|
| Thread: Heroes 5 Wish: "Leaders" |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
posted April 09, 2003 07:01 PM |
|
Edited By: Djive on 11 Aug 2003
|
You won't get me to like the XP system for the leaders as long as you base the XP only on the enemy faced.
A possibility is to compare the XP of your army vs. the XP of the enemy army, and award points towards the Medal based on how the two compare.
Something like:
Your forces will crush the enemy: 1 point.
You forces are more powerful than the enemy: 2 points.
Power of the armies are about equal: 3 points.
Enemy army are more powerful than your forces: 4 points.
The enemy will crush your forces: 5 points.
(Obviously, survival should be greatly at risk for the Leader in the 4 and 5 points case so the army strength estimate will have to be fairly good. And that is the main problem with this suggestion.)
This might be based on XP value of the stacks, but the XP value needs to be better than the H4 estimate. (Which is fairly inaccurate for heroes.)
This system might lead to a bit more micro-management but that could be tolerable.
I still like the simplicity of counting combats best, but the above suggestion might work as a compromise.
*Revived*
|
|
Magus
Hired Hero
Warper of Time-Space
|
|
posted April 09, 2003 11:37 PM |
|
|
I have an idea that is fairly simple, use the XP system, but if a leader would gain more than one medal, it only gains one, and the leaders XP is 1 below that needed to acheive the next level. In addition, differing army strengths need to be taken into account. A midlevel army defeating some black dragons would be worth alot more than a god-army obliterating the same black dragons
____________
So was the land riven by Chaos and Destruction, and so it was cleansed from existence. I did this, the Magus of Ly'kail, Magus of the Sylvan Kingdoms.
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted August 11, 2003 09:47 PM |
|
|
It sounds cool but i think it is a bad idea. This is basically what they wanted heroes to be for H4, and we all know how that turned out. I think h5 should be in more of a stagedy game direction rather than an RPG one.
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted August 11, 2003 10:07 PM |
|
|
H3 is be ruels, H4 is be suc!!!
How about there are different kind of leaders? I mean.. "speed leader" "damage leader" "hitpoints leader" "resistance leader" and so on..
You get to customize the stack as you see fit, and then that value increases. Makes for another strategic element of variation.
On the other hand, some games become so complicated that its boring to play them, and they become all about numbers and doing freaking micromaintenance instead of about the gaming experience.
I say give us Heroes that are out of battle as in H3, skills as in H3 creatures that can be upgraded not 1, but 2 times, about 6-7 of them, and give us about 6-8 towns.
Retaliation comes after damage is made, one spell per round, same battlefield as h3, possible viewed in 3d, but the grid should be the same. Maybe separate speed and initiative, so that the fastest creature might not be the one that moves first.
Some new zany but balanced spells, new structures that are fun but not overpowering, some moderately powerful artifacts, and most of all:
Make the creature slots squared! circles be suc.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 07:36 PM |
|
Edited By: Djive on 17 Aug 2003
|
Hmmmm Dingo and Bjorn190.
You don't seem to have understood the idea of the thread.
Leaders are much more like creatures than they are like Heroes, and as suggested I see very little resemblance between how the Leader works and how the Hero works in Heroes 4.
Please comment on the idea as proposed.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 09:17 PM |
|
|
Djive isn't a leader a hero realy? Unless if you mean something of a Civilization 3 type? I don't realy see much use of it.
____________
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 09:52 PM |
|
|
No they are not the same because:
1. Leader only affects a particular type of creature.
2. Is always part of a Creature stack, and always affects only THAT stack.
3. Can give new abilities and spells to creatures.
4. Don't use Heroes XP progression. (At least not if I get to decide.)
5. Have fixed upgrades instead of selectable ones.
6. Can't use artifacts, scrolls, or potions.
7. Can't flag structures.
There are probably more differences but the above is a start.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 09:59 PM |
|
|
i see exactly your point, but wouldn't it be easier to let creatures gain experience?
____________
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 10:24 PM |
|
Edited By: Djive on 17 Aug 2003
|
No. This system is made to replace creature Experience and making it much more simple.
You get horrendous problems with micromanagement when splitting, adding to and merging stacks if you introduce creature XP.
Especially so if the XP is supposed to upgrade some creature so they have new spells or abilities. The problem being that only some creatures in stack have the ability.
