Hero recruitment: A new take

[Chazar]

Here is my suggestion for a new Hero recruitment system:

Recruitment on the 1st turn remains unchanged. From the 3rd turn onwards, you can always buy one hero per turn, but the game randomly decides at the beginning of your turn:

• the price (much like it is determined now, but increasing with the number of owned heroes)
• the level (with the max level being turn dependent like now)
• half of the classes that are unavailable for this turn

The city can be freely selected, but the hero does not pop instantly, but is vectored there. The vector time depends on the hero's level: 1 Turn for level 1-2, 2 Turns for level 3-4 and 3 Turns for level 5-6.

Here is why I believe that this would be better than the current system:

• Currently, not getting a hero is a double punch: not only do you get the hero later, but you are also more likely to pay more for it (due to increased treasure), that is too much of a disadvantage in a single roll
• Interesting choice: do I buy a cheap hero in a non-favourite class right now (can you work creatively with the circumstances), or do you wait another turn since your desired class was unavailable and risk an increased price (at least you know that you will be able to buy next turn for sure). It is an interesting choice and may encourage people to experiment with different hero classes as well.
• Do you risk vectoring the hero right to the front line, or to a well-defended city shortly behind?
• High-level heroes popping directly at the frontline by chance wreaks havoc on well-planned strategy, which is somewhat annoying. The level-dependent delay should deal with this neatly.
• A second hero in the second turn is huge. So either everyone who has saved enough money ought to be able to buy one, or no one. I would suggest to have no recruitment at all in turn 2, making the original hero more unique, but this really ought to be a setting that can be chosen at game start.

[KGB]

Chazar,

I think understand what you are trying to accomplish with this suggestion but I don't see how it helps.

1) You say *always* buy 1 hero per turn. Even if you only have 100 gold? I assume not. Then in essence you can't always buy 1 per turn. If the cost increases with a player having more heroes this also means you can't buy one per turn. So what exactly are you changing from the current hero offer mechanism? For example if I have 750 gold, it's in the middle of a L1 hero offer range. Does that mean I am 100% guaranteed to get a hero for 750 or less even though the cost range is up to 850 so that I get a guaranteed discount? That doesn't make sense.
2) How are the half classes determined? The same for everyone or random per player? For example if my alternating 3 hero offers are Barb/Ass/DK/Ranger and Pally/Valk/HL and someone else has theirs differently it could be better for them or me as half the time I might reject automatically while they always have a hero they want. Also this messes up ally offers. That hard to get RD might come on the wrong hero half which is going to suck huge for one player and work out great for someone else. I don't like this restriction at all.
3) Vectoring delay. This idea already got rejected. I am not sure it's needed. Especially with longer delays for better heroes which I am totally against. It's got to be the same for all heroes and would have to be based on distance from random city (or always from Capitol) to where you want him to arrive. Also your suggestion imposes at least a 1 turn delay for any hero so getting a hero on turn 3 means he won't arrive till turn 4 (1 turn delay) which is annoying and makes it hard for players to understand.
4) I do like the idea of no hero offer on turn 2 UNLESS your hero died on turn 1.

KGB

[Chazar]

Chazar,
1) You say *always* buy 1 hero per turn. Even if you only have 100 gold? I assume not.
...
That doesn't make sense.

The current system always has a significant chance for no hero appearing, despite huge amounts of gold. I suggest removing this extra chance for no hero at all, in exchange for not always offering all hero types.

Chazar,
2) How are the half classes determined? The same for everyone or random per player?

Randomly per player per turn. No system like the alternation you mention.

Think of it this way: in the current system, if you have lots of gold, sometimes the game does not allow you to choose any class. I suggest that the game at least allows you to choose some.

Or maybe the current no-hero chance could be rolled per class?

3) Vectoring delay. This idea already got rejected. I am not sure it's needed.

Well, I think it is needed. Several times now I carefully planned and spend units to catch the enemy's powerful hero, only to have another new high-level hero just pop up nearby immediately. I think high-level heroes are a bit too cheap, and it turns the game into a whack-a-mole with heroes.
(In our last game, KGB, the same had happened: you caught my heroes, only for them to be quickly replaced by 2 new ones with equal level.)

4) I do like the idea of no hero offer on turn 2 UNLESS your hero died on turn 1.

Good point.

[KGB]

The current system always has a significant chance for no hero appearing, despite huge amounts of gold. I suggest removing this extra chance for no hero at all, in exchange for not always offering all hero types.

So you want to remove the cap of 75% on a hero offer? I'd be in favor of increasing it to 90% That would counter the fact that there is always a 10% chance of a hero offer even if you have lots of heroes (6+) and it would normally require 5000+ gold to have any chance of an offer.

