One of the features that we expect to get into Elemental Beta 1B is the Sovereign "hide" option.
Right now, if your sovereign dies, the game is over.
The downside of this, long-term is that in single player, you'll have players figuring out ways to assassinate AI players (i.e. crazy amounts of AI time will end up getting spent countering assassination strategies) and in online play it'll be "kill the sovereign".
With the hide option, when the sovereign is on a city, the player can choose to hide the sovereign at which point his player piece is no longer accessible. If the city he's in is taken, a dialog comes up and tells you that your sovereign has successfully fled to the closest city.
But at any time, the player can also have their sovereign come out of hiding and the player can then have them go do their thing, give bonuses, cast spells, etc.
The objective of the sovereign unit isn't that you are supposed to have to worry about protecting him but rather that the player can "gamble" it all if they choose in the form of making use of a single unit that is extremely powerful (potentially) but also could spell doom if that unit actually gets killed.
Just for the record I love the sound of the hide option for the way it is planned but would also prefer a dynasty system.
I'm more interested to find out if we'll be able to equip wandering monsters that join us with weapons and armors. A game of Find The Soveriegn sounds fun
I'm getting Supreme Commander ACU vibes from this thread heh.
I like the hide idea. Lets players play it both ways (safe or make a gamble).
Since leveling up the sovereign gives him more essence and essence is essential for many things it likely won't depend on "creeping" with him.
Agreed.
You are playing as the sovereign. You don't even have to build cities with your essense, that's just one of your tools to defeat other Sovereigns. If you want to it should be a viable play option to never build a city. If your player character dies, you die. Why exactly is this a bad thing? You (as the Sovereign) spent your essence to build your empire. You didn't spend the essence of your 'dynasty'.
Finally, as the Sovereign, how exactly do you plan on continuing to control your empire after your death? You're dead. Unless the game institutes god-hood after death, or makes death meaningless, the game should be over when you get killed. Games generally do not continue after you lose.
It is a bad thing because it is not fun, in my opinion. The fact that Brad's already designing kludges around it just shows it's not elegant.
If you are playing the sovereign then how can you control your units half the world away? He's got magic powers, yeah sure. I don't care. And most games continue after you lose. MoM had a spell of return for the record. This game has a save option that doesn't quit the game (I mean, play Rogue or Diablo II hardcore to see what not continuing really means). So what's going to happen? Lose a fight, lose the game, reload? Bleh. either it's an empire building game or a role playing one. In the former case, I don't want to lose the game because I lose one unit. In the latter, I don't want to have to micromanage tons of cities and units, and I'd rather not lose everything on an unlucky roll, although I might live with that.
Sorry this one is both. ALthough the hide option is actually quite cool. If you really want to play until your last city is destroyed, just hide him. TADA it's a empire building game no worries about someone ganking your soveriegn. The game yo want has a super powerful unit with no downside to using him in combat. THAT isn't fun - there's no strategic choice.
The wizard from MoM and the Sovereign from elemental are entirely different things so to use the spell of return as an example is just willingly ignoring that difference. All the wizard really was in MoM was the ability to cast spells.
Well, people likes options and that's not bad (altough it might be expensive sometimes?). I can understand the fear to lose the Sovereign because of bad luck and get some game over. Or that some people will just dedicate to play to "Hunt the Sovereign" (why should that affect my single player experience? I won't play that style so not my problem). Simply put, some people only want defeat if they are totally anihilated (or diplo, research, quest victory happen) which obvously doesn't help the idea of losing your Sovereign (The Sauron of the LotR) = Game Over.
I understand their troubles but as adamant as some can be about hating the idea, I'm as adamant in loving it. No one ask the King in chess to be hidden or have a dinasty if he dies (not very good example because the only victory condition is to kill the King but you get the idea... I hope). Because I see this game as chess but with more victory conditions. And I love the feeling.
Therefore, the only real solution is to have it as optional (appart form giving some extra options like hiding for those who like the idea of the sovereign death = game over). And I fear that some features that Starodck might want to include could end out or limited in such way, being made optional with a check (but compulsory in campaign mode... which only a few of us will play then? )
I feel like some people (without bad intentions, obviously, I don't think bad of anyone here except of one user which I won't mention) tries to limit Stardock's creativity to offer us something new and fun so they offer us the usual stuff with a fresh coat of paint and some flowers (I'm exagerating so please don't feel offended, it's just the feeling I get sometimes), instead of risking the chance for a whole garden. We have barely started beta. We have many months ahead of us to test many different ideas. Stardock is more than ready to listen (which is not the same that to do anything that users order... they have to put limits somewhere because of reasons of their own). And I just wished that we could all try things first before judging them as "evil". Yes, I'm conscious that the Sovereign balance would be difficult and that depends a lot of the rest of the game mechanics... but what are we here if not?
Many ideas proposed "against" sovereign death = game over are good and I hope Stardock takes somehow note. Yet I hope that I can play the game as closely as possible as to what Stardock envisions. And if I don't like it, have the options to play it differently.
Ok, sorry for the wall of silly text. I'll back to v0.24 or something.
Well stated, Wintersong. More options, especially such large-ranging ones, might make it harder to develop good AI.
Chess is a good example. Because what do you actually do with the King in chess? Defend him at all costs.
In Elemental terms that means you'd very rarely use him anywhere. And that is kind of boring. If you want him used, he has to be very powerful and hard to kill. And the balance between that and having him overpowered is hard to reach and instable. Because game over is at stake, the gain has to be huge to warrant the choice.
There is one more choice though: If the sovereign has a way to escape that is hard to counter (but maybe expensive), then that will allow you to use him even when his death means game over.