Also as mentioned earlier in the thread, XP based advancedment is REALLY bad if they keep the current XP table, or make a new similar one on the same basics.
Just try to explain all the special cases you have will probably be an essay five times the length of my original post explaining how Leaders work.
Most of these things are touched upon in the thread already, so you might try reading it through a bit more carefully.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 10:54 PM |
|
|
let's see..
the problem with creature exp:Quote:
You get horrendous problems with micromanagement when splitting, adding to and merging stacks if you introduce creature XP.
and the solution to the problem (from the first post):Quote:
A stack with a Leader can never split away any creatures from it.
to pu it in another way, people would feel harassed if you wouldn't let them split or merge the stack with other stacks of same creatures. to prevent people feeling harassed, you introduce the concept of leaders, that will make the people feel important instead. the solution isn't bad, but the way i see it, it's so smart that it looks funny.
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted August 17, 2003 11:16 PM |
|
|
I would be willing to compromise on the part about allowing to split the stack.  It's not essential to the idea.
It's outlined a few posts further below. You simple consider the Leader, the last creature in the stack.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted August 18, 2003 01:11 AM |
|
|
lol, i was just provoked!
actually i did read those leader ideas once upon a time, because i was interested the idea of having heroes as the last unit in a stack, inspired by the posts who said that a stack should have a bodyguard stance that would let it stop any stacks approaching the hero. the problem i saw was that the heroes as a separate stack would have to be absurdly strong to reasonably survive the battlefield in some cases. and i did say the leaders idea was somewhat complicated in another thread, and my previous post didn't sound too complicated, didn't it?
ok.. lets see..Quote:
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.
...
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.
...
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.)
so, if it was creature exp without leaders, then if two creature stacks were merged, the experience level of the resulting creature stack would be the experience level of the more experienced strack before merging. where the leaders have the cool effect is when you split the stack.
it is somewhat natural to say that the effectiveness of a stack largely depends on it's leader. and it's natural to say that a stack does have a leader that forwards commands of the hero to the stack. and the stack merging this way is also natural. of course the leader system is only an approximation of the real situation, as the newly recruited creatures are unlikely to be as good as veterans led by the leader, but you probably can't have it all.
the problems start when you split the stack with two leaders. how do you decide which stack should get which leader without some minor micromanagement?
and the second problem is when you say that the player should not have too many leaders of same type, especially in the same stack. what if the player ignores your best wishes and concentrates all his efforts on amassing the leaders (i.e. if it becomes a major strategical objective)?
and the third and imho more serious type of problem is when you want to go to a battle, but you have too few monsters of that type but you don't want to risk your leader, and nearest town where you could hire more creatures of that type is too far away. i guess you will have to leave your leader behind before the battle in this case. i havn't seen any ideas to let the leader retreat before the rest of the army (e.g. to make the situation equal when you are attacked) and wait for the result of the battle, and don't think i'd be excited about such wimpy leaders.
couldn't many minotaurs have a potential to become minotaur leaders? wouldn't it be possible that the best leadership talent is discovered in battle? if a leader is more like a creature, what makes it so special that you have to pay extra money for it? what would be the cost of a leader if you wanted to recruit it as a normal creature, or would the leader then refuse to join the army?
now, everyone knows napoleon, but few people know the probably carefully picked lower commanders that forwarded his commands to the units. if someone would describe napoleon's army, he would probably say that the army was led by napoleon, then how many and what type of creatures were in the army, how much battle experience the army had, and maybe then would talk about the generals (if at all). although it doesn't cover the effect of leaders to it's full extent, in a way the selecting of generals may be viewed as a part of hero exp and the stack representation might be viewed as the leader of the stack. the strategical aspect of developing leaders would be valid, but considering the leader exp is also adding some mental micromanagement. i don't really know if i would support the idea or be against it.
and the main reason that i am skeptical about the idea is that everybody understands and expects the concept of creature exp, but the concept of leaders is new, even if everything that is new about it is just the word.
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted August 18, 2003 07:13 PM |
|
Edited By: Djive on 13 Jan 2004
|
"so, if it was creature exp without leaders, then if two creature stacks were merged, the experience level of the resulting creature stack would be the experience level of the more experienced strack before merging. where the leaders have the cool effect is when you split the stack."
=> Not "XP level". The correct way of saying this is that the Leader would not lose/gain Medals because he gets more (or less) troops under his command. Likewise, a Captain is a Captain regardless if he commands 10 or 50 recruits.
