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 7)
10 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last
on Sep 30, 2012


I am late to the post, obviously.  So I won't leave lengthy comment.  I am very appreciative to changes made in this regard.

on Oct 01, 2012

Regarding Frogboy's OP: a champion's superhuman actions are only half of the reason they may come to be considered an epic legend, the other is their eventual death.

 

Champions are just troops - yet being both immortal, and relatively permanent additions to a player's roster once hired, actually has the unintended and inverse effects of not only making other trained troops seem entirely optional and unimportant (more than anything else in the game I might add), but also of completely diminishing the feeling of importance actually intended for champions.

The value of anything is directly related to the weight of losing or not having it.

on Oct 01, 2012

Having had a chance to actually build some troops in my most recent game, I must say they feel greatly improved.  With an essence-heavy city and some decent production, I'm able to pump out some terrifyingly powerful troops that even my own heroes would be hard-pressed to take down.  I'm particularly happy with my basic mage troops that have 60(!) elemental attack.  I still greatly prefer building henchmen over troop stacks, but there's now a very serious incentive to build a proper army.

on Oct 01, 2012

I'm new to the game, so I have no comments at all - is just figuring out how to play this great game so far. But I'm impressed that the devs are actually listening to the players and making changes to the game  THANKS!!

on Oct 01, 2012


As of last patch - surprisingly significant difference, good job! Units much more useful, heroes much more fragile, at least in my game. Looking for the next steps, keep up the good work!

on Oct 01, 2012

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.

After giving it some thought the big problem with champions was they snowballed quickly without requiring anything from cities or techs at all. Thus they quickly outpaced the city part of the game and rendered it pointless. The reduced hitpoints, lower level loot, and reduced build times will definitely help but I think they will simply slow down the initial snowballing not stop it. Once your champion finds even a shortsword and gain 2-3 levels he will still be able to start questing and farming pretty much every monster, which will lead to the better equipment. In fact faster build times on units will actually allow them to farm because it is easier to back your champions up with troops. 

This sums up the problem.

To achieve brads vision as described in the first post (aka, sauron) you must ELIMINATE XP gain from killing monsters and instead have champions grow via being INVESTED IN.

Technology, money, and most importantly MAGIC. For example, a spell that costs 50 mana to cast, 5 mana a turn to maintain and gives a hero X XP a turn.

Or building up to an alchemy shop grants the ability to make draughts at cost of gold to permanent boost stats.

Or researching a high end magic tech called "ring forging" which lets you forge an epic soul ring for your sov to give him a massive boost.

Or having a city build a "shrine of empowerment" that lets you designate in the city window 1 unit to be boosted (boost is to HP, Attack, and Defense). The boost lasts as long as the city is owned by you and has that building built.

Or having a city perform a "rite of sacrifice" which is built like a building but at its end reduces population by X and gives you a one use item that gives XP or some other perma boost to a hero.

Those are examples of INVESTING.

The problem in the balance right now is that there is zero INVESTMENT in creating heroes. Heroes HARVEST enemies to become stronger. And they harvest quests to get better items (better then you can ever make for them). (EDIT: ok, there is 1 investment in a hero and that is a horse, both researching the tech and buying one for a hero with gold... and you still need mana but that is trivially acquired via conquest)

Armies require that you invest many turns in researching army related tech so they do not suck, then you must invest time and money building them, you also need to invest in city building tech to be able to build them reasonably fast, and perhaps build a fortress town to get bonuses to them with city enchantments focused on that as well.

The idea you can have heroes just harvest random monsters for strength while armies need to be developed simply breaks apart the attempt to get at what brad describes in the first post.

Now, what you COULD do (and what you have been trying to do) is create a situation where both are used at the same time (by making armies dirt cheap), or a sorta odd balance between the two; but that is very difficult to do... and even if you succeed you have completely eliminated brads vision. Instead of choice you will ALWAYS develop both. In fact, in every game I have played thus far I DID always develop both. That heroes snowballed into being massively overpowering didn't change that fact that I tried... Instead of building worthless units I invested my cities into ever improving the cities themselves and climbing up the tech tree, they just didn't catch up... had they caught up I would have mixed heroes and armies but that is NOT the vision brad described in the first post. That vision sounds awesome and can only be achieved by eliminating XP gain from killing monsters and allowing it only from quests (in SMALL amounts) but primarily, from investing your cities production and research.

on Oct 01, 2012

I had another though, an alternative to eliminating XP gain from battles is to allow armies to harvest as well.

