V&V mechanics, "NoGoingBackLevel"

[nidpants]

i could have waited for approval or whatever to post this to the Ludus Magnus forum, but i realized i only have one simple question. if you understand how the V&V system works then you might be my guy.

there's a property called "NoGoingBack". all the reference material i've been able to find (Sulla71's guide, and a few other posts dealing with V&V's) cite this value as being the level which the trait may not descend beneath due to an anti-trait

my question is: once you hit the NoGoingBack level, is it possible to lose points to where you may still descend but still exceed or equal the NoGoingBack level?

for example, if NoGoingBackLevel is 2, and you achieve level 3, can that third level be lost again, back down to level 2, or does it NEVER descend?

if no one knows the answer, i'm going to have to investigate

[The Stranger]

once you hit the no going back level, you cant go back that also is for every other level past the nogoingbacklevel, i thought i never saw it atleast

[nidpants]

i definitely appreciate the feedback. i'm probably going to run some tests when i get home, modding the V&V's to test this for sure.

[The Stranger]

i you do i would apreciate it if you would tell me the outcome of the tests

[Captain Fishpants]

Once a general has a trait that equals or exceeds the "No Going Back" level no anti-trait will have any effect on him.

The intention with anti-traits was to make sure that we didn't end up with any "sober drunks" or "pious atheists". However, we also realised that some some traits needed a 'tipping point' at which the behaviour being modelled finally couldn't be countered.

[The Stranger]

he captain. could you explain how i could enter the battle-editor

[Captain Fishpants]

he captain. could you explain how i could enter the battle-editor

Sorry, not my area of expertise.

[nidpants]

thank you Capt. Fishpants!

while we're on the subject, does "NoGoingBackLevel" integer refer to the separate *levels* (i.e. the difference between Drunkard, Sot and Paralytic) or to the points values of the trait family regardless of the effects?

[Captain Fishpants]

NoGoingBack refers to levels, not the points collected for those levels. By separating out the points and the levels we were able to be a bit subtle in the way VnVs got worse or better. You have to work quite hard to get GoodCommander 5, for example (16 points earned, and therefore at least 8 more really outstanding victories in your general's career after GoodCommander 4) to get the Command +5 bonus it confers.

The other nice bit of subtlety in the system is the separation of triggers and the traits. More than one trait can be fired off a single trigger (event), and more than one trigger can potentially dish out the same trait.

I now have to report for termination for revealing the inner workings of the game. ~:)

[player1]

When we are about VnV, is anybody in CA team avare of the problem that PostBattle event gets checked twice after manual battles (leading to more powerful human ganerals on average, since AI relies on autoresolve)?


P.S.
Luckly we made partial fix for that (see bugfixer).
As several other VnV related problems (hope to see them fixed in expansion officialy)

[HarunTaiwan]

Just send them an invoice for your services.

[Captain Fishpants]

When we are about VnV, is anybody in CA team avare of the problem that PostBattle event gets checked twice after manual battles (leading to more powerful human ganerals on average, since AI relies on autoresolve)?


P.S.
Luckly we made partial fix for that (see bugfixer).
As several other VnV related problems (hope to see them fixed in expansion officialy)

If you're talking about the "Scarface" bug (BattleScarred trait), then I Know about this one, and am of the opinion that this pair of triggers solves the problem.


;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle > 0.6
and not CultureType roman

Affects BattleScarred 1 Chance 10
Affects Brave 1 Chance 15

;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1R
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle > 0.6
and CultureType roman

Affects BattleScarred 1 Chance 10
Affects RomanHero 1 Chance 15


The "not CultureType roman" condition prevents BattleScarred from being dished out twice, and the "GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle > 0.6" raises the bar a little bit. No invoice - in either direction - necessary, Harun. ~:) I'm sure that the community had already worked out a broadly similar mod for the unicode text file.

Right, back to the grindstone.

[player1]

I wasn't talking about that one in particular.

I was talking when generally all PostBattle triggers get checked twice in manual battle (not with autoresolve). So you could get general getting two command stars after same battle (from 0 to 2). We partially fixed it by using some complex scripting (see bug-fixer (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=44795) files for details).



