Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Heroes 7+ Altar of Wishes > Thread: Experience for LOSING battles
Thread: Experience for LOSING battles
B0rsuk
B0rsuk


Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
posted October 10, 2003 12:05 PM
Edited By: B0rsuk on 10 Oct 2003

Experience for LOSING bat

It's simple. In Homm, commanders don't die after losing a battle. Therefore they should gain experience. Only idiots don't learn from their mistakes.

Loser can learn new tactical moves or spells... (I think that Eagle Eye skill is nice concept, but should give much more profit to be worthwhile)

Current system (h1-4) is very dumb, for instance there ARE cases when losing a battle and crippling enemy's army is valuable. He may be far from his supply lines, and you may be able to rebuild your army faster...

Winner in Heroes Of Might And Magic is given artifacts, gold, or at least saves (usually significant) portion of his army. I don't think any additional reward is good thing.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
BoogieMan
BoogieMan


Famous Hero
The John of Spades
posted October 10, 2003 12:43 PM

I agree that it would be fair for the losing hero to gain SOME experience (about 1/3 of what he would have gotten if he had killed the same amount of enemy troops and won) but are you saying the winning side shouldn't receive any experience?
____________
The BoogieMan wrote ... and saw that it was good.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
B0rsuk
B0rsuk


Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
posted October 10, 2003 01:43 PM

Of course not. Winning hero would still gain experience, but he shouldn't be the only one to gain experience.

I don't like "1/3 exp for loser" rule at all. It doesn't make sense.

But winner could gain some gold/resource bonus depending on enemies killed an their alignment. (spoils of war, captured weapons etc)  My suggestion is: 15% of enemy gold cost, and some resource. For Castle/Haven it would be wood and ore, for Sorceress/Rampart/Nature - gems and mercury (but less), because their towns, creature dwellings etc suck a lot of those.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
BoogieMan
BoogieMan


Famous Hero
The John of Spades
posted October 10, 2003 01:56 PM

Why should it be ore for some and crystals for others? Where's the fairness in that?

Spoils of war - money yes, resources no. What would anybody do with gems on the battlefield? Show them to the enemy so that they would acknowledge their luxurious way of life?
____________
The BoogieMan wrote ... and saw that it was good.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Dingo
Dingo


Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
posted October 11, 2003 05:45 AM

Experience - Yes good Idea

Resoures and Gold -  No Bad Idea
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
B0rsuk
B0rsuk


Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
posted October 11, 2003 01:12 PM
Edited By: B0rsuk on 11 Oct 2003

Quote:
Why should it be ore for some and crystals for others? Where's the fairness in that?

Spoils of war - money yes, resources no. What would anybody do with gems on the battlefield? Show them to the enemy so that they would acknowledge their luxurious way of life?


20 ore = 10 crystals, more less. And what do you think fenixes  do with mercury ? But I agree that spoils of war isn't necessarily good idea. This topic is primarily about exp for losing battle. At the moment, the game makes it so there always should be winner and loser. No compromises, althrough Heroes4 Town Portal works in battle ! (Another overpowered Blue.. er, Order spell).

Some kind of Retreat command would be great But how to make it work and keep it fair ?

A) For attacker it can be relatively simple.

1) You can execute Retreat command, only when your FASTEST unit is about to move. This declares Retreat Phase until end of battle.
2) During Retreat Phase, your units have -1 to movement, -20% to Attack Skill and -20% to Defense Skill.
3) 2 turns later (3 for magic heroes), each unit stack can exit battlefield when it reaches edge of screen it came from.

4) When you are again on Adventure Map, you can't attack any other army until end of turn (to prevent Implosion abuse and such)

5) Skills like Tactics could reduce amount of turns you are forced to stay on battlefield before running away.
------------------------------------------
For defending army, it would work similar but it would be transported to nearest friendly town. Movement points would be 0 for next turn.
An army defending a castle can't retreat, unless it has some kind of Escape Tunnels or sth like that.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Djive
Djive


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
posted October 11, 2003 02:24 PM

Well, there are similar ideas in Oldtimer's "Raize Town" subject which debates this (and razing towns) at some length.

AoW 2 has an option which allows you to sell city structures at half price, at a speed of 1 structure per turn. But I don't think winning the battle should give you anything in Gold resources.

