Heros and Sub-Heros
Moderator: Oberlus
-
- Creative Contributor
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
- Location: Texas
Why even bother? In moo2 heroes were just kind of tacked on. They were pretty cool I guess, but their benefit was very limited.
If we make them more and more involved then we have a Homm game, not a freeorion game.
Also if have these heroes die and have to constantly be rehired etc etc why? Why should I even bother with managing these heroes? Oh right because if I don't I will be at a disadvantage to my opponent who is spending every turn checking all his heros then checking mine then comparing happiness of the two and then stealing mine. Sigh. Doesn't seem like it would be too fun or add that much into the game. Particularly since we aren't creating a power mongering/political game as drek was describing.
Also this is starting to sound suspicously like MoO3's spy system which was quite a micromanagement abomination.
If we make them more and more involved then we have a Homm game, not a freeorion game.
Also if have these heroes die and have to constantly be rehired etc etc why? Why should I even bother with managing these heroes? Oh right because if I don't I will be at a disadvantage to my opponent who is spending every turn checking all his heros then checking mine then comparing happiness of the two and then stealing mine. Sigh. Doesn't seem like it would be too fun or add that much into the game. Particularly since we aren't creating a power mongering/political game as drek was describing.
Also this is starting to sound suspicously like MoO3's spy system which was quite a micromanagement abomination.
Aquitaine is my Hero....
But there is a difference between the two. With Bribery, all you need to do is get in contact with the Leader/Hero (I still don't think heros should be convertable and therefore there should be both Leaders and Heros), find out how much money they would convert for and pay them. They then get on a transport as if they were going on vacation and are extracted from enemy territory.Impaler wrote:When I said Brainwashing should be an option I ment Brainwashing = Bribery its just a COOLER NAMER FOR BRIBERY. Not as a whole Other means of taking control of Heros that requires a whole new stat and options and choices ect ect. Can anyone functionaly describe how their would be any game play difference between the two? As far as I can see its going to be "Spend Money >> Steal Hero" in either case with Brainwashing being easier to put in the Tec Tree aka "Advanced Hypnotic Drugs" vs "Advanced Bribery"
Brainwashing is more complex. It requires you to send in a team to infiltrate the planet where the leader is at, capture the leader without killing him, bring him to your empire and then spend multiple turns doing the brainwashing before he can be used by your empire.
If each Leader had a loyalty rating between 1-100, that would determine what it would take to get the. 1-50 loyalty would be bribable while 51-90 could only be brainwashed and 91+ cannot be converted. The higher the number in the 1-50 range, the more money it would cost to bribe the leader. The higher the number in the 51-90 range, the more turns it would take to brainwash them. So basically, you have two options depending on the loyalty. Bribery would be fast but expensive and brainwashing would take x number of turns but be cheaper.
Maybe the loyalty would determine whether it was a leader or a hero. That would make heros valuable and rare. A hero has to have loalty between 91-100. Anything less is then considered a regular leader. All Leaders have base stats when they are created. If they are created as a Hero, they get a percentage bonus to those stats. The bonus would be random and would be between 25% and 100% bonus.
Heros' loyalty could drop due to things going wrong in the empire like continuosly losing battles or if there are too many unhappy worlds. Likewise, Leaders' loyalty could rise enough to make them Heros if things are going extremely well in the empire.
Heros and leaders should not be spies. There purpose is to lead your empire and benefit you in other ways. Heros could improve spy training but that would be as close as they could come to spying. Now whether you have to recruit/build spies like MOO2 and 3 or if it is just some kind of slider or however it gets done, is a discussion for another thread.Impaler wrote:Ok it seems no one is realy liking the Sub-Hero idea, as I said its kind of a middle ground between regular Stuff like Ships and Fleets and the Heros who are all unique. The consern is that if activities like Spying are performed only by Hero's without any kind of Back up the player could find himself completly unable to do any spying if he losses/cant get any Heros. In Moo2 you esentialy had a group of Sub-Hero Spies that could be sent off to do nasty things to other Empires. This is kind of the idea I was going with.
