A trip through the fantasy worlds I enjoy

Beta 4 

Beta 4 focuses on cities.  But that really means it focuses on the games pace.  Production, economy and research come from your cities.  When we change them we change the game.  First let's talk about a few of the design issues we have been wrestling with:

1.            Lack of city specialization.  Materials and Food are okay, but in general you want to build the same things in every city, or at least the player's preference outweighs the strategic benefit (so it feels like you just want to do the same thing everywhere).

2.            We need more improvements.  We want to double the amount a given city may have.  We want more choices, we want there to be a bigger difference between a city that focuses on infrastructure and one that produces troops.  I want a player focusing on infrastructure to never be able to run out of things to build.  And I want to do it without:

a.            Making improvements take forever to build.

b.            Making cities even larger than they already are (in fact I want to shrink cities).

3.            Basing the economy, research and production directly on population is painful/impossible when cities can grow from 1 from 600 population.  Whatever bonus we give for those resources on a 10 population city become 60 times as high on a 600 population city.  Lesson 1: To control game pace, control your ranges.

4.            City enchantments are a tightrope walk.  To good and you have to place them on every city, it becomes busywork.  Not good enough and you never use them.

 

I wish fixing it was a simple thing, but we needed a few pieces to make it all work.

 

Step 1: Starbases?

Outposts can be upgraded to give bonuses to anything in their Zone of Control.  They can boost allied units attack, reduce the attack of enemies, modify movement costs, scare away monsters, provide bonuses to the attached city, etc.  They are not destroyed when an enemy moves onto them, instead they are flipped to that enemies control and represent your control over the land itself (monsters still destroy outposts, I highly recommend you upgrade them with Wardens to keep the monsters at bay).

Outposts have a limited distance they can be built (or summoned) from each other, so you can't pepper the field with them.  But their ZoC's can intersect (with the right upgrades) and their bonuses are cumulative, allowing you to build strong defenses if you desire.

 

Step 2: Much like a bad Star Trek episode, it's all about the Queue

The production queue is a precious resource.  Everything in Beta4 builds faster, but there is a lot more to build.  As with Beta3 City Improvements and Units train in the queue, but Wild Improvements and Outpost upgrades go into the queue as well.  You can drag items around in your queue if you want to reorder them (and it remembers how much production you had on items you may move back in line).

The biggest change in Beta4 is that even though production is much faster, there are always things you want to build.  You can play as Pariden and drop outposts early on, but you will be making a hard choice to start claiming those resources vs making units or improvements in your cities.

Multiple cities are always good.  If you can defend them and you have the land to claim it's always a good option just because it gives you more queues.  The minimum distance between cities has been reduced in Beta4 to support more cities, closer together.

 

Step 3: Improvement Upgrades

In Beta4 improvements can upgrade.  Your Cleric upgrades to a Shrine which upgrades to a Sacrificial Altar (for Empire players).  Since the old improvement is replaced by the new one, we get a few benefits:

1.            City size stays relatively contained.  We added 40 new improvements and cities are about half the side they are in Beta 3.

2.            Cities look more advanced as they upgrade to higher tier buildings.  A cleric is a modest building, the Shrine is more pronounced, the artists can go all out on what the Sacrificial Altar looks like.  Upgraded buildings don't get lost in the jumble of the same buildings the rest of your cities have, they look more unique and specific to their purpose.

3.            You can't get to the higher tier buildings of particular types unless you have built the earlier versions.  You can't build the Treasury Vault unless you have gone through the economy boosting improvements on the way.  So you have to decide, do you want to build a Study, then School, then College and University?  If you do you won't be getting access to the best economy improvements without spending the time to go through the base one and their upgrades.  You are rewarded for specializing your cities and your cities build lists become very unique from each other.  Build lists also don’t become huge since you only see the highest tier you have access to (you only see the Pier, not the Dock and Harbor it upgrades to).

4.            Faction achievements and World Achievements are at the end of upgrade chains.  You can't build the Ironworks just because you unlocked the tech for it, and you can't build it in every city.  It will only show in a city that has specialized in what it does.

