Okay, here's our latest thought process on the sovereign.
First, let me say that the sovereign dying is a non-negotiable thing to us. It's an important core concept.
That said, we do not want users to have to play defensive with their sovereign. The idea is to give players the option to gamble it all if they want.
So here's what we're thinking:
Heroes will have a skill called Evade. The evade skill determines the odds of them escaping a disaster (lost battle, taking of a city, etc.). When they escape, they are transported to the nearest friendly city.
Players will be able to put points into evade when they design their character.
There will be major evade modifiers. For example, if your sovereign is in a city when it's attacked, odds are, he'll escape. If he's in a large army, he'll probably escape too. But if it's a 1 on 1 encounter, odds are, he wouldn't escape.
The entire system would be automatic and players worried about losing their sovereigns can simply put some points into him and park him in a city and not have to worry.
Phoenix - That is a very good idea also...
Ah well, we've posted many suggestions already.
Let's drop the reload comment for good, please. If a player isn't skilled enough (or is lazy) that he must have his victories by trial and error (save/load), then leave him to do so. In singleplayer no one can hear you scream. Blunty put, we need a very competent AI that can handle itself well to avoid mistakes and be able to judge situations can could endanger the Sovereign without real reward (Frogboy's task there plus all the reports he gets from us to improve the AI) and assume that the player has balls of steel (if male) and will accept defeat if it happens because of Sovereign lost, being conquered or whatever... and won't load the game under no other circumstances than to continue the game if he had to stop playing because of real life issues like sleeping/working/... aka The player won't cheat.
Also, some people will never find the Sovereign intelligent enough and be able to hunt him efficiently. I'm not of those so I'll just benefit of those too good players that will make sure that Frogboy has material to improve the AI and make sure that if I get to go well against the AI, suddenly I can find myself lowering the difficulty some levels trying to adjust and see which truck trampled me over. (a la TotA)
Alright, I'm ready to bury the hatchet--- it takes at least 2 people to make a flame war, and it can only damage the discussion. You've made a lot of detailed and thoughtful observations in many different threads (as your karma would imply) and I'll credit you with that.
I'm actually perfectly fine with the sovereign death = game over mechanic, but I just think everyone needs to be very sober about how that will impact the game, especially when it comes to empowering the player with the "load asset." Now believe me, I'm not the kind of gamer that hates being "punished" for failing. I'm about as hardcore as they come. When I played Diablo 2, I played on Hardcore mode (meaning when your character died, even from a bad connection, he/she was gone forever.) When my character was killed, I'd start another. Ultima Online was my favorite MMORPG, because when you died, you lost all of your gear... until Eve Online came along, because it was even more harsh on the player (months worth of work could be lost in minutes). I would say that 99 percent of players aren't as okay with catastrophic losses in games than I am, but that being said, I will still load my game if a brief miscalculation ends what could still be a very exciting campaign. In Master of Magic, I would almost always play with Life magic (the only way to revive fallen heros), because your heros were guarenteed to die before they ever hit Commander level, and I wasn't willing to load my game to save them.
As for Wintersong, I'm not sure what to say. I've explained it to you at least 4 times in different threads, but it still sounds like you are arguing with someone else's point. Telling everyone to adjust how they play a game isn't a workaround for the shortcoming that a game might have, and neither is just assuming that the programmers will make a godlike AI that will trump all hurdles (as godly as the Elemental team is .) You declared that we should all just have "balls of steel" and never load our games and that will solve the problem. Well, if that's the case, then why even have a voluntary save game feature at all. Or better yet, have a feature by which all of your saved games from that campaign are promptly deleted once your sovereign dies? That should have an identical effect.
So seriously, what I want to see is functions in the game that marginilize the load advantage that at least 90 percent of the player base is sure to use (and that DOESN'T mean that this 90 percent will be using it every time they suffer a minor setback).
Given what you think it's an "intelligent and human" use of the sovereign (number 2) I can see very few difficulties implementing number 1
Seriously, I see number 1 a "specific" problem in the general problem of "good AI". Most of the things you posted for the Sovereign are going to have to be implemented for heroes as they make sense for them. About number 2, it's a risk, but I don't think that's a problem as long as having the sovereign in the front lines makes sense: if the sovereign is underpowered, then it's a problem, but if it's a powerful unit it's just another strategy.
I only say that you cannot design things with the Load thing in mind because you cannot win. Never. (as I have said also in such threads, I suppose) Obviously, if you design a feature that encourages to load the game then we can have two things: a) possible a bad mechanic (by nature and/or implementation) and/or b ) players that by some reason (justified in their eyes or not) prefer to "cheat". Note the use of "and/or" between a) and b ). If the system works as intented (and the user doesn't cheat), then everything is ok. If they user beats the system cheating, then there is nothing to fix. Obviously, in case I need to point it out, we are talking of a system that is fun and all that and that doesn't encourage loading (more than the other parts of the system like losing a hero in a battle, losing a city, not getting a good drop from a chest, not nice initial placement.... pick your poison). What's the worse thing that can happen? That the player wins versus the AI? Because it's not like you are going to lose your Sovereign in multiplayer and then load the game to conitnue, right? Maybe Frogboy should give the AI the ability to load the game in its favor in the same way some players do.
