Next Logical Hero to be Added...

[LPhillips]

Apparently I can't do math. Level 15 is 280 points?? Bugged me all day! Hah. Moving on...

It will be important to see what restricting city production will do for game balance. If new heroes are to come after that, then it is something to discuss. Otherwise throwing in what-ifs is counterproductive.

Archons are nice, but it's silly to examine them out of context. If your enemy has that much cash, you have cash to buy similar production. If you don't then the unit abilities are not your real problem. Buy Pegasi anyone? The Archon isn't overpowered, and 6 is not high. It just upsets people like KGB when it is used as intended against them. I understand; Sandworm upset me temporarily but that is what the units are meant for.
KGB, I think you want heroes to really be the whole focus of the game. It may develop that way but that's not currently the nature of this game. We shouldn't assume that Piranha/Snotling want to emulate DLR, as good as that game is. I'm sure several of us have a copy. We can run a few PBEM games with DOSBox if anyone else wants to, could be fun.

I like the idea of moving secondary hero strengths over to Ability Points. If you do that with spells also, what will magic users' main ability be?

Negate abilities must never stack with units' negate. Negate is more than powerful enough already!

Morale and Fear should not lightly be given to heroes. KGB, I don't like the idea of more rewards for stacking heroes. I think that's a major step in the wrong direction. So I disagree with both your proposal and your motivation. Further, Warbarons is sufficiently divergent from DLR that I think it's unproductive to compare what worked for heroes there with what works for heroes here. Beyond that objection, and an insistence on some separation of powers (at least never allowing a hero to specialize in fear/morale), I'm always in favor of allowing heroes to purchase varying abilities for balanced costs. Predictable, linear heroes are boring as hell. Maybe all heroes could have access to spell-like abilities within the Hero Points area? One problem now is that their secondary abilities are not sufficiently diversified by amplifying the power of some for each hero and varying the choices and costs for each hero type.

The idea of an automatic increase of the main attribute each level is appealing to some degree. But I do enjoy the option to forgo that increase when it grants me something I need more. Personal hero strength to fight off an impending counterattack, as in our test game? Territory bonuses? (since removed, but used to great effect by me in Beta3). It doesn't seem to be "too complicated" for anyone, even though they may make bad choices when given the option, like preferring to up the hero's strength. I don't think we need to protect players from themselves too much. to me, it stands as a poor reason for a change.

KGB, we both are in favor of a one-hero build where your choices define the hero. I don't know what makes that so objectionable, given that it's the best of all possible worlds. In fact, since our last discussion to that effect, the most advanced RPG's of the single-hero RPG genre have all gone that way. Just think of Skyrim. I'm still waiting for the CoD morons to wake up and smell the coffee, allowing players to define classes with a points-out-of-total system.
It's easy to implement, easy to balance, and especially easy to expand upon. But that isn't the flavor Piranha and Snotling want for their game.

[KGB]

I personally worry greatly about restricting city production (something that was in Beta2 when you could specify cities could not produce Allies and got dropped in Beta3). For scenario maps, yeah it makes sense because it's meant to be a scenario and if it's not balanced no one will play it anyway. But for general maps I fear exactly this:

Then you'll have to pray for an hero offer with archons to get one, or conquer one rare town that allows them.

Because if your opponent gets that lucky Archon offer and you don't? Well that's pure luck and no skill. And anyone with a modicum of skill is going to self pillage/raze an Archon city before their opponent ever conquers it from them. Right now being able to buy units of choice is what makes the strategy in the game.

As for Archons overall, I don't think they are over powered (Well how Negate is handled is, coming before opposite powers are counted off against each other). Rather I think they simply make for linear game play. As in 'Problem: my opponent has heroes! Archons stop all heroes. I must have an Archon. Hero neutralized. Problem? What problem'. There is no strategy there as there is no thinking involved. It's purely linear. Hence why I want heroes to be able to get out of the whole linear game play experience and why I suggested the Thief with Siege and the ability to take Morale/Fear instead of Leadership/Chaos.

