|
| Thread: Heroes 5 Wish: "Leaders" |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
posted April 04, 2003 09:27 PM |
|
|
Heroes 5 Wish: "Leaders"
Heroes 5 Wish: "Leaders"
These is a Wish to enhance creature stacks.
A Leader is a single creature, and one Leader can be recruited from each Tavern per week. The restriction is that only Leaders for built creature generators in that town can be recruited. The cost of a Leader is the price of the basic creature multipled by an appropriate factor.
A Leader is similar to one normal creature. The Leader is a stack, and can at the same time be merged with a stack of the same creature type. (But any one stack can only have one leader.)
A Leader earns one Medal for every ‘X' fights the Leader survives.
The benefit of having a leader with Medals is that it enhances the creatures in the own stack, giving them one additional bonus for each Medal the Leader attains. The bonuses are always the same for any given creature, but will vary greatly between creatures.
The Leader is always considered the bottom creature of the stack, so the Leader will be killed only if the full stack is wiped out.
Examples on bonuses the Leader can give to the stack in which it is part:
*Improved speed or movement.
*Improved attack or damage.
*Improved defence or health.
*Increased ranged attack, number of shots, or negating/reducing penalties for range, obstacles, walls etcetera.
*Increased spellpoints or spellpower.
*Additional spells.
Special abilities: either new ones or improving existing ones.
Advanced (optional) considerations
Heroes could be used as Leaders, but will use their level as the number of medals owned. (Heroes would be limited to be leaders of their own race, though this might be difficult to balance since some races will have more creatures than others.)
A stack with a Leader can never split away any creatures from it. (Unless the Leader is a Hero in which case it is possible to split away the Hero. However, once a Hero has been a Leader once the Hero cannot become a Leader again. At the very least these should be some fairly severe limits on joining and splitting away heroes from stacks.)
Leaders may be able to use certain artifacts and give additional benefits to the stack if these are available. Each type of Leader will only be able to make proper use of a limited amount of artifacts.
Neutral stacks can have Leaders. The larger the stack is the higher the level of the leader will be.
|
|
maximus
Famous Hero
Bronzed God
|
posted April 05, 2003 03:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Heroes 5 Wish: "Leaders"
These is a Wish to enhance creature stacks.
Well, are we working on the principal that there is only 1 level of build in the creature generators ? From what i know, there will be 6 levels of creatures, but dont know if the creature generators are gonna be like H4 (1 lvl) or H3(2 lvl's). I suggest a 2 lvl system again, but maybe the option to select one of the 6 groups of creature for a third lvl of upgrade. In effect giving u a specialised unit with-in the town. That unit reciving either all the bonus's u said in ur thread, or maybe u have to choose a combination of bonus's, eg, either the selected unit for the 3rd upgrade to get a speed bonus, or a att and deff bonus, or someting. Plus a set of pre-req buildings so u have to work to b able to get the 3rd lvl upgrade.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted April 05, 2003 08:45 AM |
|
Edited By: Djive on 5 Apr 2003
|
The number of creature levels does not matter. To take an H4 example:
In the Chaos Town Tavern you could recruit an:
Orc Leader (if you have the Orc dwelling)
Bandit Leader (if you have the Bandit dwelling)
Minotaur Leader (if you have the Minotaur dwelling)
and so on
The Orc Leader could only be the Leader of an Orc stack, and similar constraints apply for every other type of leader.
The Leader system could replace the upgrade system altogether, because the Leader kind of upgrades your stack, while at the same time you could say that creature XP are placed in the Leader so the Leader also implements a creature XP system.
Though, you could still have upgrades but then you would upgrade the full stack, including the Leader which is part of the stack. The Leader would then keep any Medals earned and apply bonuses to the upgraded version of the creature. (You then gain the additional consideration if the Medals, should give the same or different bonuses to the upgraded creature as to the base creature.) Remember that the leader itself just counts as one member of the stack (but improving the statistics of the stack as a whole).
The Leader system works best if you have no or fairly few upgrades.
I thought a bit longer, and have changed my mind a bit on some things.
You probably should allow two Leaders in a stack. Only the best would affect the stack, but both would gain Medals. The second Leader would be the second creature from the bottom.
This consideration arises from the fact that you need to be able to merge stacks when both stacks are led by Leaders, and then getting one second stack containing only the second Leader would probably be a bit annoying to the player.
Normally, a player should only have 2-3 Leaders of any one creature type so I don't see a need for allowing for more than two Leaders in any stack. If the player recruits more than two then they should live with the resulting inconveniences in micromanaging them.
This also leads to being able to split the stack when it has two Leaders: The "inactive" Leader will then automatically be placed as the leader of the second stack.
A few more advanced options:
Another idea is to limit any one Town Tavern to be able to produce only ONE leader of any one creature type.
Leaders Off option. (Disable Leaders for the Map.)
Leaders of level X option. (Disable Leaders for the Map. In addition all creature stacks (player and neutral) on the Map works as if it had a leader with X Medals.
Ability to customize Leaders in placed stacks, and to give them a number of Medals.
(This is good both for beefing up certain key creature stacks, and for giving players good starting bonuses.)
Starting with a single Black Dragon Leader would be a big bonus. (Even one single BD can take a lot of damage, and later on when you get more BD's the Leader will have accumulated several Medals.)
Leaders should increase the XP gained by Heroes when defeating a stack.
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
posted April 05, 2003 02:43 PM |
|
|
An enthralling idea, Djive
My understanding of this (so far) great idea is to partially upgrade creatures, and give them a bit more interactivity, hence making them slightly akin to the hero, in some ways. I believe that more can be done with creatures than just buying them, and this idea is the first step to doing so.
"A Leader is a single creature, and one Leader can be recruited from each Tavern per week."
A single creature, as in one that corresponds to the structures or creature dwellings you already have. One leader per week sounds good, but it could mean that once you buy a leader-thats it, you can't upgrade it in the town-only in battle. There is no problem with this part of your idea-just thought I'd bring that up.
"The Leader is a stack, and can at the same time be merged with a stack of the same creature type. (But any one stack can only have one leader.)"
This sounds reasonable. The leader can be a single creature by itself, but it does not give any benefits to itself when it has just been recruited, and has not been in any battles correct? I like the fact that only one leader is available for that stack. It gives you the sense that the leader is 'in charge' and actually taking command, instead of two leaders, which would sound silly. (But, as I see, you have changed your opinion in your next post.  )
"A Leader earns one Medal for every ‘X' fights the Leader survives."