5.            Resource improvements upgrade too.  The first shard shrine only produces 1 mana per turn.  With the correct techs you can upgrade to ones that produce more mana.  The same goes for Crystal and Iron mines.  If you have enough iron mines to train your units maybe you don’t need to tech up the side of the tree to unlock these improvements.  But if you do want to have your iron come in faster, the research options are there for it.  This fixes a big issue for us by allowing us to control the pace of mana and resources as the game goes on, we can trickle it in in the beginning, then ramp it up as the player gets access to more expensive units and more costly spells.

 

Step 4: City Specialization

All cities start as villages.  When the city gets to city level 2 you pick a specialization for that city.  It can be either be a Fort, a Conclave or a Town.

 

Fort- Units trained in forts start at a level higher.  Forts are the only cities that can build walls as well as having access to improvements that improve defenders and improve trained units.

Conclave- Conclaves generate more research than other city types and have access to special magic and research improvements.  They gain additional bonuses from Essence (more about that later).

Town- Towns are the heart of your empire and are the source of your food, growth and money.  They also have a larger ZoC than other city types.  Towns have access to a series of improvements that improve the food production for all cities in your empire and they are cumulative with each other.  So Forts and Conclaves will never be able to reach the highest city levels on their own, they will need towns to support them.

 

The improvements for each city type are generally in that tech tree (Fort=Military, Town=Civilization, Conclave=Magic).  So players that are doing alot of teching in one area will find that they can get more advanced improvements for that sort of city.  If you have researched 90% of your magic tree and 0% of your Military tree you will have more high tier conclave improvements available than you have Fort improvements (in fact you will only have 1st tier Fort improvements available).

Choosing what sort of city you have opens up lots of new improvements to that city as well as determining what sorts of improvements the city can unlock at city level 3, 4 and 5.  The real magic comes in the intersection of the upgradeable improvement chains (which keep players from building everything everywhere) and the city types (which modify the effect of other improvements).  Maybe you want a food boosting town or a fort that creates super soldiers.  Or maybe you want studies in every city because you like studies (even if they are more productive in Conclave cities).

Note that studies are available everywhere.  Our point isn't to lock these city types down.  You can get research and money from non-town cities.  You can train units in Conclave cities.  The point is to open up new ways each type can specialize.

 

Step 5: The Economy

I love the idea of all the economics inputs coming from the population.  At one point I had a design where there were citizen types, unrest controlled how many were rebels, craftsmen produced special things.  It was a beautiful, intricate, stupid design.  Lesson number 2: If it's fun to design, it probably isn't fun to play.

Instead of getting money, research and production from the population, they now come from the city level.  A village (city level 1) produces 1 research a turn, a level 5 city produces 16 research per turn.  Of course these are modified by improvements, enchantments, etc.  But that is the extent of our range.

Because of that change tech costs drop to more normalized values.  A player with a large population isn't researching at 20x the rate of a player with a normal population.  He may be going twice as quickly.

Improvement costs can normalize since we know the ranges for a large production based city.  And they are close enough that they stay reasonable for a production focused city without being laughable for a moderate city.

Gold (*cough*, I mean Gildar) values were normalized since we control the ranges, meaning item costs in shops can come down.  Sell prices stay the same but now that money means more.  A gildar per turn means something to small and large empires alike because to don’t through a growth curve from starving for money to drowning in it.

 

Step 6: Essence

The final step is the addition of a new tile yield, Essence.  Essence appears much like Grain and Materials and is more prevelant around mana shards.  Only about half of the city locations have any essence nearby, and only about half of those have spots with 2 Essence.  3 Essence tiles are extremely rare.

There are chains of improvements that require essence before they become available.  The Cleric/Shrine/Sacrificial Altar chain I mentioned above is only available in cities with Essence.  Conclaves have access to Alchemy Labs and other improvements that give bonuses based on the amount of Essence in that city.  The Guardian Idol improvement requires Essence and is 1 per faction (it starts as a monument, upgraded to a Guardian Statue and then to a Guardian Idol), it is a powerful city defender that can cast any spell your sovereign can cast.