Also I am not sure what you have against hero stacking. I know you don't do it but why are you against other players stacking heroes? If someone wants to stack a Thief/Paladin to get Siege/Leadership or a Paladin/DK to get Leadership/Chaos what's the problem with that? The game currently prevents or virtually prevents more than 6 heroes so it's not like there is going to be 10 stacks of dual heroes running around. As you have noted, you suffer with 1/2 XP and only have 1 stack with heroes in it as a penalty for doing it vs the benefit of twice the power.

And yes, LPhillips, I would love a Skyrim model where you just got a 'hero'. Then could build them up as you chose from a variety of skills and your opponent would not be sure exactly what they were facing until the scouted that hero. You can't role play like in Skyrim so it would be impossible to level up based on that like Skyrim does but all the cool things you and lichKing suggested for the spellcaster are *exactly* what the game needs to move away from the Hero-Archon linear game play. That's why I also suggested powers like Engineering (10% cheaper production buy / city rebuilds/upgrades/towers for 15 points capped at +50% etc), MoonKnights group Anti-Air (but can't be a Leadership Anti-Air just a pure group Anti-Air bonus of say +5 for 5 points, would be handy for Valkrie esp since she is finished leveling at L6 on leadership), Income (perfect for a Dwarf hero/Alchemist spell caster transmuting lead-to-gold, could be +10% income on cities/sites for 10 points, capped at +50% per hero and 100% for your side to prevent someone trying to have 5 +50% income heroes). There are literally tons of skills like this from DLR and other games that can be brought in that are all useful to heroes that allow you to specialize in areas other than the Leadership/Chaos/Negate model.

One day soon in an upcoming Beta we'll hopefully get Quests. And one reward type from quests can be special powers granted to that hero similar in nature to the spell suggestions based on quest difficulty (easy, medium, hard) and the nature of the quest.

KGB

P.S. If you are looking for primary group skills for a Spellcaster they could be the Group Anti-Air and one of the Engineering/Income skills. Those would definitely pay for themselves over the long run. I'd also have no problem with a cheap Group Move power of say +1 for 10 points capped at +6. It lets the spellcaster be a great support hero while they acquire enough spells to become useful in combat.

[LPhillips]

I don't mind supporting heroes; what bothers me is the idea of people forming D&D parties instead of using heroes as generals for their army. That is their intended purpose. Also, giving Morale/Fear bonuses as main hero attributes becomes extremely problematic for FFA games, especially those where income is poor. Purchasing a counter should always be an effective move.
So, without further wordage: separation of powers is currently a stable game mechanic that enables a very clear counter system. I believe that simply changing the implementation of the Archons' power will be sufficient change when combined with a better hero system. Negating 8/15 siege, or 8/50% ambush, is not a very effective ability

I personally worry greatly about restricting city production
...
P.S. If you are looking for primary group skills for a Spellcaster they could be the Group Anti-Air and one of the Engineering/Income skills. Those would definitely pay for themselves over the long run. I'd also have no problem with a cheap Group Move power of say +1 for 10 points capped at +6. It lets the spellcaster be a great support hero while they acquire enough spells to become useful in combat.

Restricting city production is extremely problematic. A system where the luck of hero offers defines the victor was a huge problem in Beta3, and it's still something no one should ever try to reproduce.

I would suggest keeping Magician more themed. Some abilities fit better with other heroes, and if the magic user doesn't hog them all then we can have more hero types.

A model for heroes that evolve instead of static types could be extremely simple.
Ability Points go into one of three or 4 categories,
1) Magic
2) Strength
3) Cunning
4) Spiritualism?
The hero obviously starts with 1 ability point at level 1.
Then hero points go into skills whose cost varies according to the way Ability Points have been spent. The cost of skills escalates as they are leveled, with set minimum costs (so level 1 Leadership never becomes cost 2 out of 10 points or anything ridiculous).
This is a fairly tried and true system; heroes still receive 10 points at level up and then spend them at their leisure. Certain skills are counterproductive to purchase on the same hero (Leadership/Chaos raise each other's prices).