So this is the part where it gets interesting. The theory is there, so is the implemenatation, the only problem here is very small. Why would creatures receive medals? I know that you may not have had time to think about it, but maybe something more armour or something. An object that you could imagne a creature wearing. Maybe I'm being pedantic here, but I'm not entirely sure about a creature wearing a medal. (It's probably better than anything I could come up with  )
"giving them one additional bonus for each Medal the Leader attains."
This is the creature's equivalent to the hero's level up system. I like the originality of the idea, and how you plan it to be executed in the game. The prospect of an additional bonus would keep the player motivated to recruit leaders and have them in the army. It will also make battles more tactical by having to protect that creature on the battlefield, if numbers are low.
"The Leader is always considered the bottom creature of the stack, so the Leader will be killed only if the full stack is wiped out."
Very logical. If the leader was considered as the top creature, the idea would be short-lived wouldn't it? 
"Examples on bonuses the Leader can give to the stack in which it is part"
The bonus list you have compiled covers just about every statistic. A question, however, is will all the bonuses be offered to the creature? Will they even be offered at all? Is there differentiating probability for the creatures, say would a Hydra have more probability of getting attack or damage than a minotaur?
"Heroes could be used as Leaders"
I think heroes should stay as they are. I don't think that by making them 'leaders' makes them any more of a hero. A hero is a her by itself, and would lead the army anyway, which still has its own 'leader' system, which is the level up system. I don't think it would work out well if the two were combined, even slightly. I though that the leader idea was just for creatures...
"Neutral stacks can have Leaders. The larger the stack is the higher the level of the leader will be."
This is a commendable way to transfer the idea to neutral stacks, in my opinion. But what will determine what bonus they have?
"The Leader system could replace the upgrade system altogether, because the Leader kind of upgrades your stack, while at the same time you could say that creature XP are placed in the Leader so the Leader also implements a creature XP system."
It could, but probably not. The upgrade system is slightly different, for the creature is actually changed, and it wouldn't hurt the game if the leader system was acutally combined with the upgrade system. I think that they would work quite well together, actually.
"Only the best would affect the stack, but both would gain Medals. The second Leader would be the second creature from the bottom."
I'm quite sure if this idea is bad or acceptable. In some ways, I think it is bad, since it is an easy way for a leader to gain medals, and it only has to pay the price of being one more creature up from the bottom.
"merge stacks when both stacks are led by Leaders"
This can be overcome by the leaders actually merging, and adding both their medal tallies so that they still have the same medals, just one less leader. And you say that you cannot break apart the stack again, so there is no need to break the leaders up.
"Another idea is to limit any one Town Tavern to be able to produce only ONE leader of any one creature type."
Hmmmm. Quite interesting. This could work a la Heroes II where the more towns with taverns you own, the more leader type you will be able to recruit, and so on. I very much like this idea, as it forced you to capture another town in order to receive information, which is quite realistic, actually.
"Ability to customize Leaders in placed stacks, and to give them a number of Medals."
Yes, great idea here. It would give you the freedom to do however you wish with them, which could give you advantages in a map, and the ability to test out some of the leader's capabilities.
Overall, this is praiseworthy idea, and if it can be expanded upon in this thread, could be a very worthy addition to the series. Now is the time to start formulating ideas.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”
|
|
maximus
Famous Hero
Bronzed God
|
|
posted April 05, 2003 05:56 PM |
|
|
so...
what happens to the "leaders" medals if the leader is killed. are they captured by the enemy and do they go to the enemy stack that killed them ?
____________
Frost. Sometimes it makes the blade stick !
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted April 05, 2003 07:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
One leader per week sounds good, but it could mean that once you buy a leader-thats it, you can't upgrade it in the town-only in battle. There is no problem with this part of your idea-just thought I'd bring that up.
Actually, you could. If you upgrade the stack in which the Leader is a part then the Leader is also upgraded. The Leader gains Medals only in battle, but standard creature upgrades would also be possible.
Quote:
The leader can be a single creature by itself, but it does not give any benefits to itself when it has just been recruited, and has not been in any battles correct?
It normally wouldn't give benefits as the idea is proposed. It's basically a single creature, but with the ability to evolve.
Quote:
It gives you the sense that the leader is 'in charge' and actually taking command, instead of two leaders, which would sound silly. (But, as I see, you have changed your opinion in your next post. )
Well, the second leader just acts as a single creature in battle so in practise only the best leader is "in command". (You only gain the bonuses from the best leader.) The suggestion to allow a second Leader to merge was a user interface and ease of play suggestion. (Not wanting the second Leader to form a single one-creature stack.)
Quote:
"Why would creatures receive medals? I know that you may not have had time to think about it, but maybe something more armour or something."
Why would Heroes earn experience. They are "creatures" are they not? Do note, that it's only the Leader (whom you bought for an expensive price). So the easy explanation is that Leaders just as Heroes are special. The Medal is just a visual reminder that the leader has started to impart bonuses to the stack, while at the same time giving a rough idea of just how big those bonuses are.
Quote:
It will also make battles more tactical by having to protect that creature on the battlefield, if numbers are low.
You both want to protect it and use it. I mean if the stack cowers behind the lines and does nothing then what good is the leader? (Ok.. You might still find a use for them for spellcasters and ranged creatures.)
Quote:
The bonus list you have compiled covers just about every statistic. A question, however, is will all the bonuses be offered to the creature? Will they even be offered at all?
Hmmm... I don't follow you here. Do you mean possible upgrades being the same as the bonuses offered by the Leader? The same Specal ability should preferably not be offered both through the Leader and through an upgrade because that would tend to yield illogical results.
Though, there are alot special bonuses which are not covered by the list. Just to give an idea of a few:
- Give the stack a % chance to act a second time in a round.
- Give the stack an improved Morale or improved Luck.
- Attract creatures (of the own type) to the stack each turn. (Unlike Summoned creatures in H4, these should not reset bonuses for the stacks.)
- Charm/Diplomacy option for the creatures of the own stack (And this could work in favour of Neutral stacks too.)
Quote:
Is there differentiating probability for the creatures, say would a Hydra have more probability of getting attack or damage than a minotaur?
For ease of balancing the basic suggestions is to have fixed bonuses for each creature type. (But different bonuses between the creature types.) There is no probability involved. A Hydra leader with say three Medals would alwys exactly the same bonuses.
Quote:
I think heroes should stay as they are. I don't think that by making them 'leaders' makes them any more of a hero. A hero is a her by itself, and would lead the army anyway, which still has its own 'leader' system, which is the level up system. I don't think it would work out well if the two were combined, even slightly. I though that the leader idea was just for creatures...
The thoughts behind this suggestion is as follows:
You give up the Hero as a separate stack in return for protection from the stack, and improving the combat values of the stack. A Hero as a part of a stack would still contribute the normal way to the army stats.
