XP implications on hero behavior

[Pillager]

I have been favoring the paladin, for the slightly speedier leveling.

Does anyone bother saving up for the -1 stack for 45 points? Its a great ability, and -2 would be amazing...but 90 points seems out of reach.

A system whereby the price of an ability increases with each purchase would promote more balanced heroes. So, your first purchase of command costs 20, your second 40 and so on. This would also serve to differentiate the heroes further, because bringing an initially low stat to a high level would be quite expensive.

[KGB]

Pillager,

I don't save up for the 45. But I have a couple of times won a big enough battle to get 50 points (5 levels) and taken it. But that requires being lucky enough to be in a big battle which is my complaint about the XP system.

I agree with your idea that each successive point should be more expensive. As in 25 for your first +1 command, 35 for your second +1 command, 45 for your 3rd +1 command etc.

However I don't think this would differentiate heroes further. I think it would make them more similar because you'd end up buying a lot of +1's because they are cheap rather than going for a +2. As in you'd take +1 command and -1 stack before going to +2 command because it's cheaper (well assuming the costs of command/-1 stack changed to reflect the progressive idea).

KGB

[kenc80]

KGB, Pillager: If most games are decided by turns 15-20 why bother saving for command levels? Would it make more sense to just pump moves into a dreadknight or strength into an amazon? In a few games I've just added walk (7 cost) and 3 points of critical strike per level i get. Why bother waiting for super command bonuses if 75% of games are over by turn 20? Just another perspective I guess. I hate sitting on hero points during critical turns waiting and waiting for CMD when the game is being decided at that moment....

[Pillager]

kenc80,

Most of the games I've played in aren't decided by turn 20. I don't play many two player games..or small map games though.

I am almost never leading in either number of units or cities by turn 20, but I still do win some games.

A command three or four hero is a powerful tool that (with the right units) can crack open a well defended city with minimal losses. That is a big deal..especially in the late game. A fast hero with some critical strike has little value once the ruins have all been looted.

Giving the dreadknight a bit more movement and pumping its stack attack bonus is a pretty strong way to go. But, once you get a dragon (or face a devil) you'll wish you went with command.

[Pillager]

I have a question that (I think) fits under this general heading...

How is experience divided between multiple heroes in the same stack? Do they all get full experience for a battle? Or, is it split up between them?

In one of my current games, I'm being terrorized by a pair of dreadlords flying around on a dragon...and I began to wonder about the advantages and disadvantages of multi-hero stacking.

[KGB]

Pillager,

In Beta2 it stacked. I asked that it be split equally in Beta3 because it was too easy to level 2 heroes at the same time by bringing a low level apprentice along.

Not sure if that was done or not.

KGB

[Pillager]

KGB,

I agree that XP should be split between the heroes....each one getting a piece of the pie (so to speak).

This is more important in beta3 because one could choose different abilities for the various heroes stacked together. One hero could focus on command while another could go for critical stack, stack bonuses or -1 enemy.

[piranha]

It's split between the heroes.

[kenc80]

Pirahna do you think you will change the heroes around for B4?

[piranha]

Yes I'm working on heroes right now.

I'm redesigning the inspect page at the moment and doing some of the stuff KGB and pillager talked about in the other thread.

I'm changing some names, for example stack is going to be replaced by morale bonuses, but I'm looking for a good word to replace negative stack.

Is bad morale a suitable word? It will refer to the idea that your hero cause your enemies bad morale by being a person to be afraid of, I'm thinking like the witch king in Lord of the rings for example . We thought intimidate might be a better word but I'm not sure about that either. Any ideas?