But I'm pretty sure this isn't a direction Piranha/Snotling want to go with the main game. It would be very fun to have that as an alternate for RPG scenarios and campaigns, and it would be very easy to program (Should take about a day of dedicated programming if everything is laid out for you before you start).

[KGB]

I don't mind supporting heroes; what bothers me is the idea of people forming D&D parties instead of using heroes as generals for their army. That is their intended purpose.

What? Come on man, I am dying to take out my quad hero stack consisting of 2 Tanks, 1 DPS and one Healing hero

Also, giving Morale/Fear bonuses as main hero attributes becomes extremely problematic for FFA games, especially those where income is poor. Purchasing a counter should always be an effective move.
So, without further wordage: separation of powers is currently a stable game mechanic that enables a very clear counter system.

Agreed. As long as there is more than 1 power and one counter possible for a hero. Currently there is exactly 1 power (Leader/Chaos) and one counter (Archon) for ALL heroes. Thus there is nothing strategic in play at all with heroes and we could go directly back to Beta2 with a generic hero who auto-leveled and 1 Archon and be exactly where we are now.

Some powers will have no counter (for example I don't expect some kind of Negate unit to negate a Thiefs siege or negate a Group Anti-Air or a counter for Engineering or Income etc). I merely suggested Morale/Fear as natural 2nd powers for Paladin/DK. I'd be infinitely happier if I could say my Paladins are all Dwarf Paladins and thus get Engineer/Leadership and my DK's are all Orc DK's that get Chaos/Income (from slaves/threat of torture) and my Valkries are all Elven Valkries and thus get Group Anti-Air/Leadership. But I expect several people's heads would explode at that thought

I would suggest keeping Magician more themed. Some abilities fit better with other heroes, and if the magic user doesn't hog them all then we can have more hero types.

A model for heroes that evolve instead of static types could be extremely simple.
Ability Points go into one of three or 4 categories,
1) Magic
2) Strength
3) Cunning
4) Spiritualism?
The hero obviously starts with 1 ability point at level 1.
Then hero points go into skills whose cost varies according to the way Ability Points have been spent. The cost of skills escalates as they are leveled, with set minimum costs (so level 1 Leadership never becomes cost 2 out of 10 points or anything ridiculous).
This is a fairly tried and true system; heroes still receive 10 points at level up and then spend them at their leisure. Certain skills are counterproductive to purchase on the same hero (Leadership/Chaos raise each other's prices).

I suggested something very similar around the time of Beta3. I wanted a system where:

1) You started with a generic hero (25 str, 2 hits, 14 moves) at L1
2) At level 2 you chose a profession (Warrior, Mage, Rogue) and based on this got slight mods to stats (Warrior = extra strength, Rogue extra move, Mage extra learning/UL type thing).
3) At level 3 you chose a specialty (Paladin/DK/Ranger for Warrior, Thief/Bard for Rogue, Wizard/Summoner for Mage) type thing depending on number of heroes in the game. You then got an appropriate power (Leader for Pally, Chaos for DK, Siege for Thief, a spell for spell casters etc).

You just make L2 and L3 only need a small amount of XP so players can quickly get to their chosen profession.

This would require only 4 hero portraits (8 if you wanted Female equivalents): A base hero, then 3 for the professions. You can then color them by specialty as was done with the Red/Green dragon. So the cost of adding new hero types is just a new color rather than a ton of new expensive art work.

Of course too many thought it was too complex or too RPGish for a strategy game so as you noted it has little/no chance of being implemented.