The idea does lead to some complications, when you decide on how to work out a good userinterface. Do you display the Hero or the stack when you represent it? Is the stats of the Hero or creature which are displayed when you select it, and I'm sure there will be a lot of similar considerations to make.
Quote:
But what will determine what bonus they have?
The only thing which is variable for any one Leader is the number of medals, as noted above. This you will need to have a default handling for, but you should also be able to set this attribute in the Map Editor.
"The Leader system could replace the upgrade system altogether, because the Leader kind of upgrades your stack, while at the same time you could say that creature XP are placed in the Leader so the Leader also implements a creature XP system."
Quote:
This can be overcome by the leaders actually merging, and adding both their medal tallies so that they still have the same medals, just one less leader. And you say that you cannot break apart the stack again, so there is no need to break the leaders up.
This is very difficult to design and balance in a good way.
You will either get players who refuse to merge leaders because you put them at a disadvantage (and then you just end up with a poor user interface), or you will give the best Leader a too big bonus and they might become unbalanced. The reason for merging a stack would often be that you can't afford to split the stack because it would be too weak when compared to the enemy stacks.
Simply adding together the Medals is a too big benefit. If you had two level 10 Heroes would you not very happily join them to a level 20 Hero who had all the skills of the two level 10 heroes? Or even worse. You have a level 30 hero who needs a lot of XP to reach next level. So you merge with a newly recruited level 1 Hero and *poof* hero is level 31.
It's not the same thing but the effects would be similar.
To Maximums:
The "Medals" just represent how much the Leader has evolved. you might gain more XP for killing the stack with the Leader, but the "Medals" are useless to the enemy. They would also be lost if the stack with the leader was ever reduced to zero creatures, even if you 'won' the battle. (The only hope would be a post-combat Ressurection which might have a chance to Resurrect the Leader equal to the percentage of creatures raised by the skill.)
|
|
Marelt_Ekiran
Promising
Famous Hero
Watcher of All
|
|
posted April 05, 2003 09:29 PM |
|
|
So, from what I understand, it would look like more or less like this:
Every medal =
+ 5% Attack
+ 5% Defense
+ 0.5 Speed
+ 0.25 Movement
+ 5% Spell power (if applicable).
+ Either 1 luck or 1 morale.
*The first medal would give 1+ morale, the second one 1+ luck, the third one 1+ morale, etc. So eleven medals would be a 6+ morale and a 5+ luck.
Actually, I think it would be better to award medals not per battle, but per XP of creatures killed, just like the heroes system. The leader should also usually be a part of the stack of the same creatures. When splitting the stack, you should be given the option to put the leader in one of them, or let the leader be his own stack.
With the creature stack, the number displayed would probably look like this, if there is a leader involved:
[100+L]
Technically, there are 101 creatures fighting. And if 100 creatures are killed, then there is one creature with the same capabilities left and with the number display:
[L]
___________________________________________________________
Also, there should be a number of artifacts, which could be given to a leader.
At certain levels, the leader should be able to charm creatures of the same kind to join his or her stack. There should also be a number of artifacts connected to this ability.
>Amulet of Charm<
Automatically charms 25% of the creatures of the same species to your army, before the normal charm calculation starts. Does not work on player stacks.
>Necklace of Charm<
Automatically charms 50% of the creatures of the same species to your army, before the normal charm calculation starts. Does not work on player stacks.
>Crown of Charm<
Automatically charms 100% of the creatures of the same species to your army, before the normal charm calculation starts. Does not work on player stacks.
Then, there could be several artifacts for boosts in speed, movement, attack, defense, morale, luck and perhaps magic resistance. The leader would have a paper doll, although not as elaborated as the hero paper doll.
__________________________________________________________
There could also be a number of spells, castable by heroes, but with specific reference to leaders.
>Capsule stack< (level 3, life).
The stack is capsuled in a protective layer. It cannot do anything, but cannot be harmed in any way either. The capsule cannot be lifted, except with an anti-magic or a divine magic shield. The capsule is automatically dissolved when all other stacks are dead. This spell can be used to protect a leader, whose stack is almost whiped out.
>Leader shield< (level 3, nature or archaeon).
The hitpoints of the leader are multiplied by an amount to be determined by level of caster. The rest of the stack is unaffected.
>Ressurect leader< (level 4, life).
Resurrects the leader to full health, but has no effect on other creatures.
>Draw forward< (level 3, chaos).
The leader is no longer the bottom stack, but moves up a certain amount of creatures in the hierarchy. For example, if the power of the spell is 50% of the creatures, then the leader will be the tenth creature killed in a stack of twenty, instead of the last creature.
There should be more possibilities, but this is just an example to work with.
____________
Perception is everything.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted April 05, 2003 10:21 PM |
|
Edited By: Djive on 5 Apr 2003
|
I believe you have a few different models like:
Grunt Walker:
1. +1 Attack
2. +1 Defence
3. +1 Movement (or other similar attribute)
4. +2 Resistance
5. Special ability.
Then repeat this for the next five medals.
Spellcaster:
1. +1 Spellpower/Sorcery
2. +1 Defence or +2 Resistance
3. Additional Spell or +1 Speed.
4. Additional spellpoints.
5. Additional spell, or Special ability.
Then repeat for next five medals.
I think per battle is a good way to decide it. The Mapmaker has placed out a certain amount of stacks on the Map, and stacks can only renew once per month.
I want to keep micromanagement to a minimum, so I didn't want to mix in XP in the forumlae. There's nothing saying that the stack with the Leader are landing a single blow because it has a leader. And letting them gain XP based on what the stack actually kills leades to unnecessary micromanagement. Besides, if you give 1 point per combat tough combats and easy combats will even out.
The Leader is a Creature and as such would always be part of a stack. (That's why you require a creature dwelling built of this type before you can recruit one.)
The support for splitting the stack is (almost) undesirable, instead I'd want to see this as the price you pay for having a better stack. Though if supported the leader is the "bottom creature". That is, the Leader moves only if you move the full stack.
The Leader can ONLY be part of a stack of the same creature. That's the basic point of the idea.
The visuals will probably not be an "L" or similar. Instead you just display the stack-size (including the leader) and then modify the border or the design of the container for the number. (And the design will vary depending on the power of the leader.) You might display "Medals" of various colors to represent the power, or you might display some other symbols.
The whole point of leaders is that they should never be their own single stack. And if the player places them in an own stack, then the AI should be optimized for killing that stack, and you would be down one Leader.
The percentage you write for the Charms are probably too high. These artifacts would probably be highly unbalancing. Try something like say 100 XP worth of creature plus 5% per Medal on the Leader instead.