As I have said some times already, it has nothing to do with people loading. You cannot control that. What you can control is the system and make it so it's balanced and fun. People cheating by loading? any time of the day by any random reason. SO you don't forbid saving (I save every few turns and some times in the turn because I'm a bit paranoid with electricity shortages where I live... what an agony the FF were!!)
But before some random user decide to use the "W" word on me for repeating myself like a parrot and getting the same understandment than an ape, I consider this topic dead for good. You (as in: anyone) can reload it but I won't be there. I'm sorry if I somehow hurted someone's sensibility ("balls of steel" was just a colour expression that some might recognize... if someone took it seriously, I can do nothing more than laugh... sorry ! )
I wish there were more suggestions like this one.
I also said somewhere that I thought a bonus to defense should be awarded to sovereign inside their territory.
Considering sovereign death = game over, you can either try to gamble yoru sovereign, which probably meanss sending him on errands/wars, away from home/power base, or try to keep him safe.
If you keep him safe, you shouldn't be penalised for being attacked in your capital and losing one of the units there, so sovereigns should be extremely hard to kill at home. Not impossible of course, but hard, so it would require skill to be able to achieve it and the ai doesn't end up with lots of assassinated sovereigns all around.
Teleport spells don't fit the bill in my opinion because they are more useful when on offense than on defense.
Brad has said that it was possible to give some of a channeler's power to other units (you can pour your power into the land to build cities, or share it with a hero). This is another way of having a strong unit and not losing the game if you lsoe the unit: Delegate some of your channeler's power. This makes the channeler less powerful, but mitigates the risks.
I think everyone is concentrating way too much on gritty gameplay and not enough on awesomeness and fantasy. Frankly, if an epicly powerful being dies, of course there is a way to resurrect them. What slain sorcerer or demon or whatnot doesn't threaten the world beyond the grave? A pathetic one.
The idea of a sovereign dying = end of game simply goes against a lot of high fantasy I've read. Even Gandalf "died" after his encounter with the Balrog and was given new life. Frankly, I really like my idea of making dead sovereigns into disembodied spirtual forces with a possibility of resurrection. I don't like the idea of sovereign dying = end of game simply because it is less epic and fantasyish than any other option.
I understand the need to make a game playable. But we need to take advantage of our genre. If my channeler... a being with the unique power to bring the world back to life simply dies... well, that's anti-climactic and disappointing.
non-negotiable.
Well, I didn't say that the sovereign shouldn't die. I just think there's a much more creative and fun way to handle it.
That is why I have proposed that a sovereign can only be killed by a channeler unit. That way, if you really want to have a hunting sovereign strategy, you will need to share your sovereign essence into other heroes in order to make them channeler and able to kill ennemy sovereign.
Gandalf not dying was because he is the good guy, fantasy novels are full of powerful bad guys that die. In general if the bad guy resurrects, it's usually to sell more novels.
So well, two reasons that don't apply to games.
But if he dies only in a combat against another channeler?
This still lets him go kill trolls as if they weren't a threat, which doesn't sound consistent with the ability for him to be killed if he takes risks.
Well, my proposal on reply #59 is:
The idea is that if sovereign is defeated in combat and there is no channeler against him, the ennemy army doesn't know how to really kill him. They can only incapacitate him temporary. That way the sovereign isn't guaranteed to win battles.
And a gameplay penalty for having YOUR sovereign defeated during YOUR turn could be to end YOUR turn immediately
That would be interesting way to do it. It definitely forces a player to use their sovereign in an interesting way... although if this is a late game thing the channeler who hoarded all their magic has a serious advantage in this department. Allow mundane forces to weaken said channeler before the other channeler comes in for the kill.
Sauron persisted after his physical form was destroyed. That was one of the premises behind LotR. I just think it would be more fun and interesting done in a different way. I'm in favor of the Sovereign dying. I'm not in favor of the Sovereign just dying.
Give your Sovereign the power of Vicisitude a la Tzimisce Antediluvian and be happy.
Each games is a tale in which your Sovereign starts his path upon the salvation (or damnation) of his world. The end of the tale is one of success or one of defeat.
Sovereign death not being epic? Managing some cities isn't epic. Designing units isn't epic (altough it's use can be). Research spells isn't epic. Etc. The only thing that could be considered epic (beyond world background and detail) are battles.
And not all the legends/tales end well for the protagonist. Some heroes are doomed to fail.
I think people are concentrating too much on what makes a good fantasy novel and not what makes a good fantasy game. Something that was really, really cool in a fantasy novel might be a game breaking feature for a game.
