Way too easy

Hi,

Full disclaimer: I want to love this game. I loved MoM, and have loved all of this games cultural influences, like HoMM (played them all, including the 1st King's Bounty), The Civ series (including the Fall from Heavan mod for Civ 4), most other Stardock games (MOO series, Sins, GC series etc). This is EXACTLY the kind of game I love.

I know this is beta, so I would like to share what I think makes this game somewhat unenjoyable at the moment.

It is WAY too easy. I have beaten it 4 times on the hardesst difficulty with unfun ease. I collect 4 heros in a pack, level them up on creeps that give way too much experience (and it seems they give more experience the more people you have in your party, which makes no sense to me), and just take city after city. The fireball spell pretty much wipes out any non-champion units on the map, and AI champions are so busy moving uselessly, or casting useless spells (like obscuring fog for 15 combat rounds in a row - never seen a fireball cast at me), to ever win the fight. Heroes need some serious balancing, in terms of the experience they gain from fighting monsters, the rate at which they level (should be way more exponential), and the skills they are allowed to accumulate.

City building is tedious and irritating. It adds nothing to the game except graphics you can't eve see unless you zoom right in. Why does nothing cost anything? I get that production determines how many turns it takes to build things (aka Civ), but should they not cost resources as well, or at least maintenance? That would make building things a meaningful excersise, instead of just spamming every building in every city because why not. Cities should be 1 tile, maybe increasing in size as they increase in level, and buildings should be much more expensive, forcing specialization.

What the hell is with caravans? In one game, I had 18 cities. This becomes a spreadsheet problem in large empires. Probably the least fun thing currently in the game.

The UI needs some adjustments. The trade/equipment screens should be merged. There should be some indication of the route units will take to their destinations (ie HoMM series), and units should have movement points clearly visible so you know who you still need to move. There should also be an automove funtion for all units with preselected paths. If a unit can reach an enemy in combat, it should be able to use abilities with a range of one, instead of having to move next to it first. I will add more here as I remember them.

The tech tree is rediculous. I have never come close to researching the whole thing. I have never even needed military techs, as my champions are all the firepower I need. However, if I DID need actual units, it takes several hundred turns to get even semi-decent troups - especially considering I would have avoided civic techs which speed up research in favour of military ones.

Heroes should die like in HoMM, with an option to flee or surrender.

Resouces don't really seem to matter. In Civ, controlling a strategic resource like copper or iron would completely alter the way you played. It forced strategic placement of cities, tech choices, and added a layer of strategy and competition that you could not plan for before the game began. This is needed to make the whole concept of map based resources fun. Resources in FE are much less dramatic, and often unnecessary. Outposts are also bland, and should (1) cost upkeep so I dont cover the map with them and (2) have upgrade paths for deeper strategic immersion.

This is a great start, but lots needs to be done to make this game great.

12,774 views 18 replies
Reply #1 Top

Some valid points here, but difficulty is also largely impacted by the AI. Right now it doesn't seem all that aggressive. Brad will be working on that, and it is his main priority so it will get lots of attention. Facing a stronger, more agressive AI will force the player to make harder choices.

Reply #2 Top

This is an early beta, the AI will improve, and much of the problem is due to balance issues.

 

This is why betas exist, so these problems can be fixed.

Reply #3 Top

Like 2 years ago! "This is a beta", "Will improve", "Balance", "Brad will be working". 

The AI is esential for Elemental, but i do not see any significant changes in FE :(

Maby Stardock must use more than 1/3 programmer on AI?

 

Reply #4 Top

I agree with the easy experience issue, furthermore when the game counts individually the damage. I guess it wouldn´t be difficult to fix this.

Reply #5 Top

Hmm... Might just be me, but once your units start rolling out in metal armor things change. Assuming the AI will use the same metal men against me as I do now against him your heroes might not find stuff easy to walk over anymore.

 

I am talking about a stack of level 8-9 units, all dressed up in metal with pointy weapons and bows, with 200+ HP per unit. That's what I am tossing at my enemy, backed up with a single champion. Stuff dies. Easily. One of these days the AI will hopefully do the same to me. At that point, he who controls the Iron Mines wins.