Though I still think it works best if you make it a special for certain creatures, though some artifacts could exist to enhance the effects.
Quote:
Then, there could be several artifacts for boosts in speed, movement, attack, defense, morale, luck and perhaps magic resistance. The leader would have a paper doll, although not as elaborated as the hero paper doll.
Hmm... yes it seems a good idea to have the leader as a paper doll.
Quote:
There could also be a number of spells, castable by heroes, but with specific reference to leaders.
This is probably too much. The intention is for the stack to work exactly as any other stack. (That is: it has better stats but is not really special in any other way.)
Remember: The protection for the Leader is that it is the "bottom" creature. Otherwise, it should have (and need) no special protection.
Peeking at the spells:
The "Draw Forward" spell is an overall nasty spell!
|
|
Marelt_Ekiran
Promising
Famous Hero
Watcher of All
|
|
posted April 05, 2003 10:47 PM |
|
|
Splitting stacks is a feature that was already present in HOMM2, so I think that they will keep it. I know you don't like micromanagement, but that is just the way it works in the game.
I admit that the spells were perhaps a bit too much, but there must be some reason to pay a multiple times more for your leader. Besides, you cannot avoid having your leader alone. What if all creatures in the stack, except for the leader get killed? Would the leader then be one normal creature by itself?
In that case, the leader should go on as his own stack and there should be some additional protection.
Yes, you are probably right about the artifacts, but remember that the charm of a leader only works with a very small percentage of the total amount of neutral stacks.
And concerning the leader's leveling, I still think that XP would be the better method. But it works in the same way as the hero. Not only for the creatures that the stack kills, but for the entire enemy army defeated.
Also, the leaders should be worth their cost and effort. If they are only normal creatures that give some boosts in the statistics of their own stack, then you might as well just buy a good tactics hero. There should be an opportunity for the leader to be stronger.
One last thing, I don't know anything about the HOMM5 primary skill system, but it seems like you count with the HOMM3 system, and I count with the HOMM4. But basically, we're saying the same thing.
____________
Perception is everything.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted April 05, 2003 11:50 PM |
|
|
Splitting stacks was introduced in HOMM2. I believe it wasn't possile in HOMM1. They may indeed keep the splitting feature, and it doesn't do all that much in the Leader case.
If creatures are split away they immediately lose every benefit they had in the stack with the Leader, and that price may be enough to dissuade splitting.
The price of the Leader is cheap, I'd say. Anyway, the price is something which can be discussed. Perhaps 500 Gold plus 150% of the normal price of the creature is more balanced.
The Leader would always be alone when recruited, so yes this cannot be avoided. If alone the Leader, would still give himself/herself the own bonuses, though would be an easy target to take out.
If the creature type for the leader is greatly dimished in a combat then the player may be forced to recruit more creatures and let the Leader pass on some fights, simply because stack size is too small for the leader to have a great effect and it is too risky to use that stack in combat. But this is a tactical decision made by the player.
If the opponent strikes the stack and takes out the leader while you're weakened, then that's tough luck.
Quote:
Yes, you are probably right about the artifacts, but remember that the charm of a leader only works with a very small percentage of the total amount of neutral stacks.
True, but you can get the Month of your particular creature. Then it would yield too many creatures.
Quote:
Also, the leaders should be worth their cost and effort. If they are only normal creatures that give some boosts in the statistics of their own stack, then you might as well just buy a good tactics hero. There should be an opportunity for the leader to be stronger.
I've kind of assumed that every fifth "Medal" will be something special and the bonus much more worthwhile than medal 1-4. (which would normally be just a simple stat increase.)
If you give Vampires their Vampiric Touch abilility if they're led by a leader with 5 medals, then you're given an advantage that no tactics hero could ever give.
Another example is to give Genies their Song of Peace and Cowardice spells if led by a Leader with five medals.
Other creatures would get similar very useful abilities. That's one of the reasons I proposed the option "Assume all stacks are led by Leader of level X". You would get a lot of replay value that way.
Anyway, you will find that the Leader gives a much better bonus than the creature specialists in H3 did. Price can always be tailored after benefit and play-testing.
The Leader gives abilities which are tailored especially for the creature type it leads, and often improve abilities which are the most important for a particular creature.
The Hero gives abilities to the full army and doesn't matter at all which types the creatures are (in most cases). If you look at the Spellcaster template... How many of those bonuses would a Tactics hero give to that creature?
Yes, I'm counting with a system more similar to H3 than to H4 when it comes to the stats.
|
|
Marelt_Ekiran
Promising
Famous Hero
Watcher of All
|
|
posted April 06, 2003 12:22 AM |
|
|
That feature would certainly make the leaders more important, but this involves another danger. The major criticism of the HOMM3 upgrade system was that the unupgraded version was useless compared to the upgraded version, because of the lack of special abilities.
Now we're having units that will probably be worthless without commanders, because the commanders are responsible for the special abilities.
Best compromise would be that all creatures still start with their special ability, but the leader at high levels adds some or strengthens the current skills.
For example, the vampire in basic for would be able to fly and drain life, but drains at a rate of 1 HP per 3 HP damage. With the fifth medal, the leader adds the no retaliation ability. With the tenth medal, the draining ability is strengthened to 1 HP per 2 HP damage. The fifteenth advance adds 25% magic resistance.
That would make quite an amount of extra skills. However, there should be a few that you encounter with a lot of creatures. These would be abilities like first strike, stoneskin, fire resistance, 25% magic resistance, speed, flying, no retaliation, stunning attack, etc.
Also, I don't like the idea that one disintergration spell could get rid of a level 20 leader in one hit without any chance of bringing him back. There should be a ressurrection option. Perhaps you can restrict this by requiring that the ressurection only works in towns with the specific dwelling and that it costs something.
____________
Perception is everything.
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
|
posted April 06, 2003 04:56 AM |
|
|
This idea has certainly 'evolved' very quickly ;)
I have to sat that this 'leaders' idea is quite diverse, since it is almost like a new upgrade system, but only for creatures. However, this also brings up the question of: How powerful can the creatures get with their leaders before they have to stop? While a creature is rewarded for surviving battles, a hero is rewarded for surviving a battle, but corresponding to the difficulty of the battle, it gains experience. This would ultimately mean that the leaders may get too powerful for the heroes (if they are in battle), and we could see some super creatures develop. (It would also mean that a creatures statistics are only for when a leader is not leading them, and cannot inlfuence their statistics. If this is correct, a gargoyle could be stronger than a black dragon if the leader has enough medals....
Djive:
"Why would Heroes earn experience."
Experience is not something that you wear. It is something that you gain by completing many sets of tasks in a specific area. So a hero gets some experience in battles because he has fought in them. It is an entity that accumulates in the mind, that can be transferred to other areas of work.
