(Balance) Heroes and Zeroes

Trying to have Kallus, Nochd, and Tanalia nerfed, are you?

 

While I (sadly) must admit that nerfs would probably be a part of this, I'd be more expecting someone with some clue about balancing to take a good look at the champions, who, I believe, are pretty overlooked, and buff them as well. Neither uberheros (cheats are for this, if you want) nor fire casting dwarfs add much to my enjoyment.

It would be nice if all the heroes had at least as many traits (including upgraded traits) as they had levels, instead of the system we have right now where it seems like some of the heroes paid through the nose to get basic skills and equipment, and other similar heroes were showered with blessings. I can understand, to some extent, losing a trait or two for a couple pieces of really unique equipment (a spider mount or whatever that lightning bow is called, for example), but not for basic armor or weapons (sure, a couple of them might cost you points at sovereign creation, but at sovereign creation you have six points to play with, and you can get a single set of bracers that are almost as good as a full suit of leather armor for one point, and most of the basic weapons are free). If the champions have a weakness, then they should get an extra trait to compensate.

I also think that the 'Weak' trait should be looked at, since it seems to me like it takes too much weight capacity away from your hero, at least until you can add Strength, Path of the Warrior, Path of the Defender, or some of the weight-capacity boosting pieces of equipment. It's alright in my opinion if my spellcasters aren't really able to carry heavy armor or heavy weapons, but having only 35 weight capacity to play with if all I've got for weight capacity boosters is a mount is a bit on the severe side, especially when 50 is the next-lowest weight capacity for a mounted unit. Without a mount, Strength, Path of the Warrior, Path of the Defender, or a weight-capacity boosting trinket, I can barely equip both a weapon and a piece of armor on anyone with the 'Weak' weakness since I've only got 15 weight capacity to play with (which can be fully occupied by just one weapon, in some cases, and even a full suit of leather armor takes 15 weight capacity), yet several other weaknesses are almost ignorable. Clumsy? Just be careful where you put your troops, or keep your sovereign out of melee. Cruel? 5% to unrest in every city in your empire isn't terrible, though it's less ignorable than Clumsy is, but +1 attack is a nice enough bonus to counterbalance this particular weakness (in my opinion) if you're trying to build a warrior sovereign. Weak? Hope you never have to engage in a melee, because unless you take Strength, which is mostly useless to a spellcaster, or Path of the Warrior/Defender (also mostly useless to a mage) and spend a couple inventory slots on weight capacity boosters (Enchanted Backpack, some belt - possibly Braided Belt, but not sure; the horse I'd probably be getting anyways but in this case it does nothing except bring you up to where a normal champion starts), you won't be able to equip much in the way of armor or weaponry, since you only have 15 weight capacity plus whatever you get from boosters to play with. If 'Weak' prevents the 'Strength' trait from being added to a hero, then it's an even worse penalty.

It's also really annoying when I find a hero who has the 'Weak' trait but doesn't appear to have anything in particular to show for having such a terrible weakness.

Why can't they be random? I don't find the same champs every game and am frustrated when the AI grabs one I would have liked but it adds to the fun. As a human player you have enough advantages without getting top tier champs every time, I mean it's just random. Did you ever watch Xena? You could have Xena or Joxar.

Never talk smack about Lisbest, EVER.

Shes my assassin in my current game. And before that my Defender. AND before that Governor. Extremely plain? Yes. Weak? Yes. Crap (or awesome on how you look at it) Blood ability? Yes. Water School? Primary Slow Support. Merchant? Looking good. She pays herself off in gold without doing anything, shes cheap too. Doesn't fit any path so shes fills whatever role you need her too. And you can have her tag along with your Sov slowing enemies while you do whatever you used to do with your Sov.

It's part of the game. How about we make the starting tile automatically 3/3/2 for all layers just so we never have to have a poor start or a start too good that we steam roll the early game? Like I said in another thread, heroes need to have a quest line(s) each (though this was about all the heroes being the same/bland). So even though they might start crap, you have a chance to rectify that with your dedication.