Make it so armies armies DO take up a share of the XP from battles, and then convert that XP into research points applied to army tech.

And they also get events, like special lootable locations (like quests, but for armies) where your armies must defeat neutral armies to get a "reward" of a free tech... eg, "monks of the sword" stronghold which is defended by a bunch of armies which can be taken to discover a related tech.

And if an army conquers a city rather then getting XP like a hero does there is a chance of stealing tech.

That way both heroes AND armies could "harvest" and thus you are given a choice of which to harvest WITH.

Of course to make it really worthwhile you should be able to recruit level 1 heroes from your own cities via having it train a hero (requires a bunch of magic tech from the tech tree as well as time and gold).

Brad, your vision is FREAKING AWESOME! TM! I really want to see this happen. The reason its not happening despite having done tweak after tweak is that you didn't seem to realize this very important fact. That there is no choice of investing in heroes, armies, or both equally like you intended because heroes harvest while armies require research and then a well developed infrastructure to churn out. Heroes harvest non stop because not harvesting with a hero is a waste of their time. Cities develop tech non-stop because not developing it is a waste of time.

If you fail to perfectly balance the two then one of them will be worthless and the other one always win the game.

If you perfectly balance the two then both will always be used and there will be no choice.

In either case your vision as described in the original post will never come to pass so long as armies and heroes grow on completely different non competing resources! By making both heroes and armies use only harvesting/investment. Or by making both heroes and armies use both harvesting and investment, you make the two compete with a single limited resource and your vision of player choice in which to invest is achieved!

on Oct 01, 2012

Taltamir, I think that you just inspired my next play-through.

on Oct 01, 2012

taltamir, I agree the main issue is that troops feel much more valuable than champions, but I do not believe it is due to the fact that they require a different sort of investment.  The main reason I protect my troops is not because of the time and resources it took to make them, but because those investments can die and be permanently lost.  On the other hand, champions are relatively immortal, permanent additions to a player's roster once hired.  They also require time and resources to grow, but there is practically nothing to lose in throwing them around.  The value of anything is directly related to the weight of losing or not having it.<<

on Oct 01, 2012

taltamir

Brad, your vision is FREAKING AWESOME! TM! I really want to see this happen. The reason its not happening despite having done tweak after tweak is that you didn't seem to realize this very important fact. That there is no choice of investing in heroes, armies, or both equally like you intended because heroes harvest while armies require research and then a well developed infrastructure to churn out. Heroes harvest non stop because not harvesting with a hero is a waste of their time. Cities develop tech non-stop because not developing it is a waste of time.

I couldn't agree more!

Please see this thread https://forums.elementalgame.com/432632 for my suggested solution, linking the champion trait system to army size and city production (its a bit too big to reproduce here).

on Oct 02, 2012

cardinaldirection
The main reason I protect my troops is not because of the time and resources it took to make them, but because those investments can die and be permanently lost.

99% of the investment in troops is the research costs of the technologies they need, and the cost of making a city have high production, the cost of constructing a fortress with all buildings, and the cost of building and acquiring mines.

If your troops die you don't lose any of that, you can just churn out more troops from your city of equal power to that first one.

You do raise a good point about the immortality of champions though. Their immortality is a rough fix for the fact you cannot properly recruit new ones nor upgrade them in cities. If you lose a level 15 champion you cannot replace him and lost the game. If champions were able to be trained in cities (as level 1) and then you could invest from cities to re-upgrade them, then like troops they could be replaceable via infrastructure (at the cost of a lot of time and effort) and then like troops they should be perma killable.

on Oct 02, 2012

The problem that still has not been addressed in a real definitive fashion is that champions still snowball to the point where they steamroll the game. Cities do not provide a single thing that is absolutely vital to conquering the world other than a recovery-haven in the case of accidental death. Still. This is the problem that we had before these balance changes, and it is the problem we still have.

