[1.3 - Heros Only Tactical Battle Flag for Quests]

I strongly concur with this idea. One of the great selling points of Elemental is the RPG aspect of it all, and being able to build my own RPG party based on a dynamic world affected by my strategic decisions is really awesome. But the whole allure to RPG heroes is somewhat lost when they merely function as another army unit in your empire. The quests are designed to invoke RPG overtones, but when quests are completed by smashing through them with an army the same way you would smash through enemy battalions and garrisons, the whole point is lost. I want to cultivate heroes in order to navigate these quests. More enticing, I want to be forced to cultivate parties of heroes that have to venture off together. I want a kingdom that has focused on heroes and quests to have a distinct edge-up (quest-wise) over kingdoms that have focused on armies and the traditional route to victory, and vice-versa. Limiting quests to heroes-only, or at least limiting the best quests to heroes-only would do a lot for the feel and the strategy of Elemental.

I agree.

Best regards,
Steven.

I too agree

I dunno... while I do agree that champions need some way to be "crucial" to adventures taking place, I'm not sure this is a good way to do it.

First, what's stopping a unit of 4 men entering a ruin, where 8 champions can enter without a problem? Fear? Magic? Or are they simply useless at navigating the ruins? Those are weak reasons.

Second, you'll most likely end up fighting enemy "army" units anyway inside. For example what Edwin99 talked about in example nr 2, 3 and possibly 4 above. Personally, I would just feel cheated then. The enemy can walk army units into battle but I can't?

Third, it's important to maintain a connection between all aspects of the game. Segmented gameplay is not fun gameplay. Ie why did I spend all this time building cities and training armies if they are useless at doing something that should be central to gameplay?

 

I would instead like to see other solutions to making champions particularly interesting when doing quests. For example,

1) Additional champions will make the exploration of the dungeon go quicker, army units can explore in say 4 seasons but each champion reduces the time by 1 season. Higher quests could have even longer exploration time needed, and higher level champions would reduce the time more.

2) Additional champions boost the loot, as they are adventurers at heart and know where to find the shinies. This could simply be "more gildar", but can also be things such as health potions or suitable armor and weapons.

3) Champions gain specific bonuses from exploring dungeons that army units do not. They may gain traits or experience. This would happen simply because they're in their natural environment, so to speak. An army man walking into a dungeon will spend all his time trying to avoid getting killed, but a champion might learn something from that old text on the wall, or see a marvel of ingenuity in that trap that just killed a couple of guys.

 

Good points, Heavenfall.

Best regards,
Steven.

My thinking was that units of 4 men are really 200 men - and how would 400, 1200, or 2400 men enter and explore a dungeon.

Taking an army of 8000+ men into a Cavern, into the great hall of a castle, or a house does not appear to be realistic.

With this enhancement "some" quests; not all quests, would be limited only hero units.

Exploring catacombs might be a heros only tactical battle quest while an encounter with a group of darklings terrorizing a village or giant rates terrorizing a farmer would be open to army & hero units. Ideally, the game would have both types of quests - all units allowed quests and hero only quests.

Yeah, I don't think of the numbers being quite that large but I see the armies still being too large to accompany those going into certain areas, even a 'hundred' soldiers going into a small area would get pretty crowded

Double Post

Why did Frodo not take an army! Why does anyone quest at all! Well it's hard to supply people for a long walk through hostile environments, especially in large numbers if they aren't trained for it. ie champions. Technically in Elemental time these quests are taking years.....

Good post, Heavenfall! You made me stop and think about where I stood on the issue, which I always appreciate. "As iron sharpens iron," you know. Still, I'm not entirely sure I agree with all of your points. If you don't mind, I'd like to provide a defense of the heroes-only quest idea.