Lisbeth should have War Horse (+40 WC) but only jokers play Mancer. Encumbrance isn't a restriction most of the time anyway. Change your research focus to enchanted stuff. Wear a robe, work around it. If you don't like it, eat their soul and produce some trained units with the exact specifications you wish for.

I'm starting to get the feeling from all these threads people expect greatness just handed over to them.

Edit: My level 16 Assassin Lisbeth is about to get full chainmail. She crits over 100 easily with her champions spear, 60 base attack. Still manages 19 initiative despite being so weak. Though I've also managed to get sovereign's sword on my Sov, so she blows stuff up all by herself. There's a level 7 Capitar Mage that comes with 3 magic disciplines, but I'd rather pick Lisbeth up at level 1 for cheap right away.

You sound so happy, sadly you're right

Gl, I want this too

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Seems to me the varied quality of heroes is a good thing.  Your location, your early equipment pickups, location of nearest rival, etc. -- all these things should be widely varied, not homogenized so every game plays out pretty much the same way.

You can still vary them without having heroes being worthless.
Its called strengths and weaknesses.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Never talk smack about Lisbest, EVER. [/quote] [/quote]

*has a movie moment*

-So, your mother has killed many people and ruined many lives. I did world a favor by killing her.

-Bbbut... she was my MOTHER! Die, you bastard!

*movie moment ends*



The fact that you're exploding in your pants every time you see a certain character does not have any relation to balance at all.







Lisbeth vs Nochd

Mancer vs Wraith (+1 accuracy vs self healing through kills)

Level 1 vs Level 1

Merchant 1 vs Merchant 1

Water vs Earth (slow support vs def buff)

Weak vs Lethal 1

(forgot to check basic weapons... I know Lis has a spear tho, so she's about average in that department... doesn't Nochd use a dagger?)



I'd pick Nochd anytime. Sorry Lis, weakness vs lethality pretty much covers it, EVEN while ignoring the fact that your skills have no synergy, while Wraith + Lethal and Wraith + Earth combine quite nicely.



Also, you've missed my point that anything can be grown into something in this game. The thing is, your Lis would basically be 3 levels weaker than Nochd (and at least 1 level weaker to most champions) given the exact same setting. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.




The comparison of champs with start tiles is very weak. You usually have >10 tiles to choose from (started a new game to check this - 13 tiles in my 3x3), and while it may not end up perfect (3/3/2, 4/3/2, 3/4/2, etc), in most of the cases you still have viable options to pick. You get ONE hero at a start tho. ONE. No choice but to be screwed.




Balance is not the same as greatness. Balance is, while every hero plays different, they are all usable and equally powerful. What you mean by greatness must be all of them smacking the world with ease, which is not my intent (as I mentioned, some nerfs should be made too). if you have ever played a MMORPG with some particular character/build being chosen by the majority of people (think daggers in the beginning of Lineage 2), you should have an idea how wrong it is. I guess you have not.

 

That's the worst that can happen, computer randomly grouping abilities, I wouldn't mind if it chose a certain predetermined set, which is assigned to all champs at start of the game, but definitely NOT throwing abilities together without a second thought. To be honest, I really think champs like Lisbeth were made by such a generator, and that's not a good thing.

I prefer water to earth. It works to spot debuff a specific target, rather than boost all your units. And it is a more useful tactical spell, since stone skin can be cast strategically too. You only need one earth mage, and if it is that important make it your Sov. Wraith bonus is ok. But +3 Hp per unit is lackluster. Especially when you consider it comes with -1 HP/Level. I know Mancer Blood isn't that great, but it has its uses. So efficient. Lethal is obviously better than Weak, plays well with axes early on and helps you when exploring. It trails off quickly later on. That is part of what I was saying. It's part of the game. You win out and get a stronger hero early, or you get a weaker one. If all the heroes were balanced, they would all be good. And everyone start would be ideal on the hero front

.

I get what you're saying here but the math doesn't add up . And again part of the game. You might get good tiles, acceptable tiles, or bad tiles. Once i started in between two deserts, didn't settle till turn 18, and I settled in my starting location which was 2/1/1 or something retarded... You might get good heroes, acceptable heroes, bad heroes, or no heroes.

