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 9)
10 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10 
on Oct 03, 2012

I have some suggestion to be considered for improving balance in heroes/troops/monsters. I'm sorry if added some other questions too.

- Heroes leveling up. As the problem is that they grow too powerfull, even if XP gain is nerfed, I suggest this: making the stats growing as a selectable trait. You want a mage? Then, chose magic but no health/attack/etc. improves. You want more healt/attack? Then chose it, instead of other traits. No interesting traits? Then, lets got for health/attack. This can make heroes customization more interesting, variated, and will not become so much powerfull. Mages will rely on magic, with a lot of less stats. Warriors/assassins will have to decide if improve basic stats or select a proper trait. Governors...that is the same: want more stats? then no governing traits. And vice-versa. Governing heroes should give interesting city bonus traits (like +attack/defence trained troops, or resources, or unrest), that makes a excuse good enough to retire them from battle. The Path selection at level 5 is good, and in this case, it could add the stats improvement also, like a "reward". By the way, I miss a Path of the archer too....

I think that on this way, heroes grow up according to player desire (and traits presented), but not so OP. And heroes must now rely more on research to buy better gear, and in troops for keeping them alive.

Does everybody agree in making heroes inmortal, even with the negative traits when they "die" (let's say fall, instead)? As said in other posts, I prefer they may have a chance of real death, instead of always a negative trait.  Keeping negative traits is good idea, but as a chance, like saying: "omg, gangrene...but at least, my hero didn't die". Heroes should die, and so should allow a way to recruiting new ones, like a spell of Hero Calling. This spell might go in the Hero research tree, so as better hero recruiting tech, a better Hero Calling. Lots of mana needed for this spell, of course...and maybe a Cooldown to re-use. Or even better: a one use-only, like a scroll instead of a spell, but still requiring mana. That means only 3 hero calling (on level 5, 7 and 9 if I can remember). A good way to replace fallen heroes, or to get new ones if can't find more...With nerfed heroes, probably more will fall, and die. The dodge could be a way to determine real death. And a random in % of negative traits could be introduced. A base + % random, for example: -10% + random% at a skill, instead always a 25%. The random could be determined by the dodge or other skill.

 

- Troops. I still think the problem for troops is in the Warfare tech tree. It is too closed and straight, not allowing customization. And it takes a lot of research to get the improvements, and to research techs not interested to arrive to the interested. I talk about it in https://forums.stardock.com/432978  With a more open Warfare tech tree, allowing to choose between different attack/defense/mounts/training branches since the begining, it can help in developing customized troops, depending on personal wishes and in the available resources. And AI can focus on some of those branches (like Tarth-archers). Lowering production costs for basic items will help to start basic trooping earlier. After all, if heroes are nerfed in some way, troops at early game will be more important now. Everybody say that at early game, while researching and developing, we can use heroes to make quests and farming. If heroes are nerfed (and they MUST be nerfed), what will we do on the first 50 turns, but pressing Turn-turn-turn...?

 

 - Monsters. If heroes are nerfed like I said, maybe is not necessary too much tune on this. Anyway, I find interesting this idea: Monsters should grow XP, and increase levels as turns goes by. For example, +1 level every 20/30 turns. This allow to get more challenge in later game... The random generated monsters should have leveling upon time too... Combining this with the previous hero nerfing, that might make troops a must have...

 

- Magic. I find this issue: how is it possible to cast in strategic map as many spells as mana allows? There should be some kind of limit to this... But turning to the magic balance... I think in magic as interdependant or complementary. Many opinions read about magic: from total magic fans, to magic haters. I think that to balance magic, first should balance the previous issues, and then, focus in magic will be easier. Of course, the power of spells must be controlled somehow... I think that Magic Tech tree should be tuned, in the style of the proposed in the Warfare: attack branch, defence branch, mana branch, hero branch, building branch. That can allow a real complement to the Warfare Tree, to the Civics Tree for resources, and to the hero researching.

 

- Cities. I read a post about how to control excessive number of cities, and big bonus that they can give. I think an easy way to do that is via UNREST penalities. Unrest in far cities should give many penalities to production, and even a bigger chance to rebel. So if you want that far shard, or crystal, or whatever resource, think in having many troops to get less unrest, and/or build a lot of buildings that reduce unrest,...or just build a fragile outpost. That will make troops a must have in expansion games. Many of us want to expand, as it is the only way to avoid enemy expansion after all... but it would give a way to control that expansion, with less productive and more problematic cities.

