|
| Thread: New idea: Captives. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
posted October 31, 2001 04:38 PM |
|
|
New idea: Captives.
You've just defeated another hero. Your prisons are full, or you don't want the enemy to attack your main city. If you leave the Hero behind the enemy will come to fetch him as soon as you're out of the area and you don't want to commit a big army to guard the body. What to do?
Take the Hero Captive!!!
This means you tie the hero up and then place the hero across a spare mount.... And off the hero goes with your main army... What safer place is there to ensure that the enemy can't resucue the Hero!
There are several good ideas with this approach...
-The defeated Hero doesn't have to automagically transport to a town with a Prison. Instead you have to take the hero there yourself, as you should.
-Since Captives are associated with Heroes (at least if the Hireling idea below is used), it would not be possible to take someone captive if there's not a Hero in your victorious army. Depending on your perspective, this may or may not be desirable.
-You can properly guard enemy heroes without having to tie down a lot of troops defending your towns.
-The enemy gets a chance to retake the hero very quickly (before you've reached a town with a prison the Captive will be retaken if you defet the army that has the Hero captive).
-In the case that you've killed a Scout and the main army is 2 squares away. It may be possible to do a barter the next turn when you're attacked. The captured Hero in exchange for safe passage.
-Exchange of Captives could be possible. (And perhaps there could also be a feature for exchange of Prisoners.)
And this could be developed further... Should there be a chance for the Captive to escape, and what happens then?
This ties in nicely with several other ideas.
Warrants/Rewards: You need to take the Hero to the place where the Warrant/Reward was issued or a certain adventure location. This could mean to the nearest Thief Guild / Den of Thieves (if a player has issued the warrant), or to the Royal Castle (if the King has issued a Warrant because you've destroyed Universities, Libraries or other important structures.) In these case, you will hand over the Captive when you arrive at the correct place.
Hirelings: Ok, the Prisoner is not a Hireling but it would probably take up one of the slots for Hirelings if that is implemented. (Hirelings are "characters" who are attached to the Hero in one way or another. My initial idea was that you could Hire them in Towns, although the Hireling idea can be expanded to include captives.)
Strangers: Sometimes a reward would be connected to a Stranger rather than a Hero. In that case you need to take the Stranger captive. Since Strangers (at least in some sense) are customized heroes this would work Ok.
Prisons: This has been detailed above already.
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
posted October 31, 2001 04:50 PM |
|
|
|
Hmm....I think that would defeat the whole purpose of prisons. Nobody would waste the resources to build them, they'd just take all enemy heroes captive. And it's supposed to be a pain to guard your prisoners, that's what balances it out.
|
|
UnkaHaakon
Responsible
Famous Hero
happily tilting at windmills
|
posted October 31, 2001 05:11 PM |
|
|
Let's open up a whole new can of worms here...
This may be slightly off this topic, but ...
Djive's post got me thinking about prisons in H4. And this in turn raised a some questions in my poor old head:
1. Can your prison hold more than one captured hero?
2. Do you have to physically transport the captured hero back to a town, or does he/she/it get transported automatically to the prison of your choice?
3. If you have to transport the unconscious form of your enemy back to one of your prisons, does it use up a slot in your army? (For that matter, does dragging one of your own fallen heroes back to be revived use up a slot in your army?)
4. If prisons can hold more than one captured enemy hero, what happens if you have one each of, say, Red and Blue's heroes in your prison, and Red takes the town. We've been told heroes stay loyal to you once hired, so would Red inherit the headache of caring for the Blue prisoner? Or is this an exception to the 'loyal heroes' rule? And what if Green takes the town first? Does this mean Green inherits an inhabited prison?
5. Finally, if prisons can only hold one captive hero, what happens if you defeat an enemy hero that you'd rather have your opponent really have to work to get back, but you have no available prison space? Can you take one of your prisoners out and 'tombstone' them to make room for your new 'guest'?
____________
Some people say the glass is half full..Some people say it's half empty... I say "What're you asking me to drink?"
