FE/LH BETTER than AOWIII hahah

By on May 7, 2014 2:27:31 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

willie sand...

Join Date 05/2003
+6


Well, they tried but they couldn't do it. FE/LH offically better than AOW III an always will be. ) Developers are so scared they are deleting posts that are negative on Steam hahah. If you say anything against AOW III you are tagged a troll lol. Even Stardock fans aren't that bad. Or froggy Metacritic user scores have it at 77 now down from an origional 84 and most of the comments are about lame ai and no real depth or detail just pretty pictures. Hurray for FE/LH long live the PRINCE of fantasy gaming next to the KING that is Master of Magic.

Locked Post 49 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 12, 2014 5:21:14 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Magic just wouldn't be fun if it was balanced. I think Frogboy created another post, last week, going into details why. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 13, 2014 1:48:48 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Ok, then why do i encounter games with fun balanced magic? And, suddenly, these games support multiplayer.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 13, 2014 2:42:44 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Do you have any examples? 

Also I think I'm was missing a sentence in my last reply. Brad was explaining the challenges with AI caused by magic, not the balancing act. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 13, 2014 2:43:16 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting geniusisme,

Ok, then why do i encounter games with fun balanced magic? And, suddenly, these games support multiplayer.

Such as...?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 13, 2014 8:58:05 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting geniusisme,

Ok, then why do i encounter games with fun balanced magic? And, suddenly, these games support multiplayer.

 

Maybe Illauna's definition of fun is different from yours? I see magic in a strategy game as fun if it's dynamically unbalanced. I don't want to play a game where all the sides are necessarily equal. I want to have the ability to be weaker, or stronger, than someone else, and set up challenges that require choices that are fun (for me) to beat.

 

But I'm also curious what games you have in mind.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 14, 2014 12:40:42 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

The problem with magic in LH isn't that magic is balanced it is that the AI can't use half of it.

Magic has to be balanced to be fun. How does for instance making firebolt free and do infinite damage make the game more fun? Oh I know lets make enchanted hammers do nothing at all, that sounds fun. The seriously OP spells are what ruin fun. Like airwalk used to be. The game wasn't fun when I could basically teleport around to destroy a player and defend my cities with a single stack for basically no cost. Good balance is what allows you to have multiple options and forces you to think. Games with bad balance are basically just a bunch of flashing lights that amuse people who like to role play.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 14, 2014 3:39:12 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting DsRaider,

The problem with magic in LH isn't that magic is balanced it is that the AI can't use half of it.

Magic has to be balanced to be fun. How does for instance making firebolt free and do infinite damage make the game more fun? Oh I know lets make enchanted hammers do nothing at all, that sounds fun. The seriously OP spells are what ruin fun. Like airwalk used to be. The game wasn't fun when I could basically teleport around to destroy a player and defend my cities with a single stack for basically no cost. Good balance is what allows you to have multiple options and forces you to think. Games with bad balance are basically just a bunch of flashing lights that amuse people who like to role play.

 

 

Two different points, really. To the first: you're correct. But then, the AI has problems with all sorts of things, and not just magic. It's simply got too many choices to make intelligent decisions. Which is why the ideal game for a computer is a few different pieces in a small playing field, like chess. The only real answer to keeping magic in a game and make the AI understand it is to beef up the AI as far as possible, get the player to agree to restrictions they set upon themselves, or find games that sharply reduce the number of spells, traits, movement options, weapons, etc.

 

To the second: I'd suggest that if someone wants to make magic very powerful in their game and choose to play the leading magic-using ruler, what's wrong with that? It's their game. Leave them the option. It wouldn't be your choice, and it wouldn't be mine, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the option to play a game balanced in their favor, in any respect. Or against them, as well. When you (or anybody) starts a statement with, "Good balance is what allows you to have..." What you really mean is "Good balance is what I believe allows me to have." We all have some variance in the ways that make a game fun us. All I'm suggesting is I wouldn't want to create a blueprint meant for me, that becomes a straitjacket for someone else. And vice versa.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 14, 2014 8:53:44 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

lol, dude not wanting to rant but the OP sounds like a butthurt child, the only "troll" i can see is you and your insulting comment about another game and their developers. grow up kid.