Speaking of cities, why not thinking in putting independent cities in the world? With their defences, and their growing upon time... It is a source of quests too. it's just another idea.

on Oct 03, 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 opportunity cost where a player chooses to focus on boosting a hero OR focus on boosting his armies.

Making heroes depend on troops because they can't solo is NOT making them dependent on cities. Its making them useless while only armies count.

It makes more sense to make them DIRECTLY dependent on cities as I suggested by eliminating XP gain from killing enemies and instead acquiring XP and powerups via research, shopping, construction, sacrifice, etc. Or making armies capable of harvest (take a share of XP and convert it to research).

on Oct 03, 2012

cardinaldirection
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.

I don't think you understand.

I don't even recruit the first champion.

I kill every monster, wildland and opposing faction in the game with just my sovereign, never founding a city or recruiting a champion.

Literally every facet of the game aside from the sovereign is optional and quite often less efficient.

on Oct 03, 2012

CogBurn
I don't even recruit the first champion.

I kill every monster, wildland and opposing faction in the game with just my sovereign, never founding a city or recruiting a champion.

I personally do that too. I say "champions" because some people use a super stack instead of a sov solo.

But I personally prefer to use a sov solo.

I still PLAY the city game... its just that by the time I won the game with my sov the best unit I can field is a horse riding spearmen wearing leather armor. Aka, useless. So I never actually field any units.

I do recruit champions though so that I can cast steal spirit on them... om nom nom delicious souls.

If you scaled XP wsy down I will still play both games, the sov might be useless now or they might both be useful, but playing both is the only option because there is no opportunity cost. Using my sov or perhaps champions does not in any way slow down my city development. Using my cities does not in any way shape or form slow down my sov development.

Oh, and my sov always takes percipone's crown for 0 upkeep so he can stack all spells for great win. I don't use any mana, I do melee, eventually I get celerity and use up all my mana on that. That there is actually an opportunity cost since I could have converted said mana to gold to buy buildings to get research faster.

on Oct 03, 2012


I don't believe the solution lies in striking a perfect balance where heroes gain "enough" xp that they can just precisely defeat some of the content while needing some troops from the cities to help them defeat the rest. There are vastly too many variables in the game to even attempt this, and it is flatly not worth while to even waste time on it. Which perks you take during sov creation, how many shards you get, how fast your research is, the monster density you play on (this is a big one), faction traits, if you are offered/take potential I/II/III, can you cast tutelage, how much xp you can "farm" from opposing factions... XP is not where the game can or should be balanced.

Game mechanics are the easiest and best way to force the player's hand on viable strategy and necessary tactics. Currently there are units with the trait 'overpower' where they do tons of damage to masses of troops. Flip the table and make units that have a 'swarm' trait that allows them to combine attacks against single models. Instead of a group of models doing 5x6 atk (easy to shrug off with armor) let them do 1x30, or hell even 5x30 against a single model like a champ/sov.

Stardock, put things in the game that your sov has reason to fear and throw fodder at. Make traits for troops that allow them to force adjacent enemy units to attack them. Have lairs send out raiding parties to cities so that we must garrison them. Make lairs have a shitload of units in them that are easy enough to kill solo but will wear down a sov/champ over time. Stop having every piece of equipment and gear a sov needs drop from goodie huts & lairs. Make some of the best items in the game things that you can research and produce at cities. Let us build buildings that allow us to add unique weapons to a city's production queue. Make us research spells! MAKE CITIES PROVIDE TANGIBLES THAT ARE NESSECARY TO WINNING THE GAME, THAT ARE REQUIRED TO EVEN SURVIVING IN THE WORLD. Right now my Sov is a self sufficient golden god of war because the goodie huts and lairs of the world hold everything he needs and the monsters of the world can be defeated strictly by the things he can do.

Fix. That. Problem.

on Oct 03, 2012

taltamir
I still PLAY the city game... its just that by the time I won the game with my sov the best unit I can field is a horse riding spearmen wearing leather armor. Aka, useless. So I never actually field any units.

I do recruit champions though so that I can cast steal spirit on them... om nom nom delicious souls.

If you scaled XP wsy down I will still play both games, the sov might be useless now or they might both be useful, but playing both is the only option because there is no opportunity cost. Using my sov or perhaps champions does not in any way slow down my city development. Using my cities does not in any way shape or form slow down my sov development.

Correct, on the horse riding spearmen in leather. Meanwhile in that time your god-sov has become a level 35 wrecking ball in golden platemail using god's nut cup for a shield and beating people to death with Satans's bag of doorknobs.