"Do note, that it's only the Leader (whom you bought for an expensive price)"
Yes, but that leader could be something like a venom spawn-I couldn't imagine them wearing a medal. On the other hand, though, it could a knight, and I could imagine them wearing a medal. Maybe the item should be something universal, something that every creature could be seen wearing or obtaining.
"I mean if the stack cowers behind the lines and does nothing then what good is the leader?"
Spellcasting and ranged attacks aside here, if the leader hides, it still gains a medal for taking part in the battle, so I don't see why it would be bad doing that, since I would wait until some more of that creature is available, so the leader is in no immediate threat. (I'm not a very daring player)
"You give up the Hero as a separate stack in return for protection from the stack, and improving the combat values of the stack."
But essentially, don't leaders and heroes get similar bonuses anyway? Joining the two would lead to some complications, as you have said, but more severe problems such as how will they both gain experience and medals if they are in the same stack, and whose abilities will be used, etc. I think that the leader and experience systems should stay away from each other.
"You mean possible upgrades being the same as the bonuses offered by the Leader?"
What I mean is, heroes get the choice between their skills, do leaders get the choice between their bonuses? Or do they receive all of them per medal? If they did receive all of them, wouldn't it be escalating the power of a leader too much? I would think so.
"Simply adding together the Medals is a too big benefit. If you had two level 10 Heroes would you not very happily join them to a level 20 Hero who had all the skills of the two level 10 heroes? Or even worse."
Yes, I see the problem with joining medals. However, does the medal system work the same as the experience system-no. It isn't the experience that determines how many medals they have, it is how many battles the leader has survived. So, the leader would get one medal for surviving a very easy battle, and get one medal for surviving a very difficult battle. So what is the difference with a leader with 5 medals and a leader with 25 medals except for the fact that the latter has more bonuses. The medals and bonuses could then be joined, and it would still amount to the same bonuses, just in one stack.
Marelt_Ekiran:
"but per XP of creatures killed, just like the heroes system."
Hmmm. While this would be more specific than one medal per battle, you would then have the almost impossible task of balancing the leaders and the heroes and the other creatures so that none of the three is too powerful or too weak. Also, if it is exactly like the experience system, it is kind of making the creatures just another hero, which I don't think is the goal of this idea.
"Also, there should be a number of artifacts, which could be given to a leader."
Again, I think it this is gving too much credit and strength to a leader. With the generic bonuses that Djive suggested, it is already making a leader a formidable force, but a leader with artifacts and spells would make them almost exactly like a hero in Heroes IV, which could be an even greater disaster if it is not balanced.
Djive II:
"I believe you have a few different models like:
Grunt Walker:....
Spellcaster:"
This is what I mean by the leaders being offered different bonuses, and the probability that a hydra would get more attack and defense than a spellcaster type creature would. It would be logical for it to do so. I think you have justifyingly portayed my intentions there.
Yes, a stack with a leader should have something to let you know that he stack contains a leader. An example could be a glow around the creature, or more battle scars to show that it has survived those battles. Also, when you right click on it, the menu could display the leader, its benefits, and how many medals it has, and so on.
Marelt_Ekiran II:
"Besides, you cannot avoid having your leader alone. What if all creatures in the stack, except for the leader get killed? Would the leader then be one normal creature by itself?"
That is possible, but highly unlikely. How many time have you seen a stack get down to just one creature in a battle (Unless it is a high level creature, then there is not much of a problem because of its high hit points.) I'm not saying it can't happen I'm just stating that it would be very difficult to, and the player could easily take measures to make sure that things such as that do not occur.
"I still think that XP would be the better method."
Better as in what? More precise? Yes. Better as in easier to calculate and balance? No. The experience system is what makes heroes unique and special to an army, if all of a sudden every creature in your army goes by experience and can cast spells and use artifacts-aren't they just a different looking hero then?
Djive III:
"The Leader would always be alone when recruited, so yes this cannot be avoided."
While the leader is by itself to begin with, it doesn't mean that you'll see it in a battle only by itself. If this idea was to be placed in Heroes V, I would wait until I have a safe number of creatures (corresponding to the level) before I take the leader with my hero and start fighting battles. So, in essence, I think it can be avoided.
Marelt_Ekiran III:
"Now we're having units that will probably be worthless without commanders, because the commanders are responsible for the special abilities."
Not really. Creatures can still be very useful by themselves, and their special abilites to do not rest with the leader, only their increased statistics. So, with a leader, you are not adding special abilities,(such as first strike, etc.) you are adding more attack, defense, luck spell points, etc. So I wouldn't be too worried about that.
My own Ideas:
One thing that heroes did not do much of in Heroes IV was affect the creatures. My idea here for leaders is if the leader has high luck or morale, then when this actually works in the battle, it carries on to the other creatures, almost like they are inspired, and that carries on until their next turn.
Another aspect of creatures that leaders could affect is their special abilities. While all creatures begin with one, the leader is able to make it more powerful, in some cases. So, the Black Dragons breath attack is able to reach one hex further, or something similar.
If leaders have reached a milestone number of battles, maybe 25 or so, then they are able to infuence more of the creatures statistics, or the percentage at which they increase them at rises.
With added support, this idea could probably go quite far.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted April 06, 2003 12:00 PM |
|
Edited By: Djive on 6 Apr 2003
|
The Vampire already has three special without the life drain, so it doesn't need to have it in the base version. I also had the Leader off and start with level X to allow players to play with "improved" versions without the need for leaders, or make them play with the unupgraded version throughout the game. It adds a lot of replay value to have these options.
The "Vampire" did not have Life Drain in either H2 or H3. The Vampire Lord gained that ability.
The Leaders will be able to improve a units so it is perhaps 2-3 times better than the base unit. Though, it could only be done through proper management of the Leader. You will likely have a max limit on medals. Perhaps 10 or 15 Medals could be the limit, but then again the max limit would depend on the size of the bonuses.
Your Vampire suggestion looks good. It's one of several alternatives to go. I'd probablylet it start with no retaliation and then let it gain improved Life Drain, but that's subjective in any case.
When it comes to leaders, then perhaps you should get the Tombstone. However, if you go the "Tombstone" way, with resurrection then I'd say you could have a limit of recruiting 1 Leader per creature type on the Map. And if the opponent captures a Leader then the Leader is placed in prison just as a hero would.
The_HydrA:
"Medals" are just symbols representing that you've fought in a number of battles. They are a visual indication of how much the Leader has evolved as a Leader.
The Leader and the Hero would not be combinable in a single stack (at least not if we go with the Tombstone approach above). You would simply prevent the player from placing them there. And if it was allowed, the Hero would be the "bottom" creature and not the Leader.
