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 14)
14 PagesFirst 12 13 14 
on Jul 18, 2012

Beta 4 start  this week or next ?

on Jul 18, 2012

Kongdej



Quoting Bellack,
reply 183
And why cheat by reloading the game?


Why is it cheating by reloading a game?
I make tactical errors and I correct them, its my style of playing.
and please at least let me have that in peace.
I do not reload very frequently, but when something is breaking my game, and I mean 1 single mechanic, or 1 single bad decision hurl my game into the sewers, I reload.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Well we diffenantly have two different styles of play.  I do see it as a cheat if you reload because you made a bad decision after all it is a stratagy game and mistakes on all sides are part of the game no matter how bad the screw up.  Roll the dice and let them stand no matter what. If you screw up then you will have to suffer the consequences.  Some of the most fulfilling games are those where a screw up has occured and you have to compencate for it. After all the AI does not have a 'REDO' button. Keep one thing in mind, you already have an advantage over the AI why cheat?

Now if you encounter a bug that screws things up then that is different. However even then I usally depending on how bad the bug is keep playing without a reload.

But everyone plays differently and I'm not saying that the ability to reload should be taken away.....It should not.

 

on Jul 18, 2012

Probably early August now.

on Jul 18, 2012

RooksBailey



Quoting Satrhan,
reply 186

Quoting DsRaider, reply 181I 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.

That's why I suggest the chance of death should start very low, but increase with every defeat. The wounds system is a nice idea, and one or two wounds gives a hero character. It just gets a bit ridiculous if they sustain a dozen or so, and yet still are useful as anything other than a scarecrow. The ability to remove the wounds makes 'death' even more meaningless.

As for the heroes becoming scarce, that could be an issue, but it is also solved pretty easily. You could simply start with more heroes, or have more appear during the game (just showing up at your capital and offering their service, appear on the map, or reintroducing the dynasty system).

To your third concern; that's the point. Otherwise the game just becomes an endless grind of killing the same heroes over and over again.

And for your fourth point; the AI will just have to get better. Other games seem to have an AI that can differentiate between heroic and regular units, why can't FE's?
If players want to reload after loosing a hero that's their choice. Others like to play ironman style. Why make the choice for them?


 

I think the immortality angle is only in the game because champions are harvested like a resource, leading to potential scarcity.  This is why I never liked this game mechanic.  It would have made more sense for champions to arise from your regular units, sort of like how generals are generated in Total War.  If they would have went with that system, champion scarcity would never have been a problem.

Regardless, I am still in the camp that champion immortality needs to be addressed beyond the wound system.  Whether it is via a small chance of death (I still prefer this, especially if there is a chance of resurrection - something that would tie in nicely with FE's magic system), ransoming, loot drops on defeat...whatever, right now champions are playing it too safe which is making battles less than tense.

 

 

OK I have an idea on this. Perhaps there should be a optional death toggle where you can adjust the chance of death for Champs in your game. So if you put it to 100% then it means that when you Champ is defeated he is dead and can only combat if you have a raise dead or resurrect (Which should be rare in the game) or complete a hard quest to resurrect a Champ (Allow regular units to also do this quest.)

If you choose 50% then that is a chance of perm death every time a champ dies. And for those of you that prefer a easier game and what the champs to never die then set the percentage to 0%.

Also I would purpose a second toggle that you can set to increase the champs chance of

perm death every time he dies. For example: You can set this option to 10% so that everytime after the first defeat he gets a cumulative 10% chance added to his chance of perm death.

So if I set the Champ death rate in my game to 50% and set the Cumulative rate at 10% then if my champ is defeated it will look like this:

1st defeat = 50% death

2nd defeat =60% death

And so on until 100% is reached.

Now if you set the Cumulative rate to 0% or have a off option then this would turn off the Cumulative rate.

 

I think this would be a good middle ground and please everyone because it covers all the styles of play with Champs that people are talking about. It allows immortality for those who like that mechanic and supports the mortality mechanic and everything in between. 

Oh and we still keep the wound system I would just allow either the Raise dead or resurrect spell to also heal wounds so that you could still use those spells even if you play an immortal game. (The names can be changed and the effects on the woulds can be adjusted depending on the power of the spell) .

on Jul 18, 2012

seanw3



Quoting Bodea,
reply 194
Having mechanics that remove these hard choices.. seems well a shame. Especially when the reload ability is already there for those that want or need it. With this mechanic as it stands, those meaningful choices aren't there, nor can I press a button like 'quick load' and have them inserted.