As for Battlescarred, there is another issue out there.

It seems that code reads GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle as ration of remaining HP in manual battales (as you noticed), but in case of autoresolved battles, it gets read as ration of lost HP.

So just changing "< " to ">", fixes manual battales, but bugs autoresoved battles (mostly affects AI generals).

I think GeneralFoughtInCombat is affected too by this. It seems always true when fighting manual battale, while working as inteded in autoresolve.

Thus we used PercentageBodyguardKilled as close substitue. Not perfect, but works well for both manual and autoresolved battles.



This affected apprearance of some retinue memeber too (like Heric Savior).

[Camp Freddie]

Erm... Come on CP, surely you know the glitch where GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle returns opposite values for manual and autocalc battles. Even at >0.6 it'll trigger when you don't use your general in a manual battle, since it actually acts as GeneralHP*Remaining*RatioinBattle.

Since players usually manual battle, they would get loads of scarred traits even when they kept their general safe. The double combat trait glitch made it worse and the lack of 'and culturetype not roman' in one of the triggers meant that after Roman manual battles, the scarred trait would be checked 4 times at 30% chance when the general was uninjured. Your suggestion fixes this a bit, but unfortunately it still won't work fully.

We couldn't work out a way of distinguishing autocalc from manual battles in the trait triggers, so we had to abandon the use of GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle.

In our mods, we've had to use generalbodyguardpercentagekilled instead of GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle since that trigger works for both autocalc and manual.

Oooh, P1 beat me to it! Still, P1, shouldn't that be "less than" for manual and "greater than" for autoresolve?

CP's fix doesn't solve the problem, it just reduces the effect because "chance" has been changed to 10% from 30% and the non-roman trigger now only applies to non-romans.

This is fine for autoresolve (triggers when over 60% of HP is lost) but to get it to work in manual battles you'd need the following:
_____________________________________
Trigger battle1
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.4
and not CultureType roman

Affects BattleScarred 1 Chance 10
Affects Brave 1 Chance 15
____________________________________

Also, the double combat bug trait (introduced in v1.2) must be fixed somehow.

[Camp Freddie]

Hmmm... sorry if that post seems a bit hostile!

It's good to see you around Captain FP, especially with all the recent hostilities. I hope everythings going well with the expansion pack.

[player1]

Yes, it's great thing to discuss details with coders.

[nidpants]

i have another question about the V&V mechanics...specifically the list of triggers.

am i to assume that *every* single trigger is checked, pretty much all the time? if that's the case, then why

;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle > 0.6
and not CultureType roman

Affects BattleScarred 1 Chance 10
Affects Brave 1 Chance 15

;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1R
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle > 0.6
and CultureType roman

Affects BattleScarred 1 Chance 10
Affects RomanHero 1 Chance 15

why not just
""
;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle > 0.6

Affects BattleScarred 1 Chance 10
Affects Brave 1 Chance 15

;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1R
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle > 0.6
and CultureType roman

Affects RomanHero 1 Chance 15
"""
^i took out the "not CultureType Roman" tag, and deleted the redundant "Affects BattleScarred" tag.

i don't mean this as a form of expediency, just a question as to whether this would physically work. if you removed the "not CultureType" tag from the "battle1" trigger, it would still check both triggers when a Roman general finishes a battle, correct?

==============================================

but my big question is: there sure do seem to be a whole lot of traits which, well, would never actually advance past the coming of age. it might just be because i'm working with an outdated version of the trigger list (v1.00, that damned patch keeps corrupting in transit to my computer), but many of the negative traits (Bad--, nothing sticks to my mind) have only ONE trigger in the entire list, that is in the "birth" triggers. there are even a few traits that don't have ANY triggers, not even birth triggers (such as "AssassinCatcher")

is the trigger list vastly revised in the patch, or am i missing something?

[Simetrical]

Erm... Come on CP, surely you know the glitch where GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle returns opposite values for manual and autocalc battles.Even some dedicated forumites don't know that, really. It hasn't been played up as much as the siege-load issue. Still, it is at least noteworthy.

