For being a immortal the Sovereign sure does die a lot
Ok, to harken back to the days of MoM. (Yes I'm totally about to rip off a MoM idea). I don't think the Sovereign should die as long as he still has towns on the map. Perhaps limit that to only if the Sovereign has a "Rejuvenation Chamber" in that city. You can change that to anything you want as a building requirement *coughMageTowercough*.
For an excuse as to why that should be possible? Well, you expel essence, mana, energy to bring the ground back to life so you can build there. It would only make sense that if your body is destroyed you could pull yourself back together at one of these spots. These places, I.E. cities are imbued with the Sovereign's very life energy, they are part of him. If they aren't destroyed, then neither should the Sovereign be. Just a thought. It would definitely enhance the game-play. It would also make every city of strategic importance in some way, even if it's just as a resurrection place. Maybe you'd need to build a Temple first, then have a level 3 Mages Tower, and then if you die while out adventuring your body reforms there after a bit of time. In order to truly Die the Sovereign's cities would all have to be wiped out.
I'd prefer having to use an item/spell to keep yourself from dying when ripped to shreds in battle/by certain global magics. Although if you die on land you imbuded with your own essence should be able to lose some skills/stats and res in nearest city.
Maybe the Sovreign could resurrect himself using some essense (a reasonable amount otherwise dying wouldn't be so bad a thing). It would take a certain number of turns as well. If you can't afford it, then you do die (which kind of makes sense if you don't have enough magic left to bring life back into your body).
Sounds like another reasonable way, though I'd want the Soverign to lose like HALF of the STARTING Sov essence, aka 10 at the moment (I think its 20 or 25 starting? Tired at work)
Yes, I also wouldn't want the game to just end when the Sovereign is defeated. On the other hand, there must be a reasonable cost to having your Sovereign defeated (unlike AoW2) and also finally killing the Sovereign shouldn't be too tedious or just a mop-up operation.
@ Astrath: Good ideas as well. Resurrection should Not be cheap in any way. It should be a limited high level ability. Not only would you need to be able to build the correct buildings to make it possible but you would have to cover the casting cost as well. I think it should have a timer on it as well to prevent over-use. Perhaps one of the material components could be something that's limited. Maybe a flower that only blooms twice a month. Hence you can only cast the spell once every 15 days. If you die again before the spell can be re-cast then you are dead for good. There's lots of ways it can be done or scripted. Either way your point is a very good one and I totally agree. If Sovereign resurrection is put in it should be expensive to do. @Arunodayt: I agree mopping up all those left over small towns can be tedious in many games. Though part of me looks at that as a reward for getting so powerful. Also it makes for good tactics. You wouldn't want to go to war on a new front when you have enemy towns still behind you that you didn't mop up. Now one of those towns could produce a huge army over time and march it right at the rear of your army doing heavy damage if not causing massive disruptions in your empire. Also if this idea is implemented then you'd have a reason to wipe out every town a enemy has. That way he can't resurrect there because you destroyed it already. Also there could be a "Global Spell" that could be cast that simply stops other Sovereigns from casting the resurrection spell. That way you wouldn't always need to hunt down every last city they have. Just cast that global spell before you kill a enemy Sovereign.
@ Astrath: Good ideas as well. Resurrection should Not be cheap in any way. It should be a limited high level ability. Not only would you need to be able to build the correct buildings to make it possible but you would have to cover the casting cost as well. I think it should have a timer on it as well to prevent over-use. Perhaps one of the material components could be something that's limited. Maybe a flower that only blooms twice a month. Hence you can only cast the spell once every 15 days. If you die again before the spell can be re-cast then you are dead for good. There's lots of ways it can be done or scripted. Either way your point is a very good one and I totally agree. If Sovereign resurrection is put in it should be expensive to do.
@Arunodayt: I agree mopping up all those left over small towns can be tedious in many games. Though part of me looks at that as a reward for getting so powerful. Also it makes for good tactics. You wouldn't want to go to war on a new front when you have enemy towns still behind you that you didn't mop up. Now one of those towns could produce a huge army over time and march it right at the rear of your army doing heavy damage if not causing massive disruptions in your empire. Also if this idea is implemented then you'd have a reason to wipe out every town a enemy has. That way he can't resurrect there because you destroyed it already.
Also there could be a "Global Spell" that could be cast that simply stops other Sovereigns from casting the resurrection spell. That way you wouldn't always need to hunt down every last city they have. Just cast that global spell before you kill a enemy Sovereign.