"it is somewhat natural to say that the effectiveness of a stack largely depends on it's leader."
=> Not only the Leader. A high level Hero and powerful spells would both affect the stack more than the Leader ever could.
"and it's natural to say that a stack does have a leader that forwards commands of the hero to the stack."
=> I'd rather say that the Leader translates Hero command to the stack, and makes them more effective, and this based on a deep understanding of how the own race works and what it can do.
"and the stack merging this way is also natural. of course the leader system is only an approximation of the real situation, as the newly recruited creatures are unlikely to be as good as veterans led by the leader, but you probably can't have it all."
=> No. That's correct. You could ask how you know the troops you recruit are tenderfeet? Perhaps, they have a lot of experience. They just need someone to encourage them. In fact it's difficult to explain the way the hero influences the troops in any other way. The difference between the Leader and Hero is that Hero has generic skills in boosting Morale, while Leader has race specific knowledge to give a similar boost.
"the problems start when you split the stack with two leaders. how do you decide which stack should get which leader without some minor micromanagement?"
=> The best alternative here is perhaps to just allow each player to have maximum ONE Leader of each type.
=> Another approach is to simple remove the second Leader altogether if the player decides to merge two stacks which both contains Leaders.
=> A third approach is to accept the micromanagement.
=> It's not evident which method here is the best. This will depend a bit on how the designers want to implement the specifics of the Leaders idea.
"and the second problem is when you say that the player should not have too many leaders of same type, especially in the same stack. what if the player ignores your best wishes and concentrates all his efforts on amassing the leaders (i.e. if it becomes a major strategical objective)?"
=> Then the player is not gaining the full benefits of the Leaders.
"and the third and imho more serious type of problem is when you want to go to a battle, but you have too few monsters of that type but you don't want to risk your leader, and nearest town where you could hire more creatures of that type is too far away. i guess you will have to leave your leader behind before the battle in this case."
=> Yes, this is correct. But the decision to leave the Leader behind is a pure strategical one.
=> In the case where the stack you risk is all the Orcs you have, the decision should be straight-forward, because the Player should be aware that an orc Leader with zero other Orcs in the army is not going to be useful. So best is to risk the Leader.
"i havn't seen any ideas to let the leader retreat before the rest of the army (e.g. to make the situation equal when you are attacked) and wait for the result of the battle, and don't think i'd be excited about such wimpy leaders."
=> No. I don't think they should be allowed to retreat. And they shouldn't be allowed to flee if the Hero flees either. Surrender will of course preserve the Leader, as it should.
"couldn't many minotaurs have a potential to become minotaur leaders? wouldn't it be possible that the best leadership talent is discovered in battle? if a leader is more like a creature, what makes it so special that you have to pay extra money for it? what would be the cost of a leader if you wanted to recruit it as a normal creature, or would the leader then refuse to join the army?"
=> I guess you could gain Leaders this way also. Perhaps, you could give a 1% chance per surviving creature and battle for a creature to evolve to a Leader. (Instead of getting them through a Tavern)
=> This would probably work best with allowing player only to have one Leader at a time for any one creature type. At the very least a stack which already has a Leader should not get an additional Leader.
=> On the last passages. You would probably find Leaders to be a good idea if you added some of your own personal tunings to it. "Leaders" is in itself a concept which can be taken in different directions depending on what you wish to obtain with the feature.
Edit:
Seeing that some creature XP topics have resurfacd I though I might revive my idea on how to get the benefits of creatures evolving without giving creatures XP.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted January 13, 2004 09:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
=> This would probably work best with allowing player only to have one Leader at a time for any one creature type. At the very least a stack which already has a Leader should not get an additional Leader.
how would one leader per creature type affect gameplay? same type creatures all in one army? if you want to have multiple armies, it might reduce the number of stacks which might not be bad from multiplayer point of view (combat rounds take less time).
Quote:
A possibility is to compare the XP of your army vs. the XP of the enemy army, and award points towards the Medal based on how the two compare.
Something like:
Your forces will crush the enemy: 1 point.
You forces are more powerful than the enemy: 2 points.
Power of the armies are about equal: 3 points.
Enemy army are more powerful than your forces: 4 points.
