05-02-2013, 07:24 PM
Thanks Spiderman, I'm curious what your opinion is on my idea of pure simultaneous turns. I know you haven't played much mulit-player, but do you think it would work or would it hamper the game?
My thinking is this:
The simultaneous turns can be toggled into a couple of modes.
-You could play in sequential turn based mode with an almost identical mechanic of control, except that, similar to previous games, the units move as you give orders, and you won't need to chase down other stacks.
-You could of course (as I would prefer) play fully simultaneously, like I have suggested above. I like the idea of having to think about my moves with the added question of what my enemy is going to do at the same time. You could set a group of elves, hidden in some trees to guard an area and attack an enemy stack that strays too close, or even firing some arrows from cover to do some damage at range. Or even (in the interest of mitigating micro), hidden sentry units could send the player a 'scouting report' that says enemy units were seen nearby. Giving the player all the info he/she might need, without the need for him/her to be paying close attention to every corner of the map.
-For PBEM (which I have only played 1.5 games that way) both styles of play could be used. Sequential turns doesn't need description, since that's how it's always been. But you could play PBEM games simultaneously by each players sending their moves by email, then once all moves have been submitted, the players can watch the simultaneous turns unfold real-time. This should speed up the pbem time by allowing all players to work on their turns at the same time. You could play and re-play the action phase of each turn at your leisure. And then email your next turn.
What are your thoughts?
Also, about Micromanagement, Steve is looking to find ways to shorten the games. How do you feel about micro when you have a large army/empire?
05-03-2013, 12:35 AM
So, I think Heroes & Warlords should both make a comback, but I think they should be re-vamped. Here are some of my thoughts about Warlords, Heroes, Items and Multiplayer:
From what I have read, there is a lot of differing opinions about them. I think it was a great idea, just not fleshed out. I think that the warlord represents YOU, the player. The warlord should be your first hero, and shoudl be persistant. I also feel that you should be able to move around the map as a unit if you wish. HOWEVER, I think there should be a very real risk associated with this. My proposed warlord rules are:
-Warlords can move around the map like any unit.
-Warlords CANNOT retreat from combat.
-When a warlord dies, his side immediately loses the match.
-If a warlord dies in a castle, then he can be resurrected for a future battle.
-If a warlord dies outside of a castle, or while assaulting a castle, then he is permanently dead.
-Warlords should have a battle value of no more than 1.5 heroes of similar level.
This way players may use their warlords like a unit, won't lose their leveled player if playing wisely, but can have their warlord killed permanently if they play too fast and loose.
05-03-2013, 12:35 AM
For the most part, heroes work just fine. But I do have a complaint.
In the end, all the different heroes are really the same unit with a choice of leadership or fear, and maybe one or two skills that differentiate them. The only thing that makes heroes different is their items.
Weeeelll, I suggest that Warlords 5 should offer a better mix of heroes that makes it feel like they have different personalities, so to speak. WL3 did a fairly good job of this with all the different classes of heroes. But I think this should be expanded upon. Each class of hero (wizard, warrior, necromancer, etc) should have special abilities that have a completely different mechanic that suits their class, a wizard can use special magical attacks or buffs, a general gets to always have his stacks preferred line up when attacking, a rogue gives a speed boost to his stack and other units have to be closer to see the stack. Etc, all these bonuses don't have to be used during combat, but give a very different feel to the heros. I think that there should be at least 2 hero types associated with each default race, i'd like 4 types (again, think replayability, and diversity). Maybe each hero type has a specific bonus against one specific race, and against two other hero types. Kind of like a massive Rock/Paper/Scissor wheel.
I think this should be true of races as well, each race gets a special bonus against another race, not a big bonus tho.