There are two improvements that can increase the amount of Essence in a city.  One is a level up option in Conclave cities.  The other is only available to Pariden.

The biggest advantage of Essence is that a cities Essence determines how many enchantments it can have.  City enchantments no longer have a maintenance cost and there are more of them and they are more powerful than before.  If you found a city on a place with essence the first thing you should do is get some enchantments on it.  Inspiration and Enchanted Hammers are good early ones that exist in Beta 3 (though in Beta4 the amount of their bonus depends on the amount of essence in the city).  Additional City Enchantments like Set in Stone (+100% production but no research), Blood Sigil (Withers all attackers, Berserks all Defenders) and Sovereign's Call (+1 Growth per Essence) allow you an additional decision on how to specialize your cities.  Trust in Glyph of Life to protect your Conclave from attackers, use Pit of Madness to speed the research in your Town.

Essence effectively becomes the most flexible tile yield, doing nothing on its own, but allowing you to reach in and play with the cities configuration.  Maybe you want it focused on gold and growth but dispel those enchantments and switch it into battle mode when enemies come near (enchantment maintenance is gone, but these spells still cost mana to cast so "respecting" your city isn't something you should do lightly).

 

Step 7: Balance

I find myself carefully considering the build options in my cities.  That doesn't mean it will be perfect.  I'm very curious to hear from all of you on what enchantments you use most and which you don't use at all.  Do you focus just on one sort of city type or play with a mix?  Do you chase down improvement chains to the end, or do you pick a variety of improvements in your cities?

In a few weeks you will have a chance to play and I'm excited to get your thoughts.  Until then we have work to do, mostly in making sure all the information is being displayed in an easy to understand way, and generally polishing the entire game to smooth the edges.

 


Comments (Page 12)
14 PagesFirst 10 11 12 13 14 
on Jul 16, 2012

Mortenart

The game is really coming along - apart from one massive game-breaker - the enemy's champions keep coming back, making it impossible to defeat any enemy.  Please lose this crazy mechanism, by which all champions are immortal.  I don't mind losing mine, as long as the enemy loses theirs.  I had to quit the game I was playing, because they just kept coming at me - it's ludicrous.

 

 

 

 

Agreed this mechanic was stupid to begin with. Champions should die there is no point to having an immortal unit. Yes there should be ways to bring them back to life, raise dead, resurrect and magic items that do this but they should either be learned or found and it should not be a guaranteethat you get these spells unless you research the spell or magic items in every game (See AOW:SM for an example)

on Jul 16, 2012

ahmadou
Yeah, getting boring in here Civ 5 exp. is super entertaining though. But FE beta 4 is going to wipe the floor with every known 4x in existence.

 

Highly doubtfull

on Jul 16, 2012

seanw3
Champion immortality is fine. Heroes don't die in stories, why should they die here? The issue is that the AI sends them at you without regard. After a few injuries, the AI needs to place them in cities until a potion or spell can heal them. They need to stick to large armies instead of trying to solo nine companies at once. I like the idea that constant failure makes a hero worse than dead, but the AI fails to often.

Have to disagree. This is a stratagy game not a story where only the good guys win. There should be a sense of loss not only when your cities or resources are captured but also when your Champions die. It makes the game very cheap when you have immortal heros running around never able to die.  So I purpose to give us a option for Champion and Soveriegn Death (When this is checked then spells such as raise dead and resurrection can be researched in game and Magic items that allow these spell can be used.)  This way both groups can play how they like.

on Jul 16, 2012

This is a mix between RPG and TBS. IMO, the more the game starts to feel like a story, the more fun it is. Heroes and villains are impossible to kill. They always seem to be able to escape somehow. I like that this is recognized in the game. There are certainly some problems with the mechanic, but I see no reason to scrap it entirely. Especially since a resurrection mechanic is essentially the same thing. 

on Jul 16, 2012

seanw3
This is a mix between RPG and TBS. IMO, the more the game starts to feel like a story, the more fun it is. Heroes and villains are impossible to kill. They always seem to be able to escape somehow. I like that this is recognized in the game. There are certainly some problems with the mechanic, but I see no reason to scrap it entirely. Especially since a resurrection mechanic is essentially the same thing. 