Heroes 4 also don't give XP for all kills you make. You should probably gain XP for killing summoned creatures, raised creatures, and phantoms.

And the rule in H4 to award XP depending on difficulty level I don't like at all.

You might want it as in AoW 2 where you get XP for what you actually kill, though that system will promote certain tactics and types of magic, and is not only a good idea.

When it comes to Fleeing, it already exists in H4 and is grossly abusable when you attack or defend with a Hero only party. You can flee, however, only if one or more of your Heroes are alive.

Surrender is also an option which already is available. And with a hero with Charm or Diplomacy the enemy can't refuse the offer.

What needs to be changed about fleeing is where you end up. If attacker flees then he should remain on same spot.
If defender flees then stack should be taken off the map until start of next turn, and then be placed on the nearest free map square at start of next turn.

Fleeing should not in any case be usable as a Town Portal.

Surrendering makes the attacker unable to attack the creatures in the army for say 3 turns, or until creatures are added to the army by merging armies from the army screen. Though, normal Summoning or Necromancy will not entitle enemy to attack again.)

Surrendering a Town or Garrison should lead to the attacking party and defending party to trade places, and to the Town / Garrison coming under the control of the enemy.

Surrendering should not in any case be usable as a Town Portal.

____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Polaris
Polaris


Promising
Known Hero
posted October 11, 2003 11:53 PM

I like the idea of gaining some experience for losing a battle.

However, I see no reason why resources should enter the equation.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
posted October 12, 2003 12:12 AM
Edited By: Celfious on 11 Oct 2003

When I as an army general defeat my foe, I will surely raid the camp for whatever value I can find. And I will keep whatever I like!

A way to make this realistic thing applicaple to the game, is whatever resources you find on the map, arent contributed to the empires estates until the force delivers it to a province.

So, sensibly, the monsters are lugging around resource
____________
What are you up to

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Djive
Djive


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
posted October 12, 2003 12:38 AM

I'd say the troops will keep the spoils of war thmselves. They would not give it to the player. It's theirs by virtue of them winning the combat.

Player would only win exceptional items, like artifats and the like.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
posted October 12, 2003 12:50 AM
Edited By: Celfious on 11 Oct 2003

Djive, are you saying the winners keep the dead guys resources?

if not

seriously, realisticly, the troops die, they cant take gold gems and wood to the castles. You should be able to take everything the hero cant carry. If you kill the hero, then you get his artifacts.

btw good ideas (exp and resource both)

and there is no way, any of you are rightful enough to judge like labeling other ppls ideas with "no"
____________
What are you up to

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Djive
Djive


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
posted October 12, 2003 11:33 AM
Edited By: Djive on 12 Oct 2003

Yes, but the player doesn't own the troops swords, armour and personal cash. So player gets nothing. Troops could perhaps get +X morale, at least if they are evilly aligned.

Troops habitually don't carry anything of value into combat, more than possibly things which could be used as spare parts, and similar. Perhaps a few small personal trinkets.

If one of player's soldiers cuts of the finger of one of the enemy dead to get a gold ring, then there is no way that soldier will give up that to the player.

When it comes to the city, you get control over it and can start to sell structures, at a rate of one per turn. (Finding a buyer takes some time.)

There could be a "loot" option also, but that option should take a few days to execute.

____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
posted October 14, 2003 05:11 AM
Edited By: Celfious on 13 Oct 2003

Quote:
Yes, but the player doesn't own the troops swords, armour and personal cash. So player gets nothing. Troops could perhaps get +X morale, at least if they are evilly aligned.

Wow that sounds good. INfact perhaps leadership skill could use reforms too
Quote:

Troops habitually don't carry anything of value into combat, more than possibly things which could be used as spare parts, and similar. Perhaps a few small personal trinkets.

Yea thats true yaa.. They get paid when they need to get paid
Quote:

When it comes to the city, you get control over it and can start to sell structures, at a rate of one per turn. (Finding a buyer takes some time.)

Who is going to buy a structure? The kingdom is under the kingdoms leadership and I dont see boats commin off to haul off organizations

Quote:
There could be a "loot" option also, but that option should take a few days to execute.


But there is resource abundance which isnt hard to find and aquire.