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted October 31, 2001 07:21 PM |
|
|
Okay, here's what I believe.
1. Perhaps, but I believe it will be restricted at no more than 2-3. Perhaps you have to upgrde it to hold more.
2. I hope so. That's the logical and more realsitic approach. However, what I believe they have planned is automagically transporting the hero. 
3. No, I don't think so. The captured hero would not appear on the combat screen so it wouldn't have to occupy a stack. (of course if you're of the opposite idea that it would then it should be a stack.)
The own hero... I don't know. One reason it should is because of the two step blitz attack.
A. Attack with a troop of FAST monsters.
B. Kill the Hero in the army.
C. Retreat / Surrender
D. Move in on the now Hero-less army with a Diplomacy / Charm Hero and a big army.
E. Creatures join you.
In this case I'd want the dead Hero to prevent the army from offering join/surrender.
4. You free your own prisoners and inherit all others. It's an open question what would happen to allies. I'd believe you should release those too.
5. You probably won't be able to Tombstone a hero in a Prison. or perhaps you will.. but I wonder where the Tombstone will be (inside town?). Actually, if you can Tombstone a Hero in a prison, isn't that the first thing you would do as soon as a new prisoner arrives? Why keep them guarded at all?
However, if you have Captives I don't see anything stopping you from making a prisoner a captive.
Nitshade:
Prisons could still have advantages over Captives. Like the following:
1. You can exchange your Prisoners with other Prisoners that the enemy have taken. (This wouldn't be possible for Captives.)
2. You could request a ransom for a Prisoner's release. (Prohibited for Captives)
3. A Captive could have a certain chance per day to escape from captivity. (This would prevent you from holding a captive too long.)
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2001 08:00 PM |
|
|
Well considering there is no diplomacy in heroes, ransoms and prisoner exchanges will not work. The chance of prisoner escape might work, but still it seems unnecesary.
As for the other questions I strongly suspect that it's only one hero per prison, and that the hero just automaticaly goes to your prison without the need to be transported there. Yeah it's unrealistic but anything else would be tedious, and you remember how defeated heroes in H3 immediately went back to your town with no travel time.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted October 31, 2001 08:38 PM |
|
|
"Well considering there is no diplomacy in heroes, ransoms and prisoner exchanges will not work."
Well, it's part of the suggestion that they add it. This is a Trade between players so the "heroes" would not be involved.
All that is needed is a pop-up screen which appear when you click the prison with buttons:
-Set Ransom
and
-Suggest prisoner exchange and then some submenus so you can select whom to exchange.
"Yeah it's unrealistic but anything else would be tedious, and you remember how defeated heroes in H3 immediately went back to your town with no travel time."
Actually, I don't really know how fleeing will work in heroes 4. They should probably just melt into the terrain and appear the next day in a place say 3-5 tiles away.
Then again they're prone to take the same approach as in previous game and just let the hero reappear in the town for rehire. It might be a bit more interesting if they let the hero reappear at the start of the next week. (And prisoner exchanges and ransoms could work the same way. The hero reappears at the start of the next week in a town garrison.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2001 09:16 PM |
|
|
|
Well even if they added diplomacy to h4 (which they are not) the prisoner exchange/ransom thing would be unfeasible. Heroes games are almost always you vs. them. Nobody would ever agree to a prisoner exchange or ransom unless they got more out of it then their enemy did, and if that was the case their enemy would not agree to it. And I shudder to think about how abusable this all might be with the traditionaly stupid computer AI.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted October 31, 2001 09:30 PM |
|
|
You could make the "diplomacy" part optional or part of multiplayer only. If you're playing the AI then it could work like this:
Simply set the ransom amount based on the Hero's level. (The player only decides whether he will offer a ransom or not, and perhaps als the type of ransom.)
The exchange could work in a similar way by adding / subtracting an amount based on the difference on the levels of the heroes.