Trust me, Captain Fishpants, we really appreciate your coming here and explaining things to us. Don't mean to hijack this thread, but there are three significant trait problems that controlled testing has shown to exist in the hardcode:

1) The PostBattle trigger triggers twice after every manually-fought battle, but once after autoresolved battles.

2) The GeneralFoughtInCombat condition always returns true for manually-fought battles.

3) The GeneralHPLostRatioInBattle condition works as expected for autoresolved battles, but the sign needs to be reversed for manually-fought battles.

Now that I look at them lined up like that, it occurs to me: did you perhaps do trigger/condition testing mainly with autoresolved battles? Well, anyway, if you'd just bring these issues to the coders' attention, we'd all be very grateful. ~:cheers:

-Simetrical

[Captain Fishpants]

Yes, it's great thing to discuss details with coders.
FYI, I'm not a coder. I have a wide range of duties that mostly involve adding small dollops of fun to our games. Sometimes, I get to put a joke or two in as well.

However, I am talking to a coder or two about traits and ancillaries at the moment for reasons that may be obvious, but I never know whether I can talk about.



snip

i don't mean this as a form of expediency, just a question as to whether this would physically work. if you removed the "not CultureType" tag from the "battle1" trigger, it would still check both triggers when a Roman general finishes a battle, correct?

==============================================

but my big question is: there sure do seem to be a whole lot of traits which, well, would never actually advance past the coming of age. it might just be because i'm working with an outdated version of the trigger list (v1.00, that damned patch keeps corrupting in transit to my computer), but many of the negative traits (Bad--, nothing sticks to my mind) have only ONE trigger in the entire list, that is in the "birth" triggers. there are even a few traits that don't have ANY triggers, not even birth triggers (such as "AssassinCatcher")

is the trigger list vastly revised in the patch, or am i missing something?

You're right, battle1 would be checked for Romans as well as everyone else. We could have had 6 triggers (one per culture), but this way makes it expilicit that it should apply to everyone except the Romans.

And at the moment there are some traits that don't get advanced; many do, but not all. And yes, there are even a couple that don't get used at all yet, such as noctophobia and noctophilia. So no, you haven't missed anything.

Finally, the decision to limit the number of times Bad-*whatever* fired was deliberate, otherwise we can't give general's "experience". Occasionally getting bad traits is fair enough, but these blokes are supposedly the cream of the crop, and should tend towards being good at their jobs.

Back to the grindstone!

[JeromeGrasdyke]

You appear to be correct on all three counts - the "hp lost ratio" and the "post battle" triggers were both bugged, and the GeneralFoughtInCombat was a knock-on effect from the hp lost ratio. Thanks for bringing it up. I'd like to read everything on the forums, but sadly there are only 24 hrs in the day, and things occasionally slip the net...

[Kraxis]

Hey Jerome... Nice to see you, both of you in fact, and in one thread. Especially considering the less than stellar support you get here nowadays.

Anyway, now we have caught your attention, could you post how the traits would look if they are to work properly. I know we have made our own little fixes, but I fear we might have done something wrong somewhere. Lets just call this a comparison. ~:)

[player1]

The thing is, you can't really "fix" the problem by just editing text files.

You can only make workarounds, like using PercentageBodyguardKilled instad of GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle, etc...

And I guess that expansion would get true fixes, instead of workarounds anyway.

[SigniferOne]

Welcome back Jerome!! :)

By the way, when I went to try and search for your posts with the built-in Google search engine (to see if you've made any other posts recently), I typed in this search string: "Jerome", and here is one of the ads that appeared:

"Sexy Jerome Singles
View photos, personals and hot
profiles of sexy local singles.
www.infobert.com"

[Colt45]

"I'd like to read everything on the forums, but sadly there are only 24 hrs in the day, and things occasionally slip the net..." - Jerome/CA

Im sure we could set up another known/possible issues list, like Ive seen before. This would save a lot of reading for you. I would hate for some known issue to slip by because of devs couldnt catch everything.