The troops morale would go up in wins indeed
They will not loot
They will carry their kingdoms generals resources and drop it off before battle. If it is only 1 sprite, it is assumed that the general himself has horses with carts behind them.

The loot thing is workable with for example "quests" if an armorer says bring me the scales of 20 dragons and I will provide you scale armor.

Bring me the blood of 40 haggogs, and the wings of 20 wasprats, and I will contoct for you by apeasing my god, a bracelet of magical attribute (x-you name it)
____________
What are you up to

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
UndeadLord
UndeadLord


Known Hero
posted October 30, 2003 02:45 PM

I think that Experience thing is good.
What would it be if every castle has its own resources and when an enemy captures the castle the enemy will get those resources for its own. But castles at the same side could use each other resources for buying creatures and dwellings.
So Castles have their own treasuries but the treasures could be used in every castle. And if Hero finds gold or some else treasures the hero must take the gold to the castle or keep it on hero but if hero is killed or captured the golds and treaures got the killer or capturer. Hero's golds and treasures could be used only when hero is there where the buying is going. So it would be wise to take golds and treasures to castle.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Sir_Stiven
Sir_Stiven


Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
posted October 31, 2003 02:01 PM

the idea of losing side gains experience too makes sense IMO.

But it also has its bad sides, a "tactic" like hit/run becomes more tempting because you can attack with one arch angel... use your nasty implosion to kill of many of your opponents best creatures and then surrender which means you both get to reduce your enemies best creatures and gain experience for it.

Makes it too easy IMO.

But i like the basic idea and with some work im sure it can be good.

The idea of getting resources from a battle makes no sense IMO though. Its not like you run around with tons of crystal when you are about to fight is it?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
UndeadLord
UndeadLord


Known Hero
posted October 31, 2003 03:09 PM

Of course you dont get money from winning a neutral creaure (if it doesnt protect treasure ). But if you attack a castle those treasures what are in there even if you win could stay in that castle. And I think that heroes should have a treasure capacity. That would prevent hero from carrying TONS of resources. That would be a certain amount. I think that it would be a good idead that different heroes could carry different amounts of resources like Barbarians could carry more resources than a weak druid (not so powerful).
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Sir_Stiven
Sir_Stiven


Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
posted October 31, 2003 07:36 PM

makes it too much IMO.

If you were to transport home resources all the time it would take up way to much time. And it would make it too castle based if you only were to use resources that has been taken to that castle.

It would slow down gameplay too much and therefor make it boring IMO.

same goes for gaining resources from any battles, it just complicates things up and is a hard thing to adapt.

Getting experience still can be a good idea IMO though.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Gerdash
Gerdash


Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
posted October 31, 2003 07:43 PM
Edited by alcibiades at 16:30, 13 Jun 2009.

before it's too late

i will take the pleasure (and pain) of expressing a different opinion.

strictly from gameplay point of view: if we let the loosing side get experience, we exclude something that motivates us to win the battle.

i guess people have different opinions about what this old system of rewarding for victory really is. from what we see in the game, you get it mostly by winning battles or by displaying generousity by distributing gold to peasants.
until homm4 it translated into either spellcasting or fighting ability of the creatures or some special tricks (skills).

imho an interpretation of experience is possible that would do the above things without letting you get experience for loosing battles. in fact, with that interpretation, it would feel natural that by loosing a battle, you should loose experience.

ok, enough introduction. imho experience that does the abovementioned things is boldness in battle and ability to incite fear in the enemies. imho it should also have something to do with morale, as the troops are less doubtful about a victorious general.

if you loose a battle, you should get negative experience. you learn to be more wimpy, the troops will be more doubtful about your commands and start to think more about their individual well-being. it isn't easy to win a battle with that kind of an army.

but as loosing experience is somewhat uncomfortable for gameplay because it either should make you loose skills or else it would mess up the level and skill system, i guess it should nicely balance out with learning from the defeat as most people suggest here.

lol, and so we got zero experience for a shameful defeat instead of loosing experience, just because we didn't want to mess up the skills and levels that would make the playing experience less pleasant.



Moderator's note:This topic has been closed, as it refers to an older version of the game. To discuss Heroes 3, please go to Library Of Enlightenment, to discuss Heroes 4, please go to War Room Of Axeoth, to discuss Heroes 5, go to Temple Of Ashan.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread »
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0536 seconds