The Hero bestows generic bonuses on the creature types. The Leader bestows specific bonuses which are appropriate for the own type of creatures. Presumably, the Leader picks up on which things work and which doesn't and simply becomes more proficient in command.
I see no conflict. The process of assigning XP and Medals are done separately. You don't share the XP between them, as you do with multiple Heroes in H4.
One of the reasons I suggested counting battles is that I'm very much against the look of the XP table in Heroes. I don't want to reuse a bad model for something new. Another bad thing is that Leaders of high level creatures will gain Medals too quickly.
Leaders get no choices between skills. (As the idea is proposed right now.)
The templates of Grunt and Spellcaster was just models. In reality each creature type would have it's own set of values for all leavels. One of the benefits of the Hero over the Leader is that the Hero gets the skills the players wants, while the leader alwys bestows the same improvements.
I don't think the Leader should affect things outside the own stack, and the Leader is one with the stack. So you shouldn't decide if the Leader gets good morale first and then the stack. You decide for the stack directly. (It is a possible special for a Leader to give say +3 Morale to the stack, but that is counted into the stack's morale.)
When it comes to the Black Dragon I believe Fire Resistance could be one appropriate special.
|
|
Marelt_Ekiran
Promising
Famous Hero
Watcher of All
|
|
posted April 06, 2003 07:53 PM |
|
|
Just a small clarification, it was never my idea to let the leaders cast spells that cannot be cast by creatures of the same species.
But The Hydra pointed out that it would be hard to balance the leaders and the heroes, so that one does not become too strong for the other. The danger with the per-battle system is that in the early game, the player has to clear out a lot of very small stacks to get access to the resources. These small stacks hardly give the hero any bonus, but the leaders gain the same bonus as if they had just defeated ten thousand black dragons.
In this way, the leader advances very quickly and almost makes the hero useless.
Just use the same XP system as for the heroes. At least, the hero and the leaders would advance at the same speed. Besides, I'm not talking about splitting the XP between them. If you kill a stack of 1000 XP with one hero and two leaders, then the hero gets 1000 XP and the two leaders get 500 XP each.
Besides, what is wrong with the HOMM4 XP system? According to me, it is fairly well balanced. At least a lot more balanced than the hitpoints = XP system of the previous versions. In that system, you would get almost the same XP for killing a Ogre Mage as for killing a Cyclops. In the HOMM4 system, the amount for the cyclops is twice as high.
I'll point out what, according to me, the differences between leaders and heroes should be:
The leader
- Does boost the statistics of the same creature.
- Does give the creature stack special abilities.
- Does merge with the stack as one of them and participates in combat.
- Does gain experience from battles to advance in level.
- Does wear artifacts, but only artifacts that aid in the boosting of statistics.
- Does not cast spells that cannot be cast by the same creatures.
- Does not have special abilities in combat that the same creatures don't have.
- Can be killed, but also resurrected under special conditions.
- Can claim mines and creature generators, when wandering without hero.
- Cannot claim towns.
- Cannot learn anything from adventure map structures (like the learning stone).
The hero (assuming that they are taken off the battlefield, which is likely the case)
- Does boost the statistics of all creatures under his or her command (if the appropriate hero is used).
- Does not add any special abilities to creatures (except with spells).
- Can cast spells from visited mage guilds and other sources (if appropriate hero is used).
- Does gain experience from battles to increase level and skills.
- Does not participate in battle.
- Cannot exist without creatures in army.
- Can use any kind of artifact.
- Cannot be killed, only defeated (imprisoned).
- Can claim anything claimable on the adventure map.
- Can use adventure structures.
____________
Perception is everything.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted April 06, 2003 09:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just a small clarification, it was never my idea to let the leaders cast spells that cannot be cast by creatures of the same species.
There is not that much difference between a spell and an ability that mimics a spell. For instance, the Vampire's ability is the Vampiric Touch spell precast on the creature. There is no spell for "No retaliation" but there could very well be such a spell. Granting a spell or granting an ability that mics a spell is the same thing.
Quote:
But The Hydra pointed out that it would be hard to balance the leaders and the heroes, so that one does not become too strong for the other.
That's why you have:
A. An ability to set how many fights you need to have for the Leader to advance.
B. A limit to levels.
Besides, Heroes will give several times bigger bonuses to the creatures than the Leader does. So there's not so much to balance.
Quote:
The danger with the per-battle system is that in the early game, the player has to clear out a lot of very small stacks to get access to the resources. These small stacks hardly give the hero any bonus, but the leaders gain the same bonus as if they had just defeated ten thousand black dragons.
That's more or less built into the system. In the beginning you ALWAYS tend to defeat smaller stacks and later on bigger stacks. That's intentional. Besides, there are not all that MANY stacks on most Maps. Go and check a Map and you'll see that there are not all that many battles to fight.
Quote:
In this way, the leader advances very quickly and almost makes the hero useless.
No, the hero will mean a lot more in any case. With the outlined bonuses one additional Tactics Secondary skill bestows the same bonuses to ALL stacks which the 4 first medals do to ONE stack.
If you could chain creatures between Heroes it might have been more of problem but since you can't do that at the moment, I think it's Ok.
The XP system is severely skewed, especially on higher levels. Beyond level 20 the XP growth for gaining a level becomes eponential. It's much better to use battles.
I'm not complaining on how much you gain for a creature (which was improved in H4). I'm complaining on the actual numbers needed for Heroes to gain levels.
If you late game recruit a Leader in a big epic campaign. Then have ONE single fight, and *poof* the Leader has levelled out and gain 15 Medals 8 (if fifteen is the maximum). You probably just one fight against say 15 Black Dragons, or equivalent. (which might not be all that dangerous if you have say 50 Behemoths yourself) So having XP instead of number of battles gives several detrimental effects.
"- Does wear artifacts, but only artifacts that aid in the boosting of statistics."
This should be restricted. Only a few artifacts should be permissible for Leaders.
"- Does not cast spells that cannot be cast by the same creatures."
This is the wrong point of view. The Leader gives the stack abilities and these abilities can be spells. there is no real difference between the two. Besides, if you want to replace the upgrade system with Leaders, then you definiately want Leaders to add spells and spell like abilites.
"- Does not have special abilities in combat that the same creatures don't have."
I think they should. At the very least if they replace upgrades. Besides: +1 Morale, +1 Attack and the like are a special abilities. (it's at least possible to see them that way.)
- Can be killed, but also resurrected under special conditions.
Possibly.
"- Can claim mines and creature generators, when wandering without hero."
No. Not in my eyes. This is a "hero only" privilege in my opinion.