I agree that MOO2's Leaders what farily useless since they benefitted only one planet/fleet. MOO3's leader system was much better. The leaders effected all of your empire instead of just individual planets. If we use this, ther should be no more than 6 leaders per empire. Any more would cause a fairly large imbalance in the game. Leaders could be placed on planets but effect the planets in a radius around them, maybe two jumps away or something like that.PowerCrazy wrote:Why even bother? In moo2 heroes were just kind of tacked on. They were pretty cool I guess, but their benefit was very limited.
If we make them more and more involved then we have a Homm game, not a freeorion game.
Also if have these heroes die and have to constantly be rehired etc etc why? Why should I even bother with managing these heroes? Oh right because if I don't I will be at a disadvantage to my opponent who is spending every turn checking all his heros then checking mine then comparing happiness of the two and then stealing mine. Sigh. Doesn't seem like it would be too fun or add that much into the game. Particularly since we aren't creating a power mongering/political game as drek was describing.
Also this is starting to sound suspicously like MoO3's spy system which was quite a micromanagement abomination.
You would not be constantly rehiring. Leaders would be generated by your own population, rescued from planets or they would off to join you. When this came up, you would be notified like in MOO2. There, you could have 4 planetary and 4 military leaders. If another leader offered to join, you could compare them to your existing leaders and decide whether or not to hire them. The FO system should be the same. This would only require you to take a look at the new leaders when they offered to join, which would not be every turn.
To be able to look at another empires leader, you would have to go on a spying mission and to convert them would require more spy missions and time, depending on how you converted them.
200 and still a Wyrm!?! I don't want to be a Wyrm anymore. I've been a Wyrm for 100 posts now.
-
- Creative Contributor
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
- Location: Texas
Also to me I see the addition of heroes turning Starcraft into Warcraft 3.
If the focus is on the hero and that is the purpose of the game i.e. War3, the Homm series, etc, then yea everything is great.
But if you just want heroes to act as little bonuses that you can apply to each of your planets, IO'd think there would be a better way to do it. For example. Rather than having Dr. Brainiac be your scinece hero. Why not just set the focus of your empire to Science?
Thus you get a bonus to Science and all things science realated. Then of course there coudl be some disadvantages as well. -industry - economy maybe.
You could shift the focus of your empire to match its needs. Thus when you go to war you can have a War focus that would increase ship production decrease happiness and maybe science or sometihng.
I see that as a lot more intuitive and useful then having heroes that you shuffle around.
Actually this idea might be worth mentioning in greater detail... Depends on the responses I get here.
If the focus is on the hero and that is the purpose of the game i.e. War3, the Homm series, etc, then yea everything is great.
But if you just want heroes to act as little bonuses that you can apply to each of your planets, IO'd think there would be a better way to do it. For example. Rather than having Dr. Brainiac be your scinece hero. Why not just set the focus of your empire to Science?
Thus you get a bonus to Science and all things science realated. Then of course there coudl be some disadvantages as well. -industry - economy maybe.
You could shift the focus of your empire to match its needs. Thus when you go to war you can have a War focus that would increase ship production decrease happiness and maybe science or sometihng.
I see that as a lot more intuitive and useful then having heroes that you shuffle around.
Actually this idea might be worth mentioning in greater detail... Depends on the responses I get here.
Aquitaine is my Hero....
benefit was limited?PowerCrazy wrote:Why even bother? In moo2 heroes were just kind of tacked on. They were pretty cool I guess, but their benefit was very limited.
???
If you have got a 4 terran-planets-System and a Leader, that is increasing Moral by 30%, Industry by 60% and Science by 60% then it can make a huge difference... especialy in small galaxys.
Wer die Welt gezielt verändern will, muss sie zuerst einmal verstehen!
One of your german brothers: http://www.fatal-universe.de
One of your german brothers: http://www.fatal-universe.de
Saying that Leaders/Heros would distract from the game is like saying diplomacy would distract from the game. Leaders add another depth to strategy games. Maybe having all kinds of things involved with them would put too much focus on them. If we just had the leaders/heros show up, offer their services and then benefit the empire, that would make it a whole lot simpler.utilae wrote:Yeah, I hate heroes. It would distract from the game.