 

FE-LH is a well rounded civ-like fantasy game with rpg elements, AoW3 is NOT a civ-like game, you can't really compare those two titles directly. FE-LH has some more features than AoW3 which mainly comes from the fact that FE-LH is the third installment in a RECENT game series and legendary heroes being the first addon. AoW3 has just the main game atm without any addons and therefore its understandable that FE has more to it.

AoW3 strong points are their combat and everything around it, the graphics and the AI is pretty good. in comparison to FE:LH i have to say that i find the AI in AoW3 more potent, especially in the tactical combat. AoW3's tactical combat is a shining jewel and has far greater depth than that of FE:LH

 

...BUT...

 

FE:LH has more and diverse quests, a bigger focus on civ-like features like your towns and the expansion of your civilization. customization is also a huge selling point in FE:LH, a decent diplomacy system rounds the game up.

 

if someone asked me what they should buy (AoW3 or FE:LH) then i would say that:

- if you like civ5 and want a civ5-like game in the fantasy realm with RPG elements and a good amount of customization, then buy FE:LH

- if you want a combat- / war-oriented 4x game with an immense tactical depth, multiplayer truly diverse races / classes, multiplayer and awesome graphics then buy AoW3.

 

no need to bash one or the other game, both are great fantasy 4x games which focus on completely different features / game mechanics. after playing AoW3 for 2 weeks i went to play FE:LH for a week and went back to my moba of choice. now i crave again for a AoW3 round and will most assurely also come back to FE:LH. you see, both games have their merits.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 15, 2014 1:44:35 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Wizaerd,


Quoting geniusisme, reply 27
Ok, then why do i encounter games with fun balanced magic? And, suddenly, these games support multiplayer.

Such as...?

There is no need to go deep here - AoW. All of them.

And dominions. And HoMM series (ok, they are not fully 4X, but we don't really have much of these to make strong claims). 

 

Actually, does game need to be 4X to satisfy the claim that balanced magic is no fun? If it doesn't, than there is endless list of counterexamples.

 

DsRaider:

   Actually free(in mana) infinite damage fireball can be balanced. The question is how difficult and how fun it will be.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 15, 2014 2:42:45 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I find it a bit amusing that you consider magic to be balanced (or fun) in AoW3.  I don''t think there's anything in AoW3 that's even close to balanced (or fun).

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 16, 2014 8:31:23 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Glazunov1,
To the second: I'd suggest that if someone wants to make magic very powerful in their game and choose to play the leading magic-using ruler, what's wrong with that? It's their game. Leave them the option. It wouldn't be your choice, and it wouldn't be mine, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the option to play a game balanced in their favor, in any respect. Or against them, as well. When you (or anybody) starts a statement with, "Good balance is what allows you to have..." What you really mean is "Good balance is what I believe allows me to have." We all have some variance in the ways that make a game fun us. All I'm suggesting is I wouldn't want to create a blueprint meant for me, that becomes a straitjacket for someone else. And vice versa.

Except by definition if you make magic OP there are no other real choices. Being OP means it is the best option and no other option can compete. When Frogboy was talking about magic in his next game he used the term making magic unbalanced but what he actually described was changing the victory condition and games rules to allow powerful magic you could use without the AI having to counter or use it itself. The people in this thread are actually talking about real unbalanced mechanics as if it was a good thing. It's not and it never will be.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 17, 2014 2:41:50 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Wizaerd,

I find it a bit amusing that you consider magic to be balanced (or fun) in AoW3.  I don''t think there's anything in AoW3 that's even close to balanced (or fun).

From my point of view magic in AoW3 is at least as fun as in FE. And much more balanced. So if it is no close to fun and balance, then what a poor position in FE it has

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 18, 2014 2:00:02 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting DsRaider,


Quoting Glazunov1, reply 32To the second: I'd suggest that if someone wants to make magic very powerful in their game and choose to play the leading magic-using ruler, what's wrong with that? It's their game. Leave them the option. It wouldn't be your choice, and it wouldn't be mine, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the option to play a game balanced in their favor, in any respect. Or against them, as well. When you (or anybody) starts a statement with, "Good balance is what allows you to have..." What you really mean is "Good balance is what I believe allows me to have." We all have some variance in the ways that make a game fun us. All I'm suggesting is I wouldn't want to create a blueprint meant for me, that becomes a straitjacket for someone else. And vice versa.