Ok, haven't played the game yet, (downloading now at 93% ) so forgive me if this is totally counter to everything the game is based on.
What if when the Sovereign dies, all your cities and units start working to bring him/her back. The player would have no control over this. Maybe they have to collect enough money and gather enough power to build some kind of temple. This should be pretty expensive and require the scraping of buildings and other developments and should leave the entire civilization weaker after the resurrection.
Building on Raven's idea of the global counter-resurrection spell:
Casting it takes 2 turns and a bunch of mana. It lasts only 2-3 turns.
Effect: Resurrection costs thrice the Essence as normal (using SnallTrippin's example: 30 instead of 10), which is a very limited ressource.
This way you harm the defeated Souvereign big time, so death should be avoided whenever possible. On the other hand the counterspell is expensive enough that it will probably not be in effect all of the time.
I've not decided if a revivable sovereign is a good thing or not yet (it's a much more intense game when you know that your sovereign _might_ die).
How about the possibility to research a shrine or chamber where your sovereign could be revived? This building should be unique and should take a long time to research and build. Only one of these buildings can be built in one city. If it is destroyed you can no longer be revived and death = death. Rebuilding it should take as long time as it did the first time (this thing can't be rushed and will take LONG time to build. Two game years or more?).
If you have the building and lose a fight with your sovereign you should be able to be revived in that city after some turns.
The revival should cost 90% of your essence (it's regenerating, right?), your life is down to 1 and some medium losses to your stats.
This way you can plan your attack on an enemy to destroy his shrine before you attack the sovereign himself to avoid the mop up scene, or you can do the mop up thing until his kingdom is crushed.
I think I would prefer this to be an option anyway, so people can choose what type of game they want (i.e. "normal" vs "ironman").
I have yet to lose my own Sovereign but I did think it a tad strange how easy I was killing the other Sovereigns I found while exploring the map.
I don't beleive I have yet to get my Sovereign past Level 3 before the "Out of Memory" CTD got me so I was never "high level".
For those interested in 'historical' debates, the sovereign death = game over thing spawned this huge thread back when the boards first launched and had a few recent entries earlier this month.
I don't think that the early betas will be much to go by in terms of assessing whether it is too easy to kill sovereigns. When we can run larger maps, build real militaries, recruit champions, and go on quests it should be a lot clearer whether soverigns are too easy to lose to make their deaths = game over.
Thanks for the history of the debate, GW Swicord. I speed read most of the thread and though it is similar in some posts, it's still not quite what this thread is in as far as Topic. I was thinking more specifically from MoM where your Wizard doesn't die permanently as long as you have a Wizard Tower in a city. If you're defeated in battle your Wizard retreats to his next Wizard Tower via spell until all his cities with Wizard Towers are destroyed.
Maybe it's because I grew up on the old MoM so that's what I expect out of a immortal ruler, I could be spoiled. At the very least one of his children should have the option to become the new Sovereign and gain the abilities of the Empire's Channeler.
This is exactly what happens in AoW2 as well - as long as you have a city with a wizard tower left, your "wizard" simply shifted to a new wizard tower upon being defeated - BTW, wizards were REALLY weak in combat in AoW2 which is not the case here, so if the Sovereign becomes very powerful like Sauron, this can become game-breaking. I mean, how many times can you count on defeating Sauron?
Maybe the Sovereign loses some of his powers (not just essence) upond being defeated as well?
The golbal spell doesn't really appear to be a good alternative to me because:
1. If you are strong in magic, just casting one more spell wouldn't be all that much of a trouble. It will just add one step to the original process.
2. If the above doesn't apply because the spell is very very expensive/difficult to obtain, then there will be big problems for those whose primary focus is not magic.
As for mopping up, I am just saying that it shouldn't be too much - no mopping up is simply not possible IMO. Hmm...this thing is more difficult than I originally thought it would be
I don't have time to read this ungodly massive thread, but getting knowcked off by a monster in the first turn every few games is starting to get annoying. My preferred alternative would be that when you die, you lose the physical body i.e. the thing that is on the map moving around and doing stuff, but still can administrate your empire. To get your body back, I would suggest the ability to possess your closest living relative.
Perhaps this should be an option that is chosen prior to the game, whether a resurrection spell is possible or not. another option might b e a resurrection is possible but a death results in a loss of prestige and also a level or more, something that is sufficient to make dying a real penalty. If death matters then there is a LOT more intensity to the game, more drama because it matters. If it doesn't matter then it is boring.
Another related option might be like the one in Mount and Blade where one 'realistically' can not save the game prior to a battle. In other words, you cannot refight battles to get the desired result and then save the game.
