Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.
Published on September 26, 2012 By Frogboy In Elemental Dev Journals

 

image

Who can ever forget the epic battle shown at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring?  Sauron the Maiar was able to wipe out hosts of men and elves in a single swing.  So terrible and powerful was he that he single handedly kept the armies of the last alliance at bay.

And yet…

There is a balance. Because what most people don’t realize is that the power of Sauron seemed great only in relation to his foes.  Some time in the past, the host of Numenor – mortal men – no elves, so overwhelmed Sauron and his allies – when Sauron was at his peek, that they were able to take him prisoner (this didn’t end well for Numenor in the long run).

And before then…

The half-elf, Luthien’s guardian companion, Huan, single handedly defeated Sauron in combat. Single. Handedly.  Huan was, essentially, a dog. How’s that for humiliating?

And before then…

A single elf nearly crippled Morgoth in single combat. Morgoth is to Sauron what Sauron is to Aragorn. Morgoth was a Valar, an entire order beyond what Sauron was. Practically a god.

The point being is that you don’t have to cripple the champions to make the soldiers you train relatively powerful.  The challenge is balance. And it is, to be certain, a significant challenge.

image

In the world of Elemental…

In the picture above, on the left, is Resana. She is the Empress of Krax. A Level 6 Channeler. She is quite mighty but only a wisp of what she will become later.  Next to her is a party of Krax Legionaires.  In Beta 5-B, they take 8 seasons to train (in Beta 5-A, the current public one, they’d take 17 turns to train).  In 1 on 1 combat, Resana would win unless the Legionaires got lucky in combat (critical hits).  But if there were two parties of them, she’d lose.

What changed?

What made training units unpleasant was that unless they were total junk, they took a long time to train. The equipment and skills were simply adding far too much training time. Why bother researching all this great tech if you couldn’t build it? So a considerable amount of time was spent relooking at how much equipment and traits should cost.

Another big change has to do with loot.  This is something we will be working more on. But in previous betas, it was common (literally) to find high end weapons very quickly – just laying around.

What we are moving towards, instead, is where you find cool loot early on but it’s not nearly as over powering. Your sovereign and champions start out with fairly low grade weapons (8 attack).  It’s a bit de-balancing to simply luck out and find a 12 attack +4 speed weapon.  That’s a 50% increase in raw damage not to mention a 25% improvement in initiative.

So instead, Resana finds interesting weapons with trade-offs. A Iron War Hammer that does 12 attack (yay) but weighs a lot (slowing her down) and lowers her initiative.  It makes her tougher in battle (she is doing more damage after all) but it also means she’d need troops to keep herself from getting swarmed. That’s just one example. 

Powerful, rare weapons are out there still. But they have to be earned. You won’t just turn over some lost cargo and find a magic broad sword anymore.

The other change we made has to do with hit points.  Previously, units gained 4 hit points per level.  So by level 10, that’s an additional 40 HP. It doesn’t take long before the trained units become almost irrelevant to the battle because that level 10 champion would have 60 HIP while that newly trained unit might half less than half of that.

The Goal

We do want players who have invested in their champions to be able to win epic battles, single handedly. However, we also want players who invest in building an empire to be able to achieve victory equally effectively.  In the early betas, the champions were considered to weak. The pendulum has swung too far the other way.  Beta 5-B will be our first pass at bringing balance to this conflict.


Comments (Page 4)
10 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Sep 26, 2012

cardinaldirection
Quoting KingHobbit, reply 45
One of the things I don't like about trained troops.  You can upgrade armor and weapons as they progress, but you cannot upgrade unit size.  So if you have units that you have cultivated through the game, and have increased their armor and weaponery as needed, they still cannot add members.

 

Agreed, an option to upgrade the number of troops in a stack (as the appropriate technologies are researched) is only logical.

It should be doable as a rush cost in a city that is idle at the moment. But this is probably a new feature and can hopefully added later.

on Sep 26, 2012

NorsemanViking
I see nothing wrong in being able to win the game with heroes only either, but it should be an unefficient way to win.

