Legendary Heroes too Legendary XP and Gildar leech.

This is why I generally Steal Spirit the first hero I get to keep their magical ability while reducing my gildar costs, unless it happens to be one that has Merchant, in which case I keep them around for free money.

Lord forgive me for posting this statement for the who the %#@&  knows time ....gasp!!!

I LOVE this game and really love the the HEROS. I HATE the FACT that I can not use them out side of looting them and stripping them of thier powers.

thay take up too MUCH exp. the time I can level 3 level 10's ..I could make 1 level 20 that would make short work of 3 10's in combat. I wish thay change the exp split to all HEROS get full exp. Then I could use them in regular game instead of modden maps to make a game to play them on.

I can live with -1 gildar per hero, usually worthwhile even early game. However I agree it's questionable to basically force a hero on you who may not actually be worth bringing along to battles, and have no way to mitigate the upkeep cost aside from the rather extreme and not always helpful steal spirit. Maybe garrisoned heroes should cost no upkeep, so at least the heroes you're not using won't be draining you? Or perhaps we could nix the hero gildar upkeep altogether - equipping them is costly enough as is, and without equipment (..sometimes even with it) they're weaker than trained units which are dirt cheap to build and maintain.

The xp penalty is also too harsh, and the potential traits too boring-yet-necessary to compensate - I'd be happier if:

(1) We got rid of all the potential traits - they're either a must-have that makes the early game dull, or useless and never worth taking (haven't done the math, but I suspect the former). I can live with the mage tree 'knowledge' sticking around, it's just one trait and gives the mages a much-needed advantage at leveling.

(2) The xp split was less harsh for multiple heroes in the same army - some kind of compromise between "you get the same xp no matter what, so bring 9 heroes" vs. "9 heroes = 1/9th the xp, good luck against a level 20 Yithril with all your level 5 heroes." Needs to be a middle ground.

(3) Very debatable, but in my opinion: the xp split should treat trained units identically to heroes, it should not just penalize heroes and give trained units free bonus xp. In other words, 1 hero + 4 trained ought to be getting the same xp per unit as 5 heroes. This may be going too far though, depending on how generous step 2 was to heroes. ..honestly I just hate needing to take xp splitting into account when I organize an army, rather than simply picking the strongest units regardless of whether they're trained or hero. And it's not like heroes are much better than trained units now, anyway, particularly if you have a bunch of heroes and can't equip them all well - trained units just don't need that xp handicap anymore (excellent work on that, by the way, the hero vs. trained balance is closer now than it ever has been going back to WoM beta, at least imo).

I thought it was a bad idea how it was done in FE, in LH it's so much worse.

 

XP split needs to go away.

 

The XP split did go away....and then everyone immediately started playing with a stack of doom that self perpetuated because of how fame and questing operated. Was no fun.

They readded XP split back in.

It needs to be there.

 

It is easily modded back. Just need to add the line to every champion

<DividesBattleExp>0</DividesBattleExp>

This is at least the way it was done in FE.

Steal Spirit is a great option for bad champs.

Just remember to sell/trade its items to your main sovereign first.

 

I normally make my decision based on what monsters are around me.

Quick markets and low taxes once you hit some milestone early technology and you can jump from -x to (usually) ~+6 gildar per turn.

 

Beasts tamed via beastlord does not cost wages.

 

Commander heroes with the starting gildar trait.

 

Wealthy trait.

 

There are many ways around negative gildar early game.

In theory since every hero reduces unrest by 5% while in a town, you could raise taxes to counter their upkeep costs. Especially if you cast the +25 exp spell on them a few times and give them some early commander traits.

Late game most of my exp comes from that spell and it gets to a point where it's more worthwhile having a lower level hero gain 10 levels than a higher level hero gain just 1. Having multiple armies is a must at that point as well. The problem is you get all these heroes long before you have a use for them with the current mechanics.

I don't really care if the exp split goes away entirely or not, but maybe 2 heroes in an army should be the base instead of 1.

Really they should use a different formula for how the heroes divide the exp. To allow a 2 hero base, but instead of dividing the exp in half, say by 3 / 4 instead.

3 heroes have 1 / 2, I went over a variety of options that would give higher exp, but still divides the exp. Another such option would be to try out

(number of heroes + 1) / (2^(number of heroes). Although this will get much smaller for stacks of 5 or more heroes.

There are simply plenty of formula used to calculate a division of exp that a simple division may not be the appropriate.

 

Maybe exp share/loss between heroes could be done logarithmically. A few heroes is as good as a couple heroes, but mostly heroes rewards very small amounts of EXP.