 

This is a good point, but I don't agree that heroes need to be mortal to achieve it. FFH is a vastly different game. In that game throwing a hero at an army was not as big of a deal. In FE doing so can mean losing half of your spellbook and a significant component of tactical battles. With no hero to cast counter spell, you are vulnerable to fireballs and blizzards. You are also throwing away all the equipment on that hero, which can amount to thousands of gildar. Heroes are simply too big of an investment to throw away on a single battle. That is, unless they are immortal. I would argue that the choice you want in the game is only possible when heroes can't die outright. I think the main problem is that injuries do not cripple the hero enough to matter. You can be defeated ten or more times and still have the power of a hero two levels below you. It would be better to have extremely severe injuries over death. Death will break the game. Even if you reload, the AI can't. There is no way to help the AI against death with the current game mechanics, which is why immortality was implemented in the first place. 

Now if the AI would stop abusing immortality, the injuries could be set on a more drastic scale. The middleground needs to be making heroes as-good-as-dead. Something like -75%Hp would effectively force a hero into domestic life, but you would keep the spells he has learned and can trade his equipment to another fresh hero. -10 Initiative would be another apt addition. Basically a useless hero, unless you spend 2500 mana to compensate. Injuries need some more methods of being healed as well. Furthermore, you shouldn't be able to get rid of all of them at once. This area of the game needs some work. There should be at least four ways to rid one's hero of injuries. Buying a shop item, learning a spell, completing a quest, and defeating another hero. Ransom would be an excellent additional game mechanic. But new mechanics take time to develop. It would be optimistic to think that it will make it into the initial release. Still, a great idea for the expansion. I would hate to see it tacked on, without reaching its full potential.

 

AOW:SM (and all AOW games) the heroes are important and are the big guns of that game much like in FE yet they can die and if they do then their equipment can be looted by the army that killed them (if they have a surviving hero in that stack. Otherwise the magic items fall to the ground waiting for a hero to pick it up) This is a risk that makes the game challenging, this is the meaningful choice that was talked about earlier, Should I send my big guns in to fight the unit or should I hold back and let other units wear down the army then strike or should I just pull back. You see not only is this part of the challenge in a strategy game it is also part of what makes a strategy game fun.

Immortality of Champs just encourages the Hero Death stack mentality and lessens the need to create regular units. Now yes you can also of a Hero Death stack in AOW:SM however since the heroes can die your death stack if vulnerable. In FE it is simply not which lessens the risk the players have which IMO takes away from the fun. Oh and in AOW:SM you also build up your hero's when they level as well as give them magic items when found or when created by you.

And as far as your argument that hero's are too big of an investment to throw away well so what. If they are that big of an investment then protect them. Make good tactical decisions on when to employ them and when not to. This is part of what a strategy game is all about.

Immortal units are always a bad idea IMO in any game much less Strategy games. Yes being able to resurrect them should be in the game through spells and magic items but this should not be easy to get or cheap to cast once the spell is learned.


Oh and I would also keeps wounds as well.

on Jul 18, 2012

Well if the devs want to add AoW style loot and teach the AI to guard heroes as well as a human, add resurrection mechanics, and go from there, I would not be in total opposition. But they haven't said anything about a massive change like that being a possibility. I would hate to see death added in to fix the AI problem, only to add so many more problems to the game. 

For the sake of discussion, I'll retort. Mortality and Immortality have no effect on hero death stacks. I would be more willing to take the hit to XP by stacking all my heroes in one army if that meant I could guarantee none would die. Having heroes spread out among many armies is a bad decision if a single loss can lose that unit forever. I would have to be crazy to do that. Hero death stacks are already a trade off in the game right now. Grouping up means little to no XP. With mortality I could level up 9 heroes over the course of the game and then go Mage hunting to screw over my enemies. In the current version it would not be a good idea. I am better off spreading those units out and fighting a war of attrition. Heroes are vastly different in this game. They multiply their power when grouped together. Being able to cast 3 or 4 fireballs in a battles is a serious advantage. AoW's heroes are weak by comparison because they are mostly warriors. They are not a vital part of the magic system and do not function as generals or governors. It is a poor comparison if we are talking about balance.