I'm sure it will be alot more efficient now to do an early military tech or two and build some units to support your heroes. It certainly sounds like it reading the patch notes. After that there will be some really hard choices presented: Go even further up in military tech and get even better hero support in the form of horses and better weapons both for heroes and units, but delaying huger squads and more building options from the civilization tree, or more and better heroes being able to be recruited and the magical stuff in the magic tree.......

I can clearly see the choosing here will be alot harder and fun, and finally as intended more or less.

Exactly so! 

Players should always have: a host of Meaningful Choices, and Alternative Paths to Victory (or intermediate goals)! 

In this realm of Champions (Sovereign and heros) versus Soldiers (trained units), players should have the ability to strategize and play along conventional military lines (relying primarily on trained units)   OR   along Fantasy game lines (relying primarily on Champions)   OR   along some appealing/plausible/feasible combination of the two.

Having trained units that evolve, in the course of the game, by increasing from 3 to 5 to 7 to 9 soldiers is just one more way of providing that delightful variety of playing choices.   Of course, it  DOES  all come down to gettng the balance  RIGHT.   If Stardock tries; but simply can not get the balance right, then they can abandon having trained units that grow in size.  But if they can get the balance right in this realm, it adds to the game ...

I do think that King Hobbit makes a good point, that in a perfect world (well ... a perfect game), it would be even better if we could  Retro-fit  older trained units, to increase the older ones in size, when the newer training technologies are unlocked, which permit larger formations.

Balance Rules !   

 

on Sep 26, 2012

I think that one area of combat that is missing from FE that might bring some balance to the quantity vs quality balance involved in soldiers vs champions is having your surroundings matter in battle.  It should matter that your unit has X allies nearby and Y enemies.  It should matter if you can get attackers on either side of an enemy and flank him.  Currently, where you move your units in combat matters very little, so long as you can attack.  If being surrounded reduced your defense, or attacking without moving worked differently than if you moved and then attacked, combat might be more interesting than simply 1.) get up next to an enemy 2.)  Hit each other until someone dies.

on Sep 26, 2012

KingHobbit
One of the things I don't like about trained troops.  You can upgrade armor and weapons as they progress, but you cannot upgrade unit size.  So if you have units that you have cultivated through the game, and have increased their armor and weaponery as needed, they still cannot add members.

But then when you add members to the squad, how do you explain them keeping their experience level? Say you have a level 10 3-member squad which you upgrade to a 9-member squad, you have effectively tripled the squad's power, but those new members start at level 10. So in the end it might, again, come to the balance, so that an early unit which has gathered much experience and is powerful already, may not be made even more powerful by increasing its size. Considering this, I think this mechanic is fine as it is now, otherwise you could have massively overpowered units.

Now you could make the point that the same thing should apply when a squad loses members, and when healed, and members magically reappear, the squad maintains the same experience level. But reducing the experience of a squad to compensate for new members would only add empty complexity to the game, which is a fantasy game, not a realistic military simulation. Games like Hearts of Iron 3 do reduce the overall experience of a combat unit when being reinforced to compensate for recruits' inexperience, but it is certainly not the case to add this kind of complexity to FE.

on Sep 26, 2012

NorsemanViking
Well, the benefits with the system is pretty obvious. It's called strategical choice. Do you go for better weapons and armory first, or do you go for huger squads (meaning more hitpoints and more concentrated arms power), or perhaps I want to fit more heroes and units into an army (Having 5 instead of 4 units in an army of course can mean a great deal too)?

 

I'm not against differing groups sizes per say and I do agree with what you say here but the way they're implemented atm does way more harm than good imho. 

Because of the attack value stacking you get huge power leaps between different sizes and weapon tiers which doesn't scale well and is a balancing nightmare, even more so when you throw in champions/single units.

The only way I see different squad sizes really working is something like this:

Instead of a 4 unit group with 10 attack per unit having a combined attack of 40, it should have 4 attacks of 10 (each unit's attack is calculated separately). Combat-wise, not much would change. All these individual attacks would still be condensed into a single attack move/animation, only the combat formula would change. This way you could always balance a single weapon piece vs a single armour piece instead of attack values getting the crazy x3, x6, x9 scaling vs. x1 armour value. This would especially benefit group vs. single unit balancing I think. 