I'm fine with immortal heros. Thing is that if it's going to be that way, it should be treated that way.

When combat ends and you 'lose' a hero, there should be a cutscene pic with some words of how your hero escaped and was injured.....or how he was captured and then ransomed back....or how he was left for dead, but wasn't....or maybe a random cutscene depending on the type of injury the hero received.

The story side should be enhanced to make the loss more believable instead of a 'poof', he shows up at the nearest city.

 

on Jul 16, 2012

It's not the same thing at all, resurrection always comes at a cost, either for the one performing the resurrection, or for the resurrectee. A few turns downtime and a slight penalty to some stats doesn't make the consequences of defeat feel really significant. Fighting the same villain over and over again isn't fun, this isn't a comic. And fighting an increasingly more handicapped hero repeatedly is hardly fun either.

Death should always be a risk. Maybe the risk should start out small, otherwise you wouldn't use your heroes unless you were sure of victory. But after receiving a few woulds the chance of death should go up fast. If they die you won't see them again for the rest of the game, unless you perform a resurrection.

This also opens up a few interesting options. A death caster could perform a necromantic ritual that brings back the hero in undead form, which has a few advantages (immunities to certain attacks) and disadvantages (can no longer gain levels). Or he could perform a blood sacrifice, killing hundreds of citizens to truly resurrect the hero. Or he could turn a hero into a lich, a stronger type of undead.
Elemental casters could fuse a fallen hero's soul into an elemental of their type, merging both their strengths and their weaknesses.

on Jul 16, 2012

I would be in favor of an addition as Satrhan suggests, but I don't think it will happen. It would probably take too much time and extra coding to handle resurrection. It would be much more simple to perfect the mechanics already in place. If you want hero death to cost more, the penalties can be increased. If you want an economic cost, they could stay immobile until mana or money is spent to heal them. That would be a more feasible fix I think. Death would be fine if we are talking about two rational humans playing each other. Since we are talking about an AI, certain allowances must be made. Humans would be able to totally abuse any sort of death mechanic. The AI would never stand a chance. The problem now is that the AI is relying on hero immortality as a crutch. I think that is bothers people the most. This means the AI needs to be fixed, not necessarily the system. If the AI treated its heroes more like humans, this wouldn't be a problem.

We start them as scouts and then group up to fight serious threats. In the midgame our heroes become leaders of large armies and are leveled on easy foes. The AI can't do this. It likes to send them on suicide attacks. It never uses them as generals. It almost always goes solo. It doesn't try to level with easy battles. Get the AI to do all that before you start thinking up new mechanics that serve as another crutch for the AI to lean on. From there new additions like undead resurrection and elemental transformation can be considered. But if we don't have this, the game will ultimately fall flat.

on Jul 16, 2012

Interesting continuing discussion here, about the annoying issue of champions never dying, when coupled with the AI's shabby, silly practice of constantly throwing defeated (ever weakening) champions back at the human player, again and again. 

seanw3
Champion immortality is fine. Heroes don't die in stories, why should they die here? The issue is that the AI sends them at you without regard.                                                                       o   o   o  

With a view towards preserving the flavor of the game, I tend to agree with seanw3's viewpoint expressed in his Reply #150, above.  I like the conception, that these Champions (in addition to the Sovereign) are exceptional beings, possessed of magical power, who would tend to be immortal.  After some consideration, I think the risk of capture (imprisonment and ransom) is the best way to mitigate the issues surrounding champion immortality.