First, I'm assuming you mean FO when you say StarCraft and if not, then what wa the point of that senetence?PowerCrazy wrote:Also to me I see the addition of heroes turning Starcraft into Warcraft 3.
If the focus is on the hero and that is the purpose of the game i.e. War3, the Homm series, etc, then yea everything is great.
But if you just want heroes to act as little bonuses that you can apply to each of your planets, IO'd think there would be a better way to do it. For example. Rather than having Dr. Brainiac be your scinece hero. Why not just set the focus of your empire to Science?
Thus you get a bonus to Science and all things science realated. Then of course there coudl be some disadvantages as well. -industry - economy maybe.
You could shift the focus of your empire to match its needs. Thus when you go to war you can have a War focus that would increase ship production decrease happiness and maybe science or sometihng.
I see that as a lot more intuitive and useful then having heroes that you shuffle around.
Actually this idea might be worth mentioning in greater detail... Depends on the responses I get here.
The rest of your suggestion is something you can already do. Or I would assume there would be something like that in FO. I haven't read up on the industrial/economic/research design so I don't really know what will be used. In Civ3, you could achieve your suggestion by raising the tech meter and lowering the tax meter. Lowering the tax meter meant you couldn't support as many units and buildings. In MOO3, you adjusted sliders for the empire as a whole to determine where imperial taxes went. Research, Military, Making the people happy or Planetary improvement. You could also wastle loads of minerals and pp to tear down Indusrty DEAs and build Research DEAs.
This is something that has been used in TBS for a few years now.
As for Leaders, they give more variety and uniqueness to an empire. They can also help to improve areas where your species lack. Not good with Industry? Hey, a leader shows up and offers his +15% to industry bonus. That is the purpose of a leader, to give you bonuses. Some of the leaders had bonuses, but also penalties. They would increase unrest or increase the speed of your research but also increasing the cost. Why have some a boring slider or something like that to get these same effects? Now as I said above, maybe there shouldn't be as much involved with leaders as was being suggested, but I think to leave them out would be a big mistake.
200 and still a Wyrm!?! I don't want to be a Wyrm anymore. I've been a Wyrm for 100 posts now.
I absolutely agree. Leaders are fun. We want leaders.
They add to immersion. Racial uniqueness, for starters.
They give bonuses and penalties.
They should have deep&complex histories and hidden agendas (hell, I wouldn’t mind trying drek’s political system even).
If done properly, without enormous microing, they can be one of the best parts of a space-opera (what’s a space opera without heroes anyway?). Why in their right mind would anyone want to throw them away?
They add to immersion. Racial uniqueness, for starters.
They give bonuses and penalties.
They should have deep&complex histories and hidden agendas (hell, I wouldn’t mind trying drek’s political system even).
If done properly, without enormous microing, they can be one of the best parts of a space-opera (what’s a space opera without heroes anyway?). Why in their right mind would anyone want to throw them away?
Sometimes, a man's heart is that of a wolf, and the path of enlightenment his alone to walk upon.
-
- Creative Contributor
- Posts: 1060
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 12:40 am
- Location: Tucson, Arizona USA
If we do have leaders I think we should have a combination of the Moo2 (leaders effect a particular Planet) and Moo3 (leaders effect whole Empire).
Basicaly their are "Imperial Goverment Positions" of a limited number. Assigning a Hero to be the "Emperor" gives him sway over the whole Empire. Other Heros can be assigned to other more local positions with smaller scopes. All the various leader effects just stack.
Basicaly their are "Imperial Goverment Positions" of a limited number. Assigning a Hero to be the "Emperor" gives him sway over the whole Empire. Other Heros can be assigned to other more local positions with smaller scopes. All the various leader effects just stack.
Fear is the Mind Killer - Frank Herbert -Dune
-
- Creative Contributor
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
- Location: Texas
I meant it as an analogy. To me starcraft was the type of game i wanted, Warcraft 3 is what I got. FO is a type of Orion game, with no need for leaders. I don't want it to turn into Warcraft 3 in space.Ranos wrote: First, I'm assuming you mean FO when you say StarCraft and if not, then what wa the point of that senetence?