But this IS greatness. You can smack the map around based on equipment alone. Sure Lisbeth has weak, but with the champion spear shes 'great' I finished the master quest with no problems. If all heroes are designed equal, then they all are equally great so you are guaranteed a good hero whenever you find one. When there are weaker heroes, even in later levels, they will not be as good as heroes who are naturally better than the others, but:

This would be more of a mutual point. And I think is a key feature of the game. Though many seem to complain about it.

Nochid's greatness comes in that he can grab the lethal feats without having a path with access to it.

That a deep breath... No ones trying to attack you (and you're insulting Lisbeth again). You completely misunderstood him I think. He is saying why not just let hero quality and availability be random. Not everything can be ideal.

Kongdej has the right idea here, and I see you didn't get antsy reply to that.

No, I don't like MMOs, but I have played a great deal of ARTS, where certain heroes are picked literally double that other heroes are chosen, and almost always built the same way. And these are choices made on a match per match basis. Diablo 2 had tons more Sorcs due to their ability to boss run faster too. Have you ever played Warcraft 3? You might like the hero balance in that.

I don't expect that the level X champion that I recruit is as good as I would have made it, if I were to recruit him/her at level one and build him/her with a specific purpose in mind. What I would like, though, is that if there is a level X champion available for recruitment, then that champion should have at least X traits. Whether or not all champions at level X have Y traits (where Y >= X), I don't care. But (s)he should have at least as many traits as (s)he has levels, since unless I chose to not spend half my customization points while creating a custom sovereign that's about the worst I could do. Think about it - sovereigns have one free trait (the profession, and you cannot create a sovereign without a profession as far as I know), so even if you chose to not spend any points at all during sovereign creation, you still have one trait at level one. You could have as many as nine traits at level one, if you chose to take a weakness (6 points spent on traits, then take a weakness, then take another trait, and add in your profession). All I ask is that recruitable champions have the same general range of trait numbers that sovereigns have. If a champion is level X, then (s)he should have anywhere from X traits to (X + 8) traits, rather than the scatter we currently have, where we seemingly have champions who decided to take levels in Peasant rather than developing anything useful, and champions who are so showered in blessings that paying a couple thousand gildar for them wouldn't be that much of a problem.

As far as a random hero generator goes, I personally would not mind it too much, if it spawned low-level heroes and there were an easy way after the early game (i.e., after monsters are mostly hunted to extinction) to gain experience for champions. Heck, I think if they made the Arena of the Slakhanan something you could replay but blocked champions who have already beaten it from trying again (or at least made them wait a very long time before trying again), that would be a good way of providing late game experience (granted, the final battle in that particular quest should probably be a one-time-only affair).

So do I.  So does probably every good player, because "Inspiration" makes or breaks the early game on Expert+.

So I always have Water on every custom sovereign.  Which is yet another thing that makes Nochd better.  He compliments my sovereign, as opposed to bringing something that everyone who wants to be competitive on high difficulty settings has anyway.

That said, I like the way it is right now.  Some heroes I'm glad to see as my Number Two.  Then, every additional hero is gravy before turn 20 or so, and after that I only hire la crème de la crème.

I do not agree that the champions need to balanced. The point is these are extra characters on the field and not all of them are going to be the same. There should be disappointment as well as excitement. The balance is in that regard. For every Great champion there should be a not-so-great champion. It shouldn't be every champion is the same and on equal ground.

In regards to if champion is level X then it should have Y traits. I disagree with this as well. The advantage of picking up a low-level champion is that you build them from scratch they are a clean slate. The champions you pick-up later are not from a clean slate. It provides to the uniqueness of each of these champions. The strategy game is also a role-playing game. The game is not about Min-Maxing everything to death and making sure that you always end up with a full house in the hand you are drawn. Poker would be no fun if everybody ended up with the same hand and we determine the winner because they had spades and you had hearts...