Don't underestimate good AI programming here. It shouldn't be too difficult to make the AI smart if you really wanted to.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2001 09:51 PM |
|
|
"You could make the "diplomacy" part optional or part of multiplayer only. If you're playing the AI then it could work like this: "
Then it would still be useless because in multiplayer you are trying to kill your enemy and no smart player is going to give their enemy their hero back.
"Don't underestimate good AI programming here. It shouldn't be too difficult to make the AI smart if you really wanted to. "
Well first off if you've played previous heroes you know just how hard it is to make the AI smart. Secondly, if you did really make the AI smart then he would never negotiate with you in the first place for the same reason a human never would.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted October 31, 2001 11:35 PM |
|
|
"Well first off if you've played previous heroes you know just how hard it is to make the AI smart. Secondly, if you did really make the AI smart then he would never negotiate with you in the first place for the same reason a human never would."
---
I don't see what you think is a problem.
In the case of exchange of heroes, as a player I'd almost always agree to such an offer. The two players who make the exchange wins the others lose. So basically you have a win-win situation. In more than 90% of the cases it's a bad idea to turn the offer down. (You can have some second thoughts if the hero you exchange is much more powerul than the hero you exchange for, but otherwise I don't see the point in refusing.)
So basically, I would both offer exchanges and accept offers if the computer made them.
----
In the case of Ransom, I would certainly consider substituting an imprisoned hero for money. Money is something you can always use.
And if I was offered to free a Hero I would certainly think about the situation. If the price is correctly balanced I'd probably want to buy the hero out when and if the cash situation allows.
There are some situations where I'd not bother but overall this is reasonable.
One time I'd offer Ransoms is if I know I've a better force and know I can beat the player. Indeed, I may already have decided to wipe that player out. So I offer the Hero for ransom to get some of that player's money.
Even if I'm not planning to attack, money problems can make me make an offer... Another possibility is if I'm going to lose the town with the prison in 1-2 turns to a thrid player.
----
I'm afraid I don't see why you would want to turn down offers.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Xenophanes
Promising
Famous Hero
Chief Consul to Queen Mutare
|
|
posted November 01, 2001 12:15 AM |
|
|
I like the captive idea, but I don't think prisons will have an inmate limit.
What I'd like to know is: Can you get imprisoned Heroes to join you?
____________
<Dragons rule, Titans drool!>
|
|
Darion
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2001 01:31 AM |
|
|
Ooohh!!! Could we "interrogate" prisoners to find out information? Just like the thieve's guild... hehe. "Now Lord Haart... you were going to tell us about what his highest level creature is? *smack smack*"
____________
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted November 01, 2001 01:41 AM |
|
|
there is a better way...
...now Crag Hack... speak up or we'll show you some nude pics of Shae...
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2001 01:44 AM |
|
|
"In the case of exchange of heroes, as a player I'd almost always agree to such an offer. The two players who make the exchange wins the others lose. So basically you have a win-win situation. In more than 90% of the cases it's a bad idea to turn the offer down. (You can have some second thoughts if the hero you exchange is much more powerul than the hero you exchange for, but otherwise I don't see the point in refusing.) "
Well if you each have a hero of the other play captive then obviously you two are at war. In fact most multiplayer heroes games are just 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2. I would only agree to the offer if I was getting back a more important hero then I was giving up. The problem there is that in that case my opponent would never agree to the deal.
"So basically, I would both offer exchanges and accept offers if the computer made them. "
Well ok, but a good player wouldn't unless they got more out of it then they gave up. And that would only work if the other player was bad (or the computer AI was bad).
"In the case of Ransom, I would certainly consider substituting an imprisoned hero for money. Money is something you can always use. "
It's the same situation. It either benefits you more or it benefits your enemy more. Heroes is not like civilization where you might be at war one moment and at peace the next. You are always trying to destroy your enemy.
"And if I was offered to free a Hero I would certainly think about the situation. If the price is correctly balanced I'd probably want to buy the hero out when and if the cash situation allows. "
In which case the person offering the deal would lose out.