"- Cannot claim towns."
OK.
"- Cannot learn anything from adventure map structures (like the learning stone)."
OK.
The hero (assuming that they are taken off the battlefield, which is likely the case)
"- Does boost the statistics of all creatures under his or her command (if the appropriate hero is used)."
The Hero boosts creature stats in a generic way. The 'Hero' is always appropriate. If Hero has a +1 Attack to creatures, then how can that be 'inappropriate' for the Hero?
"- Does not add any special abilities to creatures (except with spells)."
They will probably add some. I mean take Pathfinding / Logistics. It affects the creatures as well, doesn't it?
You might also argue that for instance Drakon and Gelu in H3 added abilities to their creatures. So there ight be a few more.
|
|
Marelt_Ekiran
Promising
Famous Hero
Watcher of All
|
|
posted April 06, 2003 09:39 PM |
|
|
What's wrong with the high XP for one battle system, that is how it also works with heroes. In HOMM3, I the later parts of a scenario, I had a very strong enemy on the gates of my town and none of my heroes was close. I hired a level 1 hero and bought a very strong garrison.
I won that fight, mostly because my mighty gorgons killed most of the enemy ancient behemoths and there were more than 30 of them, with other units to match.
The level 1 hero gained 15 levels at once after that fight. Why should it not be the same way with leaders?
Also, you mentioned a maximum amount of levels that the leader should be able to obtain. The reason that the XP requirement starts to skyrocket after level 20 is to give the heroes a cap on their levels. That is why I plea for the XP system of the leaders, because it does provide a better cap, than just setting a maximum and it treats the battles more fairly. There should be more benefit for killing 20 dragons than for killing 1 squire.
Still, on a XL map in HOMM4, I was able to get my two heroes to level 35 without using a single tree of knowledge. After that, I started visiting all of those, ending with level 54 heroes with all skills maxed out.
Besides, you know as well as I do that the value of hero (and also leader) levels decreases as you advance in the game. In the early game, a level 5 hero is a strong hero. In the endgame, a level 15 hero would get knocked of the map in no time by the armies that by then have developed. The same thing with the leaders. By the time that you raised an army that can beat 20 dragons, a level 15 leader will not be worth as much as you think.
To go to another aspect, I still hope that NWC is going to keep at least some of the aspects of HOMM4 and will not fall back completely to HOMM3. Even if the heroes are no longer battlefield heroes, they should at least not go back to the mule hero system and allow creatures to walk by themselves.
But you are right, the ability to claim mines should be restricted to the heroes themselves.
But concerning the spells, you can see the vampires draining ability as a pre-cast spell, but I consider it just a special ability. I meant that the leaders grant those abilities to their own species, but do not cast spells if the base creature can't do that.
____________
Perception is everything.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted April 07, 2003 06:58 PM |
|
|
Why Leaders should not gain a lot of levels at once.
My take: it kind of spoils the strategy in the decision of which leader to evolve first. I mean if you can max them out in 1-2 combats anyway, then there's no point in having them anyway.
My take is that it should take time to evolve leaders, and giving a back door to gain the maxed out level in a few fights just spoils all the strategy.
In heroes 3 you could get very big stacks in the end game. One example is the lord of War where the castle player will have a Legion of Angels. In such epics campaigns the Leaders should not get full medals from one fight. And regardless, of how you design this the system will be flawed if you base it on XP. At least flawed in my opinion since it's not the way I intended them to work at all.
There's nothing wrong with Heroes gaining many levels in one fight, but my take on the Leaders is that you should have to take care of them for a period of time and many battles before they start paying back.
XP needed should increase, but should do so linearly. Not exponentially. Linear increase ensures that you get a level for defeating that 1000 Angels, high up on the levels whereas exponential increase will perhaps only give you a trifle along to next level for the same fight. To increase 4 levels you need to double your XP.
You won't get to kill 1 Squire all that often. So it's not a problem.
For your tree of Knowledge scenario. Visit the Trees first, and then try to gain XP. You'll probably end up with Heroes that are level 40, rather than 54.
Are the heroes deeds who take the Trees first so much less worth so that should be 15 levels lower? Overall, I'd say Map makers should remove trees and have more like 5 trees instead of 20. And instead the XP system could be changed so that the Hero gains those additional 15 levels through combat!
The leader enchances troops so you can take on bigger forces earlier with "acceptable" losses. It's not intended to be game breaking, but is intended to be useful.
If you have a level 15 Skeleton leader among your 100 Skeletons and you face 100 Skeletons with no Leader, then you might perhaps lose 20-40 Skeletons in the fight. (Assuming you use no other tactical options.) Without the Leader you have only about 50% chance to win the combat.
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
posted April 08, 2003 11:02 AM |
|
|
More Elaborating
It seems as though the old Experience vs. Medals debate is arising. I think we know what the best system is overall. However, it is not the best for the kind of idea that Djive has created. The experience system makes it seem (along with your spell and artifact suggestions) that a leader is a hero that is part of a creature stack. This would mean that the creature with a leader and the hero are both redundant, and there is no major difference between the two. I don't believe this is what Djive set out to do. Instead, I believe it is more as such:
+>To develop and enhance a creature more so that it is more interactive
+>To create more strategy while manipulating your creatures
+>To make up for the possible loss of the Heroes in Heroes V.
+>To test out a new idea that expands the possibilites of battle.
Djive:
"The Leader and the Hero would not be combinable in a single stack (at least not if we go with the Tombstone approach above)."
Yes. I would agree. Putting the two together would lead to further complications with the two balancing systems that are in place.
"One of the reasons I suggested counting battles is that I'm very much against the look of the XP table in Heroes. I don't want to reuse a bad model for something new."
Yes, however, if the experience system was to be perfected and balanced with the medal system, it would not be so much of a problem between the two.
"In reality each creature type would have it's own set of values for all leavels."
Again, this is what I had in mind for specific creatures. The hydra has different bonuses in the different areas than a mage. Because it is obvious that the two creatures are very different and follow differentiating battle tactics. Thus, it is logical to offer the leaders of these creatures different skills. (Quite redundant use of the word different there)
"I don't think the Leader should affect things outside the own stack, and the Leader is one with the stack."
You are correct in a way. But, I think maybe if there are other stacks of the same kind, such as my Hydras, there would be one stack with a leader and one without. The stack with the leader could influence the others luck and morale, since they are of the same type.
"These small stacks hardly give the hero any bonus, but the leaders gain the same bonus as if they had just defeated ten thousand black dragons."