First, some history, (Source: a couple of different articles in Wikipedia):

     "Julius Caesar was captured by pirates near the island of Pharmacusa, and held until someone paid 50 talents to free him.  In europe during the Middle Ages, ransom became an important custom of chivalric warfare.  An important knight, especially nobility or royalty, was worth a significant sum of money if captured, but nothing if he was killed.  For this reason, the practice of ransom contributed to the development of heraldry, which allowed knights to advertise their identities, and by implication their ransom value, and made them less likely to be killed out of hand.  Examples include Richard the Lion Heart and Bertrand du Guesclin." 

     "The ransom of King John II of France was an incident during the Hundred Years War between France and England.  Following the English capture of the French king during the Battle of Poitiers in 1356, John was held for ransom by the English crown.  ...  [King John II, after being surrounded in battle, surrendered to an English knight, who knew him.  He was held in gentile captivity in England, for four years.]   ...   The Treaty of Bretigny, signed on 8 May 1360, ceded a third of western France -- mostly Aquitaine and Glascony -- to the English, and lowered the King's ransom to a still extortionate 3 million crowns."

Suggested mechanic for defeat/capture of champions.  The first time a champion is defeated in battle, he always escapes to a friendly city.  The second time a champion is defeated in battle, he has a 1-in-2 chance of escaping to a friendly city.  The third time a champion is defeated in battle, he has a 1-in-3 chance of escaping to a friendly city.  The fourth (or any later time) a champion in defeated in battle, he has only a 1-in-10 chance of escaping to a friendly city.  Otherwise, in each case, the champion is captured, and available for ransom.  (If prefered, to add a slight risk of death, subtract a 10% chance of permanent death, from the capture percentages, derived in the formulas above.)  Sovereigns, being enormously powerful, magical beings, would always escape.  Thus, the game mechanic of their being converted to the winner's side, in the event of an empire's surrender, would continue.

I think this is a simple, elegant mechanic for solving the issue.  It reduces repeated (immortal) Champion kami-kazi attacks; and provides a potential source of some income to players who win significant battles.  It would require some buffing of the computer AI, to handle ransoms in a non-stupid way ... maybe too much ?    On the other hand, we know that Brad Wardell just loves to work on computer AI, so let him love working on this, until he gets it right ! 

on Jul 16, 2012

Dying champions is a bad idea because magic is currently so dependant on them being alive and developing. Imagine if you could snipe an enemy champion in a mid- or late-game. It would completely change everything, losing rank4 or rank5 spells.

Ransoming captured champions is a bad idea because it only reinforces the "steamrolling" effect, which is that once you start winning you gain bonuses for doing so and become unstoppable simply for winning over and over. In fact that's probably a big reason why champions are "immortal" right now - so that even if you win a fight, you are not guaranteed to win the war.

on Jul 16, 2012

I could see auto resurrection being replaced by a early game spell , but like Heavenfall said anything more laborious than that would have serious problems. It's no like the champion spam is OP or anything so this is pretty much completely a AI issue.

Satrhan
This also opens up a few interesting options. A death caster could perform a necromantic ritual that brings back the hero in undead form, which has a few advantages (immunities to certain attacks) and disadvantages (can no longer gain levels). Or he could perform a blood sacrifice, killing hundreds of citizens to truly resurrect the hero. Or he could turn a hero into a lich, a stronger type of undead.

Ya you could do some cool stuff with resurrection spells, although you could also do all that stuff even without them.

on Jul 16, 2012

It seems to me the simplest way is to have the AI be much more careful with its champions. The AI should not fight champion vs monster if it does not have a 95% or higher chance of winning. That's how I play my champions - if there is even the smallest chance that they will die, and the battle is not immensely important - I simply play it safe and don't risk them. A bad injury can ruin a champion.

DsRaider
Ya you could do some cool stuff with resurrection spells, although you could also do all that stuff even without them.

I did such a spell for my undead faction in Stormworld called Eternal Resurrection. It is usable by most champions that have 5 or more war injuries. It has the following description:

This spell begins the process of turning the caster into an undead soldier by feeding dark magic into the Champion's soul.