EDIT: I should read the other threads first. Frogboy proposed something similar in the sequel thread.
you should also read it because I think its existance means that this thread is to be let die. Everything they could want from us is in the other thread, with less room for variation from what SD wants.
No. Downside is not necessarily losing the game. Losing corporeal shape and being unable to fight anyumore is an option. Needing people to call him back (MoM, dominions), is another option.
In the Lord of the Rings, if Sauron is not the closest thing to a channeler, and doesn't get physically destroyed, then what is he? He still keeps playing...
There are several examples like that. Voldemort in Harry Potter is another example.
This is why we should have different options at the game setup screen. Would you like to play on after the Sovereign dies? Appoint one of his childs as his successor? Why not? It sounds pretty good imo. Would you prefer Stardock's Sovereign dies = Game over method? Why not...that should be an option also.
I think that this is a very important gameplay element, so Stardock should do their best in order to keep all of the players happy.
I like this idea but am still fine with the Sovereign fighting to defend the city his is in and you lossing the game if you loose that city. Either way I will be happy.
Sammual
I like Stardock's idea of "SD=GO" but that doesn't mean I don't like the other ideas (like dinasty lineages). And I think it'd be a good idea to implement the best ones even if they were to be disabled for campaign (altough they suppose extra work/money/time for Stardock). I always have Super Events on in Gal Civ II. I love to have them on and suffer them (or try to avoid them). But I love that I can uncheck them if I decide so too (for the hypotetical day I decide not to play with them). The only thing I'd be against (unless beta proves otherwise) is to eliminate the "SD=GO" mechanism. But anything interesting that adds to that feature and/or that offers optional alternatives, is good in my book too.
But I'm not making the game.
Some good ideas here. We're digesting them now.
Good to hear Brad. Please consider implementing an additional Sovereign system also, because the one what we have "now" won't be very popular amongst many players. [The proposed dynasty/successor system for example sounds very good, as an alternative.] Either way: The key of this "secondary" Sovereign system must be: Play on after the original Sovereign dies.
I'm not sure those are the "good ideas" he's talking about.
These threads are called "Keeping your sovereign alive" not "Keep playing after sovereign dies"
That's not a answer to my question on the previous page Good to know though sir. We always like to know you're watching the ideas.
Bingo. Well stated.
Are Dragons considered channelers, and thereby also immortal? or is it simply their life-span is so long that its really no difference, and it would be extremely rare for an "immortal" human to outlive a Draconic lifespan?
In addition... Soveriegns should probably start out with a base withdrawal chance, or rather a base evade percentage. I say natural starting percent should normally be 50% perhaps 60% for elves and other graceful or small creatures, and 40% for more sluggish or powerful creatures, like orcs, and some subraces of lizardmen like Black Swamp-lizards.
Everyone - How about this for an option:
Once a Sovereign has an heir of his/her body, they can designate one (and only one) as their spiritual successor, or some such. If the Sovereign dies, the player takes over the Sovereign's heir. This could lead to interesting, and fun situations, such as:
1. Sovereign designates Grandson X to be The Heir
2. Grandson X is allowed to become a Vassal
3. Grandson X signs a treaty of alliance with another Faction by marrying into that Faction.
4. Sovereign dies. Player assumes control of Grandson X. Grandson X inherits most of previous Faction (some may go other ways).
5. Grandson X (now Sovereign) revolts, pulling Faction apart.
You could set up interesting ticking time bombs that way. In the same manner, you could never be totally certain a faction was eliminated until all the physical heirs were eliminated.
"The King is dead, long live the King"
Nice try, Frogboy, but I don't think this 'Hide the Sov' idea is ideal.AI routine is needed to be implemented on when to hide. A) Assuming this AI routine is 'prefect' so the AI Sov never dies in an ambush by hiding whenever there is danger nearby; it means the AI player will never lose a game until the AI has lost all its cities. Essentially this means a total conquest of all cities is the ultimate game goal, unless other conditions like "Quest Victory, Diplomatic Victory, or Spell of Making" is achieved first.The other alternative B ) is that the AI routine is 'mediocre' so the AI Sov misjudge when to hide from time to time, so Sov can be assassinated. This means Human gamer can kill the AI player Sov (Win), because the gamer has achieved superb understanding of this particular AI routine. I don't think a game should be reduced merely "AI Sov Hunt". Under this condition of B ), this hide option only adds one layer of protection to Sov, but gamer will eventually master the skill of how to hunt the Sov because this is shortcut to victory.
Under B ) the AI routine should have a Sov assasination AI routine too, attempting to assaniate all other Sov. If this AI routine is prefect & the hiding routine is also prefect, it means all Sov will rationally end up hiding most of the time.
Do Stardock want to make a game that the gamers' goal is to hunt 1 unit? Is this a fun for gamer? I don't think so.I do not deny the Sov is the focus of the game, but there should not be game over when it dies. Dynasty/heir system is the way to go. Sov dying should mean huge setback to the player e.g. the empire being broken into 2 or more states. A less powerful, essence wielding heir should take the place of a dead Sov; let the gamer/AI build him up in power again.
Sovereign vs Sovereign battles. An interesting game. The player's only winning move is to ...
Anyways, I think Soveriegn should be able to marry 1 other Sovereign to form a permanent alliance. Perhaps same species and different gender is required for this? would be an interesting addition to the permanent alliance concept ... and if one sovereign dies, sure that player dies, but would the surviving sovereign take it all? would the alliance be dissolved? perhaps it depends on the approval rating of the now dead sovereign, and the popularity of the Sovereign-Sovereign union. Im sure loyalty would be a big factor in such domestic politics ... very interesting concepts I think.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