Reply #6 Top

Quoting Takeitsy, reply 4
I agree with the easy experience issue, furthermore when the game counts individually the damage. I guess it wouldn´t be difficult to fix this.
End of Takeitsy's quote

 

The heroes you use in a battle should share the amount of experience the battle gives, the experience points should also be determined by the strength of the combined enemy army. So, if the wolf pack gives lets say 6 experience points to defeat, using one hero means he get all the 6 points. Using three heroes means they only get 2 each. That way you'd balance the use of too many heroes. A single hero with alot of soldiers helping him could level up faster then 8 heroes in an army for themselves.

Reply #7 Top

These are exactly the things a beta is supposed to iron out. Champions get treatment aleady in the upcoming patch. See 0.76 update thread.

Reply #8 Top

I agree with Topic Starter!

 

A main focus on developing Civ/MoM like games should be around the Mid/Lategame and sadly in most cases only early game is somehow thrilling. With every following turn the weakness of the AI becomes more vissible. Especially in WoM and FE. 

 

Its nice to have all the RPG features, yes sure its fun to develope cities and heroes but if later game is just all about running with indistructable stacks from one city to the next and build always mostly the same stuff its boring.

 

I don't get the points why game developers NEVER EVER improve this in a good way. It was a problem in MoO1/2, in Civ., Mods like FFH, GalCiv, etc. Lategame (and often Midgame aswell) works often like "bring it to an end" (boring).

And I don't talk about the time when you are the biggest nation. No, it start far earlier when you've the "indestructable" stacks  which the AI can't handle!

I would wish developers make us a thrilling mid/endgame because thats the reason we would replay games again and again and not just the early game and either end it at a (far too early) point where the AI can't handle you anymore or play it to the end in a boring way.

Reply #9 Top

The problem with this is boring endgames are kinda endemic to the genre, due to the slippery slope nature of the genre.

 

If you do something about it, you often get blasted for clumsy "comeback mechanics".  It's really a difficult design problem and a no-win situation.

 

 

Reply #10 Top

double post

 

 

Reply #11 Top

Sure this (the possible comeback mechanic) is one part but the other part is a far more problematic one: The "engame" comes way to early!

 

You can be the smallest nation but its the point the AI is no longer able to handle you and you can start to overrun everything not  because you have the better enconomy, no it can far worse but you can do things the AI can't manage. And I don't talk about tactics, It often just enough to make 1 stack with the best units and thats it, so simple. 

 

Reply #12 Top

Quoting LordTheRon, reply 7
These are exactly the things a beta is supposed to iron out. Champions get treatment aleady in the upcoming patch. See 0.76 update thread.
End of LordTheRon's quote

 

Well, increasing experience needed is OK, but the most important thing they should do is splitting experience between the surviving heroes in the battle. I see alot of people are suggiesting it, so hopefully they implement it. Guess it's a glip in the first place, and not an intended mechanic as it works now.

Reply #13 Top

Quoting Alstein, reply 2
This is an early beta, the AI will improve, and much of the problem is due to balance issues.

 

This is why betas exist, so these problems can be fixed.
End of Alstein's quote

 

 

This is not a "early beta".  I am not trying to be mean in any way but the entire Elemental release is the beta for FE.  A lot of the stuff that is cropping up should of been nailed down over the last one and a half years since elemental was released.  The only reason I have held on to elemental is because of galactic civ and how much it change from expansion to expansion.

Reply #14 Top

Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 12

Quoting LordTheRon, reply 7These are exactly the things a beta is supposed to iron out. Champions get treatment aleady in the upcoming patch. See 0.76 update thread.

 

Well, increasing experience needed is OK, but the most important thing they should do is splitting experience between the surviving heroes in the battle. I see alot of people are suggiesting it, so hopefully they implement it. Guess it's a glip in the first place, and not an intended mechanic as it works now.
End of NorsemanViking's quote

 

+1, splitting up xp is a very necessary change.

I think the game has a lot of character compared, to E:WoM, it's actually quite fun to goof around in the game, at least for a while.