In my current game of the current build, my cities have not produced a single thing my champions have vitally required. Everything my cities produce is reinvested back into my cities. Everything my champions harvest from the world is distributed amongst themselves. The two operate utterly autonomously from each other.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM, STARDOCK. YOUR CITIES DON'T DO ANYTHING YOUR SOV/CHAMP NEEDS IN ORDER TO SURVIVE AND WIN THE GAME. THE TROOPS AND RESOURSCES IT CAN MAKE ARE NOT REQUIRED IN ANY WAY AND ONLY FUNCTION TO PRODUCE MORE UNNESSECARY CITIES.

Nothing your cities do or produce are required. Anything your troops can do, your Sov can do better. Until a game mechanic compels me to produce troops, bothering with a city and with produced troops will always be a less efficient way to play than simply soloing the world with your sovereign.

on Oct 02, 2012

Some easy things you could do to make champions more reliant on cities are. 

-Add a line of shop improvements that are required to purchase items, are upgradeable to get higher tech items, and increase selling prices. 

-Reduce champion regeneration. Have a hospital improvement that boosts garrisoned units regeneration. 

-Increase experience curve and make the adventure's guild into a line of improvements, that would grant a experience boosting trait to champions, increase champion strategic movement, decrease rough terrain penalties, and as now grant experience to garrisoned units. 

on Oct 02, 2012


Maybe introduce a line of improvements that champions must visit in order to actually spend their accumulated XP and gain their levels.

The thing is, that is still not compelling me to train units, only forcing me to build a city to unlock the win-buttons for my god-sov. I don't need troops, when my sov is perfectly capable of demolishing the world single handedly. There needs to be some enemies out there that are a legitimate threat to your soverign but that your troops have means to fight. The previously mentioned swarm/flanking traits for mass troops to overwhelm solo troops would help a lot.

on Oct 02, 2012

taltamir

99% of the investment in troops is the research costs of the technologies they need, and the cost of making a city have high production, the cost of constructing a fortress with all buildings, and the cost of building and acquiring mines.

If your troops die you don't lose any of that, you can just churn out more troops from your city of equal power to that first one.

You do raise a good point about the immortality of champions though. Their immortality is a rough fix for the fact you cannot properly recruit new ones nor upgrade them in cities. If you lose a level 15 champion you cannot replace him and lost the game. If champions were able to be trained in cities (as level 1) and then you could invest from cities to re-upgrade them, then like troops they could be replaceable via infrastructure (at the cost of a lot of time and effort) and then like troops they should be perma killable.

 

As you noted the cost / benefit ratio of troops is extremely bad in the early game due not so much to the resources invested, but the time (in both production and research queues); whereas champions are relative powerhouses right out the door.  I believe this is intended, to help generate the feeling of personally growing an empire, and capture the essence of both rpg and strategy game.  However this underlying separation in mechanics never truly converges.  Although the construction of more efficient cities does indeed help balance out the value of troops in the mid and end strategy games, the rgp snowballs unimpeded from day one: by the time troops become viable they are entirely unnecessary.  The rpg is broken.  Although superhuman, the whole reason to raise an army is because a champion's motives are out of reach for just one MORTAL.  Currently, there is practically no potential loss to putting all of one's investments into champions, and foregoing this strategy game entirely.  Immortals need nothing - the only reason to settle a city at all is for a re-spawn point.  Giving champions all the attributes of a regular troop would just destroy the rpg even more.

 

"I suggest that Sovereigns become the only champions which cannot be lost - all other champions leaving their faction after the second and third injuries to explore the world under AI control, from a random location near where they were defeated, until hired again (free, to both kingdoms and empires).  Four wounds equals death, creating a goodie-hut on the tile where the champion fell full of their equipment (and potentially fertile ground proportionate to their power?).  Healing an injury should naturally extend a champion's life; lives which would become much more commonly protected and accompanied by support squads.  Imagine how much less daring (yet no less powerful) that second champion would be after their first injury; and how much of an impact it would have on the story if one actually fell, only to then have a city flourish around their grave."

More...

10 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last