With units in a group doing individual attacks, larger groups would still have the advantage (more attacks) but things would scale much more reasonably/gradually without the high spikes in attack power. Each separate attack could be dodged and each would also get a separate chance to be a critical and their combined "damage done" values would combine to provide the final damage result. In case of high armour values more attacks would also produce more *clinks* thus increasing the minimum damage done and providing better scaling between weaker/stronger units. 

Of course, some overall rebalancing would be needed, especially in regards to champions, but it would be a big improvement imo.

on Sep 26, 2012

[quote who="Jean=A=Luc" reply="51" id="3237111"]
Instead of a 4 unit group with 10 attack per unit having a combined attack of 40, it should have 4 attacks of 10 (each unit's attack is calculated separately
[/quote]

Isnt this like it is right now? That is my impression after using trained troops for a couple of games now, I usually see them clink off lower armour.

[quote who="Jean=A=Luc" reply="51" id="3237111"]
In case of high armour values more attacks would also produce more *clinks* thus increasing the minimum damage done and providing better scaling between weaker/stronger units.
[/quote]

Clink is not the lowest damage, the lowest damage is "Block" which is another reason armour is powerful.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

on Sep 26, 2012

Ok, my point is the same.

on Sep 26, 2012

[quote who="Jean=A=Luc" reply="51" id="3237111"]
Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 39Well, the benefits with the system is pretty obvious. It's called strategical choice. Do you go for better weapons and armory first, or do you go for huger squads (meaning more hitpoints and more concentrated arms power), or perhaps I want to fit more heroes and units into an army (Having 5 instead of 4 units in an army of course can mean a great deal too)?

 

I'm not against differing groups sizes per say and I do agree with what you say here but the way they're implemented atm does way more harm than good imho. 

Because of the attack value stacking you get huge power leaps between different sizes and weapon tiers which doesn't scale well and is a balancing nightmare, even more so when you throw in champions/single units.

The only way I see different squad sizes really working is something like this:

Instead of a 4 unit group with 10 attack per unit having a combined attack of 40, it should have 4 attacks of 10 (each unit's attack is calculated separately). Combat-wise, not much would change. All these individual attacks would still be condensed into a single attack move/animation, only the combat formula would change. This way you could always balance a single weapon piece vs a single armour piece instead of attack values getting the crazy x3, x6, x9 scaling vs. x1 armour value. This would especially benefit group vs. single unit balancing I think. 

With units in a group doing individual attacks, larger groups would still have the advantage (more attacks) but things would scale much more reasonably/gradually without the high spikes in attack power. Each separate attack could be dodged and each would also get a separate chance to be a critical and their combined "damage done" values would combine to provide the final damage result. In case of high armour values more attacks would also produce more *clinks* thus increasing the minimum damage done and providing better scaling between weaker/stronger units. 

Of course, some overall rebalancing would be needed, especially in regards to champions, but it would be a big improvement imo.[/quote]

 

That is how it works now.

on Sep 26, 2012

The actual mechanics of combat seem to mystify many beta testers. See the conversation on weapon balance to get a better idea of how it works. 

on Sep 26, 2012

Would it also be possible to allow further customization of troops after they're built? Sometimes I level up a soldier to a pretty high level but then I feel it's really annoying that I can't later choose to give him a horse.

on Sep 26, 2012

Has anybody talked about the fact that my games are over before anybody gets to chain or plate?  If there really is some strategy behind which weapons to use against which armor, then why not let chain and plate be more accessible early on?

on Sep 26, 2012

Just thinking out loud. Why not add some traits to groups of units that allow bonuses for attacking heroes? Why not add a trait to certain monsters that specialize in killing heroes? An inverse of the Overpower trait? The logic here is twofold: grant additional bonus to groups of units for "swarming" a hero because it's a group, they can surround and attack from multiple angles, etc. Furthermore, grant bonuses to select mobs that specialize in killing heros. I do remember in EWOM the troll warriors had a nasty ability to kill heroes, especially melee. I always tread lightly around those guys when I saw them. Wish I could remember what that ability was called.

