Traits that are bugged in 1.2 with fixes. Part 1: Scarred, Farmer, Trader

[gregab25]

also: could you post a more current version of your farmer/trader fixes?

Sure. The trader corrections above are still the right ones, but here is how i would correct the farmer triggers now.

Corrected Farmer Triggers:

;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing5
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished > farms

Affects GoodFarmer 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------

Translation:

When a Governor completes a building and the level of that building is NOT GREATER THAN the level of farms you have a 100% chance at receiving 1 point in GoodFarmer trait.

You could also read this as: When a Governor completes a building and it IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL to the level of farms you have a 100% chance at receiving 1 point in GoodFarmer trait.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing6
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished > farms

Affects BadFarmer 1 Chance 8

;------------------------------------------

Translation:
You can probably figure it out from the above translations.

Notes:

2 Notes worth mentioning.

1) the indentions in the triggers I copied and pasted here are not lined up exactly as in the actual export_descr_character_traits file. Use the the spacing for indentions like it is in the file. Just look at the other triggers in the actual file for examples. This is not a biggie, I don't even know if it effects any thing.

2) Remember to backup the traits file, and remember that both trader and farmer traits have high thresholds before you actually qualify to recieve the trait.

For example: The threshold to get the first level of farming is 6. So you will need to build at least 6 buildings at a level below or equal to your level of farms before you will receive the trait.

[Jambo]

So gregab...

Are you saying that all "< " signs do not work in the VnV's file? Would that include BattleOdds, etc, too?

And, one thing that doesn't hold up quite correctly is that in my tests I used the >= signs too. In each test I did the general was awarded the ancillaries when the general wasn't involved in the battle. Thus, the GeneralFoughtInCombat condition doesn't seem to work as intended, and that was the point I was trying to make. I was being awarded the ancillaries even though my general just sat back and admired the battle from afar.

This kind of makes the hitpoints lost settings irrelevant does it not? And, this was the reason I was suggesting using the GeneralNumKillsInBattle condition for the scarred/brave traits instead....

If you have some time, please try and read that thread at twcenter to get a more detailed understanding. I've been working on these traits and their nuances with the CVP team for a long time now.

[tai4ji2x]

jambo:

what about gregab's farmer/trader fixes?

[hrvojej]

And, one thing that doesn't hold up quite correctly is that in my tests I used the >= signs too. In each test I did the general was awarded the ancillaries when the general wasn't involved in the battle.

Have you tried it with just > instead of >=? Maybe it's all of the "or equal to" operators that are bugged?

[gregab25]

Are you saying that all "< " signs do not work in the VnV's file? Would that include BattleOdds, etc, too?

No. First of all i am only talking about "= signs extensively, but I seem to remember not having a problem with these. Beyond that I'm not ready to comment on them without more testing. However if it is like HTML code the < = sign makes an arrow while >= does not. But that comment is pure speculation.

Like I said above I have only worked on the Scarred, Farmer, and Trader traits so far because these were annoying the hell out of me. So, I am not going to speculate if things are bugged until I have a chance to look at them.

Likewise, I haven't looked into any traits that use the GeneralFoughtInCombat condition so I cannot comment on it now. But I have read your post and if what you are saying is true it might be bugged. I would like to look into it later.

I would like to reiterate though that the corrections i have posted thus far do work and have been tested. Please at least try them in game before you arbitrarily dismiss them. If you still think there is something wrong with any of those 3 trait corrections (scarred, farming, trader) we will probably just have to agree to disagree.

[gregab25]

Oops i got cut off again in that last post the first paragraphs are:

No. First of all i am only talking about < signs immediately followed by an equal sign. For now all I am saying definitively is that farming traits did not behave like expected until i got rid of them and instead use the NOT condition as above.

I have not tested >= signs extensively, but I seem to remember not having a problem with these. Beyond that I'm not ready to comment on them without more testing. However if it is like HTML code the < = sign makes an arrow while >= does not. But that comment is pure speculation.

[unseen11]

Wow thnks man, i've been meaning to find out how to fix up some of the bugs in rome and you've helped me big time

Just one question:

You said that for Trader, the lower or equal to building requirements are steep to get Good Trader virtue so maybe the amount of buildings you have to build to get Good Trader are bugged and need to be edited?

[tai4ji2x]

unseen:

i think it SHOULD take a lot to get such a good trait, so i would say that that aspect of it is NOT bugged

[unseen11]

unseen:

i think it SHOULD take a lot to get such a good trait, so i would say that that aspect of it is NOT bugged

Really? having to build 24 less or equal to buildings to get level one Good Trader is allright too you? ok man what ever you say...

though i have to admit im no expert in this whole subject anyway