If you shift the focus to leaders you shift away from the rest of he 4X stuff. If you don't shift the focus to leaders but you have them anyway, then they are just tacked on, and are simply bonus adder things. Whats the point?
If this was going to be designed as some kind of grand polictical sim, with plans and counter plans, and everything, thats ok. But this is going to be a 4X game that will have many features we(I) hope will be adapted by the mainstream video game developers. In addition to being a damn good game. The leaders change the type of game it is in my opinion.
So either change our focus from a 4X game to a political sim and add leaders, or nix them as they are just "another" feature.
Aquitaine is my Hero....
Let me quote the last paragraph in my last post to answer your question.PowerCrazy wrote:If you shift the focus to leaders you shift away from the rest of he 4X stuff. If you don't shift the focus to leaders but you have them anyway, then they are just tacked on, and are simply bonus adder things. Whats the point?
I don't want the focus to be on leaders but taking them out would take a good feature out of the game. Different people like different things. Some people don't like the tactical space combat. Should we leave that out or should we just add a button to allow the computer to resolve space combat for them? If your answer is anything other than add the button, well then never mind. If there should be an option for space combat, then there should be an option for leaders. Just because they are there doesn't mean you have to use them. I know hwat your arguement here will be. "If I don't use leaders while everyone else is, I'll be at a disadvantage to them." Good point. What do you think happens when the person who doesn't like the combat clicks for the AI to resolve it. If there is a human player on the other end, unless there odds are lopsided in the clickers favor, the other player will win the combat against the AI. Should we therfore take out tactical combat? You decide. Whatever you decide on the tactical combat is what should also be done with leaders.Ranos wrote:As for Leaders, they give more variety and uniqueness to an empire. They can also help to improve areas where your species lack. Not good with Industry? Hey, a leader shows up and offers his +15% to industry bonus. That is the purpose of a leader, to give you bonuses. Some of the leaders had bonuses, but also penalties. They would increase unrest or increase the speed of your research but also increasing the cost. Why have some a boring slider or something like that to get these same effects? Now as I said above, maybe there shouldn't be as much involved with leaders as was being suggested, but I think to leave them out would be a big mistake.
200 and still a Wyrm!?! I don't want to be a Wyrm anymore. I've been a Wyrm for 100 posts now.
Agreed, more or less.PowerCrazy wrote:So either change our focus from a 4X game to a political sim and add leaders, or nix them as they are just "another" feature.
If Leaders end up in the game, they should be strongly integrated into the rest of the game and it's fluff, esp. any poltical system. As proposed in this thread, Leader (and *gak* sub-heros) are just more bonuses to shuffle around, included for no good reason whatsoever.
-
- Creative Contributor
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:00 am
Need neaders, no questions asked
Leaders should be in the game, no questions asked - otherwise we can't use Obiwan's great pictures
I see powercrazy's point - however the analogy of warcraft 3 vs starcraft doesn't end just with hereos - Warcraft 3 has stronger (tougher) units, more melee-centred units, very weak defences, and limited army sizes. If completely took the hereos out of warcraft 3 you would still get a very different game.
I'd say if there are leaders, have them like Moo2 did. They give small bonuses, they have an interesting backstory, some spawn because of certain conditions in your empire (such as having a prison planet on an infernal world spawns someone like Riddick) and so forth. If on a ship, that ships gets special bonuses as well.
Heck, modders could write code to give them missions after ver 1.0
I see powercrazy's point - however the analogy of warcraft 3 vs starcraft doesn't end just with hereos - Warcraft 3 has stronger (tougher) units, more melee-centred units, very weak defences, and limited army sizes. If completely took the hereos out of warcraft 3 you would still get a very different game.
I'd say if there are leaders, have them like Moo2 did. They give small bonuses, they have an interesting backstory, some spawn because of certain conditions in your empire (such as having a prison planet on an infernal world spawns someone like Riddick) and so forth. If on a ship, that ships gets special bonuses as well.