Again, just scaling xp is not the solution, see my previous post. While I do believe XP is too fast, in a game with a monster density slider it is impossible to properly balance champions versus troops based just on that one function.

I say that cities slow down my sov development because having them means I occasionally have to waste time doubling back to protect them. Having a completely solo sov means I just forge ahead and kill kill kill kill.

on Oct 03, 2012

well said CogBurn, bravo.

on Oct 03, 2012

Guys, I am afraid we reached kind of dead end here...

Obviously, Stardock wont really nerf heroes (sovs & champs), because hero development (levelling) is one of the main selling points of the game. It is entertaining, well done and funny, as most of you confirm that by playing the game even in solo mode. It is what most of the players (and guys writing reviews:)) will see at first and they will like it. And you want to hard-nerf this, by e.g. halving the xp gains? Halving the pleasure? Not really...

So - no offense - but that is why, according to my opinion, no such thing shall happen, because this game is, after all, business project and needs to be SOLD.

 

Anyway, I still hope that we get some kind of soft tweaks that can at least a bit help the problem, like...

- ...tying usage of rare and uncommon gear to technologies ("Requires level 10 and Alliances technology"), so cities will be actually NEEDED even for Saurons

- ...giving units (maybe from 7+ men?) some kind of Swarming auto-trait, giving extra attack vs. solo units (aka heroes), so units are REAL threat, even to Saurons

- ...giving some heroes anti-hero abilities (already in progress)

 

or other that help to solve the problem WITHOUT destroying the selling point shining in the hero development.

on Oct 03, 2012

One idea that occurs to me is to make champions have to be respawned via the build queue upon death. With higher level ones requiring more production. Thus you would need high level cities for high level champions, although only if they die.

on Oct 03, 2012

I second Cogburn, cities should be able to produce gear that can compete with some of the insane drops you always get from monsters.

I also want to reduce or even remove health regeneration completely.

on Oct 03, 2012


I don't *really* care about heroes being able to obliterate a large chunk of the game content, I care that they can do it while equipping themselves completely off drops from goodie huts & lairs, and with zero need for troop support because no game mechanic legitimately threatens them after a certain point.

As long as you are cautious in the early game and pick & choose your fights, you get to the point where no game mechanic or unit is a threat or cannot be dealt with by the auto-resolve button, and certainly doesn't need a bunch of slapnuts troops in leather armor and spears.

LET my Sov go all Sauron on shit, but recall that Sauron was still bested in the long run and put some things in the game that I WANT or even NEED rank-and-file troops to fight. That will have me building cities.

I also agree as stated elsewhere ( I cant remember who, the guy with the ant-face avatar) that there should always be leather, chain, and plate available, and rather than the current system where researching one makes the previous utterly obsolete, each needs to be balanced against the other and armor research should upgrade all of them at once to a better version.

on Oct 03, 2012

Wow!  This discussion thread is now up to more than 130 Replies, since Frogboy began it, back on Sept. 26.  It certainly has sparked a  Spirited Discussion !   (My own earlier comments appeared at #30, #33, #48, and #89.)  But I think, the arguements are becoming circular, and repetitious by now.  That's okay - everyone should get an opportunity to air their own views; and (for that matter) a number of interesting suggestions have been made, to try to get the Balance right, between Champions vs. Soldiers.

Fair enough.  But I really think, that the fact that there are so many partisans on each side, and so many suggestions, is because something like a fairly close Balance has already been achieved, as of the Beta 5C.  (Alstein made this very point, back in his Reply #86.)  For example, heros now mostly are picking up  rusty swords, and  rusty shields, and  rusty gauntlets (complete with tetanus - ha, ha) as a result of slaying monsters, or raiding "goodie huts".  It is still possible to occasionally get some great booty, but that is increasingly rare, and usually only from very Serious monsters, or quests.  In short, Stardock is working steadily to achieve the kind of Balance in this area, that they think is the best ... They are down to fine-tuning the issue.                          One other thing, that I would note:     

jirkaesch
                                                                               o  o  o

Obviously, Stardock wont really nerf heroes (sovs & champs), because hero development (levelling) is one of the main selling points of the game. It is entertaining, well done and funny, as most of you confirm that by playing the game even in solo mode. It is what most of the players (and guys writing reviews) ... will see at first and they will like it.  And you want to hard-nerf this, by e.g. halving the xp gains?  Halving the pleasure?  Not really ...