The other reason I don't think it should reach 100% is because deciding to save gold for a hero offer (for example on turn 2) is a choice one makes vs buying better production (Spider/Gryphon etc). There is a trade off in terms of what you spend the gold on and I don't want to remove that trade off.

Randomly per player per turn. No system like the alternation you mention.

Or maybe the current no-hero chance could be rolled per class?

The problem is that if the game say offers 3 hero classes per turn and there are 7 total classes you have to wait on average more than 2 turns to get what you want. With a bit of bad luck it may be 5 or 6 turns. That's going to cause a long line of players to come here and complain (with me being at the front of the line) when this happens. Especially if they then have to wait another bunch of turns for the hero to vector some place!

Then when you factor in there are 7 allies, the time it takes to get a hero you want plus a specific ally will be on average more than 14 turns. On the other hand someone else can hit that on their first try.

The whole point of hero offers is to let players pick exactly what they need at that turn in the game. Then potentially acquire some allies as well.

Well, I think it is needed. Several times now I carefully planned and spend units to catch the enemy's powerful hero, only to have another new high-level hero just pop up nearby immediately. I think high-level heroes are a bit too cheap, and it turns the game into a whack-a-mole with heroes.
(In our last game, KGB, the same had happened: you caught my heroes, only for them to be quickly replaced by 2 new ones with equal level.)

Then I guess I just went out and caught the new ones as well

The delay concept isn't good at all. If you are down to only a few cities (4-5) a 2 or 3 turn delay might be longer than you survive for the rest of the game. Even a 1 turn delay is going to annoy players as they pay gold for something they can't use that turn thanks to the minimum 1 turn delay. What's worse is you can't downgrade your hero offer to get them faster.

Plus the vectoring concept makes the whole 'hero appears on the front lines' concept even worse. Since now *all* heroes will appear on the front lines and suddenly everyone is going to pull a L4 Valkrie with +14 bonus on the front lines.

When the high level heroes were first being introduced I suggested a different mechanism. That was the hero arrived at L1. Then on the next turn went to L2, the turn after L3 etc. In the mean time the hero can acquire XP and potentially level up more on their own since what happens is that the hero gets an amount of XP added at the start of the turn (+1000 on turn 2, +1000 on turn 3, +2000 on turn 4 etc). The hero only arrives in their offer city and does not vector anywhere.

Incidentally the whole high level hero offers has increased strategy in non-ladder games so that those games are now require the highest level of game skill. By that I mean I now watch opponent gold to know whether they might be able to pop out a high level hero on the front lines. If they can't then I know I am safe to potentially invade/attack or kill enemy heroes because they won't be immediately replaced. I also see many players cling to their L1 and L2 heroes long after L3+ are available in hero offers. Therefore I often allow low level heroes to live simply to lower the chance of that player getting more heroes at higher levels when I know that player has a lot of heroes thanks to the events reports. None of this is possible in ladder games which makes them more of a crap shoot.

KGB

[Chazar]

The other reason I don't think it should reach 100% is because deciding to save gold for a hero offer (for example on turn 2) is a choice one makes vs buying better production (Spider/Gryphon etc). There is a trade off in terms of what you spend the gold on and I don't want to remove that trade off.

...but that is exactly my motivation: you sacrifice valuable production, and then you are unlucky and get no hero at all.

Deciding between Production and Hero is strategy, a good choice to give to the player. Not receiving a hero on a slim unlucky chance is just a bad gamble.

When the high level heroes were first being introduced I suggested a different mechanism. That was the hero arrived at L1. Then on the next turn went to L2, the turn after L3 etc.

That would have been very nice indeed! I would love it!

I also see many players cling to their L1 and L2 heroes long after L3+ are available in hero offers. Therefore I often allow low level heroes to live simply to lower the chance of that player getting more heroes at higher levels when I know that player has a lot of heroes thanks to the events reports.

This is actually my main complaint: Instead of nurturing heroes and levelling them up through skillful play, Heroes are now throw-away goods. Why bother levelling a hero, when it is so much easier to kill it off and buy a better (that might even bring allies)?! I really hate that, as it destroys long-term planning and the tense hunt for heroes - as you write, it is better strategy to let low-level heroes live, as they are a liability to their owner by reducing the chance and increasing the price for the real good heroes.

Therefore, I think high-level heroes ought to be a lot more expensive.

[KGB]

...but that is exactly my motivation: you sacrifice valuable production, and then you are unlucky and get no hero at all.

Deciding between Production and Hero is strategy, a good choice to give to the player. Not receiving a hero on a slim unlucky chance is just a bad gamble.

I don't think the chance should ever reach 100%. It makes things too automatic. It would also increase 'chasing specific allies'.

