Legendary Heroes too Legendary XP and Gildar leech.

NorsemanViking

Join Date 03/2006

+19

Quoting NorsemanViking,

reply 25

Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 24
Quoting MM77, reply 23

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]

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]

Successfully updated karma reason!

NorsemanViking

Join Date 03/2006

+19

Quoting NorsemanViking,

reply 26

Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 25
Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 24
Quoting MM77, reply 23

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]

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]

My answers in cursive.

Successfully updated karma reason!

NorsemanViking

Join Date 03/2006

+19

Quoting NorsemanViking,

reply 27

Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 26
Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 25
Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 24
Quoting MM77, reply 23

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]

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.

My answers in cursive/italic.[/quote]

Successfully updated karma reason!

Alstein

Join Date 07/2004

+55

Quoting GFireflyE,

reply 5

Quoting Alstein, reply 4I 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 had a point before, with the buffing of normal units in LH, it's no longer needed.

Give me some well-trained midgame troops and I'll give you some dead heroes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Or, let us decide how to split up the exp. They've got the sliders on the victory panel already; just let us control how much goes where.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Winnihym,

reply 30

Or, let us decide how to split up the exp. They've got the sliders on the victory panel already; just let us control how much goes where.

that! i do agree with all of you, stack of dooms wery silly and boring.....as i'm new to LH and didn't know about the new xp split i was wondering how my heroes were all lvl 3 and my enemies heroes were lvl 6 or 7 (but i won every battle ). why not make it a slider?! best solution for everyone!!! people who want to have stack of dooms...go for it....and people who want 1 heroe per army....also good. only question would be how the AI could handle such variations. i'm no programmer but i think it shouldn't be too hard because it should come done to simple mathematically calculations based on a fixed input number.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The problem isn't XP splitting. The problem is that heroes level too slowly and are too weak mid-late game (fighting heroes anyway).

Without XP splitting the only optimal path is to put all heroes in one stack and use that stack to take as many monsters as possible. With XP splitting it is viable to split the heroes into several armies which all try to clear monsters.

Keep in mind that XP splitting doesn't make you lose XP, you just divide the XP from monsters up between the heroes in the army. The old way was to MULTIPLY the XP from monsters by the number of heroes in the stack (before splitting it up) which is why everyone used to put as many heroes as possible in a killer stack to maximise XP gain.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The problem is the xp split isn't linear. When you have only 3 heroes in a stack and no trained units they still only get 1/6th the total xp meaning that half of the total xp is lost.

Successfully updated karma reason!

parrottmath

Join Date 03/2008

+206

I also believe XP is determined by challenge rating ratio's. If you are of the same rating you get the base XP, if you are lower challenging level you get more, if you are higher challenging level you get less. At least this is what I thought the system was at present.

For those that want to play the game with no XP split just to see... plop this xml file into your mods directory and try it out and post what you think.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75549875/Fallen%20Enchantress/ChampionsFullXP/ChampionsFullXP80.zip

If you have multiple sovereigns in your army they will divide the XP...just fyi

Successfully updated karma reason!

You are correct about the challenge ratio xp loss if you are fighting things that are below your challenge rating level. The problem comes from a increasingly lower amount of high level creatures to fight and the lack of expereince from trained troops later in the game which stagnates champion growth and chokes your growth unless you rush monsters, bottle up lairs for farming, quest map, or have a crazy mana level and can just inspire xp into your champions.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting halmal242,

reply 35

You are correct about the challenge ratio xp loss if you are fighting things that are below your challenge rating level. The problem comes from a increasingly lower amount of high level creatures to fight and the lack of expereince from trained troops later in the game which stagnates champion growth and chokes your growth unless you rush monsters, bottle up lairs for farming, quest map, or have a crazy mana level and can just inspire xp into your champions.

in my current game most of the monster lairs i don't destroy and instead let them spawn every few turns some more monsters and farm these instead. it seems a viable strategy right now. if i'm too high in the rating, then i woud kill the lair. i also attack monster lairs near enemy kingdoms to drain their xp income. but i don't really know if its affecting the ai .

Successfully updated karma reason!

Its a good strategy but it a band aid fix for a deep problem with xp.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I just don't see the early game income and other problems outlined in the OP as being a problem. There should be a cost associated with the growing power of recruiting new champions and units, and there is plenty of buildings/spells/options to balance the early cost out. We may want to clarify by what we mean by early game though, as by the time a player gets that second or third champ, then that is well out of early game.

As was mentioned earlier, I feel the economic complaint is a problem resulting from ignoring the economy of the player's growing civilization, but that civilization is a big part of the game. Economy should have impact, and right now it is at a good place where you have the option to give it minimal attention (just build a few merchants to break even) or to go in heavy (concentrate on supporting town infrastructure and take advantage of the diplomatic and military flexibility that comes with a fat stack of Gildar). I usually opt for a middle path that leans towards minimal, as I value production, but just because it isn't my strategic focus doesn't mean I should be able to just ignore it.

