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 8)
10 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10 
on Oct 02, 2012

Champions are in need of nothing because they are immortal; and as re-spawn points any city is already able to produce them on day one.  If they could be lost like cities, towns and armies would be constructed to support their endeavours.

on Oct 02, 2012

cardinaldirection
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...

Four wounds = Death sounds great, but there's no reason to recycle all of the champion's equipment. Currently there's more than enough good equipment in a given game and equipment has far more of an impact on champion power than levels do. Maybe give any given piece a small chance to be recycled into the goodie hut, or create a new lair/dungeon based on the level of the slain champion that has appropriate rewards.

on Oct 02, 2012

cardinaldirection
If they could be lost like cities, towns and armies would be constructed to support their endeavours.

Only if there are things in the world that are a legitimate threat to the champions that can only be dealt with via support from troops provided by a city. Just "your champions can perma-die" isn't going to compel everyone to build cities. Some people maybe, but for a lot of people it will just compel them to save & reload their game a lot more.

There will be no real reason to play the city-side of the game until the game presents challenges and obstacles only the city can solve. Period. Currently there are none. The entire world can be swept aside and conquered by your sov.

Give me a compelling game mechanic to build a city, and I'll build it. Give me a compelling reason to build troops rather than simply demolish everything with my sov, and I'll build them.

This. Game. Currently. Has. Neither.

on Oct 02, 2012

CogBurn

Only if there are things in the world that are a legitimate threat to the champions that can only be dealt with via support from troops provided by a city. Just "your champions can perma-die" isn't going to compel everyone to build cities. Some people maybe, but for a lot of people it will just compel them to save & reload their game a lot more.

There will be no real reason to play the city-side of the game until the game presents challenges and obstacles only the city can solve. Period. Currently there are none. The entire world can be swept aside and conquered by your sov.

Give me a compelling game mechanic to build a city, and I'll build it. Give me a compelling reason to build troops rather than simply demolish everything with my sov, and I'll build them.

This. Game. Currently. Has. Neither.

 

The notion of losing a prized champion doesn't compel you to protect it with support troops, which can only be produced by a city?

I must assume that you don't play with the Spell of Making as well?

 

We agree that there needs to be more of an incentive to play the strategy game, it is actually quite fun.  The problem is that there is nothing deterring the player from focusing solely on the rpg, no feeling of impending doom urging the creation of civilizations.  Every champion is an immortal god, the benefits of impermanent societies will simply never be able to compare.  The game would actually be both more fun and challenging if champions were mortal.

 

A new victory condition could be introduced which requires that a faction grow to a certain size population.  Is this not the point of the game; it would certainly entice the development of cities (and the raising of opponents').

Read these bullets for a few more ideas if you haven't already.

on Oct 02, 2012

cardinaldirection
The notion of losing a prized champion doesn't compel you to protect it with support troops, which can only be produced by a city?

I must assume that you don't play with the Spell of Making?

 

We agree that there needs to be more of an incentive to play the strategy game, it is actually quite fun.  The problem is that there is nothing deterring the player from focusing solely on the rpg, no feeling of impending doom urging the creation of civilizations.  Every champion is an immortal god, the benefits of impermanent societies will simply never be able to compare.  The game would actually be both more fun and challenging if champions were mortal.

 

A new victory condition could be introduced which requires that a faction grow to a certain size population.

Read these bullets for a few more ideas if you haven't already.

To be honest, as long as you're not foolish in the early game, "losing" a champion is very unlikely, even with no cities for them to respawn at. If you're careful early on, pick and choose your targets until you get some good early-game loot, and play cautious for a little while, you can progress to the point where dying is little to no concern for all but the biggest drake/dragon armies surprisingly early on.

Even when I do bother settling cities, like my current game, I don't make troops until the end game when I have researched chain/plate and only then because I'm bored and want the extra units to expedite mopping up the world. I settle a city and my sov & 1 champ set off into the wilderness to begin the slaughter and rarely ever come home because they never need to. They get everything they need from the wilderness, and I never need to protect them with support troops. By the time I could make some, they are thoroughly and soundly weaker than the champions.

I have played with the Spell of Making, it's no real challenge to either destroy all the AI factions or complete the master quest before the AI has a chance to cast it.

I think there needs to be monsters at all stages of the game -- early, mid, late -- that are best suited to being killed by mass troops, not single champions. Until that happens, there is simply no compelling reason to make troops, and until there is a compelling reason to make troops there is no compelling reason to bother with cities.

on Oct 02, 2012

CogBurn

To be honest, as long as you're not foolish in the early game, "losing" a champion is very unlikely, even with no cities for them to respawn at. If you're careful early on, pick and choose your targets until you get some good early-game loot, and play cautious for a little while, you can progress to the point where dying is little to no concern for all but the biggest drake/dragon armies surprisingly early on.