[Simetrical]

It's great to know that we've been able to help. A suggestion: while obviously many bug reports are false, and obviously you can't look into everything, what if the Guild and/or TWC officially collaborated on extensively testing and compiling bug reports, and sent them to you with detailed accounts of the tests that went into them? If you've taken a look at the Ludus Magna, you've seen that there are those in the community who have a good grasp of the scientific method. The official endorsement by the Guild/TWC could be substituted for any trustworthy volunteers who are committed to making absolutely sure of everything they send in—I'm sure we'd all recognize that this would be a rare opportunity to benefit everyone (including ourselves), and great care would be taken not to squander it by sending you frivolous reports. This would also do much to improve your image in the community, needless to say.

Edit: I also think that such mature, intelligent organizers could tell the difference between stuff that's weird (e.g., one or two Egyptian unit sizes) and stuff that's clearly broken. The list of the former is rather large, but the latter isn't too long at all.

-Simetrical

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Welcome back Jerome!! :)

By the way, when I went to try and search for your posts with the built-in Google search engine (to see if you've made any other posts recently), I typed in this search string: "Jerome", and here is one of the ads that appeared:

"Sexy Jerome Singles
View photos, personals and hot
profiles of sexy local singles.
www.infobert.com"


ROFL ... that's funny. It's good to be back.

But about the idea of a list of community issues, I think that's a fine idea. There might be some problems putting it together in that some people think, "oh, this is a huge problem" while other people are of the opposite opinion, but then you'll always get these things when lots of people try to work together ;) It will definitely help flag some areas for us that you guys have noticed as being either broken or not working as well as they could.

[econ21]

But about the idea of a list of community issues, I think that's a fine idea.

Thanks for the greenlight, Jerome. I wonder if the .org could follow up on this in an organised way? The first step would be finding someone who would be willing to collate issues, perhaps in a stickied thread. It's rather a big undertaking and would have to be done by someone who is into the detailed mechanics of the game. [EDIT]Any volunteers?

[Camp Freddie]

Jerome & Captain:

Thanks for dropping by, it's great to have some feedback and to know that you're working on those trait glitches.

If you can fix some of these trait triggers, fix the double trait problem, the load game problem, reduce the rebel annoyances and beef up the battle AI a bit - then I'm totally sold on the expansion pack!

There are loads of bug-lists around, but they do tend to be semi-useless because of the issues Jerome mentioned. I'd love a well moderated bug/glitch-sticky - but it needs to be really well moderated and seperated into bug-categories, like 'game-breakers', 'annoyances' and 'tweak suggestions'.

If a mod (or group of mods) has the time to do this, it'd be great.

[JeromeGrasdyke]

If you can fix some of these trait triggers, fix the double trait problem, the load game problem, reduce the rebel annoyances and beef up the battle AI a bit - then I'm totally sold on the expansion pack!

Rest assured, all of these things are on the to-do list (in fact, most have already been done). And quite a few other things as well. The work, eet is proceeding apace, Cap'n. Great sig, btw ~:)

[Camp Freddie]

Excellent...

[Red Harvest]

I am very glad to see CA reps comment on the broken traits that folks have been toiling away at for approximately 2 months (probably longer since there was some work on it prior to 1.2.) This is one of the things that seriously unbalances the game for the player vs. the AI. With the player getting 10 stars in a couple of battles, the AI doesn't seem to have much of a chance on the field.

As a suggestion...it looks like it would helpful to both CA and the community if confirmation of such problems was a bit more timely. Not wanting to shoot the messengers, but folks put an awful lot of work into things like this. CA could leverage this community resource more by confirming specific problems sooner so that investigation could then move into other aspects.

Thanks!

[Old Celt]

Jerome,

Very good to see you posting here. I was wondering if it might be possible to have some members of this forum community do some beta testing of these changes prior to the next release? I'm sure you could get all the volunteers you'd ever need, and by taking such an opportunity, you would be heading off issues that might not be seen until many thousands of hours of gameplay have been logged. Just a thought.

[SigniferOne]

Er I don't want to be an annoyance, but I am not sure whether to classify our current inability to parse descr_skeleton.txt as a bug or just something we haven't figured out how to do yet. So Jerome, since you asked for feedback, if that's broken can you confirm it? Otherwise we keep hoping that some way to get it to work will be found.

[HarunTaiwan]

That's what we want to hear!

[Epistolary Richard]

Sometimes, I get to put a joke or two in as well.