If you were to balance anything here it would be the cost to recruit the champion. If the champion has X number of levels and has Y number of traits with Z number of good equipment. Then the price should be $$$... but another champion that is gimped on some of these things should be $$. This is the balance that is required, do I feel that the price for this champion is fair or over-priced.

I propose that we all look at the cost of recruiting champions here, instead of messing with the balancing game. Because balancing this will end, by looking at champions of the same hue, but just different colors.

I'm with the camp that thinks having unbalanced heroes makes the game more interesting. Hell, I'd love it if heroes comes with some injuries and a few negative traits just to make them feel a bit more unique (and would give those potions that heal injury some use). That way you'd actually consider if you want a hero or not instead of just buying up everyone you can afford. Balance it out via cost, with the really good ones costing premium, and the slightly crippled ones more affordable.

Although I will give on slightly balancing the benefits of starter heroes (lv1s), because those affect your game the most.

I haven't said that every level X champion should have as many traits as any other level X champion. What I want is that champion trait numbers fall in the same range as sovereign trait numbers. Since at present we cannot make a sovereign with less than one trait (their profession) at level 1 (this naturally is an almost worthless sovereign, but you can do it), all champions should have at least as many traits as they have levels, up to an upper limit of eight traits beyond their level. This still gives a very wide potential range of champion strengths (obviously, since a level X champion with X traits is nothing like a level X champion with X+8 traits - the first is the worst you should be able to do, and should be quite cheap in hiring costs, while the second is like a second sovereign and should be priced accordingly). Moreover, basic equipment, like level-appropriate weapons and armors, should not cost them anything in terms of traits, when it comes time to consider balancing champions. Increase their hiring costs if you must, but don't require that they trade a trait for an item that I'm probably going to replace shortly anyways. Heck, for sovereigns you can essentially buy two thirds of a suit of leather armor (going by defense rating) for one customization point, and most weapons you can give a sovereign are free, so it isn't like it's a completely inappropriate way to treat the equipment.

I'd also like if when champions have a weakness, they also have a unique trait that clearly makes up for that weakness (whether it is that they have the X+8 trait maximum that you could achieve, or that they have a really special ability, or that they have a unique mount, but they need to have something to make up for the weakness).

THis is a single-player game, it doesn't need to be balanced in this way.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing buffs on some of the weakest champs though.   Give them something unique.

Reguarding the lvl X with at least Y traits (while X=<Y) champions I agree with joeball123.

A lvl 9 champion with 9 traits has allready the disatvantage of a higher chance for bad combinations of traits compared with a 5/5 or clean 1/1 not to mentuion that even if (s)he is a "perfect" build (matching traits) it may not fit into my strategy (worst case, low dmg tank like my sov).

The basic of sov/champ/hentchman progression is to gain one trait each lvl why should "older" (more expirienced) champions be any different?

 

I also agree that equipment shouldnt count into traits and it would be very nice if a future patch could add the option of hireing a champion with or without gear (prices match those in shops).

 

As for the additional 8 traits a sov can have... how about 5 or 6 max? IMO there should be a reason why they are your champions instead of  faction leaders theirself Like a sov I would prefer that each weakness just adds another trait, no special ones and equipment and weaknesses (which are basicly negative traits) shouldnt get mixed here either.

 

To sum it up,why not treat champions like weaker sovs (with 2-3 less max possible traits)?

One change I'd like to see is more lower level champions that one can find.  It seems that I never see level 1s that are no seeding with the sovereigns, and level 3s are few and far between.  Sure there's a ton of level 7/9s, but these are with one exception too expensive to bother with.  The exception if Tanatha, or Tanalia, or whatever the name of the Death III mage with the best bow and 25% criticals is.

That one is a game changer.

At the begging of WoM there were tons and tons of chaps to recruit, it was so much fun. Monsters also spawned in Fog of War and got stronger the longer they were alive equaling more cash and exp for killing them. I used to wall off a large area of the map and just send my heroes around to level them up. There were some problems back then, like you had to cast this empower spell on your heroes so they could use their special abilities which permanently reduced your sovereign's mana pool, but it was still pretty good.