Fantasy novels are scripted and follow a definitive path. Fantasy based strategy games don't. If sovereigns are as frail as it sounds like they may be, 9 out of 10 times, they will not die gloriously or meaningfully like they do in fantasy novels. Anyone who has played hardcore D&D (without any DM interventions on the player's behalf) will find that most often, the protagonists don't usually die when the stakes are the highest or at the moment where their death will be the most poetic. Instead, they end up in a pit of spikes halfway through an adventure or get eaten by a troll that wasn't even a major villain.
Again, the mortality of a sovreign should be proportional to the size of his empire.
It's the best way to avoid abrupt endings when things are going well for an empire.
That could be implemented in several ways: special buildings in town, or an extra "life" for each town owned... i don't really care how they do it, let the game designers use their creativity, it's their game after all; as a forum member I feel I can be way more useful with my experience as a wargamer to balance the gameplay than creating a story.
I also suggest not to make sovreigns uber-units expecting that would make them last longer. Experience teaches they in fact last less (Age of Wonders 1), because a player wouldn't resist the temptation to use them in battle. (After extensive gameplay tests, In AOWII they made them wizards, stuck them in a tower which would make them immortal and gave bonuses to players who wouldn' make them fight: and they even prevented them from accumulating experience).
I don't like it. If he was killed by a troll, he's probably been eaten after all. If he dies, he dies, no matter who kills him.
(...)
I also suggest not to make sovreigns uber-units expecting that would make them last longer. Experience teaches they in fact last less (Age of Wonders 1), because a player wouldn't resist the temptation to use them in battle.
I agree. My favorite option is a big defensive bonus inside your territory, based on the amount of territory (or other) you control. You wouldn't get any bonus of using them in battle if you initiated a fight or fought outside your borders.
Yep, Sauron persisted for narrative/storytelling reasons, not gameplay ones.
The generic version of this argument is "making subsystem X more complex will be more fun and interesting". We already had it with the economic system (and it seems we'll have it again), we'll have it with magic, with combat, etc. The game is pretty complex as written in paper right now, wait a little before adding more options.
IF Souv death = EoG, and currently a Souv ability to gain Exp is in Battle, then perhaps if the Souv gained his Exp as a percentage of his troops kills, via proximity/radii, then if his force begins to lose, he can simply flee, with a head start, versus being stuck in the middle during those game periods when his powers could be overwhelmed early on.
My first lost Souv happen 2 nights ago. I attacked another Souv with 5 armed guards in tow (all same group). The fight ended and I had no Souv, but did have an armed soldier left over.... wth? That seemed strange...
Can't channelers persist for story reasons?
Fair enough, although this seems to me a game flow issue than a complexity issue, since I think this has a whole variety of different ways to handle it, both simple and complex.
I disagree. First of all, there are great works of fantasy where important characters die more readily than a DnD character would (read Song of Ice and Fire). Secondly, I think Elemental has elements of storytelling in it. Part of the objective with Elemental is to build an interesting fantasy world. Frogboy almost wrote a fiction generator with Gal Civ II, so I actually think Elemental is built with storytelling in mind.
I think that really the core issue is the tone. If the setting was darker or less magical, then I'd totally be for Death is the End. I play Linley's Dungeon Crawl, so I'm used to it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Elemental is heavily inspired by LotR. If the game actually played like LotR, then that's a really good game. Similarly DnD, hardcore or not, would be boring if it didn't tell a story. At least, I would be bored.
In addition, I think a good game tells a good story. So I do actually think that things that make novels good would make games good... after all, stories and games are both supposed make conflict interesting. The reverse is not true. Checkers would make a terrible novel.
Wait.. what's the problem here?
Just do it like this. If you have points in evade, the sovereign has certain bonuses to an "evade" stat. The evade stat is adjusted depending on the circumstances of a combat.. IE, if the enemy brought 50 pegasai scouts with helms of true sight, and magic-seeking bows, then it's a big negative. If you bring a big army or are in a city, the confusion is a very positive effect. If the enemy does an attack that leaves the evade bonus positive, he gets away, period. If the evade is negative, he has a chance to get away. It would work more like Dr. Doom's robot doubles than a random dieroll.
Would this be overpowered with the 100% chance? There's lots of ways to expand it to add additional factors, (Say, your channeler got away by teleporting into the abyss, he now has to get back to this plane of existance).. or whatever. But if it's guaranteed under reasonable circumstances, then it becomes a non-trivial decision to make before and during gameplay.
Now if only this doesn't get lost in the thread..
I think Total War did it best, where at any time during the battle, you can move certain units towards your edge of the battlefield and then click "retreat" which has them escape at their highest speed.
Then, on the wordmap, said retreated units move towards nearest friendly city at almost double their maximum move. You could only retreat once per turn though, I believe.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