I take it Trigger 2000 was yours then? :evilgrin:

[therother]

Thanks for the greenlight, Jerome. I wonder if the .org could follow up on this in an organised way? The first step would be finding someone who would be willing to collate issues, perhaps in a stickied thread. It's rather a big undertaking and would have to be done by someone who is into the detailed mechanics of the game. I would propose therother, based on his very systematic approach in the Ludus magnus.It is an excellent idea, doubly so now that JeromeGrasdyke has given it the greenlight. Unfortunately I do not currently have the time to undertake such a large project, although thanks for the vote of confidence. The suggestion has been noticed by the Org staff, so hopefully one of them with be able to take this on.

[A.Saturnus]

It is an excellent idea, doubly so now that JeromeGrasdyke has given it the greenlight. Unfortunately I do not currently have the time to undertake such a large project, although thanks for the vote of confidence. The suggestion has been noticed by the Org staff, so hopefully one of them with be able to take this on.

Some fool has been found to work on it...

[Red Harvest]

When that issues list is being compiled, I suggest the charge effect/charge bonus be added as a discussion item. There was a thread about this recently. It is not what I would call a bug, but it is a feature that when investigated leaves most of us scratching our heads and appears to be an area for improvement.. Short of it is that the charge bonus stat works, but doesn't seem to have a significant impact--negligible for "normal" stat levels. Instead charge kills seem to be more controlled by armour level of the charging unit and by base attack. Mass has some impact but again less than the armour level. And the very act of charging itself seems to have a rather large sort of fixed effect.

Another one to add as an odd effect is that units raising their pila can stop a charge cold at times (quite frequently in 1vs1 tests), and then inflict heavy casualties on the chargers when they do release. It seems to be a timing issue, and it is very counterintuitive. When they are preparing to throw one would think they should be quite vulnerable to the shock of a charge. It might be intentional to make up for the difficulty of units being able to release their pila in time, but the fact that they are then causing heavy damage with the pila after taking the charge seems quite wrong/buggy. There could be quite a bit happening that we don't know about with this, the whole volley delay effect might be playing havoc here. It is worthy of scrutiny at least. Not sure if it ever happens for other missile units or when changing formation for any other types...could be a deeper glitch.

[Quietus]

Man, I'd like to volunteer and all but unfortunately, for my very selfish and personal reasons, I don't like seeing or knowing triggers or internal unit characteristics/mechanics and other intimate txt files. (I enjoy playing by instincts and try to preserve the game-ness of it all, hence I avoid those threads and don't participate at all). I still help whenever I can though.

Je'Rome!! Great to see you back (why are you hiding?). If you ever have some time, quickly skim or peruse my RTW Guide and leave a short comment or message. You have a lot of credits there too. ~:)

:charge:

[Wishazu]

this is probably a bit off the topic guys but i was wondering if you CA guys could tell me why Egyptian Desert Cav has a unit size of 80 on large scale when other cav units are only 54? cheers. btw, really looking forward to the expansion :)

[therother]

Okay, the thread for this is open in the Ludus Magna. See here.

Thanks.

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Thanks Gerome/CA! ~:)

:medievalcheers:
-

[Captain Fishpants]

Jerome,

Very good to see you posting here. I was wondering if it might be possible to have some members of this forum community do some beta testing of these changes prior to the next release? I'm sure you could get all the volunteers you'd ever need, and by taking such an opportunity, you would be heading off issues that might not be seen until many thousands of hours of gameplay have been logged. Just a thought.

I can answer this rather than Jerome.

In the past there was a beta test organised within the forum communities and, though very successful, the whole process was ruined by one individual who leaked the beta code onto the net. As you might imagine, that kind of thing stops the process in its tracks.

[Old Celt]

Capt Fishpants,

Thanks for your reply. I fully understand the concern over beta releases and security. I wonder if perhaps you have a trusted relationship with a user at this site, and you might be willing to give that single individual a role in beta testing? I would be very happy to know we have someone as a sort of liaison between the dev and forum going communities. Such a person could help by tuning in to the concerns of the forum members, and watching for the presence of these problems in the beta program. Just a thought.