KGB

[magian]

It should be obvious to all but the dullest mind that heroes are more than just army generals, they also search ruins (just like D&D parties). I am getting tired of flat statements about 'what heroes are meant to do' and 'how the game is supposed to be'. Especially when these statements are consistently incomplete or false.

[LPhillips]

Got a bone to pick, Magian?
People will express their views and opinions freely in a forum.

KGB, aren't you describing the DLR hero system? It worked pretty darn well, no doubt about it. You're making me miss DLR pretty badly right now. Still up for a few play-by-email games if anyone wants to join. I have a copy that works perfectly well for Vista and above (64 bit), and of course the original disk and a copy of that installation if anyone wants to play. Unfortunately the music isn't playable. Steve Fawkner (creator and license holder) expressed no concern for people sharing the game back when he had a site/forum a couple of years ago, and in fact encouraged it. So I have no problem with distributing functional copies.

[KGB]

LPhillips,

Actually I was describing how War5's hero system was envisioned.

In DLR you have army set construction. Part of that is selecting only 4 heroes for your set (from however many there are in the game + expansion packs). Those are the only 4 you will get that game. And when they arrive in an offer it's always 'A Thief offers to join you'. You definitely don't get to select which hero type you want so you often have to wait for the one you really need (which could be annoying).

The music is still playable and is available on my Warlorders site. Just not from within the game itself unless you have a VERY old school CD/DVD-Rom that connects directly to your sound card (today everyone plays through a software media player). Typically now I just fire up the music in the background when I want to hear it.

If you want to play some games you'll need to download all the expansion packs on my site. No one plays with the original unbalanced stuff anymore.

KGB

[LPhillips]

I've got all kinds of stuff from the old (Russian?) site. Like extra campaigns, modified construction sets, etc. It's been 2 or 3 years so I don't remember what I have exactly now. Gonna google your site, and move to a new General Discussion thread so we don't clog this one with off-topic stuff.

You're right, I remember now. Especially trying to avoid inflicting injury upon myself when the game offered me the same wrong hero 4 turns in a row. War5 was sounding like a great game; shame we aren't stupidly wealthy fanboys with half a mil or more spare cash lying around to motivate its revival.

Back to the topic... less predictable heroes and abilities: Yes, please!

[LichKing]

The music is still playable and is available on my Warlorders site. Just not from within the game itself unless you have a VERY old school CD/DVD-Rom that connects directly to your sound card (today everyone plays through a software media player). Typically now I just fire up the music in the background when I want to hear it.

Excuse me, but afaik CD music plays on modern PCs. Why that?

[KGB]

LichKing,

Not sure how old you are or how long ago you owned a PC...

But when DLR came out in 1998, Hard Drive space was still at a premium (many people had a HD of only 1 Gig or less) and many people still used programs like DoubleSpace/Stacker to compress their entire drives to get more programs on them. The music files for DLR were over 20 megs in size. So rather than install 20 Megs on your hard drive (which would have made DLR one of the biggest HD hogs at that time) the game simply left the files on the CD and only installed the game itself to the Hard Drive.

At the same time, there were literally ZERO software media players for Windows and if there were any you could not expect users to have or download them just to play your game music. Since all the music is recorded in CD format (MP3) all DLR needed to do was treat the DLR CD like a regular music CD (you can in fact put your DLR CD in a stereo CD player an it will play music) and play the tracks using the firmware in the CD-Rom drive. But for that to actually play, you had to have a cable connected directly from the CD-Rom to your sound card (something that was standard in those days).

So back to modern PC's. If you put a CD in your current CD/DVD Rom does it even have a play button (my CD and DVD drives, both of which are 5 years old don't). The lack of that play button means that there is probably no firmware in the drive to play music directly. The music that you do play is, I am sure through Windows Media Player/iTunes/RealPlayer or some other software solution. DLR has no capability of interfacing with those programs because it knows nothing about them.

Anyway, the version that LPhillips downloaded is a no-CD crack. That definitely won't play music since it doesn't even know there is supposed to be a CD

KGB