The enemy will crush your forces: 5 points.
i would rather base the exp the stack gains on how much damage the stack does or at least on what it kills. it would be weird if the stack gained honors for just running back and forth on the battlefield, being frozen with low morale, or doing something else stupid while other stacks win the fight.
Quote:
Djive isn't a leader a hero realy?
imho the reason to have leaders that i see so far instead of giving the creature-specific medals to the hero is to preserve the veteran status of a stack when you move the stack to an inexperienced hero.
as far as i remember, djive's other idea was about an artifact like centaur's axe accumulating creature-specific exp. now that the latest version of leaders is 'one leader per creature type' it resembles such an artifact except that the leaders can die in battle and you probably get them in a different way.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted January 13, 2004 10:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
how would one leader per creature type affect gameplay? same type creatures all in one army? if you want to have multiple armies, it might reduce the number of stacks which might not be bad from multiplayer point of view (combat rounds take less time).
It would make splitting less beneficial. Unfortunately, it won't help aginast players who split away single creatures just to sacrifice them.
You would want to gather all creatures of one type to one army, but ... don't players already do that in earlier Heroes installments?
Quote:
i would rather base the exp the stack gains on how much damage the stack does or at least on what it kills. it would be weird if the stack gained honors for just running back and forth on the battlefield, being frozen with low morale, or doing something else stupid while other stacks win the fight.
I don't like basing the awards on what you kill, since that makes the system complex and may encourage players to make combat last long simply because they HAVE to make the kill with that stack instead of the stack which could take care of it much quicker.
All schemes based on what is killed all seem to fail to scale well, between small scenarios on side and epic scenarios on the other, and this simply because creature stacks are much bigger in the latter case.
And besides, the Leader barely does any damage at all, and the percentage decreases with the stack size. The creatures doing the bulk of the damage is the rest of the stack.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Polaris
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted January 14, 2004 08:57 AM |
|
|
The way I see it, the only irreconcilable difference between the leaders and creature experience are that leaders grant benefits to new troops that are pumped into a stack and experience does not. All other things being equal, I would say creature experience is the better idea; but of course, all other things are not equal.
It is my understanding that the main reason leaders were introduced was to streamline the complexities introduced by creature experience (mainly with stacking). But as leaders evolved, it seems a host of new complexities have come out of it (mainly with stacking). That's a zero sum game. Leaders do not seem to be fulfilling their intended role.
How can that be solved?
Well, it seems awkward that a stack of units should ever contain a unit that is not the same as the other units in the stack (the leader). This should be addressed. Treat leaders as though they were a kind of artifact equipped on creature stacks (Of course I do not mean they would be literal artifacts, but I mean they would be transferred and equipped like artifacts). This eliminates the stacking problem as I see it and also kills most of the conceptual difficulty. You even get more depth with leaders: they don't have to be of a certain creature type. They can be more general things like a stat boosting "Defense Leader" or special ability granting "Morale Leader" or a spell enhancing "Fire Leader." Now you can mix and match how you want to boost a creature stack!
Now the only main question remaining is, do the benefits of leaders outweigh the drawbacks? The biggest drawback I see is that lots of units can become really strong really quick at a really low cost. The other team also has leaders, but are leaders a self cancelling feature as far as balance is concerned? I would guess not because creature growth cannot be ignored, and it costs nothing extra to bring a huge stack of troops under the command of an experienced leader, whereas all other methods of upgrade require additional cost per unit (except heroes as commanders, but that is not creature specific).
____________
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted January 14, 2004 11:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
All schemes based on what is killed all seem to fail to scale well, between small scenarios on side and epic scenarios on the other, and this simply because creature stacks are much bigger in the latter case.
And besides, the Leader barely does any damage at all, and the percentage decreases with the stack size. The creatures doing the bulk of the damage is the rest of the stack.
oh.. so that's the reason? in the case of leaders gaining exp based on the damage the stack does, the exp could be divided by number of creatures in the stack.
========
when your army is small, it would look more natural that the hero is the commander and there are no leaders (and probably that the hero takes part in battle). atm i don't have any idea how that could be reflected in the leaders system, though.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted January 14, 2004 08:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It is my understanding that the main reason leaders were introduced was to streamline the complexities introduced by creature experience (mainly with stacking). But as leaders evolved, it seems a host of new complexities have come out of it (mainly with stacking). That's a zero sum game. Leaders do not seem to be fulfilling their intended role.