This had been my point in the previous post I made. But I have found it also works both ways. While a hero would only gain a small amount of experience for an easy battle, a leader would gain a medal. Although, if there was a battle with 10,000 black dragons, the hero would gain a monstrous amount of levels, while the leader would still get one medal. The balancing dilemma is this:
On a small map, leaders would rule, since there isn't 10,000 black dragons around the corner, instead there are only small amounts of creatures. This means the leaders gain many medals, while the heroes do not gain much experience. This can work the opposite in large and extra large maps.
Djive II:
"The XP system is severely skewed, especially on higher levels. Beyond level 20 the XP growth for gaining a level becomes eponential. It's much better to use battles."
For the moment. If NWC can adopt something similar to the experience table you formualted many months ago, it may not be so difficult to perfect the system and get it functioning in synchronisation with the medals system. If the experience system is on song, it is a very fair and rewarding system to have. The medal system is more simple, and easier to balance.
"So having XP instead of number of battles gives several detrimental effects."
Your example is similar to mine. The two systems are not too similar, that is for sure, and they do not work well together, I would think. Their lines of great growth change. For example, the growth of a hero undulates, while the growth of a leader remains constant the whole way through the map, which is a positive aspect of your idea.
Marelt_Ekiran:
"The level 1 hero gained 15 levels at once after that fight. Why should it not be the same way with leaders?"
If this does occur, the system will not be constant, and quite similar to experience, except with different (and lower numbered) counters; medals. It does kind of ruin the strategy of developing your leader with the statistics of your creature. A leader is not just a single being, it is also apart of the stack of creatures it affects. It really is not just the leader's growth, it is the whole stacks growth. In contrast, the hero grows only by itself, and therefore it can afford to have independant variables, since they only affect itself. It is not responsible for the whole army or stack.
"The same thing with the leaders. By the time that you raised an army that can beat 20 dragons, a level 15 leader will not be worth as much as you think."
I believe that you fail to realise that leaders aren't leaders by themsevles, and the only measuring you have to do is how much the leader has affected your original creature's statistics, and calculate the creatures (added with the leaders) statistics, and figure out if it is sufficient to dispel 20 dragons. It is not too easy to miscalculate, unlike heroes, since they have no base to stand on or compare to. The opposing hero may have similar skills and experience, but may have different spells and artifacts. There are many more variables in heroes, as I have said before.
"I still hope that NWC is going to keep at least some of the aspects of HOMM4 and will not fall back completely to HOMM3."
As you will find out in my next thread, the Heroes IV engine is being re-used, yet many of the features are going to be very unique and different, not just from Heroes IV, but from all the Heroes Series. Quite cryptic, actually.
"XP needed should increase, but should do so linearly. Not exponentially. Linear increase ensures that you get a level for defeating that 1000 Angels, high up on the levels whereas exponential increase will perhaps only give you a trifle along to next level for the same fight. To increase 4 levels you need to double your XP."
Once again, I would like to express my praise for this theory. For the reasons you state here, it seems as though increasing the experience needed should increase linearly, if not, then it would just start back where we were in the unbalanced society of Heroes IV. This would be a step backwards. However, with your medals method, there is no problem which is similar to that.
I would have to say that the medals method or approach is more beneficial to the leaders than the experience system. This is because the leaders do not need to be as diverse or as complex as the Heroes are, and therefore do not need such a complicated system.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted April 08, 2003 05:50 PM |
|
|
"I don't think the Leader should affect things outside the own stack, and the Leader is one with the stack."
You are correct in a way. But, I think maybe if there are other stacks of the same kind, such as my Hydras, there would be one stack with a leader and one without. The stack with the leader could influence the others luck and morale, since they are of the same type.
=> I'd rather not. One of the motivations for the Leader idea is to remove potentially unbalancing abilities from single creature stacks. Mana drain and certain spells gained by spellcasters (type Song of Peace and Cowardice) would fit into this category. There are other ways to do this but Leaders would be one way of doing it.
"On a small map, leaders would rule, since there isn't 10,000 black dragons around the corner, instead there are only small amounts of creatures. This means the leaders gain many medals, while the heroes do not gain much experience. This can work the opposite in large and extra large maps."
=> Leaders would be more important yes, but remember that Heroes affect the army much more than the Leader anyway. There could also be an advanced option to configure the amount of combats which a Leader needs to gain before gaining a Medal. (On setting in the Map Editor and another configuration when starting a scenario would be the best.)
=> On the XP and battle discussion. It would seem advantegous to me if they work differently. This would mean that you have to cater for you heroes and your leaders in a different way.
|
|
Marelt_Ekiran
Promising
Famous Hero
Watcher of All
|
|
posted April 09, 2003 03:17 AM |
|
|
I get what everyone is saying, but I still don't think it is fair that killing 1 squire and killing 10000 black dragons would have the same result. However, I'll use some mathematics to make a compromise:
XPo = (XPk/1000)^1/(2.1 - 0.1 CL)*1000 + 500
XPo = Experience obtained (total for the leaders)
XPk = Experience worth of creatures killed
CL = Current level
The leaders use the same XP advance as the heroes (perhaps the both of these should be a bit modified), but they gain the XP in a different way. Let me just explain the formula.
This formula guarantees a minimum of 500 XP per battle, which is a lot to begin with, but little at higher levels. This system equalizes the experience per battle at the beginning, but makes this equalization less and less at higher levels. At level 11 and higher (I can easily change that number), the XP is calculated normally, but you still get the 500 XP bonus.
Some examples (all at advanced level):
For a level 1 leader (= no medals)
Killing 1 squire --> 571 XP
Killing 5 nagas --> 1225 XP
Killing 10 black dragons --> 3367 XP
For a level 6 leader (= 5 medals)
Killing 1 squire --> 529 XP
Killing 5 nagas --> 1151 XP
Killing 10 black dragons --> 4573 XP
For a level 11 and above leader (= 10+ medals)
Killing 1 squire --> 505 XP
Killing 5 nagas --> 1025 XP
Killing 10 black dragons --> 8720 XP
As you can see, at low levels, the small armies (squire and nagas) give relatively much XP, while the large stack of black dragons gives very little compared to its actual worth. This difference becomes larger throughout the levels. I think this is the best compromise for the per fight/per XP dilemma. The leaders will have a chance to advance well, but do not suddenly gain many levels in a large fight. The larger the army fought, the less XP the individual creatures are worth.
Just out of curiosity, I'll give the result if a level 1 leader survives a fight with 100 black dragons:
9566 XP
That is even less than a three times of the worth of 10 black dragons. It would still be enough for a number of levels, but assuming a normal hero advancing system, that fight would have brought a beginner to level 18.
Everyone agree with this compromise? Don't worry about the formula, the computer will do that calculation for you.
____________
Perception is everything.
|
| |
|
|