05-03-2013, 12:37 AM
This is where I think Warlords 5 can really shine, some of the previous posters had really good ideas for items (runes & such). I think items should have infinite possibilities. There should be a long list of basic items with base values. Then a range of quality of the item (from broken to heavenly, or whatever) that affects the base values. Then a list of special powers that any given item can have (bloodlust, or armor, etc), this list should be very long too. The item can have a skill rank from 1 to 5 for those skills. Additionally, some items can have rune slots that the player can attempt to upgrade the item. And runes of different types and qualities. AND, there should be much more than 4 item slots for heroes. Helms, armor, bracers, pats, rings, shoes, right hand item, and left hand item.
Think of it, you could play for 5 years and not see a high level sword of *insert ability here*. Players can hunt for items, and trade them with other players (Think Diablo II, or other RPGs). Items should be able to take damage if they are used too much or are put up against another powerful item (or if a particular unit (or item) has the ability to damage items). This will make questing even more fun than it was before, you never know what you'll get.
05-03-2013, 01:03 AM
I think all warlords and heroes and items should be persistant/retainable in multiplayer. And the retinue that you take with you after every battle should be much larger. However you don't have to take everything with you into each battle. You should choose what you take, you are assigned a "battle value" of sorts based on your Warlord, chosen heroes, and items they hold. All the other players that have a lower battle value should get some kind of handicap that helps to make up for the difference, maybe they get to choose from a generated list of units to start out with, or a higer level starting hero to help make up the difference.
This way, you get a sense of power for building up a strong Warlord and a nice retinue, but weaker players aren't penalized for it. Battle value will of course need to account for the fact that high level retinue units don't arrive until a later turn.
05-03-2013, 04:04 AM
What can we do as 'customers' to make this game happen?
How much money would have to be raised or how many copies would have to be pre-sold to make the developers actually put out a finished Warlords V product within a year? Obviously, it doesn't have to be perfect as patches will be available.
Typically, what is the cost to make a game? And what kind of minimum return does a company need to break even?
Does anyone know how much it took to make Warlords IV? And I am assuming they didn't make a profit hence, the end of the series since then?
I would be down to putting in $1000 in pre-orders if I knew I would get Warlords 5 in a year. I'll keep one to play and give out the rest as presents to grow the Warlords community.
And no need to waste money advertising the game. These days with facebook and other social media, the message can spread quickly through us players.
05-03-2013, 01:55 PM
I think it would work and not hamper the game, but the toggle idea is good for those who want to play the "old way". I think it would okay for both "realtime/online" play and PBEM the way you describe.
Originally Posted by SeveNine
I'm not sure how to shorten the game; again, most of my experience is with DLR so vectoring helps out immensely in moving just-produced units and so it's just a matter of watching the destination city when it gets filled up to move a stack or stacks out. You can set a long path of movement for such stack so unless you want to interrupt their trip (for which you *have* to micro), you just hit the move button. When you capture a city, you just set its production and vectoring destination and that's that. So all of things to me aren't a big deal (and I've played a full 80 city campaign to its end, not allowing the enemy to surrender after half its cities are captured or whatever the condition is).
Don99: I don't know if there's anything customers can do to make the game "happen now". I don't think I2 is just sitting back resting, they're probably hard at work on whatever current project they are working on. So any "new" game within a year is unrealistic.
It could be put into the queue as the next project though, so posts from interested players are probably how they're gauging interest. That's why this thread here and the similar one in the Warlords Battlecry forum exist.
05-03-2013, 08:41 PM
Quests need a bit of updating too:
Quests should be fun and challenging.
In W4, quests were reduced to, "Go to A, B, then C and you get a prize!"
Except for the prize at the end, this was pretty boring and tedius. This is what I think will help make this more fun:
Just like in older Warlord games, heroes can get mini-quests at any city. These quests should be relatively easy and short, with slightly better rewards for differing levels of difficulty/time. Rewards can be XP, Cash, Mana, Units, Items, Information (such as a clue to an other quest location, or revealing a portion of the map, etc. There should be as many different types of these mini-quests as possible so that it never feels like it is the same mission over and over. I'd say at least 20 different basic missions that have goals & rewards determined dynamically. I also think it would be cool to have little farms, villages, or the racial equivalent of another race scattered around the map, that don't really offer any strategic value, except for making the scenery better, but if a hero comes near one of them they may offer a mini quest randomly, which you can refuse if you're busy. To not interfere with gameplay, maybe an icon lights up over the location you passed during the last action phase if they offered you a quest, you can click on that icon if you're interested in the quest. Maybe all quests can be given like this, and you can't request one? I don't know. There would need to be a quest report that informs you of any offered quests that you didn't notice.