Sadly, whenever I start to think about the costs of stuff in FE I get to the conclusion that there has been very little thought put into how to price things in the game. The valuation in FE seems a bit random, and in some cases, where it's easy to spot the "pricing" model, it is clearly broken (eg. the hero leveling model, at present).

An example: Why does a bear cub give an instant ticket to level 2? I need to kill about 6 Darkling Warriors or 15 Rock Spiderlings to get the same amount of xp. The risk/reward/opportunity cost model is off. The case in point is of course easy to fix, but i'm stating it as an example of a general problem.

Another example: Why would I ever build an standard pioneer unit? For the same cost I can design a pioneer with one more move, or for less than double the cost, I can design a pioneer with 5 move and a bigger scouting range (imo the latter is by far the superior unit).

In general, adding perks increases the real value of a unit exponentially, but the unit construction model in FE has a linear pricing model. If memory serves SMAC had a nice non-linear pricing model, when designing units. A similar model should be implemented in FE. Thinking about it, I would actually prefer not being able to design my own units rather than having a game with a broken price model. 

Reply #15 Top

Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 12

Quoting LordTheRon, reply 7These are exactly the things a beta is supposed to iron out. Champions get treatment aleady in the upcoming patch. See 0.76 update thread.

 

Well, increasing experience needed is OK, but the most important thing they should do is splitting experience between the surviving heroes in the battle. I see alot of people are suggiesting it, so hopefully they implement it. Guess it's a glip in the first place, and not an intended mechanic as it works now.
End of NorsemanViking's quote

 

I agree to that, splitting XP is common sense for every RPG or group based game, so should really be added. Just saying to the OP that this is only the first beta and already in the very first update a step has been taken to tune champions. I'm very sure they'll get more treatment along the way, surely hoping splitting XP over the group will be part of it!

Reply #16 Top

City building is tedious and irritating. It adds nothing to the game except graphics you can't eve see unless you zoom right in. Why does nothing cost anything? I get that production determines how many turns it takes to build things (aka Civ), but should they not cost resources as well, or at least maintenance? That would make building things a meaningful excersise, instead of just spamming every building in every city because why not. Cities should be 1 tile, maybe increasing in size as they increase in level, and buildings should be much more expensive, forcing specialization.
End of quote

Not that I disagree ith you completely, but "materials" have been abstracted into production, which I think has been a good thing.  There are still several other resources--gold, metal, horses, wargs, diplomatic capital, crystals, and mana--but with a couple of exceptions I don't know which of those would make sense to spend on a building.  Also, most buildings do have a maintenance cost.  It's not terribly difficult to make a city self-sufficient and give it all of the available buildings at the same time, which I understand is the problem you're really getting at.

As far as the city builder itself goes, I have gotten so used to deliberately making weirdly-shaped cities so I can "capture" resources within the city walls that I'd kind of assumed that was the objective.  If it is not then I would think that an abstraction like a city that automatically grows as it levels up would be desirable.

Reply #17 Top
Quoting NiknudStunod, reply 13

This is not a "early beta".  I am not trying to be mean in any way but the entire Elemental release is the beta for FE.  A lot of the stuff that is cropping up should of been nailed down over the last one and a half years since elemental was released.  The only reason I have held on to elemental is because of galactic civ and how much it change from expansion to expansion.

End of NiknudStunod's quote

This is my fear as well. A lot of the feedback listed on the FE Beta forums have persisted since Elemental. It *seems* as though Stardock doesn't have the desire/ability to make this game what it should be. I genuinely hope I will be proven wrong, and as others have said this is just a beta and there will be changes to the final product. I also don't want to come across as too cynical; as someone who played Elemental at launch, FE is immeasurably better already.

 

The problem with this is boring endgames are kinda endemic to the genre, due to the slippery slope nature of the genre.

 

If you do something about it, you often get blasted for clumsy "comeback mechanics".  It's really a difficult design problem and a no-win situation.

End of quote

 

I agree that in 4x games vs an AI opponent, there comes a time when you have the tedious job of 'mopping up', but in FE this point seems to happen almost at turn 1. There is no point where the AI offers me any challenge whatsoever. 