[econ21]

I wonder if perhaps you have a trusted relationship with a user at this site, and you might be willing to give that single individual a role in beta testing?

I think at least one member of the org was a tester of the 1.2 patch. I don't want to name names, but I recall him/her posting in advance that a range of issues had been fixed and indeed they have been. :thumbsup:

[Turin]

Jerome! Jerome!

Finally you're back, me and some animation modders have had a FEVERISHLY BURINING QUESTION for you:

(just one question so I'd really appreciate it if I could get some kind of answer)

For the next Total War release, which I'm guessing is the expansion to RTW can you all please, and I'm really begging now, please make fire by ranks possible? What am I talking about? In all the previous Total War games there have been early gunpowder units. These units fired by ranks, one after another. It was very cool and very pioneering.

But now that is all impossible, and because of it many many great mods are made impossible. Napoleanic Total War 2 is going to be like crap without the rank firing. A good NTW2 can totally beat out that Imperial Glory imposter!

So if you all could get the designers to do us the tiny favor of making the changes so that the volley fire by ranks becomes possible again... we would all really appreciate it!

Thanks Jerome and Captain Fishpants!

[webbird]

Something which deserves the word bug is the behavior of allied factions when granting them the right of military access, they dont want it, asking allied factions to get the right has the same effect and message, NO WAY! Allways the same, whenever i tried to do it.
Was that problem allready mentioned somewhere? CA,please let it be part of your ToDo list.

[player1]

If anybody from CA is still following this thread:

How exactly Posioner ancillary works?


;------------------------------------------
Ancillary poisoner
Image hooded_figure_ancillary.tga
ExcludeCultures barbarian
Description poisoner_desc
EffectsDescription poisoner_effects_desc
Effect Subterfuge 2


;------------------------------------------
Trigger trigger_poisoner
WhenToTest SufferAssassinationAttempt
Condition Trait Paranoia >= 2
and Trait DeceiverVirtue >= 1
and AgentType = assassin

AcquireAncillary poisoner chance 10

Trigger seems a bit problematic, and I wonder does it work at all.

Also interesting thing to note that one egyptian spy has Poisoner at the start of the campaign.

[Captain Fishpants]

You're right, the poisoner trigger isn't going to work. However, now that you've pointed it out, I can do something about it. Thanks.

[player1]

While you are here the question about GoodConspirator trait and sabotage missions:


;------------------------------------------
Trait GoodConspirator
Characters spy
AntiTraits BadConspirator

Level Plotter
Description Plotter_desc
EffectsDescription Plotter_effects_desc
Threshold 2

Effect Subterfuge 1

Level Schemer
Description Schemer_desc
EffectsDescription Schemer_effects_desc
Threshold 4

Effect Subterfuge 2

Level Conspirator
Description Conspirator_desc
EffectsDescription Conspirator_effects_desc
Threshold 8

Effect Subterfuge 3
(note: spy only)



;------------------------------------------
Trigger agents14
WhenToTest SabotageMission

Condition MissionSucceeded

Affects GoodConspirator 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger agents15
WhenToTest SabotageMission

Condition MissionSucceeded

Affects GoodConspirator 2 Chance 50

;------------------------------------------
Trigger agents16
WhenToTest SabotageMission

Condition MissionSucceeded

Affects GoodConspirator 3 Chance 25

(sabotage triggers for assassin, also if worked, would lead to big gains due to mutiple triggers)


I guess this is why assassin don't gian experience for sabotage missions.

[player1]

Ok, now one question about GoodSpy trait (this time nothing bug related ~;) ).

These are the triggers:


;------------------------------------------
Trigger agents2
WhenToTest SpyMission

Condition MissionSuccessLevel = slightly_successful
and Trait GoodSpy = 1

Affects GoodSpy 1 Chance 10

;------------------------------------------
Trigger agents3
WhenToTest SpyMission

Condition MissionSuccessLevel = partly_successful

Affects GoodSpy 1 Chance 80

;------------------------------------------
Trigger agents4
WhenToTest SpyMission

Condition MissionSuccessLevel = highly_successful

Affects GoodSpy 1 Chance 100
Affects GoodConspirator 1 Chance 50

Now, the question is what constitutes success level of spying missions?