Just like always, these should be distributed all over the map. However some should be hidden, and only findable by searching an area. Searching should be a movement type that cuts movement to an appropriate speed, 1/2 or 1/3 speed sounds ok to me but that will depend on balance & testing. Units need to search the area to uncover a hidden ruin. These will have stronger enemies and better loot. The player should ONLY see that a ruin has been explored if he explored the ruin himself, or if the ruin was within his line of sight when an opponent explored it. Ruins should not re-hide once found, but they should re-populate with enemies, however the loot should be much lower level for future explorations. XP is always given of course.
I think it would be cool to be able to pay a clean-up-fee and keep a sentry unit at a ruin to protect it and make it functional once again. Different types of ruins could provide different types of bonuses to the nearest friendly castle. But doing this will make the ruin highly visible to opponents. And you have to keep a unit at the ruin. Once the unit leaves it will revert to a standard empty ruin at a rate proportional to the amount of gold you have pumped into it.
There should be special (but still dynamicly created) quests that randomly become available to heroes. These quests can be offered in the same way as the mini quests, but something should distinguish it. They should also be given as a reward for searching an other ruin. These quests should involve 2 to 3 ruins and be some kind of puzzle. I mean it shouldn't be a go here, then go there thing. It should give you an objective and give hints about where to go or what to do. (these don't always have to be ruins, maybe it is to capture an objective, or kill X amount of units. And completing one objective will give you a clue for the next one. Basically a scavenger hunt of sorts.
There should also be 1 large quest that all players on the map have access to.
The start of this quest should be a hidden ruin roughly centrally located on the map. The rougly scripted quest should involve 4 to 5 hidden ruins, and the consecutive ruins should be distributed around the map and are not 'stumble-on-able' by searching units, but can only be found after you have explored the previous ruin. It should be a scavenger hunt like the hero quests, but on a grander scale. Hints could be like, 'the next tomb is located west of *city* or 'located south of the *landmark* near *City*' or even just the name of the landmark, and players need to hunt down that landmark or whatever...
This quest should have a pretty high level item or items as a reward. I said 'roughly scripted' above because even randomly generated maps should have this feature. The clues to the next ruin should be like writing on the wall or something so that other players who come later can still follow the quest. At the end, finders keepers of the final prize. All other players should be notified that the quest has been completed so they can stop wasting their time (or maybe they're not told? buahahaha).
There should be a unit skill that is specifically for searching, that helps in search speed and sight range.
All in all, players should have the option of going after quests or conquests.
They should have to make the decisions of what is more important to them.
Adds strategy and fun to the game.
05-05-2013, 11:18 PM
Very nice describtion... I like playing it occasionally...but sometimes it is exactly like you said: The game seems to have more fun than I. I think you have too less control about everything and during battles you simply have no chance to use a single Hero's abilities. There is just too much going on at the same time and for that too fast. But as usual, I guess what I've just said is discussable...and very up to how often you tend to play games like that which need more time to be likeable.
Originally Posted by Steve Fawkner
05-06-2013, 12:29 PM
Curious, what kind of battles are you referring to? In my experience, the only battles you need to watch and possibly intervene are either early ones or with a Wizard. Most heros can take care of themselves (either fighting or running away) and generally, in the beginning it's cheaper to just hire a new hero than use a spell to help a current one. And late game, most heros can take care of themselves anyway; they pretty much just need help against a boss creature.
Originally Posted by wargul16