For example:

  • A 3 man group of something gets the trait "swarm 1" which allows bonuses to fighting single units (heroes)
  • A 5 man group gets swarm 2 which grants a higher bonus than swarm 1
  • 7 man, 9 man, etc get even higher bonuses
  • A butcherman (or any other select monsters) gets some kind of hero assassin trait which doubles attack strength or something against heroes

On the other hand I guess one could argue that the attack strength is already reflected in the strength of the unit. An alternative could be to compare the size of attacking/defending groups and apply bonuses/penalities based on the disparity. A 9 man group fighting another 9 man group is on equal terms from a quantity standpoint, so bonus/penalities offset. However, a lone hero taking on 9 or a group of 3 is altogether different as the hero could be swarmed from all angles. It could be as simple as adding modifiers based on the relative size of the attacking/defending groups?

At the end of the day I think a system like this would push heroes to be dragon killers, and normal units to be the backbone of the military and pacifying the world. But I also could be talkin' out of me arse.

 

on Sep 26, 2012

But then when you add members to the squad, how do you explain them keeping their experience level? Say you have a level 10 3-member squad which you upgrade to a 9-member squad, you have effectively tripled the squad's power, but those new members start at level 10. So in the end it might, again, come to the balance, so that an early unit which has gathered much experience and is powerful already, may not be made even more powerful by increasing its size. Considering this, I think this mechanic is fine as it is now, otherwise you could have massively overpowered units.

Now you could make the point that the same thing should apply when a squad loses members, and when healed, and members magically reappear, the squad maintains the same experience level. But reducing the experience of a squad to compensate for new members would only add empty complexity to the game, which is a fantasy game, not a realistic military simulation. Games like Hearts of Iron 3 do reduce the overall experience of a combat unit when being reinforced to compensate for recruits' inexperience, but it is certainly not the case to add this kind of complexity to FE.

 

I do think it needs to have some costs to train, and the unit has down time.  ANother option would be the upgrade is added to the unit, and the extra figures are added at the rate of healing.  This could simulate a training time.  The problem would be a healing spell.  which we would have to figure out.

on Sep 27, 2012

AlLanMandragoran
Just thinking out loud. Why not add some traits to groups of units that allow bonuses for attacking heroes? Why not add a trait to certain monsters that specialize in killing heroes? An inverse of the Overpower trait? The logic here is twofold: grant additional bonus to groups of units for "swarming" a hero because it's a group, they can surround and attack from multiple angles, etc. Furthermore, grant bonuses to select mobs that specialize in killing heros. I do remember in EWOM the troll warriors had a nasty ability to kill heroes, especially melee. I always tread lightly around those guys when I saw them. Wish I could remember what that ability was called.

For example:


A 3 man group of something gets the trait "swarm 1" which allows bonuses to fighting single units (heroes)
A 5 man group gets swarm 2 which grants a higher bonus than swarm 1
7 man, 9 man, etc get even higher bonuses
A butcherman (or any other select monsters) gets some kind of hero assassin trait which doubles attack strength or something against heroes

On the other hand I guess one could argue that the attack strength is already reflected in the strength of the unit. An alternative could be to compare the size of attacking/defending groups and apply bonuses/penalities based on the disparity. A 9 man group fighting another 9 man group is on equal terms from a quantity standpoint, so bonus/penalities offset. However, a lone hero taking on 9 or a group of 3 is altogether different as the hero could be swarmed from all angles. It could be as simple as adding modifiers based on the relative size of the attacking/defending groups?

At the end of the day I think a system like this would push heroes to be dragon killers, and normal units to be the backbone of the military and pacifying the world. But I also could be talkin' out of me arse.

 

 

I also believe - and have suggested - that a swarming trait which gave groups extra strength over single enemies would solve A LOT of the problems mentioned in this thread and others... just as you say, it would allow for heroes to effectively battle large, single monsters (dragons) and still need army-building in order to fight monster groups or other AI armies. It would also make it harder for single heroes to conquer cities defended by several weaker units.

Please, Derek and Brad, consider this for the next Beta (5C)... it may solve a LOT of problems !!!

on Sep 27, 2012


It would make mites a mite bit stronger too.

10 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last