There doesn't need to be any complexities with stacking. To avoid them you can simply restrict player to 1 Leader per creature type.
Stacking in a creature XP problem is awful because of sharing XP issues. Leaders gives MUCH less problem in this area, and can be minimized to NONE at all if you want to.
Quote:
Well, it seems awkward that a stack of units should ever contain a unit that is not the same as the other units in the stack (the leader).
I think this is nit-picking over a non-issue. All creatures in the stack share the same stats, appearance, abilities and so on.
If you wanted to you could just as well say that you're simply allowing the stack to evolve (instead of the Leader evolving), and you would get the same feature, but IMO it would appear more bland and be a bit unappealing. Evolving stacks has a much less appealing tone to me than Leaders do.
Equipping creatures with artifacts is another conceptual idea, and quite separate from the idea of Leaders. I don't see why an artifact will evolve to a better artifact because some creatures uses it in combat.
Quote:
Now the only main question remaining is, do the benefits of leaders outweigh the drawbacks?
They can't become strong really quick. At least not if you require actual combat participation. The number of combats you can fight on a map is limited (because neutral stacks are limited), and this limits developement of the Leader.
Quote:
The biggest drawback I see is that lots of units can become really strong really quick at a really low cost.
Are you referring to placing units with an exisiting Leader here? I don't think you would. You need the creatures in the stack to protect the Leader early on, so you can't just accumulate creatures in your castle. And if you anyway choose to accumulate creatures, then you take dire risks with your Leaders, because his stack will be small and could be wiped out.
Quote:
The other team also has leaders, but are leaders a self cancelling feature as far as balance is concerned? I would guess not because creature growth cannot be ignored, and it costs nothing extra to bring a huge stack of troops under the command of an experienced leader, whereas all other methods of upgrade require additional cost per unit (except heroes as commanders, but that is not creature specific).
I don't see how creature growth would make Leaders unbalanced. All creatures which you can recruit grows in the same way. The feature may very well even out differences between creature levels because the low- creature level Leaders will have taken part in more fights than high creature level Leaders, and would therefore even the differences between the creature levels.
To become better Leaders require that you use them which often means that you lose creatures of the stack which the Leader improved.
A dead artifact can give the same bonus, but why would it evolve? Why would an artifact require to be used to become better?
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Polaris
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2004 12:18 AM |
|
|
I think there was a misunderstanding when I used the word artifact. I did not mean that each creature would have an inventory and could equip an artifact called "leader." I meant that leaders could be implemented in the same fashion as artifacts on a conceptual level.
This is more precisely what I mean:
Each stack could have a "leader slot" (which is basically the same as an artifact slot, but only leaders could go in it) and you would "equip" a leader to this leader slot. This leader would not, I repeat- *would not*, be an artifact. It would, however, be treated in much the same way as an artifact conceptually. But it would have the drawback that if the stack died, the leader would be lost permanently (or at least would suffer the same penalty as a leader that is part of the stack). Also, the leader could level up in some fashion, maybe even gain skills and stat bonuses like heroes. Last, leaders would probably not be acquired in the same fashion as artifacts.
Not only are leaders easier to keep track of like this, but the stacking problems are nonexistant (basically, a duplicate set of creature stacks was created but only leaders can go in these new creature stacks, which I called "leader slots" in the above discussion). Also the bizarre multiple leaders underneath stacks of creatures is eliminated which you may think is a simple twist but I think is a major UI oddity. (Seems difficult to see exactly how the leader is buffing your army with that technique, and how do you keep track of the unused leader's bonuses?). Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up because you seemed to have the wrong idea of how my implementation would work.
____________
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted January 15, 2004 12:24 PM |
|
|
if a stack has a leader slot, how would it solve any stacking problems with leaders? there's only one leader, multiple stacks can't equip it.
if the hero or army had leader slot(s), it might arrange some things different than suggested by djive atm.
the artifact idea that i reminded was an artifact equipped otr perhaps carried by a hero. it would act like a creature speciality that would improve the more you deal with those creatures.
a hero could have creature specialties that increase the more the hero commands the creatures in battle.
the idea that a creature stack should become stronger, in fact the idea that only one creature stack in the whole universe has the ability to become stronger, and keep it's strength when normal unexperienced creatures are added, doesn't appeal to me. better be it leaders rather than this.
|
| |
|
|