Even when I do bother settling cities, like my current game, I don't make troops until the end game when I have researched chain/plate and only then because I'm bored and want the extra units to expedite mopping up the world. I settle a city and my sov & 1 champ set off into the wilderness to begin the slaughter and rarely ever come home because they never need to. They get everything they need from the wilderness, and I never need to protect them with support troops. By the time I could make some, they are thoroughly and soundly weaker than the champions.

I guess I find it hard to believe that your strategy wouldn't change if champions weren't permanent.  It would definitely make them more a part of the strategy game, and less the focus of the entire game.

 

That being said, moving the first champion a player meets farther away from their starting location may actually alleviate this issue quite a bit!

on Oct 02, 2012

Imho, there is another solution that should be considered, which is further nerfing heroes. I think Cogburn really nails it with this comment:

CogBurn
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.

But having champions dying is one solution, not the only solution.

I would propose that champions get nerfed further, to such a degree that they are simply unable to take on the mid- and late-game monsters on their own. This creates a dependence on cities for two reasons. First, your lower level means the gear you'll be getting is the gear you research (cities) and buy (gildar). Second, without trained troops (cities) you'll simply be unable to clear the stronger monsters. If you can't clear them, you are not making land available, you are not collecting the magical rewards from their lairs, you are not getting across that barrier to the higher levels.

XP was nerfed in 0.980 by about 25%, then slightly nerfed again in 0.981 by another 3-4%. I would suggest nerfing it further down by another 50% of its current value. More if needed.

Because the intent of the devs is to have champions be able to "fight like Sauron" on the battlefield, we also need to increase the difficulty of all the monsters. We should be Sauron when fighting other factions. But against the dragons in the world, a god is a small thing.

Anyway, that's how I would approach the issue. It seems a rather good way to bring exponential growth of champions into line with the pacing of your empire.

Edit: Such a system would also be dependent on XP gained from fighting monsters suffering diminishing returns if they are not difficult to fight. If I'm fighting level 1 mites with my level 6 warrior in chainmail, I should be getting exactly 0 xp.

on Oct 02, 2012

Nerfing champions into oblivion would NOT achieve brads vision where the player chooses to invest in one or the other and where playing "sauron" is a viable path.

It would merely mean that champions are useless and only cities matter.

on Oct 02, 2012

taltamir
Nerfing champions into oblivion would NOT achieve brads vision where the player chooses to invest in one or the other and where playing "sauron" is a viable path.

It would merely mean that champions are useless and only cities matter.

Heroes are not dependent on empire development. Heroes progress on their own. The solution I proposed changes that. In order to effectively build your heroes, you should need to spend resources to do that. Without such a solution, there's no way to equalize the progress of heroes with the progress of your empire.

Without binding them together (empire+heroes), there is no choice at all to make because a player can always pursue both.

on Oct 02, 2012

perhaps a simpler solution to the lack of need for troops could be that each attack by a hero/single unit can only kill ONE member of a multi-unit eg those packs of mites often have three/five members in each of the two/three units(3 health) in the mite armies, so a single hero would take between six and fifteen attacks to kill one mite army assuming curgen's hammer(50 attack) as the weapon in the hero's hand( and at present it is two or three attacks as it each group that gets crushed by the attack), while the mites are doing between six and fifteen  attacks of 1-2 on the hero, but with a army of a hero+ two 5 explorers with their 5 damage sticks(each) against the three five unit mites(with their 2 damage sticks) unless all the mites focus on the hero and the explorers are too far away(highly unlikely)(15*2 against a 6 defense 15 health hero and 0 defense 5 attack explorer) would leave each of the units in the hero army battered, but alive.

and I have a vague recollection of a similar suggestion from BEFORE the beta ie each member of each unit has to be killed seperately and can not be mass killed except from AOE attacks like fireball,firedart(perhaps), blizzard, avalanche, flash flood, lightening mega-strike or tornado.

I realise that it is unlikely to get into the game since the feature lockdown, but should have been tried during the beta 1 & 2.

harpo

 

on Oct 02, 2012

Heavenfall
Heroes are not dependent on empire development. Heroes progress on their own.

As I have explicitly pointed out, yes.

The solution I proposed changes that. In order to effectively build your heroes, you should need to spend resources to do that. Without such a solution, there's no way to equalize the progress of heroes with the progress of your empire.

You solution was to half their XP gain, that in no way shape or form addresses the issue at hand.