Smart Observation !   Again, this has been a good discussion; but Stardock is down to the "tweaking" stage on this issue.  The Developers aren't likely to make  drastic  changes, at this stage.  For my part, I am reasonably satisfied on this score ...      ... and I still think:

Balance Rules !      

on Oct 03, 2012


@CogBurn: Simple solution here would be for the sovereign and other heroes require an upkeep such that you required cities to maintain them. The higher the level of champ, the better the city(s) you need to support them.

What I found very curious is that people cried for more difficult game play and it was granted. Mites were completely buffed to the point where heroes mostlikely needed help in the early levels from other friendly. Now people cry to have them nurfed, and there hp is going to be dialed back next beta. I'm not advocating either as I enjoyed tromping easy mites...but also enjoy the challenge of multiple units in combat. Just an observation...

@SOLOSOL: Wow. Lot's there in your post...

  • It is unlikely that stats will be merged into trait level-ups but it is a very interesting idea.
  • I too would like the option for %chance that heroes die. However, this also isn't going to happen as the AI would be completely outmatched by the player who reloads his games. True, players can still do this if they wanted to, but a negative trait isn't near as bad as a dead hero.
  • We're going to have to be patient when it comes to the tech tree. Lot's of changes there for the next beta.
  • Monsters should level up (and I think do) as the game progresses. Maybe it needs a tweak so that it scales better? Troops should level as the game progresses too. I build a spearman early game to defend a city and late game the city is attacked, and the spearman SUCKS. That's not fair to the troop. Nor is it fair to force the spearman out to quest and gain xp, having the city attacked in the mean time.
  • I don't have problems with strategic magic casting. Once you're mana pool is empty, that's it. It's up to the player how he wants to spend his mana.
  • I like big cities...lot's of cities....empires! This type of playing shouldn't be penalized. Granted, having 50 cities is too much to manage. However, if all 8 factions were in play, and each had the territory to build 3-5 cities, then once you conquared the world, you'd have 24-40 cites. That's still quite a bit, but keep in mind that's endgame once your army is snowballing. Most of the game you'll have two or three enemies and thus will only have 9-15 cities. That range has made for some of my best TBS experiances.
  • Independant cities would be fantastic!! Buy them to your cause with influence. Conquer them with troops. Quest for them. Realyl think these should be tossed in.

@taltamir: Having heroes gain xp from cities improvements and research techs would be an interesting way to have heroes become more dependant on their empire. I imagine such a tweak wouldn't be difficult to accomplish either. Reduce overall experiance down by XX% and incorporate that difference into a per season relative to average times as to when said techs and/or improvements are built. Having bigger empires would equate to high level heroes.

@CogBurn again: While obtaining items for heroes from monster spawns should be limited to what the monsters may have on hand, I still think that the variety of quests, especially those on the upper end, should be able to reward heroes with really good items. The rpg element should not be completely downplayed. Maybe several item rewards need to be available, and you get the one dependant on how much force you've comitted to the battle? Lone unit...small reward. 9 units, big reward. Overall xp of force should also be considered...

Anyways...just some thoughts...

 

 

on Oct 03, 2012

DsRaider
One idea that occurs to me is to make champions have to be respawned via the build queue upon death. With higher level ones requiring more production. Thus you would need high level cities for high level champions, although only if they die.

This is a very neat idea. Didn't Warcraft III have something like this? You'd need the town spending lore, resources, maybe essence or something to rejuvenate the hero. It'd limit the annoyance of constant comebacks, too (still, true death would need to be a possibility, at least)

Of course, I still think the "MoM approach" would have helped downsizing this problem from the start. Heroes wouldn't even show at your door unless you were managing a thriving empire.

on Oct 04, 2012

jirkaesch
So - no offense - but that is why, according to my opinion, no such thing shall happen, because this game is, after all, business project and needs to be SOLD.

Platitudes. Everyone realises that the game needs to be sold. That is why everyone is giving their opinion on how to make the game as fun and as good as possible.

To claim everyone who has a different idea on HOW to achieve it then you to be unaware of this fact is ridiculous.

GFireflyE
@taltamir: Having heroes gain xp from cities improvements and research techs would be an interesting way to have heroes become more dependant on their empire.

it would certainly be different.

What is your take on my alternative idea where having heroes gain XP as normal, but have troops take their share of XP as if they were a hero and convert it into research points? as well as having goodie huts and quests have a chance to give out tech and infrastructure?

10 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10