Except by definition if you make magic OP there are no other real choices. Being OP means it is the best option and no other option can compete. When Frogboy was talking about magic in his next game he used the term making magic unbalanced but what he actually described was changing the victory condition and games rules to allow powerful magic you could use without the AI having to counter or use it itself. The people in this thread are actually talking about real unbalanced mechanics as if it was a good thing. It's not and it never will be.

 

But is OP the "best option?" Not by your definition, and not by mine. Real unbalanced mechanics (if I follow you) is about having the option to select to play against overwhelming odds, or as an munchkin in which you easily trounce everybody. What's wrong with having that as an option? As long as the options exist that permit a reasonable challenge for the likes of you, and me. Options, from my perspective, are always good, because if they permit imbalance, they are more inclusive of those who wish to play that way--without in any way impeding your enjoyment, or mine.

 

And yes, it *is* a good thing. Because as a subjective valuation, that is different for many players. No reason for any of us to overrule the rest, not when the game can make allowance for all flavors.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
June 7, 2014 12:04:34 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Xerberus86,

lol, dude not wanting to rant but the OP sounds like a butthurt child, the only "troll" i can see is you and your insulting comment about another game and their developers. grow up kid.

...BUT...

 

FE:LH has more and diverse quests, a bigger focus on civ-like features like your towns and the expansion of your civilization. customization is also a huge selling point in FE:LH, a decent diplomacy system rounds the game up.

 

if someone asked me what they should buy (AoW3 or FE:LH) then i would say that:

- if you like civ5 and want a civ5-like game in the fantasy realm with RPG elements and a good amount of customization, then buy FE:LH

- if you want a combat- / war-oriented 4x game with an immense tactical depth, multiplayer truly diverse races / classes, multiplayer and awesome graphics then buy AoW3.


 

no need to bash one or the other game, both are great fantasy 4x games which focus on completely different features / game mechanics. after playing AoW3 for 2 weeks i went to play FE:LH for a week and went back to my moba of choice. now i crave again for a AoW3 round and will most assurely also come back to FE:LH. you see, both games have their merits.

 

I'd have to agree with this assessment.

 

They are not the same game. For AOW3, I would want to add:

 

- More unit diversity

- Better quests

- Making cities matter more

- Perhaps some changes to the tech tree

 

For FE: LH:

 

- An AI that can use magic competently and respond to it

- Better tactical combat

- More interesting unit design

- Racial variety could be increased considerably

 

And yes, the OP is immature. There's no need to "bash" another developer's game.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
June 14, 2014 7:17:16 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting geniusisme,

Ok, then why do i encounter games with fun balanced magic? And, suddenly, these games support multiplayer.

 

Because "muliplayer" type players would say that because they want everything frickin balanced. You encounter it because most games since MOM have been balanced for multiplayer. Thus, you got what you wanted but sadly only about 2% of players really play multiplayer so it's important NOT to have multiplayer balancing in a few games, like this one. Hopefully Brad will see the light and not try to put multiplayer in Galactic Civ III as I know what it will do to the game and thus will not buy into it or any of my gaming buddies who I play tabletop with. There's a place for multiplayer but it is not here. It's time to stop ruining games because a handful of people cry for a new multiplayer game when they already have so many they can play.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
June 14, 2014 7:28:14 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting DsRaider,

Quoting Glazunov1, reply 32To the second: I'd suggest that if someone wants to make magic very powerful in their game and choose to play the leading magic-using ruler, what's wrong with that? It's their game. Leave them the option. It wouldn't be your choice, and it wouldn't be mine, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the option to play a game balanced in their favor, in any respect. Or against them, as well. When you (or anybody) starts a statement with, "Good balance is what allows you to have..." What you really mean is "Good balance is what I believe allows me to have." We all have some variance in the ways that make a game fun us. All I'm suggesting is I wouldn't want to create a blueprint meant for me, that becomes a straitjacket for someone else. And vice versa.

Except by definition if you make magic OP there are no other real choices. Being OP means it is the best option and no other option can compete. When Frogboy was talking about magic in his next game he used the term making magic unbalanced but what he actually described was changing the victory condition and games rules to allow powerful magic you could use without the AI having to counter or use it itself. The people in this thread are actually talking about real unbalanced mechanics as if it was a good thing. It's not and it never will be.