My personal preference would be that death = game over.
Definitely. Dying should have a steep penalty. Cleflar makes a good point slightly above this post. "If death matters then there is a LOT more intensity to the game, more drama because it matters. If it doesn't matter then it is boring.". Death has to have a decent cost to your character or it would be a useless mechanic. As such, Resurrection also should be a costly endeavor. You should have to have the required building which should be expensive plus a additional costly casting cost. I only want the "possibility" of resurrection in the game. It Definitely should Not be easy or cheap.
Some balancing should be taken into account as well. It would have to be implemented and tried and tweaked just to address everything you just mentioned. If resurrection isn't easy, then neither should a counter spell be easy. But also a simple "Dispel Magic" or "Disrupt Spell" type spell could also be made to interfear with the Resurrection process. Hmm, yeap, would need to be tested.
Those are both good ideas and alternatives.
It is always a matter of balance. If death is too expensive, then you will never use your sovereign to fight. On the other hand if it is too cheap, then you might not care how dangerous the situation is for your sovereign and using a fighting sovereign is too powerful.
And as far as I know, you are supposed to have the choice to use your sovereign as a powerful unit.
How are you managing that? The only few times my sovereign has died fighting a monster (or other sovereign) is when I got greedy and thought I could take another solid hit before going off to hunt healing drafts or loiter in a town.
p.s. The other thread is massive, this one is still small, and really hasn't raised any seriously new points (no disrespect to Raven, just a difference of opinion about the discussion over there). The question remains, "Is a dead player-channeler game ender?" I still think it can work that way, and if it does, that will be another way Elemental can stand out as the first serious step forward in the genre since MoM.
No offense taken, GW Swicord, no worries. It's just a idea brother. I figure if enough people like one of the ideas then Stardock will take a serious look at it. Also to the contrary, if enough people say "Hey, no, I don't like that." I'm cool with that too. In the end the Game itself will benefit from having what the players want in it.
It's a Win/Win situation
That's one of our jobs as beta testers. To better the game and game experience. Not to whine and cry and moan like 12 year olds because our idea was shot down on the forums.
I've seen this topic discussed several times with many people on both sides for whether or not death means game over. Ideally the best solution so both parties are happy would be having a death gameplay setting:
1) Sovereign Death equals game over
2) Sovereign Death allows continued gameplay with heavy penalties and moderate delay until being returned.
3) Sovereign Death allows continued gameplay with moderate penalties and minor delay until being returned.
4) Sovereign Death allows continued gameplay with minor penalties and no delay until being returned.
Everyone can then play the type of game which matches their mood. Some days I will want option_1 where other days I will want option_3. Such an important decision such as the sovereigns death should be a game setting.
I like the MOM approach. For those who haven't played it, if you have sufficient magic capability, a spell is cast which eventually brings you back (possibly to a dinky little village if that all he had left -- a tower would be created there automagically). There is PLENTY of death-penalty because it takes a lot of mana, and you are without your spell caster for a long time.
There's a bit of mis-understanding above, thinking MOM & AOW:SM were the same. In AOW:SM the wizard moved to another tower right away, if he had one. So the only death-penaties were loss of a big city, and the advance requirement to have another city with an expensive tower.
I like the idea of the "death of the Sovereign ends game" being optional, but the AI will have to be programmed to value and use it radically differently in the above two situations.
Slightly off-topic, in AoW2 (and SM), the death of your wizard also had an unforeseen benefit to the opponent - if the hero killed the wizard, he could gain 3-5 levels the next turn. It could be quite a boost to the hero (and abused against the AI too )
Dev said that they want to let the player choose between a sovereign like sauron (big and powerfull) or like a simple human but multiple towns, a lot of servants etc.
So it would be hard to lose someone like Sauron, you would need to properly defend a "simple human" sovereign.
So the sov die = end game is a good idea. You have to make choices.
There should be only one way to prevent dieing : putting essence in an item (like Sauron ) then if you die, you have to succeed a quest where your heroes need to place your saved essence in a place where you can come back with only the essence saved (remember sauron's ring ?)
I wonder if there's something drugging the already-dopey AI in the FamilyTree workaround context. I've never been attacked by a troll and I don't think by another sovereign either. (I've seen them cruising around lots inside my lines-of-sight, but they never seem to do anything except collect the occasional random item.)
Do you mean auto-survey or the multi-turn move thing? I've never used auto-survey for my sovereigns and never had trouble getting dumped on a monster when I did a multi-turn move.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
