow my logic.

No, I see your logic. His extra HP absolutely does lead to a different decision being made. But I'm just pointing out that there's more than one way to view resilient's extra HP.

[drachefly]

I dont know why people are suggesting a discount of 50% with my Volunteer idea. Thats downright ridiculous.
I think my initial suggestion of 10% would be balanced. For most units that's usually only a reduction of 1 or 2 in price. Keep in mind that a trait is supposed to be a nice little bonus to add variety, not a factor for winning the whole damn game. I think such a small lowering in price would do that job.

1-2 gold, period, is insignificant except for the first few moments of a low-gold startup.

That's why. It's much less significiant than any of the other traits, except when it lets you get another unit right off, in which case it's much more significant than any of the other traits.

Which is why I crossed it with Loyal. No immediate discount, which balances startups, but after a few turns the net cost for recruiting/recalling it ends up having been greatly reduced. It's like having Loyal, except limited to N gold profit per scenario, where N is some fraction yet to be determined of the recruit/recall price.

[specops]

I like the idea of the "Morally Flexible" trait (human racial trait—unit turns neutral when wrong t.o.d.), but I think something like "Nocturnal" would be a better name for it. I think since it would only give a 25% bonus (effectively) during 1/3 of the day, it's not too unbalanced to be a two-trait deal.

[Garion]

If there's already precedent (the Magical and Marksman abilities) for overriding a unit's defense based on its terrain, why not have a "skillful" trait, universally available, that'd just give a very small bonus, say, five percent, to whatever your chance to hit already is?

This would obviously be more powerful on units with more strikes, but 'strong' and 'dextrous' already work that way and aren't a major problem. Hell, maybe this theoretical "skillful" could even reduce damage on all attacks by one in exchange for the increased accuracy.

Hmm. One might want to do an exception where the maximum hit probability that can be enhanced in this way is 60. There's a point (such as firing arrows at a swimming horse) where it just stops being useful to be "skilled," because anyone could make that shot anyhow. That way it won't apply to magic at all and will prevent a ludicrous 85% chance to hit most men in the water.

Useful, definitely, but I defy you to show me a scenario in which this would be horribly unbalancing.

[Soliton]

If there's already precedent (the Magical and Marksman abilities) for overriding a unit's defense based on its terrain, why not have a "skillful" trait, universally available, that'd just give a very small bonus, say, five percent, to whatever your chance to hit already is?

This would obviously be more powerful on units with more strikes,

How so?

That way it won't apply to magic at all and will prevent a ludicrous 85% chance to hit most men in the water.

Like the ludicrous chance to hit a Heavy Infantry in water?

Anyway, some general points:
* there is a difference between a weapon special and a trait
* chance to hit percentages are so far all in steps of tens
* marksman and magical are (the only) exceptions to the rule, so their bare existance doesn't rectify more exceptions

[Garion]

I picked the step of five because if we're looking for a new, workable, universally available trait, it'd need to avoid being more useful than the other traits. An added ten might be.

I guess my assertion about the number of strikes was a classic step into the gambler's fallacy. Average damage would increase at the same rate for all units.

I'm not using Magical and Marksman to justify the existance of another exception to the unit defense calculations. I'm using the burning need for more traits as the justification for this. Even one more- and I think this could fit the bill- would drastically increase the diversity of units in a given game.

An ability is one thing and a trait is another, sure. But we need more traits. I just brought up Magical and Marksman at the outset because it suggested to me that the idea I'm proposing is not uncodable.

The specifics are up for debate, sure. Why cap it? I feel the trait shouldn't alter the nature of a magical attack, which is already uncoupled from the terrain calculation entirely. A "skillful" mage would be significantly better than a mage with any other trait. Not good.

But let's not toss the baby out with the bathwater, here.

[JW]

But let's not toss the baby out with the bathwater, here.

Why not? Babies aren't my cup of tea anyway.

Anyway, I don't think an increase in hit % would make a good Trait. I can't justify it with my current tiredness, but that's how I feel at this exact moment in time.