Heck, modders could write code to give them missions after ver 1.0
There are three kinds of people in this world - those who can count, and those who can't.
thinking outloud:
In Kings of Dragon Pass, you have a council of leaders that lines the bottom of your screen, chosen from the noble class your tribe. Each leader has different stats and a faction. Bonuses are applied to your village dependant upon the stats of the leaders chosen for the council. During random events (which are very frequent in Dragon Pass) the Leaders give advice based on their faction/personality. Some factions open up new options during random events.
We could say that a player's government picks and poltical choices are implict in the members chosen for Council. Meaning, if you choose a Bishop from the Cult of Xenos for a Council seat, you are leaning towards a fundamentalist government that's friendly towards the Cult.
In Kings of Dragon Pass, you have a council of leaders that lines the bottom of your screen, chosen from the noble class your tribe. Each leader has different stats and a faction. Bonuses are applied to your village dependant upon the stats of the leaders chosen for the council. During random events (which are very frequent in Dragon Pass) the Leaders give advice based on their faction/personality. Some factions open up new options during random events.
We could say that a player's government picks and poltical choices are implict in the members chosen for Council. Meaning, if you choose a Bishop from the Cult of Xenos for a Council seat, you are leaning towards a fundamentalist government that's friendly towards the Cult.
-
- Audio Lead Emeritus
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 1:52 pm
- Location: Cincinnati OH, USA
I was *wondering* how long it would take for the entire design team to descend upon this thread like a swarm of locusts and devour it. :p
<ahem>
I agree with Gui on both points... Heroes didn't ruin Warcraft 3; tougher units, weak (useless?) defense structures, and limited army sizes did. Of course, not everyone believes it was ruined -- lots of ppl play ladder and obviously like it -- but those things were more important in differentiating it from Starcraft than heroes were imo.
@drek: I'm not opposed to your government choice (or even your race choice) affecting what heroes you can get, or having an effect on heroes once you do get them. But I like the MOO2 hero system just fine. They are not "just more bonuses to shuffle around, included for no good reason" imo. They add a nice semi-random element to the game (like planet specials), they add a lot of personality and bungheaps of fluff value, and they are a specific category of bonuses -- localized boosts you can give to a small number of your best or most important ships/tf's and planets.
Agreed they shouldn't be overpowering (was thinking along the lines of a good ship hero improving the overall power of his ship or taskforce by between 5% and 40% depending on his rank, say Captain to Grand Admiral). Also reluctantly concede it's probably too much complexity and bother to allow heroes to be bribed or brainwashed, and having them die of old age would be bad too imo (they have enough risk just being on warships or border worlds, and if there is indeed a max number of heroes allowed you would run into situations of trying to line up replacements for older heroes before they *actually* kick the bucket, etc, just a mess). I only wanted to expand the MOO2 4/4 slot count b/c a medium or large size empire tends to have more than 4 "most important" fleets and planets, but whatever.
<ahem>
I agree with Gui on both points... Heroes didn't ruin Warcraft 3; tougher units, weak (useless?) defense structures, and limited army sizes did. Of course, not everyone believes it was ruined -- lots of ppl play ladder and obviously like it -- but those things were more important in differentiating it from Starcraft than heroes were imo.
@drek: I'm not opposed to your government choice (or even your race choice) affecting what heroes you can get, or having an effect on heroes once you do get them. But I like the MOO2 hero system just fine. They are not "just more bonuses to shuffle around, included for no good reason" imo. They add a nice semi-random element to the game (like planet specials), they add a lot of personality and bungheaps of fluff value, and they are a specific category of bonuses -- localized boosts you can give to a small number of your best or most important ships/tf's and planets.
Agreed they shouldn't be overpowering (was thinking along the lines of a good ship hero improving the overall power of his ship or taskforce by between 5% and 40% depending on his rank, say Captain to Grand Admiral). Also reluctantly concede it's probably too much complexity and bother to allow heroes to be bribed or brainwashed, and having them die of old age would be bad too imo (they have enough risk just being on warships or border worlds, and if there is indeed a max number of heroes allowed you would run into situations of trying to line up replacements for older heroes before they *actually* kick the bucket, etc, just a mess). I only wanted to expand the MOO2 4/4 slot count b/c a medium or large size empire tends to have more than 4 "most important" fleets and planets, but whatever.