48 replies to this topic

[Nazgûl]

Pretty good idea =)

[Nazgûl]

This has been explained in detail before, but in short;

 

1) Heores are heroes and I feel it would be kinda weird to - for example - have Gandalf having to "learn" his skills on the batte field, just as it would be lame to have the nazguls having to "learn" how to use their Morgul Blades. I just find it more realistic that the heroes come with their powers from start, just like "IRL".

 

2) SEE is about units, vast number of units, before heroes/tanks.

 

3) It does save some coding and space for upgrades (that are limited).

Edited by Nazgûl, 11 June 2013 - 10:10 PM.

[njm1983]

Another aspect of permanently leveled heroes is that it allows us to place them as recruitable in any structure without having them lose their level when dieing. So for example sharku could be recruitable at the warg pit at level 3. Or any other hero like mollock could be built at a troll cage level 3. This gives us flexibility to place lesser heroes anywhere.

[Nazgûl]

True that! I forgot to mention that... Some heroes could defenitely be placed in certain structures rather than in the keep.

[Bofur]

I'd prefer if they didn't start on level 10, but started with all their powers on level 1, and could gain damage as they got more experience. Makes sense, no?

[MattTheLegoman]

I am with Nazgul and NJM on this for the same reasons they have stated.

However, I did enjoy the transition of Galadriel in RJ-mod. White dress to Armour to Storm Queen.

[Bofur]

But if they start on level 10, there's no reason to keep them alive, so they become cannon fodder.

[Ridder Blauw]

Yes there is, heroes will no longer be the heroes you used to know, they'll give a decent leadership to certain units, use buffs and so forth, and still in a sense they can turn the tide of a battle if you have an army accompanying them.

 

No you won't be taking down a fortress with 8 heroes like you were able to before, however they will still be better than normal units.

 

A hero can take out one horde of Uruk-Hai, however, I doubt they can take down five.

 

You can use them as cannon fodder, but I can assure you, it's not gonna be a smart move.

[Nazgûl]

But if they start on level 10, there's no reason to keep them alive, so they become cannon fodder.

 

Why? 

[Ridder Blauw]

 

But if they start on level 10, there's no reason to keep them alive, so they become cannon fodder.

 

Why? 

 

 

I think he's confusing the edited SEE heroes with the original BFME2 heroes that could take down a fortress.

[Bofur]

No, I meant that there's no real reason for levelling them anymore. You can just buy them again, with all their powers from the start, constantly. There's no gain if you keep them alive, such as a new power. I'd just prefer it to be like the old way. Otherwise there's no reason to have them on a high level. Sure, they have more damage, but what average player notices that, really? They need some visual improvement to notice on levelling, whether it's a skin change or an extra power.

[Ridder Blauw]

We'll ensure you want to keep the hero alive, leadership granting 15%+ on an attribute may not seem that much at first, but it can make a real difference, if the hero dies, your army will be weakened.

[Madril]

I think this could be a good deal to have most of powers unlocked at lvl 1, gaining levels will make heroes' powers more efficient, same as their armour/ wardrobe.

 

I like the idea of heroes not being the killing machines they used to be before. For realism sake they still hould be stronger than normal units but not too powerful. In a lesser extent the real heroes like Joan of Arc, were just humans

[Nazgûl]

Sorry Bofur, I just don't get your point.

[Mathijs]

In competitive play, the ranking of heroes is a big strategic point. It becomes a cat and mouse game between players; 'don't let Gandalf reach rank 10', 'don't let Theoden reach Glorious Charge'. I think it's a bad idea to remove this, because it takes away gameplay depth. It might be more 'realistic' (which in this case seems like a trivial point to me), but it isn't any better strategically or in terms of fun. I like having to cleverly play my heroes, I like deciding who gets to kill what, where, and when because it can inform a certain strategy. 

[Ridder Blauw]

In competitive play, the ranking of heroes is a big strategic point. It becomes a cat and mouse game between players; 'don't let Gandalf reach rank 10', 'don't let Theoden reach Glorious Charge'. I think it's a bad idea to remove this, because it takes away gameplay depth. It might be more 'realistic' (which in this case seems like a trivial point to me), but it isn't any better strategically or in terms of fun. I like having to cleverly play my heroes, I like deciding who gets to kill what, where, and when because it can inform a certain strategy. 

 

While it may take away a certain strategic value it once had, it's more realistic and allows us to create them from every structure.

 

Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the heroes as they were in BFME2 were that strategic, if you played it right, you would have a level 10 hero before any had the chance to stop you. Creeps after all, were ideal for farming and gave a ton of experience, next you could take down countless hordes your enemy sent at you with that one hero. Not exactly strategic.

[Mathijs]

No, which is why toning them down is a good idea. That way you bring out the strategic element of ranked powers. The problem you describe isn't to do with ranked powers, but with heroes being generally too powerful/structures too weak. 

[Bofur]

Yes, and even more tactics are introduced for your "minor" heroes. If they die, they're back on level 1 with no powers. A great solution to the "no strategy with heroes" problem. They need to be kept alive to stay effective. That's how it should be, for "minor" heroes, IMO.

[Ridder Blauw]

No, which is why toning them down is a good idea. That way you bring out the strategic element of ranked powers. The problem you describe isn't to do with ranked powers, but with heroes being generally too powerful/structures too weak. 

 

Yes, and even more tactics are introduced for your "minor" heroes. If they die, they're back on level 1 with no powers. A great solution to the "no strategy with heroes" problem. They need to be kept alive to stay effective. That's how it should be, for "minor" heroes, IMO.

 

So you are suggesting we value gameplay and strategy over realism? I agree with all of Nazgûl's listed advantages of having heroes start at level 10, however there could be a possible compromise. We could have all heroes start at level 1, have all their abilities, save one, their best one (for Aragorn, the Army of the Dead etc). You would have to work 10 levels to get it though, with very little reward on the way. "Minor" heroes could possibly start with all their powers though and only gaining attribute bonuses while leveling.

 

It really comes down to if we value realism over gameplay, and I believe, at SEE we are trying to find a nice balance in it, we have already discovered alot of ways to achieve higher strategy, through tuning the stats of all units and structures to fit realism.

 

In a good way, realism creates strategy.

Edited by Ridder Blauw, 12 June 2013 - 03:55 PM.

[Mathijs]

I'm suggesting you don't change a good thing for 'realism' (which is a pretty relative term the way you're choosing to apply it).