Champion will from now on gain experience at half normal rate, and receives no benefit from any bonuses that increases experience gain. Champion cannot learn any additional Spell traits at level-up. Champion suffers -5 Initiative and is capped at 3 Strategic Health regeneration.

All War Injuries are removed. Champion cannot suffer any new War Injuries.

Champion drains 1 Death Shard power. Champion counts as Immortal and as if it belonged to the Race: Undead. Champion also maintains its old Race. Undead Champions cannot use this spell as they have already been turned.

on Jul 17, 2012

Satrhan
It's not the same thing at all, resurrection always comes at a cost, either for the one performing the resurrection, or for the resurrectee. A few turns downtime and a slight penalty to some stats doesn't make the consequences of defeat feel really significant. Fighting the same villain over and over again isn't fun, this isn't a comic. And fighting an increasingly more handicapped hero repeatedly is hardly fun either.

Death should always be a risk.

This!  Kill the heroes!

Maybe a poll should be conducted?

on Jul 17, 2012

Satrhan
It's not the same thing at all, resurrection always comes at a cost, either for the one performing the resurrection, or for the resurrectee. A few turns downtime and a slight penalty to some stats doesn't make the consequences of defeat feel really significant. Fighting the same villain over and over again isn't fun, this isn't a comic. And fighting an increasingly more handicapped hero repeatedly is hardly fun either.

Death should always be a risk. Maybe the risk should start out small, otherwise you wouldn't use your heroes unless you were sure of victory. But after receiving a few woulds the chance of death should go up fast. If they die you won't see them again for the rest of the game, unless you perform a resurrection.

This also opens up a few interesting options. A death caster could perform a necromantic ritual that brings back the hero in undead form, which has a few advantages (immunities to certain attacks) and disadvantages (can no longer gain levels). Or he could perform a blood sacrifice, killing hundreds of citizens to truly resurrect the hero. Or he could turn a hero into a lich, a stronger type of undead.
Elemental casters could fuse a fallen hero's soul into an elemental of their type, merging both their strengths and their weaknesses.

 

I agree with you Satrhan. Immortal Champions just cheapens the game and takes away that sense of risk. Also the Resurrect mechanic does come with cost if implemented correctly.

Taken the Immortal Champion mechanic out of the game will enhance the feel of the game.

on Jul 17, 2012

ElementalHam



Quoting Satrhan,
reply 172
It's not the same thing at all, resurrection always comes at a cost, either for the one performing the resurrection, or for the resurrectee. A few turns downtime and a slight penalty to some stats doesn't make the consequences of defeat feel really significant. Fighting the same villain over and over again isn't fun, this isn't a comic. And fighting an increasingly more handicapped hero repeatedly is hardly fun either.

Death should always be a risk.


This!  Kill the heroes!

Maybe a poll should be conducted?

I think a great deal of testing would first have to be done.
Then, if proven better, a great deal of AI reworking...
Killing heros is no small task.

I'd just as well be game for more flavorful escapes. I think it was this thread that I mentioned them....if not...

I'm seeing a single window pop up with a short story and some cool graphics (same as when you found your empire). The really short stories could be:

-Your here is left for dead...but isn't and are left with X injury
-You are held for ransom and must pay X money to get back
-You see the battle turn ill and flee from your troops....dropping X equipment along the way.

 

on Jul 17, 2012

I don't think the people advocating fro mortal champions understand the consequences.

1. Champions would get pretty scarce once 1 or 2 have died.

2. You could only cope by never risking your champions. Champion levels would decrease significantly.

3. Winning a single battle against someone and killing 1-2 champions would mortally cripple them for the rest of the game. Bye bye magic.

4. The AI couldn't cope. Humans would reload much more.

 

Again the problem is 100% with the AI here. It is a really stupid to throw champions at people repeatedly. Players certainly don't do it. If the AI is fixed this will stop being such a issue. There are already significant penalties for losing a champion.

14 PagesFirst 10 11 12 13 14