"One time I'd offer Ransoms is if I know I've a better force and know I can beat the player. Indeed, I may already have decided to wipe that player out. So I offer the Hero for ransom to get some of that player's money. "
That's something that would only work against a computer opponent with poor AI.
"I'm afraid I don't see why you would want to turn down offers. "
I think I've explained it in detail. There might be rare cases where you would agree to an offer, where it was balanced for both sides, but it's not worth creating this function for just that rare possibility.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 01, 2001 08:44 AM |
|
|
Well if you each have a hero of the other play captive then obviously you two are at war. In fact most multiplayer heroes games are just 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2. I would only agree to the offer if I was getting back a more important hero then I was giving up. The problem there is that in that case my opponent would never agree to the deal.
=> The exchange works best for 3+ players, although no more than 1 player need to be human. In this case you don't have to be at war. A third player could have taken the town where your hero was held or is about to take it so the second player just want to have take the cash for the prisoner.
=> In 1 vs 1 maps you're more unlikely to exchange. Many chess games ends in early draws just because this types of offers are made.
=> Also to reject an offer of an exhange is just to increase the "anger" of the enemy. He might have planned to do something else. Insulted by the refusal, he will attack you and take your castle. Usually, it's a good idea to stay low and not incur enemy's wrath or at least not several at a time. And if you can afford to anger your enemies like this you've likely already won the game at which point (dis)agreeing to the exchange is moot.
"So basically, I would both offer exchanges and accept offers if the computer made them. "
Well ok, but a good player wouldn't unless they got more out of it then they gave up. And that would only work if the other player was bad (or the computer AI was bad).
=> Be aware that you may be limited in what you know about the enemy hero. You know the class, and the level. Most other details could be held secret from the players. If you have a level 3 hero in prison and you yourself have several level 10-15 heroes. What really do you have to lose by exchanging the hero? Even if you only get a level 1 hero in return, you'd still save the cost for recruiting a new hero.
"In the case of Ransom, I would certainly consider substituting an imprisoned hero for money. Money is something you can always use. "
It's the same situation. It either benefits you more or it benefits your enemy more. Heroes is not like civilization where you might be at war one moment and at peace the next. You are always trying to destroy your enemy.
=> People do this type of bargaining a lot. It has been used for centuries and is still used in some parts of the world. Ok some people won't agree to bargians but they are a minority.
=> Actually, "war" and "peace" is being kept hidden from the players. You don't know how they'll actually program the AI or how they did it in Heroes3. While Heroes may not broadcast that you're at war or peace, it may nevertheless be built into the game-engine.
"And if I was offered to free a Hero I would certainly think about the situation. If the price is correctly balanced I'd probably want to buy the hero out when and if the cash situation allows. "
In which case the person offering the deal would lose out.
=> Not necessarily. If I'm attacking somebody else then we both win.
"One time I'd offer Ransoms is if I know I've a better force and know I can beat the player. Indeed, I may already have decided to wipe that player out. So I offer the Hero for ransom to get some of that player's money. "
That's something that would only work against a computer opponent with poor AI.
=> The AI can't know what the players plan to do and vice versa. (Though in some cases it may be obvious.) The fact is a weak players can make and accept offers he otherwise wouldn't just because he's weak and wins on the the deal. A strong player can offer a stronger hero in exchange for a weaker one, without taking much risk.
I think I've explained it in detail. There might be rare cases where you would agree to an offer, where it was balanced for both sides, but it's not worth creating this function for just that rare possibility.
=> You would not accept every deal but my guess is that a good percentage would be accepted.
|
|
Wyvern
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2001 04:11 PM |
|
|
Xenophanes has the same idea as me. Really, why would you capture a hero without taking him to your army? Especially if he has good skills. But it shouldn't be so easy... How to make the dead enemy hero yours?
1-a spell. Maybe there should be an adventure spell "Take hero", probably from the Order or Life Magic.