I think the solution is to increase the amount of fame required to get the second champion.  Also the random quest where you can get Bako (or however, it is spelled) happens too often and gives you another champion way too early.  I think this quest should only be triggered after your ruler makes a certain relatively high level.  There are just way too many of them early and I usually just skip the Bako one. 

 

I suggest something like the below - (the exact amount of fame could change or maybe make it a setting for how fast they show up)

5 fame - Champion Level 1

 

75 Fame - Champion Level 5

 

200 Fame - Champion (2 levels below your ruler)

 

500 Fame - Champion (same level as sovereign)

 

Every 500 additional fame (Champion 2 levels below your ruler)

You could just start off with 500 gold if you want to avoid the early game crunch. 

I also find myself building cleric's and bell tower's ASAP on my settlements.

I do think slowing the rate at which we get heroes is the first step.  I used to not think so, given I have been playing on dense monsters, but after a few more games, I defintiely find they come too quickly. 

I like the idea of needing more fame per hero, good idea.  Also, you could put a cap on number of heroes, and have some tree research or other mechanism to raise the cap.  That way, if you WANT lots of heroes, you can do it, it is your actual aim. 

Also, for the record, I do not like full champ split, and would prefer a base of two heroes unpenalized (or light penalty), then penalize hard after that. 

Creating two heroes with different roles is one of my favorite things to do, but they just can't work together.  That suxors.

I agree that leveling is slow, but I think XP splits should remain as they are.

To me, it just makes sense. For example, the more units there are attacking a monster, the less each unit has to do/has to contribute to defeating the moster.

I don't know if this would be a programming nightmare, but I would be in favor of distributing experience points based on the damage dealt in a fight. For example, if a monster has 100 hp, and the sovereign inflicts 30 hp of damage, and the hero inflicts 70 hp of damage, the hero gets 70% of the XP value, and the sovereign 30%.

Otherwise, xp should be split evenly amonst all units in a fight.

 

What about healing and gain HP abilities and spells?

Bacco is a volunteer, gosh-darn-it!

If there are more reliable ways to get xp while in town, the xp split can stay as is. 

Or, give non-altar factions a less effective version of quest map (cheaper, spawns weak and medium quests). That way, you don't rely on monster availability to level heroes. 

(Since enemy armies give so little xp, and enemy archers pick off weak champions, war is not a reliable way to level)

I also suggest being able to add "chapters" of the adventurer's guild to any city. That way your heroes can have a chance at leveling up anywhere they are needed. 25% chance of 1xp/season is not going to make level 20 characters anytime soon. 

Leveling up heroes should be less dependant on monsters, globally. Let it be potentially a function of your empire's production capacity, so you can do some leveling at home. 

By definition, your favorite champion is the one you chose yourself (sovereign), and I'd bet most players want to level them up. Randomly assigned champions are great, but they just aren't the #1 leveling priority for most.

The xp split can't go away. Give us xp in some form at home, or champions will remain like happy meal toys: super fun when you get them, a useless piece of plastic three months later.  

Let the sovereign always get max xp but keep the xp split for other champions. 

 

Not a bad idea. 

This would help make the Sov special, and if you had one other hero in the army you could have the Sov getting full XP and the other hero getting half.

Removing the XP-split again would be the most terrible thing they could do to this game. It would reduce a level of strategy regarding heroes and also open up for unfun exploits again, pluss making units once again useless.

When it comes to money and upkeep. I think some people here have just become to used to a playstyle where they dont need to worry about money, going none or low taxes forever and waiting forever to build out the economy..... Finally we have got more depth into this and I'm very satisfied with how this game now gives me alot more hard and meaningfull decissions to make.

[/quote]

1. I disagree.... It would open up new levels of strategy for a LOT of people who don't use them now like me.

2. There is no such thing as  "unfun exploits" in a SINGLE player game. if you like it you do it . If you don't , you won't.

3. To some like myself , units will aiways be useless.

4. That's the thing about variety , there is more then ONE way.

5. I disagree... It is less deeper with less choise.

6. I agree... You are very satisfied.

This reminds me of the MAYOR of NEW YORK CITY..... He wanted to BAN LARGE size soda cups for the good of eveyone's health. And taking AWAY your freedom of CHOISE to partisapate in a LEGAL activity.