I have pointed out in my wall of text various methods in which this can actually be solved, by making heroes dependent on cities for advancement or armies on harvesting monsters or both.

That way there is an opportunity cost and a choice.

on Oct 02, 2012

Perhaps you didn't read my post. I am quite clear on how exactly the solution adresses the problem. Nerf heroes, boost monsters, make heroes dependent on cities (research, gildar, troops). What's missing?

on Oct 02, 2012

taltamir
Nerfing champions into oblivion would NOT achieve brads vision where the player chooses to invest in one or the other and where playing "sauron" is a viable path.

It would merely mean that champions are useless and only cities matter.

Then you have a choice:

Either:

heroes gain XP too fast to the point where city strategies are not viable.

OR

heroes gain XP too slow to the point where you must rely on cities to be viable.

 

Maybe the soluton of Brad's vision just isn't realisable. Finding a common ground where heroes gain just enough XP that they need troops to support them in their endeavors seems to be the correct solution. Yes, this means Sauron isn't going to be smashing...at least not until very late levels. Wait a minute! Sauron WAS a high level villain! Sure, once he was a mere foot soldier, but everyone has to start off somewhere.

Therefore, Brad's vision can be realized....it's just a matter of WHEN in the game it is to be realized.

Just my thoughts...

 

on Oct 02, 2012

Heavenfall
Perhaps you didn't read my post. I am quite clear on how exactly the solution adresses the problem. Nerf heroes, boost monsters, make heroes dependent on cities (research, gildar, troops). What's missing?

The balance between heros and troops?

Nerf experience either doesnt work: as you said it has already been tried, my heros progress slower, I still dont need troops tho. I also have more boring drops, less cool stuff. Still no more troops.

OR

It works to make heros useless. As I understand what you said:

1. Basically heros cant defeat any mid or high monsters on there own they have been made harder, nor can they farm low lvls for XP. They get stuck at lvl 3 or 4 or something. 

2. They then need troops to take monsters. And need research to access kit in cities, and money to buy it from cities.

Correct?

THe following flows from that - Troops must therefore be good enough to actively help kill mid or high level monsters.

Then why do troops need heros? Heros kitted out with research tree equipment will have the same stuff ie same weapon, same armor, as your troops do, only theres only one hero per unit and multiple troops in a unit and multiple troop units in a stack.

Hero with less HPs and the same kit as troops equals Hero is stuck with a mage/support only role. Not a warrior role. Couple this with the low lvl and random lvl up perks and you find that you have a hero that doesnt have any magic or support stuff.

THis means hero really isnt needed at all.

How do heros 'Sauron'?

You have to take them with you in cotton wool at back, win battles with troops to lvl up. Again have to choose support or mage, and have to have lucky perks come up. Dont forget you have no troop ordering in battle, unlucky hero get put in the front and take an opening barrage from monster and dies?

on Oct 03, 2012

I see what you mean leroy105.

To sum up the changes I proposed above:
1) Nerf hero xp by about 50%. Also introduce diminishing return on XP from killing low-level enemies so the player can't farm them endlessly to reach higher levels over a longer period of time
2) Increase the strength of mid- and late-game monsters

 

Heroes are meant to be strong, just not invincible. What I'm trying to achieve is making the progression of heroes more closely tied to that of the progression of your empire. In addition to support troops, you'll also require gear to be actually bought from cities and spells to be researched. Depending on Gildar to be bought, Mana income and Research to unlock spells/gear there is then a way to invest in heroes to allow them to grow. The trade-off is against troops - I can also choose not to collect so much taxes, build troops and have them be the base of my military power instead.

At the start of a game, a hero should be able to take on the easy stuff like mites, darklings, black widows and perhaps a banished ogre. As they grow in strength, they'll maybe even be able to take on a troll. But they don't get infinite XP from farming these low-difficulty enemies. They get a few levels and that's it. The gear is bad.

In order to progress to the next level of difficulty in monsters, they now depend on the progress of the empire. Support troops, spells, items, outposts. And so on.

So where are we at when we reach the end of act 1 (exploration/clearing)? Mid-game heroes are simply not able to win fights against monsters on their own, but each hero is still worth several units of troops when fighting factions.

 

Reading my suggestions I think

1) It is not possible within the current system to have such careful balancing of monsters and when you can kill them. What if a player simply groups up all his units at one place? Yes there is army size, but still, 4 champions in one place is going to be a lot stronger than 1 champion and a spearman unit.

2) It doesn't sound very fun to play. If the heroes are TOO dependent on empire progress, it will remove a lot of the RPG feeling currently in the game

 

Still, Cogburn was exactly right when he said that heroes require nothing from your cities to progress. There has to be a workable solution to that.

10 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10