I'll admit, I hadn't thought of the "in-world," lore reasons for limiting (some?) quests to heroes-only. The strength of the idea really lies in the out-world, gameplay reasons. I'd say the in-world justification is that heroes have skills that set them apart from the other inhabitants of Elemental. They can scale cliffs, spot ancient artifacts and far-away glimmers, solve puzzles, and be the classic hero in a way a band of peasants or axemen simply cannot. If that doesn't suffice, then perhaps heroes-only would have to be justified on a quest by quest basis. But the alternative, where you can navigate the winding tower and defeat the treacherous wizard simply by throwing mass-produced swordsmen at him doesn't make for a terribly exciting quest. Smashing through quests with armies hampers the feeling of adventure that quests should provide. Quests should be a challenge of brothers-in-arms, of Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas; not Aragorn, 14 swordsmen, 12 archers, etc.

I'm somewhat agreed on the point of "enemy army units," in that I wouldn't want to see "Barbarian Band of Peasants." But I wouldn't classify "evil lord and his guards" [example 2] as "enemy army units," but rather as an enemy hero and a small personal bodyguard (essentially an enemy RPG party). In so far as the quest justifies the presence of the enemies we're attacking, I don't particularly see the problem. I agree with you that we shouldn't be facing down an enemy -army- within the confines of a quest. It should be heroes and friends vs. villains and minions, not small band of heroes vs. giant enemy horde.

I agree entirely with the thrust of this point. Indeed, you've got to have a connection between all the parts of a game if you want to have a fun game. However, my contention is that Elemental, in its current state, isn't fostering the right kind of connection between heroes and the rest of the game. What is the point of heroes? Cities and armies have a distinct purpose and contribute to winning the game, with or without heroes-only quests implemented. But as it stands, heroes are simply weaker army units with names and their own stat sheet. Perhaps segmented gameplay is bad, but differentiated gameplay is definitely good. Heroes need a purpose, something to set them apart from any other group of axemen. By limiting (some?) quests to heroes-only, you give them a very defined purpose. Heroes are no longer a mere alternative to mass-produced soldiers, but gain a focus that sets them apart as truly unique and important.

 
The alternative ideas you proposed, Heavenfall, are clever. I could even see how individual heroes could provide different benefits (-TIME, +GILDAR, +LOOT, +XP, etc.) based on their own unique traits. However, I think that the issue of making heroes "crucial" to quests and to gameplay at large still remains. Even if heroes added in certain extra benefits, the actual quest itself would still be a matter of stacking your hero with an army and stomping on the enemies. There would have to be something else added in order to make heroes a significant part of your kingdom. The drawbacks of not investing in your army, or in technology, or magic, or in your cities are obvious. What would the drawbacks of not investing in heroes be?

I will say, regarding the "lore", that the game already limits non-champions from being able to trigger notable locations and quests. So obviously there's some unique thing about champions in the game, even though it may not be retold to the user very well.

Great question. I would say from a min/max perspective, not using champions to their fullest should be the same as wasting resources. Your army is busy searching through an old tomb for 10 years? Then it's not doing much fighting. Your champions give you more loot from that tomb? Then that loot is missed if you don't use champions. Similarly, you'll miss out on sovereign XP and possible traits developed for champions, that you can then use to boost your civilization (strategic) or give you an upper hand in tactical combat through new abilities.

 

I've been making noise about this since beta...good to see some renewed discussion on this. I strongly disagree with most of your points, Heavenfall. I don't think this would create a problem of segmented gameplay. It would in fact improve the importance and fun of the heroes and rpg elements, which are weak right now. It makes perfect sense for heroes and individuals to engage in quests instead of massed armies. My original proposal was that only individuals, heroes or soldiers, should be able to go on quests. This would also make creating individual soldiers more useful, since right now there is limited use for them once you get big units. Think of them as henchmen or bodyguards. Maybe we could split quests up into quests a d something like missions. Quests would be scaled and limited to parties of individuals. Missions could be scaled for armies. My goal would be to make adventuring parties feasible. I say that if you create a small party of individuals, they should be able to move much faster than big armies, and also cross borders to explore and seek adventure. They should also be able to avoid big armies through speed or stealth. The drawback would be that they couldn't conquer territory and only the most powerful would be able to fight an army or super powerful creature. I really think this would improve the game. It would take some balancing and you would need more and better quests, but I think it is within the scope of what is possible