2-an artifact. For example, Hypnotizer. Something that will change the mind of the enemy and he will fight for you.
3-a special unit - Enchanter? Something else? But this is not a good idea because I don't know how will it work.
4-a potion. This is one of the best ways, I think.
5-a skill. Something like Diplomacy.
6-money. The stronger the hero, the more resources you have to pay.
And maybe there should be an option that the hero can revenge... and become neutral or return to his previous alignment.
Of course, before you use the captured hero, you will have to revive him (like you revive your own heroes).
But I hope if this feature is included, not all the players will take the hero... There should be cases where they leave him or send him to prison. Then you should really use diplomatic methods to change the hero for something else...
And another idea - once you defeat the hero, you can revive him and then bribe him to cause a damage to jis own alignment... Of course, there will be chance for him to take your money but not do anythung...
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2001 04:32 PM |
|
|
Djive,
Once again the problem with this idea is that it would only be useful in multiplayer free for all games. Almost nobody plays those because they take forever. Thus it would be an almost useless thing to implement.
Yes in history people traded prisoners. History is alot more complex then Heroes. There is war, peace, public opinion, alliances, tradition, and many other things. None of this would have any effect on a 1 v 1 or 2 v 2 game.
I've also never heard of or seen a chess game end in a draw based on player dealings. Perhaps you just play with a wierd bunch.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
posted November 01, 2001 05:37 PM |
|
|
Once again the problem with this idea is that it would only be useful in multiplayer free for all games. Almost nobody plays those because they take forever. Thus it would be an almost useless thing to implement.
=> It's also useful for single-player free for all games. This is the type of games I'd play. Not every feature needs to be aimed at multi-player.
=> I agree the feature makes Prisons a bit less needed. However, even without captives I can't see a real need for the Prison structure WITHOUT some extra benefit. If you look at the latest interview Fleea and Surrender will still be an option working in a similar way to Heroes 3.
=> So if the enemy can Surrender, how often will you find a use for your Prison? Unless they make a major change and the entire army is thrown into Prison when surrendering I don't really see a big need to build the Prison at all.
=> It's often very difficult to prevent the enemy from fleeing/surrendering, so the Prison would barely be used at all. In short it needs some other major benefit to take the prisoner to the prison or noone would ever want to build one. Overall, the Tombstone approach have many advantages over the Prisoner approach. The more important one being that if you take a Prisoner, you're likely to have the enemy knocking at the entrance to your castle in no time flat. If you just kill the Hero, then you can waylay the enemy in the countryside at a safe distance. In other words, I don't see myself being able to find a use for the Prison at all.
"I've also never heard of or seen a chess game end in a draw based on player dealings. Perhaps you just play with a wierd bunch."
=> Really??? I've seen huge amounts of tactical draws. The amount depends a lot on the competition form, and how/why you play a game. If you play Blietz it's rare. But towards the end of a Tournament, it's very vommon. In a team-match, it's also fairly common. Among new players draws are more uncommon than among experienced players.
=> Just as there would be differences in Heroes on when to accept/offer a deal, there's also differences in chess.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2001 08:24 PM |
|
|
"=> It's also useful for single-player free for all games. This is the type of games I'd play. Not every feature needs to be aimed at multi-player. "
Yeah but we've already discussed that poor computer AI and the lack of a diplomacy system would make this a bad feature for single player.
"=> I agree the feature makes Prisons a bit less needed. However, even without captives I can't see a real need for the Prison structure WITHOUT some extra benefit. If you look at the latest interview Fleea and Surrender will still be an option working in a similar way to Heroes 3.
=> So if the enemy can Surrender, how often will you find a use for your Prison? Unless they make a major change and the entire army is thrown into Prison when surrendering I don't really see a big need to build the Prison at all. "
Well first off, it's unclear what happens if you surrender or retreat when your hero is already knocked out. You may lose the hero or you may be unable to surrender at all.
Secondly there are plenty of times when I manage to kill the enemy hero especialy with high level magic involved.
