some ideas

from Stardock Forums

After playing a couple of games, I feel the game is truly going in the right direction, the graphics, the new gameplay, the lore, the new skills, the magic system, all of this is good. I played from the first day of beta and already like the changes from versions to versions. The rate of changes tells me that every patch will adress major gameplay tweaks and balance problem, wich is good. In this post, I won't talk about the AI: it's pointless. Brad told us how bad it is now. Balance, fun factor and replayability are the main concerns to be adressed now. English ain't my first langage and I hope this post won't be unreadable. Yersterday, I finished another game in 0.77 and finally decided to write about the main things I think should be change.


1) Faction diversity: I think one of the main problem on the long run, is the lack of diversity between factions. The game contains a wide variety of units, monsters etc, but all factions have the same basic line of development. Peasant become spearmen, defenders, archers, then warriors etc. Of course, there is a certain level of customization after (you can have a maceman with H.Armor or LA or No Armor etc...) but this doesn't change the fact that all faction will have the same type of troops. Empire and kingdom's troops are basically the same and later equipment is plain op compare to the earlier one. This affects the lore: why would I play Kraxis over Umber etc. if the only thing that changes between these factions is the ruler? I know I ain't the only one to think this and I think it should be adressed. Here are two suggestions

First, troops should be totally different from one faction to another and technology and/or buildings should open new types of recruits or monsters. Kraxis, for exemple, could recruit spiders and train spider riders, have different kind of equipable units with unique stats (more dex or int etc) and skills (poison touch, throwing knifes etc) not to forget monsters (giant spiders, spider queen etc.)... These troops should progress like heroes, and receive skills and traits adapted to their role and initial faction. Leveling units could differenciate them from one faction to the other: some could get magical or poison touch, maul, double strike, monster hunter etc...

Second, the difference between factions should be also in the weapons they can use. Technology should unlock some faction specific weapons only. Other weapons could still be found in other faction's shop, in independant markets or via trade. The progression in weapons shouldn't be progressive in type (club, daguer, sword, axe then mace, short bows/ long bows etc) but in level of weapon (stick, crude club, club, refine club, warriors club etc...: like lv 1-5 weapon). This would allow diversity in troops and factions. Some faction would promote brutish warriors with clubs, others daguermen or shortbow archers. These units should be as viable as a longbowmen or axemen, only have a different function (maybe shortbow could deal a bit less dmg then longbow for more accuracy or defensive shot etc). With this change, all weapons could be viable all game long and also complementary. Progression would still be related to tech but all kind of weapon would remain viable. It could solve the who wants to have a club guy after spears are made, and a spearman when u can have a maceman? Weapons specialization could be nice (spear does double dmg to mounted, club is less dmg but mauls or stunt etc...). Traits of a given units could be linked to weapons too.

2) Hero vs units: Not much to say, it's been cornered from everywhere. Everyone aknowledges a deep balance problem. Read a post about giving individual importance to every guys in a unit and like that idea, This way, a beef hero can only kill one guy at a time (or maybe 2 or 3 with cleave) in each stack, wich means the 8 remainer troopers could hit him back. Taking 9 turns to destroy a unit (without cleave) would suddently give an importance to recruit and maintain armies. With that system, the beef hero can still slain monsters, mages and other heroes easy but no longer destroy 5 units alone. Tactical fights will become units vs units and heroes vs heroes and monsters. Like real battles should be! This ain't my idea, and the guy who posted it really found the best solution to implement a better balanced system.

3) Attributes and path: hum....where to start. Attributes are broken. Intelligence is kinda useless as it is: couple shards is way better then high int. Strengh is by far the best one and dex and con are in the middle...Also, all special skills (like the one giving 1 strengh per lv, double strike, strike back etc...) are way better then getting attributes. Paths are also unbalanced: path of the governor is a big why? Maybe paths could come with their own special skills tree: like paladin (higher chance of getting life, heal, buffs, defensive skills, assasin (all dex, poison touch, strike back, backstab etc.), warrior, mage, ranger etc.. Also, all these path could give their own civil skills tree so a given hero can specialise in town and empire management with a unique touch (an assassin doesn't manage a town like a paladin). The system like it is now is unbalanced and somewhat too open: lore and faction should drive the hero's progression. The system now advocates heroes that are all similar. One will be a mage with every or many magic schools, the other, a warrior with strike back, double strike and many agile, tenacious type skills. None can really evoluate out of these 2 roles: governor isn't a path to consider, and defender, warrior and assassin are pretty much the same in the long run. Each path should have 10 (or so) unique combat and  5 (or so) unique civil skills that will emerge randomly while leveling and that would really make an assassin an assassin.

4) City building: while there is a lot of buildings, the system doesn't promote faction identity or specialization. All buildings should be redefine (don't change the graphics, only the role) with a big question in head. Why do I build this building? Whats the real impact of this building? Right now, I am doing like everyone, I build everything i can build and all my cities look the same, kingdom or empire, Kraxis or Umber. Like someone suggested, there could be guilds or unique temples (like in age of wonders). All building should also have another role (like recruiting mages troops for the study, peasants for the granary, militias with barracks etc.). More, later buidings should be empire-kingdom specifics and then faction specific with limits: if you build this lv 4 greater economic building, well you can't build this lv 4 military one etc... These changes would take some recoding but some can be built over the actual system. It would mostly require to change the role of unique buildings given everytime the city levels (at lv 2 you can chose 4 buildings on 6, at lv 3 3, at lv 4 2, and at lv 1 unique one.). Of course, some basic buildings could remain at lv 1 (all cities needs some minimal military and civic buildings) but the city would then customize itself through tech and leveling, according to faction and government type.

