[Concept Needing Documenting in 1.01] Champion and Troop XP Splitting and effects of +XP%.

Agreed. 

Arrh steven atleast please put something in your topics with the long unreadable names >_<...

I do agree though, I would also wish the XP dividing would show up on the results screen after beating some monsters or enemies and being granted experience, it should show some red pointers or red lines to suggest to the player that something is different in the XP, and have a tooltip that states xp is reduced with several heroes in the army.

This is one of my grievances in the game, important key-rules around experience gain is terribly vaguely hidden from the player, and the UI does little to reflect a loss of XP gain.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Okay, I'll fix it up for this one and the future.

Not the documentation of this issue to the player si the problem.

There shouldn't be a division at all, rather reduce the amount of heroes (please see my proposals in my own threate "insane difficulty = a blablabla?".

There are several game concepts that have this problem.  Another is the level up traits of heroes and how certain traits act as gateways to other traits.  

It's almost as if SD assumes that all FE players will end up members of the forum community and will get the nitty gritty details that way.  Regardless, it's bad for those mechanics to be hidden and vague.  

There used to be no division.  It was one of the driving factors that lead to heroes being absolutely godlike.  Hell, not godlike.  They were gods.  Stack up a few heroes and go to town.  Nothing stood in your way.  

The division of XP is a nice mechanic to spur player thought about party composition.  The problem, as StevenAus pointed out is that the mechanic is largely hidden and therefore never enters most players' minds.

The problem is that I have 40+ heroes now and they alle at up my xp .

But ir get you point, god-like heroes shouldnt come as a package of 5+. 1 or 2 is enough.

A: Get rid of xp divison + reduce the amount of heroes!

B: Keep the division + reduce the amount of heroes!

Maybe indeed B is the better option. In any case we need fewer heroes.

XP division is standard RPG fair. I don't agree with reducing the amount of heroes, there is no need. (Yes I've seen your other thread). I agree about the better documentation on how the XP is divided, because that is not standard in most other RPG's.

I still fail to see why we need to have fewer heroes?

You can already adjust the amount of champions in the game by setting them on sparse, default or dense on world creation. Even if you set them on dense, it isn't guaranteed, that you are able to get many of them. In my last game, I had champions on dense, but were able to recruit only two. By the time I found more, my starting champions were already way better than anyone I could recruit.

Agreed, there is no need for fewer heroes, players can make their own decisions regarding how many heroes they want, there are already built in bonuses and penalties for each route. If you get too few heroes you may slow your early game expansion/exploration, be unable to defend your borders early on, or risk a war declaration because you look weak to the AI, but you will have more powerful heroes later on, and you will get access to the more powerful traits and spells much faster. If you get too many heroes then you may be splitting your exp too much and end up weak mid/late game, plus you have to keep paying for their maintenance costs, but you can explore the map much faster with more heroes, find all of the good settlement places faster, and its a good deterrent of early AI agressiveness. This shouldn't be the developers decision, each path has different strategies associated with it and more options is always a good thing - stop trying to change the game mechanics across the board because you found one very specific way in which to abuse them.

DeadlyJulia, just because you got 40 heroes by abusing a very specific set of faction/sov traits does NOT mean that we need developer intervention that affects all builds and all play styles. Sure, some people may end up learning the hard way that too many heroes has its own set of challenges to deal with, but thats part of the game. I really wish you would play a few more games before you start making balance suggestions. The average player never gets anywhere near that many heroes, many people probably have never had more than 10, and without either Adventurer or Betrayer traits I'd say you aren't likely to get more than 5-6 heroes until fairly late in the game. Beelining for the 'recruit level 5/7/9 heroes' technologies is a poor strategy if you don't have either of those traits, there just aren't enough heroes available to recruit to make it worth it, and level 7 heroes cost several hundred gold to recruit, while level 9 heroes cost 1000+ gold to recruit - nobody has that kind of money to throw around early in the game. The game has already done a pretty good job of balancing the reward/penalty aspects of obtaining and maintaining heroes, you just don't know it because you have only played one game and you did it with a set of traits that made you completely blind to all of these aspects.

Thanks, sorry for nitpicking >_<

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

I think it is better to have shorter titles, it's just that somewhere about I thought maybe people wouldn't read it if it wasn't in the title.  I guess that is an unfounded fear LOL.

No.

The henchmen tool tip hints at the underlying mechanic but that's it.  I could see new players having a lot of problems if they go with the normal "killer stack" philosophy.

@Syiss:

Sorry to have invaded your comfort zone. I already sense i am not very welcome here, for groundbreaking changes are often feared in closed communities. I understand.

If you think there si nothing wrong with the current system, so bei it.

A level 9 hero costs 1000+ gold? No need to remove the adventurer trait then? You can't be serious.

But okay, my motivation to think more about the game starts to dwindle, for it seems no changes are planned anyway.

I made my suggestions and depicted many flaws and imbalanced stuff there is atm. Up to the devs/you guys to do somethign against it.

Just one last comment before i disappear back into the vast scope of the internet:

You really think my settings are so absuing/extraordinary?

I would bet my pretty head that 80% of the players will pick at least one of the traits i mentioned.

Why? Because they are not totally stupid. And because a lot of the traits offered atm are crap, compared to the useful ones.

Either you change incentives, or players will choose what the game offers them.

That you call that "abuse" makes me really, really sad.

But it shows how you reflect on stuff that doesn't fit your experience.

Ade!

I can almost testify to this

Don't feel bad because someone talks trash, but I will suggest trying to learn to mod, or see if some modder have the same ideas as you have.

I have said for some time on this forum that the current balance in sovereign and faction creation is whack, there are some traits you will never ever touch if you have any sense to what you are doing, and some traits that I don't touch because I can see they are way better than the others.

Call it what you want, you can't ask the game to be balanced on every setting, ofcourse heroes will seem plentyfull if you put the heroes setting on "Plenty".. (I hope so anyways, thats kind of the point).

I hope they don't change the rate of which heroes are spawned upon the map, but start out cleaning out the tons of bugs still present in the game and patch up the UI.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

@Kongdej

Always a clear, helpful post. You are right!

Maybe i should just check on the game again in a few month..it was just too much fun, maybe its good not to dive to deep into the mechanical aspects of the game before we discover more that we don't like .

Have a nice day..