Removing the XP-split again would be the most terrible thing they could do to this game. It would reduce a level of strategy regarding heroes and also open up for unfun exploits again, pluss making units once again useless.[/quote]

When it comes to money and upkeep. I think some people here have just become to used to a playstyle where they dont need to worry about money, going none or low taxes forever and waiting forever to build out the economy..... Finally we have got more depth into this and I'm very satisfied with how this game now gives me alot more hard and meaningfull decissions to make.


1. I disagree.... It would open up new levels of strategy for a LOT of people who don't use them now like me.

Like what? Non-brainer Place Your second hero in the start army together With Soveriegn, instead of this having a trade-off? Non brainer placing every New hero together With sovereing in Your best army going vs tough Creatures for massive experience and fast Level ups? Just naming a few "fantastic" New strategies for you.

2. There is no such thing as  "unfun exploits" in a SINGLE player game. if you like it you do it . If you don't , you won't.

Well. I use more then one hero in my army from time to time. It depends on the tasks Ahead, and if I want to help leveling up a weak hero, or if it's early game and I just need that extra unit. If XP-split was taken away, the strategy of choosing when and not fight together With Your heroes would lack the substance of trade-offs, and that would be UNFUN! There is no can choose not to be affected of it in a singleplayer game. That's nothing less then pure nonsense, sir. 

3. To some like myself , units will aiways be useless.

Units are not useless in Legendary Heroes. Perhaps you dislike units in general, but they are in the game and they want to design a game where they aren't useless. Removing XP-split would have many effects, one of them is making units alot less important. 

4. That's the thing about variety , there is more then ONE way.

5. I disagree... It is less deeper with less choise.

(4/5): It's by design that you have to depend on units, especially early game. At least you need units to help Level up Your heroes. If Your startegy is to build a strong heroes only army, you will have to work harder for it now With long term planning; that's strategy.

6. I agree... You are very satisfied.

This reminds me of the MAYOR of NEW YORK CITY..... He wanted to BAN LARGE size soda cups for the good of eveyone's health. And taking AWAY your freedom of CHOISE to partisapate in a LEGAL activity.

Freedom is not the same as claiming the right being God allmighty. That you can do whatever you like without consequence (like for instance stacking heroes With no XP penalty) or trade offs is bad game design. Talking about freedom of choice in this regard is far off. [/quote]

 

 

Removing the XP-split again would be the most terrible thing they could do to this game. It would reduce a level of strategy regarding heroes and also open up for unfun exploits again, pluss making units once again useless.[/quote]

When it comes to money and upkeep. I think some people here have just become to used to a playstyle where they dont need to worry about money, going none or low taxes forever and waiting forever to build out the economy..... Finally we have got more depth into this and I'm very satisfied with how this game now gives me alot more hard and meaningfull decissions to make.


1. I disagree.... It would open up new levels of strategy for a LOT of people who don't use them now like me.

Like what? Non-brainer Place Your second hero in the start army together With Soveriegn, instead of this having a trade-off? Non brainer placing every New hero together With sovereing in Your best army going vs tough Creatures for massive experience and fast Level ups? Just naming a few "fantastic" New strategies for you.

2. There is no such thing as  "unfun exploits" in a SINGLE player game. if you like it you do it . If you don't , you won't.

Well. I use more then one hero in my army from time to time. It depends on the tasks Ahead, and if I want to help leveling up a weak hero, or if it's early game and I just need that extra unit. If XP-split was taken away, the strategy of choosing when and not fight together With Your heroes would lack the substance of trade-offs, and that would be UNFUN! There is no can choose not to be affected of it in a singleplayer game. That's nothing less then pure nonsense, sir. 

3. To some like myself , units will aiways be useless.

Units are not useless in Legendary Heroes. Perhaps you dislike units in general, but they are in the game and they want to design a game where they aren't useless. Removing XP-split would have many effects, one of them is making units alot less important. 

4. That's the thing about variety , there is more then ONE way.

5. I disagree... It is less deeper with less choise.

(4/5): It's by design that you have to depend on units, especially early game. That's to secure more variety in strategy then a non-brainer stack as many heroes together as possible. At least you need units to help Level up Your heroes. If Your startegy is to build a strong heroes only army, you will have to work harder for it now With long term planning; that's strategy.

6. I agree... You are very satisfied.

This reminds me of the MAYOR of NEW YORK CITY..... He wanted to BAN LARGE size soda cups for the good of eveyone's health. And taking AWAY your freedom of CHOISE to partisapate in a LEGAL activity.

Freedom is not the same as claiming the right being God allmighty. That you can do whatever you like without consequence (like for instance stacking heroes With no XP penalty) or trade offs is bad game design. Talking about freedom of choice in this regard is far off.


 

 [/quote]