 

Sadly, whenever I start to think about the costs of stuff in FE I get to the conclusion that there has been very little thought put into how to price things in the game. The valuation in FE seems a bit random, and in some cases, where it's easy to spot the "pricing" model, it is clearly broken (eg. the hero leveling model, at present).

An example: Why does a bear cub give an instant ticket to level 2? I need to kill about 6 Darkling Warriors or 15 Rock Spiderlings to get the same amount of xp. The risk/reward/opportunity cost model is off. The case in point is of course easy to fix, but i'm stating it as an example of a general problem.

End of quote

 

Yup. Even worse, how come when I kill an army of 50 spearmen and 3 champions, I get 170 exp, but when I kill 1 forest drake, I get 350 exp?! The ironic thing is that with quick and fireball, I can 1 shot the huge AI army, so this relationship is accidentally pretty accurate. Monsters in general, regardless of difficulty, give WAY too much experience. 

 

Not that I disagree ith you completely, but "materials" have been abstracted into production, which I think has been a good thing.  There are still several other resources--gold, metal, horses, wargs, diplomatic capital, crystals, and mana--but with a couple of exceptions I don't know which of those would make sense to spend on a building.  Also, most buildings do have a maintenance cost.  It's not terribly difficult to make a city self-sufficient and give it all of the available buildings at the same time, which I understand is the problem you're really getting at.

As far as the city builder itself goes, I have gotten so used to deliberately making weirdly-shaped cities so I can "capture" resources within the city walls that I'd kind of assumed that was the objective.  If it is not then I would think that an abstraction like a city that automatically grows as it levels up would be desirable.

End of quote

I don't think resource capture was the design goal behind the current city building mechanics. I think it was a misguided way of 'personalizing' your cities to make up for the lack of building differentiation.

I get that 'materials' equal 'hammers' in a Civ comparison. My problem with the current city paradigm is how bland it is. In Civ, city placement on the higher difficulties (immoral and up) was one of the MOST strategically meaningful decisions you made. I would spend several minutes deciding where to put my first city, based on my desired strategy (cottage economy, production, GP, etc), and other factors like hills for defendability, rivers for their health benefits, forrests for chopping etc. Other cities were just as crucial; maintenance mechanics made spamming impossible, so you had to make very cerebral strategy decisions as to where they would be placed (resource capture, deny AI, future potential etc). 

In FE, most land is unsuitable for city placement, so already most of the choice is gone. You basically just settle any land the game will let you settle, as long as its 7 squares away from another settlement. There is no strategy in this process really. Resources don't matter nearly as much, especially in the early/mid game. There is no maintenance to dissuade you from city spamming. There is no unhappiness/health to keep growth in check until appropriate civics/techs/resources are acquired. After my 2nd game, I completely stopped caring about my cities, and that made me really sad. I used to love seeing my cities on the top 5 list in Civ. 

Further, there is no incentive to specialize your cities as there is in Civ. Specialization makes you invest time and thought into their micromanagement, which makes each city you build 'special', as well as providing the player with another level of meaningful strategic decisions. 'Most' buildings do NOT have a maintenance cost, and the way materials/gilder/grain is handled, it makes no sense to specialize your cities for any particular function anyways. I thought with Derek Paxton in charge of design, the mechanics of a 'deep' 4X strategy game would get some love. So far, FE is fairly shallow. Civ5 was a complete disaster for some similar reasons (resources didn't matter, silly expansion mechanics [ie global happiness], tech tree pacing was way off etc etc etc)

 

Reply #18 Top

Quoting bentheman939, reply 17

I don't think resource capture was the design goal behind the current city building mechanics. I think it was a misguided way of 'personalizing' your cities to make up for the lack of building differentiation.
 
End of bentheman939's quote

It was also Frogboy's (iirc) conviction that not having to leave the main screen for city management would make it more fun. Going to a city management screen would just take you out of the game, just like long tactical battles would. So you should be able to build on the map, and see everything you need to see on the main screen, because that is faster and thus more fun. Didn't really work out that way. There is a city details screen anyway (not that you really need it, not much interesting going on), and you still leave the main screen for research, diplomacy, unit design, hieragamon...

It's just one of those things carried over from WoM that really should have been scrapped or completely reworked, but sadly wasn't...