There is a lot of things that could be fixed, AI, spells, movement, items, but it's improving patch after patch and will evolve lots before gold. These guys made Gal civ, so AI wise it should be just fine at the end. I was surprised to see that mobs AI is way more agressive in 0.77 then in 0.75. At lower levels, it's harder now to progress then before. Still very easy if you use the conventional path (make a beefy warrior) and because AI factions are failing big time. But I can see this game getting difficult when mobs and AI rock you at the same time. The hero dying and not paying as been fixed in less then a week, this is crucial and fast changes: some balance is forging. I like the game at it is now: already played more FE beta then WoM. I am enjoying the improvements made to the game and like the way things are changing. Yet, I want this game not only to be good but to be great in the long run and stand the test of time, like the great classics outhere. It has the potential but needs some changes to shine. I just hope the developpers will be able to restore balance one way or the other with their ideas and the players one's. If part of the beta testers comments and ideas are taken into account, this game will be the next reference in the genre since Age of Wonder, 10 years ago!




11,776 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

1) Faction diversity: I think one of the main problem on the long run, is the lack of diversity between factions. The game contains a wide variety of units, monsters etc, but all factions have the same basic line of development.

yes. this will be repeated ad naseum in reviews when the game comes out.

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

Y'know, I hadn't even noticed this til you mentioned it, but it's a really good point. Currently there is very little difference between factions. There is essentially one race with two different viewpoints. Not a lot of variety and precious little individuality. In fact the more I think about this the more of a disappointment it is!! Not a game breaker by any means, but what great fantasy game doesn't offer a variety of different options in terms of player races?

I think what it comes down to is that the game doesn't appear to offer many major choices, just fluff choices really?

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

Gotta agree.  Starcraft raised the bar by showing it was possible to do a well-balanced game with factions that are completely different from one another. Ever since then, not being able to provide that is a significant detriment to a strategy game.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

YES!!!  Faction diversity is essential in my view.

 

I also agree with the way settlements work.  They are all exactly the same, except for whichever ones hold world wonders.

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

Why have factions if they are all the same in the end?

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

Well, they did make the races different.  They do have different stats.  And some factions have meaningful bonuses.  But the tech trees seem even less different from kingdom to empire than they did in WoM, but that might just be my impression, I didn't look deeply into it.  Also, even though races have different stats, not sure the human races differences are really all that meaningful.  Seems like for the human races, 7 is the low number and 9 is the high for most stats, although I think there are a couple exceptions.  But, I'm fine with that, it's enough to provide some difference between races.  It's the look of soldiers and the tech trees that I am most bothered with.  One, the soldiers that the computer players make seem to be based strongly on my designs.  I had Altaria cranking out soldiers of the Wraith fallen race using my unit design.  That seems strange to me, I would be fine if the computer used designs that I made for units of the same race, but it seems strange that they would all of a sudden be using troops of a different races. I find the tech trees boring.  But at least they are useful, I cant simply skip many of them all together like I did in WoM.

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

Indeed, factions have differences stat wise, and that’s an ok part that doesn’t really need a change. But like you point out, all units types look the same and the AI is simply copying players build. This problem is partly linked to weapon’s progression: lower lv weapons become obsolete very fast and there is no point of carrying earlier clubs and daggers when axe is discovered. If each faction had unique upgradable weapons (with some being common to many like swords) and armors (with common ones too), each would play with a different strategy, some using clubs, others spear, others daggers, sword, axe, mace etc…Different levels (and types) of recruits could help differentiate and diversify units (in lv 1 city u can build peasants, in lv 2 soldier, in lv 3 veterans, in lv 4 nobles etc. with different names and graphics for each factions) and tech/city buildings could do that. Unique monsters could help diversify too. Now, it’s just about taking a peasant, make him wear the best armor, shield and axe available, putting attributes on him and bam! I mean shade armies cannot have the same look/attributes as life magic ones, it affects the lore and also the fact that life armies should have paladins and shade, dark riders or something and not wear exactly the same armor/weapons and all have the rage, + strengh attribute etc…Not sure to have a proper solution for this, only know it would be a major improvement to the game and the lore.

 

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

I posted this elsewhere, but since we're talking about distinctiveness, here's my thought on it.

 

There should be two stages of distinctiveness, one for faction, one for which "nation/race" you are playing. For instance:



Each nation has its own strengths (Wanderlust, Death Worship, etc.) Each one of these selections should give access to a unique building (or set of buildings) based on that trait.



So Wanderlust might get something related to exploration/mapping like a unique stables building that allows them to produce horses that get an extra move (above and beyond regular horses); or perhaps some sort of "loot" type of building where wanderlust nation drops off scavenged items, or maybe some sort of unique marketplace allowing the sov/champs to buy unique things found by wanderers, etc.



Death Worship could have a unique death worship building, a sacrifice pit, things that enhance mana, enhance Death spell power, provide unique troops perhaps, and so on. 

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top

I am a big player of Galciv 2 and all of the races there have a distinct tech tree. I was hoping this would be the same in this game. To me it's almost a must. Having the same tree from a to z for everybody is kind of boring.

 

It must be a lot of work but I think it would be worth it to if not everything different at least have some things complety different for every faction/ race in the game.

 

Spells that can only be cast for certain people. It's hard to imagine protection from evil spell being available to evil casters...

 

I also think that heroes should nto be able to kill a stack in one shot with a sword. A spell certainly but not a sword. If they can kill everything there is no point in having other units except to keep the ennemy units occupied.