 

Sorry, but you're wrong and it certainly was in Master of Magic. There's nothing more fun than overcoming the odds against one. That is what Master of Magic brought. The ai in FE and AOWIII are really so simple it's not even fun playing them both really. One is just wasting their time getting to an enevitable end of "always win" just like toddlers that "always get a trophy" win or lose. lol Master of Magic was so unbalanced one had a tough time winning on many occassions/battles with the right map setup and not trying to exploit it as most of you do. 

So, you can try to say that unbalanced is a bad thing and that it will never be a good thing but of course you are wrong and do not see the greater picture as I have since 1982 in computer gaming, play an (unbalanced play). Only a multiplayer would really want balance and that is what we are glad is not in FE/LH. And even Civ II. There might be multiplayer in Civ III but Brad has changed his mind before about multiplayer I'm happy to say.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
June 15, 2014 5:33:28 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting rossanderson48,
Hopefully Brad will see the light and not try to put multiplayer in Galactic Civ III as I know what it will do to the game and thus will not buy into it or any of my gaming buddies who I play tabletop with.

Sorry to say, but GalCiv 3 does have multiplayer. It's one of the big features (and had been announced the same day as the game). Personally, I couldn't care less about mp, but the devs and a big part of the community seem quite happy about it.

Anyhow, in an interview, Frogboy had this to say about mp and balancing:

I mean it’s a single-player game first. We’re not making any promises to have some kind of multiplayer balance or anything like that. If one race is better than the other in multiplayer, well, that’s too bad! We’re not going to sacrifice the single-player. On the other hand I think that being able to get together with some friends, and play co-operatively against an AI player or just have a duel with a couple of friends is still pretty fun…

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
June 16, 2014 1:47:15 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting rossanderson48,


Thus, you got what you wanted but sadly only about 2% of players really play multiplayer so it's important NOT to have multiplayer balancing in a few games, like this one.

Again, multiplayer balancing makes overall experience better.

 

Quoting rossanderson48,

 Hopefully Brad will see the light and...

Oh, this kind of wording makes you sooo right,  enlightened one. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
June 17, 2014 10:20:46 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting rossanderson48,

So, you can try to say that unbalanced is a bad thing and that it will never be a good thing but of course you are wrong and do not see the greater picture as I have since 1982 in computer gaming, play an (unbalanced play). Only a multiplayer would really want balance and that is what we are glad is not in FE/LH. And even Civ II. There might be multiplayer in Civ III but Brad has changed his mind before about multiplayer I'm happy to say.

 

Exactly so. Singleplayer strategy sandbox games are all the better for having as many options (within reason) as possible that allow players to stack the odds anyway they want. That's in fact one of the strengths of strategy sandboxes: you can make them short or long, for casual play or really in-depth, hard to win. You don't have to keep to a prescribed, mythical balance that everybody must follow, or they won't have the same fun that somebody else feels they do. Each of us can play our way and change it, from game to game.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 1, 2014 4:48:26 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

On the topic of AoW vs FE:LH.

Now, I haven't played MoM more than two hours, and that was just a year or two ago, so I can't really bring that into the comparison, but I've seen people both here and on the AoW forums claim respective game is more "true to the roots"... Why that should ever be a goal in and of itself is beyond my comprehension though - I'd much rather prefer games evolve in their own direction.


Which both FE and AoW has done. They're very different games in gameplay to me. For me, fallen enchantress feels a fair bit 4x and a fair bit roguelike, and when playing FE flavor is important to me - I want to play a certain concept or theme or even character, not just "play the mechanics". It also somewhat fills the same kind of spot as Hinterlands for me - I tend to go with quite easy opponent teams (medium or challenging) and ramp up the difficulty of the monsters, because to me, FE is as much about conquering the wilds as it is about conquering your opponents.

It's a game with lots of story, and flavor. But it also feels quite clunky. It feels a bit "amateurish" - not as in bad, but as in a hobby project. There's quite a lot of bugs, it's quite unbalanced and a lot of things could be a lot less complex without losing depth. It's not as sleek and slender as we've come to appreciate modern games from big developers, and that I think unfortunately puts many people off from investing their time in giving it a chance, which as everyone here knows, it really deserves.