As to the hero investment, So what? I can't wait to play you in MP if that is really your take on things.   If heroes can die, it is always better to not have them fight early on. The only smart play would be to level up a full midgame army before attaching a hero to it. Anything sooner and you would be throwing away magic and general potential. Given small number of heroes one usually receives, that is not going to be fun. The complaining will switch from "heroes are immortal" to "heroes are too valuable. I never use them until the late game. The AI loses all of theirs early on." There are a great deal of changes that would have to be done to make mortality work. Should the devs be doing that or should they be working on the rest of the game? Since the current system needs less work than scrapping it entirely, my position is clear.

The other problem no one seems to see is that certain factions rely almost entirely on heroes. Making them mortal would make those strategies suck. Altar and Kraxis would no longer be able to rely on several early game heroes to fuel expansion. On the other side, Pariden, who can buy spellbooks, can replace lost magic from dead heroes. Furthermore, factions that pretty much ignore heroes like Yithril will have even more of an advantage, since their strategy is untouched. I just don't see a way that mortality can be added without destroying much of the development that has been done in the past few betas.

 

on Jul 18, 2012

Need more expensive magical items that increase magic resistance! Crystal Platemail that negates spells X% of the time or reduces spell damage and duration by X%.

A decent dynamic would be Small Elite Troops > Heroes >Hordes of Inexperienced soldiers (The four fireball spam you mention) > Small Elite Troops.

Obviously simplified as much as possible.

 

on Jul 19, 2012

I agree that heroes should not be made mortal but I also don't like the current system of "dead" heroes defending cities they were sent to after death. I would like to see hero death explained better. Like they don't just go to any city but to ones with temple (or the capital if no others are closer) and need to spend x amount of turns recovering from death there (where x is higher as hero level is higher). During this time they cannot fight and if the city falls to enemy hands they leave the service of their current sovereign and spawn randomly on the map as free heroes. Then there could be spells that let you spend mana to buy out this time or temple upgrades that reduce this recovery time. Also one faction could have reduced costs for both as well as an ability that if the city falls they still remain as part of your service but have to restart their recovery time in some other city. 

on Jul 19, 2012

TorinReborn
I agree that heroes should not be made mortal but I also don't like the current system of "dead" heroes defending cities they were sent to after death. I would like to see hero death explained better. Like they don't just go to any city but to ones with temple (or the capital if no others are closer) and need to spend x amount of turns recovering from death there (where x is higher as hero level is higher). During this time they cannot fight and if the city falls to enemy hands they leave the service of their current sovereign and spawn randomly on the map as free heroes. Then there could be spells that let you spend mana to buy out this time or temple upgrades that reduce this recovery time. Also one faction could have reduced costs for both as well as an ability that if the city falls they still remain as part of your service but have to restart their recovery time in some other city. 
  Another problem with them being sent to the town, is I am usually marching there anyway, they are completely weakened, and they pretty much just get another injury after one hit.  Heavenfall wrote had a post where they injuries, but it also increases their chances of dieing each time they get one.

on Jul 19, 2012

I can only agree with you Sean on your reply #201.

Thanks!

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

 

on Jul 30, 2012

So, I confirmed that I have the latest Beta version, but it seems that none of these changes are implemented. What am i missing?

Also, is there a guide for shortcuts/controls anywhere?

on Jul 30, 2012

"So, I confirmed that I have the latest Beta version, but it seems that none of these changes are implemented. What am i missing?"

these are the beta4 changes that will be coming within @ a couple weeks, currently we have beta3 available to us

"Also, is there a guide for shortcuts/controls anywhere?"

I know of Control/N, which will give you a new starting position if you don't like the one you start with but don't personally know of a 'list' anywhere yet

on Aug 01, 2012

Dr Awesome
So, I confirmed that I have the latest Beta version, but it seems that none of these changes are implemented. What am i missing?

Also, is there a guide for shortcuts/controls anywhere?

 

Beta 4 hasn't been released yet, that's why. Latest news is that Stardock is aiming for the 16th of August to release beta 4.

14 PagesFirst 12 13 14