[quote who="Gazz_" reply="157" id="2822744"]

Good, maybe, but I don't think it's a very logical point. =P

I understand  "non-combat build"  as a farmer or miner.  Getting XP from quests is completely against staying at home farming or mining.
Rescueing princesses or sorting through bones on old battlefields does not make you a better farmer.

However, getting "real XP" from the staying at home bit is a balancing issue because you could level up your champs at home without any risk,
putting all the level up points into casting / fighting stats and effectively training "fighting champs" without every risking their hide in a battle.
That also has to be avoided.

The only real alternative is a skill system where  "staying at home farming or mining"  only increases said farming/mining skill
but not the general level of the champion - or only increases the normal level veeeery slowly.
[/quote]

It's a general  issue with experience point systems for RPGs computer or P&P. If you talking logic you don't become a better researcher, scribe or administrator by sticking a sharpened piece of wood up a bandits........ well you get the point, no pun intended.

So yes really a skills based system that improves the skills and attributes you use is the only realistic way of allowing both combat and non-combat builds and is also far more true to life. This is impossible and mostly not relavent in P&P RPGs, but in a stratergy game like elemental where some heros may be non-combat orintated it matters and frankly a trivial thing for a computer to do it just needs an experience variable and wieght for each attribute and to associate skills with attributes.

You could do it by saying that a champion who already has a skill like "Merchant" can become a better merchant while sitting in town acting as a merchant, and thus gain XP from it (if the skill is driven by his INT/CHA stats). But a unit without such skills is considered a warrior and won't gain XP except in combat (and would never transform into a merchant).

Yes this is how I think I would implement it that champions have base skills and can also pick related higher level skills as they level up but can't learn unrelated skills and yes someone with merchant skill would level up very slowly while using there skill in a town.

I have no idea about what's trivial or troublesome to implement, but what's "not visible to the player" about a simple distinction between battlefield experience and HQ experience? If it seems that troublesome, perhaps the model could take the lazy way out and make HQ and battlefield abilities mutually exclusive, but one of my original hopes for the champions system was to have units that made me think about whether I wanted to build up logistical strength vs. build up raw combat strength.

I'd kick their worthless butts out of the game. It's just another "feature" of Elemental that was tossed in without thinking of whether or not it works. It doesn't.

Long term I would look at the creation of specialist units, and possibly allow them to level up. There needs to be a distinction that signifies they are not champions, because if they are sitting in town they aren't champions. Your solution is complicated, because it relies on the same character type (champions), being treated in two completely seperate ways (non-combat, combat), and getting similar sounding rewards for it (levels, some of which aren't real levels). When it's explained, it makes sense. When it's not explained... Well, there's a lot of stuff that's just weird about this game, and that would be one more thing that makes it more inaccessible.

For now, I would get rid of every non-combat champion in the game. They are generally bad decisions anyway. And there are SO freaking many of them.

I've read every single reply (I need to game more and read less [e digicons][/e] )

It looks like things are on the right track but FAR from finished....

I don't understand Kestrals explanation about combat (square root, dividing...WHAT?? [e digicons]o_O[/e] ). Visualite it dammit!

On the good side though, casting times getting implemented (in 1.2 or later) is great!  [e digicons][/e]

I would like to see a limit on stats, with an increasing cost of skill points as the stat increases.

For example, let's say the maximum was 20, with an average of 10. Going from 10 to 11 would cost 1 skill point, but going from 19 to 20 would cost 5 skill points. Normal fighters could purchase skill points as usual while designing a unit, with more resources and time being required for higher stats (with perhaps techs/buildings enabling the player to increase the maximum allowed stat number). Heroes would receive 2 skill points per level. Heroes would also be able to go to a maximum of 25 in a skill, and your avatar could go to 30.

Why is this a good idea? As a player, I like to have a reachable goal. This lets me feel like I accomplished something when I get there. It also gives me an example of not only what is average, but what is above average, great, and heroic. A limit to stats gives me a visible goal to work toward. The current method of no cap (or if there is one, it is incredible high) is very frustrating, because it makes the average start of 10 meaningless. I'd imagine limiting stats would also make the creation and balancing of equipment, spell effects, and monsters easier.

Is it too late in the development process to even consider something like this?

First off, it is trivial, it's not complex, especially when you look at it from the standpoint of everything that is already in the game, or what SD is aspiring to put in the game.  THOSE features are complex.  Making a distinction between Combat and Non-Combat Champs?  Easy-peasy.