If the argument is, "I should be able to win with only heroes" then just go play vanilla FE. A big point of this expansion was to fix this problem and make units a valuable, tactical, contributing part of the game. Champs are still very powerful if used well, and having the choice of a more effective army (more champs) vs a more xp-efficient army (only the one champ) in the mid-late game is an excellent strategic option.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have been pondering whether there should be a personal account for Sovereign and then a State Account. Where your leader can pull form the state account with the effect that it increases total unrest from the kingdom whereas if the leader deposits funds they reduce unrest. You could even add this into the tax rate such that the leader gets something like 10% of the state funds income per season. Then buildings and units would be divorced from the common costs associated with gear. This way gear costs could be reduced but then your again your sov income is greatly reduced initially and most of their gear would come from loots. Just an additional potential layer to balance out buildings/units gold costs versus gear costs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If the argument is, "I should be able to win with only heroes" then just go play vanilla FE. A big point of this expansion was to fix this problem and make units a valuable, tactical, contributing part of the game. Champs are still very powerful if used well, and having the choice of a more effective army (more champs) vs a more xp-efficient army (only the one champ) in the mid-late game is an excellent strategic option.

This may be my problem right here ( and it will go over a lot of peoples heads )

I DO want to win with HEROS only.

I DO want to win with ARMYS only.

I DO want a exp slider.

And heres my BIGGEST problem......I want to play vanilla FE with ALL the BELLS and WHISTELS of LH....and none of the NERF!!!

Successfully updated karma reason!

The single biggest problem with the exp split is that it forces the player to play in a more complicated way. You can't level an all-hero army, therefore you must manage building construction with unit construction in the early game to support multiple armies led by single heroes. It is a good strategy anyway, but not all players are grognards. Especially since this game is Steam-only, many rpg fans who are mildly interested in strategy games may take interest in this game. They then need to learn a complicated dance just to have fun, and players who just want to have fun are forced to manage this complicated dance.

An all hero army is fine. Let it be strong, just keep units beefed up so they are useful too to players who utilize them. Simple, fun strategies keep people who are looking for a simple, fun time happy. Maybe these people are Steam TBS newbs, maybe they are reviewers who give scores that draw in Steam TBS newbs. I thought this game had the motto, "we want every strategy to seem overpowered." I wish they would keep to that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The single biggest problem with the exp split is that it forces the player to play in a more complicated way. You can't level an all-hero army, therefore you must manage building construction with unit construction in the early game to support multiple armies led by single heroes. It is a good strategy anyway, but not all players are grognards. Especially since this game is Steam-only, many rpg fans who are mildly interested in strategy games may take interest in this game. They then need to learn a complicated dance just to have fun, and players who just want to have fun are forced to manage this complicated dance.
An all hero army is fine. Let it be strong, just keep units beefed up so they are useful too to players who utilize them. Simple, fun strategies keep people who are looking for a simple, fun time happy. Maybe these people are Steam TBS newbs, maybe they are reviewers who give scores that draw in Steam TBS newbs. I thought this game had the motto, "we want every strategy to seem overpowered." I wish they would keep to that

He gets it..... Burress gets it!!!! sniff!! I'm not alone!!!... way to go Burress!

Successfully updated karma reason!

parrottmath

Join Date 03/2008

+206

If you want to play with an all hero army play as altar... they do exactly that with the henchmen and the fact that XP from quests is NOT SPLIT.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Thanks parrottmath ... Thats what I do now when I want a group. I don't advertise it because soon as you do, as you just did, the NERF PROTROL!!! comes out!

( To the theme of the Big Valley ) Da de da da ...da da daaaa....NERF! NERF! Da de da da ...da de da de daaaaa NERF! NERF! NERF!...Da de da da ...da da de da daaaa....da da de da da ...da de da.....da daaaaaaaaaa.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'll reserve judgement after the next patch with the XP and Fame changes. My main issue with the the current state of affairs is that heroes gained through fame are too difficult to use because they're either too weak, too late in the game, or I have too few units to viably fight with it. If I gain a new hero, it shouldn't have to cost me money, it should be powerful and it should be useful. Thankfully I don't see any of these issues as being too difficult to overcome except through balance changes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

i think the upcoming 0.85 build will resolve much of the champion XP drama. you'll get them a bit slower, they will get a bit more XP and trained troops won't be so overwhelmingly powerful and render champions useless. maybe we won't quite make it to the sweet spot, but i'm confident that we will get a lot closer to it.

Successfully updated karma reason!