"=> It's often very difficult to prevent the enemy from fleeing/surrendering, so the Prison would barely be used at all. In short it needs some other major benefit to take the prisoner to the prison or noone would ever want to build one. Overall, the Tombstone approach have many advantages over the Prisoner approach. The more important one being that if you take a Prisoner, you're likely to have the enemy knocking at the entrance to your castle in no time flat. If you just kill the Hero, then you can waylay the enemy in the countryside at a safe distance. In other words, I don't see myself being able to find a use for the Prison at all. "
Well I strongly disagree with you. The enemy is always trying to take over your castle. Adding a captured hero there will not make that any more or less likely. And at least then you will better know which castle to defend. And it's not that hard to kill heroes in H3, and like I said who knows what H4 will bring. I'm not saying the prison will be a must build, but that's a good thing. Every building should have advantages or disadvantages.
"=> Really??? I've seen huge amounts of tactical draws. The amount depends a lot on the competition form, and how/why you play a game. If you play Blietz it's rare. But towards the end of a Tournament, it's very vommon. In a team-match, it's also fairly common. Among new players draws are more uncommon than among experienced players. "
Hmm......I've seen many highly experienced players play and never seen a tactical draw. If I understand properly that is when one player offers to tie the game because nobody has a clear edge? I would think that would be more a sign of lazy players then experienced ones, but traditions may be different in your part of the world.
Either way that has absolutely no relation to the argument.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 01, 2001 09:10 PM |
|
|
Yeah but we've already discussed that poor computer AI and the lack of a diplomacy system would make this a bad feature for single player.
=> I disagreed about this. I believe it will work just fine and making a good AI is no problem. I don't think we will come any longer about it. We just have to disagree.
Secondly there are plenty of times when I manage to kill the enemy hero especialy with high level magic involved.
=> You'll lose that high level magic possibility because of game changes. Anyway, it's not uncommon that you take them out but usually it only happens for low-level heroes with small armies. If the fight is even it's a lot more difficult.
Well I strongly disagree with you. The enemy is always trying to take over your castle. Adding a captured hero there will not make that any more or less likely. And at least then you will better know which castle to defend.
=> The enemy would not know in which castle the Hero is. You'd have to protect every castle you own.
=> Better to kill the Hero. In that case you really DO know where the enemy is going to show up.
And it's not that hard to kill heroes in H3, and like I said who knows what H4 will bring. I'm not saying the prison will be a must build, but that's a good thing. Every building should have advantages or disadvantages.
=> I don't see the benefit. Imprison scouts or low-level heroes? Whats the point? Defeated their main hero(es)? It's usually game over for that player. Pretty much a moot point to imprison the hero(es), if you have beaten the bulk of their army.
Hmm......I've seen many highly experienced players play and never seen a tactical draw. If I understand properly that is when one player offers to tie the game because nobody has a clear edge? I would think that would be more a sign of lazy players then experienced ones, but traditions may be different in your part of the world.
Either way that has absolutely no relation to the argument.
=> The point was taken up that people often accept win-win proposals. This is common in chess. Say it's the last round of a Tournament. Player A needs 0,5 points to win. A offers a draw. Player B knows that he has little chance to beat the top player normally accepts. It doesn't always go that way, but it's not uncommon.
=> The inital point was, people generally don't reject win-win proposals, and if you do you may very well find that the opponents have an edge. I find your viewpoint in auto-refusing win-win proposals a bit strange.
=> It's like you're offered something for 10 Gold, which normally costs 15 but you say no because you know the seller only paid 5 Gold.
=> Or to take a possible Heroes example. Let's say a new level 1 Hero costs 2500 Gold to recruit. You've taken a level 1 Hero prisoner from another player.
=> The set ransom for a level 1 Hero is 1250 Gold. Would you offer that hero for ransom?
=> If the roles are opposite, would you pay the ransom of 1250 Gold?
=> I'd most certainly do both. Both offer the hero for ransom and pay the ransom.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
| |
|
|