Second, if you feel the non-combat champs are worthless, that's your loss, but they really aren't.  They're a very necessary part of the game, for many reasons.  Merchants are the only way to artificially inflate the cap on how many units per city you can produce without needing to take extra cities, especially helpful if you can't take any extra cities.  Farmers are the same way, artificially inflating your City Levels cap, especially in the event you're on the war-path, where taking extra cities generally puts you in the red for food.  More on this further down.  ('Fifth')

Thirdly, this is a TBS Game in an RPG world, and what is an RPG world without Farmers, Merchants, Politicians, etc etc?  It's not an RPG world is what it is, it's a half-assed RPG world.  Taking them out doesn't do the RPG half of the game justice, particularly when we're looking at Hardcore MMO's like EVE Online or Pen and Paper games in general, where the mundane practices of the world are what make it go round in the end.  Without these people, nothing fits.

Fourth, it works just fine.  Near perfectly, as a matter of fact.  They give you bonuses.  That's their job.  If they weren't supposed to give you bonuses, but were, or weren't giving them when they're supposed to, then it wouldn't be working.  Conceptually, it also works, but like so many things in Elementals launch, it was poorly implemented, and you're not giving them time to actually make it work well and polish it up.  By your Logic, Caravans don't "Work" either, since they aren't participating in combat in any additive way either, and should also be removed from the game.

Fifth, how are they bad decisions?  Yes, they cost money, but they provide benefits for as long as they're alive, and considering all they do is sit in a city and mostly do nothing, that tends to be forever, therefore making the cost moot compared to the benefit.  Looking at it realistically, champs like Farmers and Royalty are pretty much a requirement for playing an Empire, since they get crap for Prestige and have to spend more food per X Population.  In this same vein are Administrators and Merchants for Kingdoms, who, with their less stellar Unit Production, need Admin's to help boost a cities output, while also using merchants to keep an army from going under-paid.  There are 'SO freaking many of them,' for just these reasons.  Because they are a GOOD idea to get.

Summary:  Everything you've said is on bias alone and not taking into account any actual gameplay factors, rather just your personal taste, and while that's totally permitted, it adds nothing to the discussion, particularly for you to advocate removing them on nothing more than personal taste.  Some of us see the potential in this feature, and while you may not, it doesn't justify removing a feature that, like damn near everything in the game to date, hasn't even had time to be implemented well and polished up, and most importantly, brought to its full potential.  Even more troubling is when the idea is posed on how the feature might be improved, thus moving it towards its potential, you advocate the exact opposite.  I'm sorry you ended up in my crosshairs, but the idea that people aren't willing to be patient and see if it's really going to add something to the game or not tend to make me gnash my teeth and snarl all ferocious-like.

Edit:  I've been away from the forums for a while, so I'm going to take this time to respond to Gwenio's post from Page One.  *Ahem*

It makes perfect sense, not from a design standpoint or a conceptual standpoint, but from a consequences standpoint.  The consequence of creating a global mana pool is that Unit Essence is no longer going to factor in to how you cast with a given unit, nor is Essence figuring in to how you cast at all.  Furthermore, with the addition of the Semi-Omniscient Casting Sovereign Concept, this consequence is reinforced, hence why, in hindsight, it makes perfect sense that the stat (As someone mentioned back on like page 2 or 3,) is being removed.

That you don't see their place (and how useful they are) does not mean they don't have one. With all honestly, if they are to remove Champions, please remove combat oriented ones due to their limited use (and currently I haven't see any combat skill that makes me think: "must have!"... unlike those of the non-combat Champions).

Yes, I'm biased and love to marry Procipinee with the first "farmer" I find. XD

The point isn't their utility. Whether or not I think they are useful does not impact the following two points:

1) Champions are supposed to be combat units (they are the only units that can be equipped, cast spells, other than sovereign). They are the equivalent to heroes in MoM. Despite this, the vast majority have been given non-combat traits which encourages them to do the exact opposite of using them as combat units. Choice is good. Combat units designed to avoid combat and sit in a city is bad.

2) Even if there are examples of heroes who have come from humble backgrounds, there's a decidedly non-epic feel to the game when 90% of the champions you see are working-class schucks.

Since there's no word on my map question I'll add to this discussion.

Master of Orion II, also made by the same company that made Mom, the inspiration of this game solved the problem decades ago. There were 'domestic' heroes (who would gain levels occasionally) that would add their abilities to the assigned star system (translated to city in E:WoM), and 'war' heroes, who were assigned to units. In the case of the 'war' hero, I prefer the MoM model, where at high levels they were equal in power to some really tough creatures, which is what the E:WoM 'war' hero should evolve into. But I prefer the MOO II model for domestic heroes, who were also useful in their own, non-combat way.

Perhaps all units/heroes in cities should gain experience over time, slowly due to drilling, learning, etc...and the domestically oriented heroes should have a bonus to this earned xp, as the city is their 'field' (i.e.- the farmer =1 food bonus carries a x3 city xp multiplier)...