90% seems really reasonable. It's a virtual guarantee of a hero especially on consecutive turns (only 1% will you fail twice in a row compared to 6% now). I don't think waiting an extra turn 1 in 10 times when you have max gold is too game breaking.

Part of the reason the cap was put in place was to help those who lost an early hero since when you have no heroes the chance can reach 100%. Therefore maxing out at 90% leaves that bit of help in place for unlucky players.

This is actually my main complaint: Instead of nurturing heroes and levelling them up through skillful play, Heroes are now throw-away goods. Why bother levelling a hero, when it is so much easier to kill it off and buy a better (that might even bring allies)?! I really hate that, as it destroys long-term planning and the tense hunt for heroes - as you write, it is better strategy to let low-level heroes live, as they are a liability to their owner by reducing the chance and increasing the price for the real good heroes.

Therefore, I think high-level heroes ought to be a lot more expensive.

They are not exactly throw away. If you expect your heroes to level up from capturing cities/battles/ruins etc it makes sense to keep them alive. But if the map does not provide lots of opportunity to level up then it makes sense to take fewer heroes early on, buy better production and take the bulk of your heroes when they arrive at a higher level. It's about recognizing your situation. Typically now I take a 2nd hero early to help search ruins/expansion and then wait to take my 3rd and later heroes at L2 or L3 or even later.

Making high level heroes cost more doesn't help. The reason is that games tend to be one of two kinds: Rich or Poor. In Rich games (2-4 players on a map with a lot of cities per player /with huge income cities/sites/ruins) you just save a bit more money and get those high level heroes anyway. So making it more expensive accomplishing nothing other than waiting a couple turns longer. In Poor games (6-8 player games or 1v1 on 50x maps) money is quite scarce. You'll be lucky to afford more than 3 heroes the whole game and the luxury of getting high level ones maybe happens 1 or 2 times total. In those games making it more expensive is a killer as it means you'll never get high level heroes and therefore the game can be lost by one bad hero battle or by your opponent finding gold in a ruin and you finding some item/ally you don't want/need and he can afford a L3+ while you can't.

Some of this problem with early heroes being L1 would be helped tremendously by a quest system that allowed heroes to get more XP. That's ultimately what drove the need for high level heroes. The fact that most heroes just have nothing/very little to do to gain any XP once the initial rush for cities/ruins/sites is gone.

KGB

[magian]

Getting a hero to level 2 seems a bit too onerous at the moment. Sometimes it just seems to take forever. Searching level 1 ruins and capturing economic sites only add a sliver to the exp bar.

[KGB]

Magian,

You are correct. All the XP comes from cities (base 250) and units (base 75 for 1 turn unit, +75 per extra turn to build). Meanwhile capturing a site gives 100 XP (or less) + the unit you killed to take it. A L1 ruin gives 50-350 depending on number/type of defenders. So you need roughly 3 cities (including defenders) or 7+ sites / ruins to reach L2. The XP for sites is so low you should never move your hero out of his way to take one. Ruins of course require a hero.

This is why your first hero (or two) struggles to make L2 and then rockets up levels once real combat with another player begins and you can get 400-500 XP from a battle and 600-800 XP when taking a city. If there were quests available immediately on turn 1 this would allow those initial heroes to level up faster so that new high level heroes would have value but not come out as strong as the initial ones who lived.

KGB

[Chazar]

Making higher levels somewhat more expensive will help, since as you wrote earlier: it is a trade off between production and heroes.

As for the levelling: why not lower the XP threshold for level 2 then?

[KGB]

Chazar,

How much more expensive are you thinking?

Right now the base hero price is 400-850. The extra levels are 250 a level. So a L2 hero is 650-1100, a L3 hero is 800-1350 and so on.

When considering how much more expensive you have to consider what you get from a regular unit. For example a Pegasi costs 1250 and comes with a +5 bonus, 25 strength, flight and 20 moves. And you get another one every 3 turns! All L1 heroes are quite inferior to a Pegasi. A L2 Barb or L2 Assassin *might* be equal to a Pegasi but probably isn't and all other L2 heroes are inferior. A L3 Barb/Assassin is better than a Pegasi, a L3 Paladin/DK is *barely* better than a Pegasi, a L3 Valkie is about equal (better on attack/worse on defense) and a L3 Ranger/HL is all situation based. The point is, a L3 hero costs roughly what Pegasi production costs and is roughly equal to 1 Pegasi. Never mind all the future ones you get.

So to me the cost is about right for a L3 hero. If you want to make a minor adjustment of 100 gold I won't argue but you can't make it 500 or 1000 more gold because then it's WAY out of line with what you get.

KGB