AoW on the other hand is very smooth and sleek, but it feels like a pure strategy title. I don't play a character or even a nation concept, I play the mechanics. Granted, I _like_ the mechanics (mostly), and I really like the tactical combat, but still, it's a very different feel. I can't say "oh, I want to play a nation based on ancient rome!" and design something. It's also much less likely to get good mods, as the system is much more closed; it's too early to definately tell, but FE's modfriendliness means that several of the kinks in the system that I don't like have been solved by me downloading mods and changing a few things myself.

AoW of course also has multiplayer, and that's a space where FE simply can't compete at all.

On the topic of "balance"

I kinda agree with both sides here. I do think that the type balance in AoW is to the detriment of the game - it's basically the same thing Dungeons & Dragons 4th did, balance via removing 99% of the differences and making everything just a different name and skin of the same ability. It's an easy, cheap way of enforcing balance, but it also makes the game feel bland and boring, and it also means that whatever unbalances remain from that last percentage will be much more noticable, because rather than one team being X and the other being Y, the other team is being X+1.

On the other hand, I think that FE is unbalanced enough for that to be a detriment to the game, because some options are just so much better than others it's really hard to motivate oneself to pick them for flavor reasons. Some options are just strictly better than others in nearly every imaginable circumstance, and that's bad balancing. Having something that's usually a bit better isn't a big deal, especially not in a single player game, but having things that are just better is again, the issue of X+1.

The best kind of balance is balance through diversity and counters rather than through sameness. And when it comes to that, I think the 4x genre (because as I see it this is kind of a recurring issue in the genre) has a lot to learn from the RTS genre - and a good tutor would probably be Warcraft 3. That was a game that both had varying, unique and flavorful teams and also maintained a basic level of balance. Granted, such a balance require a lot of work.

 

EDIT: I realized one thing more that makes a big difference, and that is that AoW actively works to give the same play experience every time - enemies should have nicely and gradually increasing difficulty so you can always beat them, resources should be evenly distributed so you don't ever lack access to what you want, etc. I find that AoW caters a lot to players, and though the game can be difficult, it's set up to always make you feel like your chance was as fair as everyone else's. Removing the undead dragons are part of that. I honestly don't like that at all. Compare to FE where you can start out really badly, and have a bone ogre kill of your team quite easily etc. I guess that's part of why FE feels a bit like a roguelike to me - the RNG is harsh, and I like that.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 1, 2014 5:37:38 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Like my other guru sings: 'You took the words right out of my mouth'!

Excellent write-up, KamratMjau, and I could not agree more.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 1, 2014 6:10:55 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Oh, and I would like to add one more example of a game doing "balance through diversity" right, and that is more of a 4x game: Dominions. Granted, it's not perfectly balanced, but for over half the nations they're close enough that when a game starts you have no idea who's going to win, even with similar skill levels of the players. The nations and playstyles are vastly different, from aboleths conquering the seas and remotely hunting the minds of enemy champions through their mind control astral magic, to the stealthy shield maidens of Ulm, to the blood-sacrificing, demon summoning Mictlan, there is great variance in the nations, and they are "balanced enough".

Granted, it has very _different_ strategy playing field from about every other 4x I've ever played (which, granted, is far from all) in that rather than trying to make things "not too powerful" they instead give loads of counters to stuff that is "too powerful"; the equivalen of "stacks of doom", supercombatants, can be countered through having cheap casters that give permanent afflictions that basically cannot be removed at all, so if you rely on just a single unit to carry you through you'll see the opponent meeting you with 20 dirt cheap casters throwing death curses, blindness and paralysis at you.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
July 1, 2014 6:47:30 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Great post and video KamratMjau.  TY

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
August 12, 2014 12:45:26 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums


FE/LH has more of a feeling of an RPG strategy game to me whereas AOWIII and really all the rest in its series feels like I am playing a chessmatch with fantasy figures. For me when I play a fantasy game I want to feel like I'm roleplaying as well. I like adventure in a fantasy game not a checkers or chess match. Besides if I was going to play a chessmatch fantasy game I'd play HOMM II or III or V or VI. I enjoy that much better than AOW series.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108432  walnut2   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000313   Page Render Time: