Experience for retreating heroes

[phoenixzs]

In heroes series human battles have always been some kind of "winner takes all" battles.Although weakining the opposing army is a good thing to do when you are caught by another player sometimes its just annoying that you are actually helping him to level up by making the battle last longer.So in many games it is so that if you loose a big battle eventhough he is left with a small force(you are left with nothing:P) he has so much leveled up that you cant compete with him eventhough you have bigger army.Its just that when you loose,ıt seems you learn nothing from it,just as if didnt happen which is some kind of strange.

I suggest the loosing player(ofcourse if he managed to reatreat alive) should gaing the half experience of the creatures that he has killed(winner takes full experience).So that after big battles he has at least some chance to catch up with other player,or use this level advantage to protect himself from other players that have not participated in combat and have bigger armies.So list the reasons here we go;

1-Its more logical than this system.Failure is a good teacher also,man does not learn so much from succes as he does from failure.But not to make the system brake,and award the success the game system should not turn upside down but change slightly
2-encourages players to take some serios battles to the end,because something is gained from it even from the loosing side.Basically encourages players to take more risks
3-It gives a chance to the loosing player,maybe to catch up,so that games do not end with a "one big battle" thing but rather with some more critical battles.
4-system gives no disadvantage to the winning side
5-System gives some "second prize" to the loosing side even though he ended up defeated the he had the guts to attack and play agreesively.He levels up some and is more prepered for other players who waited,gathered armies and will attack the castles of the "easy prey" like carrions.Its more harder know and no "easy" win for the waiters.

[Captain_Stifu]

I thought about it too, good idea.

[Lord_Crusader]

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I like your idea

[loonyjoe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by phoenixzs:

3-It gives a chance to the loosing player,maybe to catch up,so that games do not end with a "one big battle" thing but rather with some more critical battles.
4-system gives no disadvantage to the winning side
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
these statements do not match: nr 3 is a disadvantage(nr 4) to the winning side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
but i like the idea anyway...and maybe they wouldn't flee so quickly...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif i want the sheckless of war (or whatever is this thing called) to be more common- kill'em! kill'em all! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

[SirRyder]

I think the losing hero should lose experience for retreating. Should be no reward for failure.

[dino_rpg]

I don't see that gaining half the XP after retreating is a reward for the loser, its just fair to give him something for the creatures killed, I bet after you lose some battle surely you're experienced enough to avoid that kind of battle again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I like this idea

[Kareeah_Indaga]

I kind of like this idea too. That way even if the AI is completely hopeless (don’t think it will be but if it is) it won’t be crushed so easily. (Or, if it becomes an expert tactician in HV, the player won’t be so easily crushed--http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) And it will add strategic value as wellâ€"�“Do I surrender and lose half my bank account but move my army to a more defensible location, or do I fight it out and try to weaken the enemy, learn their favored tactics, and then retreat?â€Â�

[stevenlynch]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kareeah_Indaga:
I kind of like this idea too. That way even if the AI is completely hopeless (don’t think it will be but if it is) it won’t be crushed so easily. (Or, if it becomes an expert tactician in HV, the player won’t be so easily crushed--http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) And it will add strategic value as wellâ€"�“Do I surrender and lose half my bank account but move my army to a more defensible location, or do I fight it out and try to weaken the enemy, learn their favored tactics, and then retreat?â€Â� <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's a good idea. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Especially in a close battle (why would only the winner get experience when both sides were close to winning?).

[Vicheron]

It's a good idea but it has a lot of potential for exploitation through the armageddon retreat strategy.

[st14z]

Why not connect experience to things Hero(ine) does: if he/she kills by sword --> Fighting XP, Spells --> Magic XP (subXP: heal etc...) also if Hero(ine) runs away morale drops (and stealth rises?)?

[NECRO95]

I think this is a good idea, it provides better motivation to engage in battle. But how about the heroes that caused the fraction to lose? (After the hero runs away the flag is eliminated) Maybe we can impose a penalty to his experience and cut his level by half, but not any lower than 5(or something)?

[stevenlynch]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by st14z:
Why not connect experience to things Hero(ine) does: if he/she kills by sword --> Fighting XP, Spells --> Magic XP (subXP: heal etc...) also if Hero(ine) runs away morale drops (and stealh rises?)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about making the cost to rehire a hero more in line with what level they are (no more a measly 2500 to re-hire a level 8/level 10/level 15 or even level 20 hero), and have the number of days you'll have to wait to get the hero back at least 1 (ie. if you still have the town at the start of your next turn the hero will appear there at that time). If the town is taken it may take another 2 or 3 days before the hero shows up at the next closest town.

[Fidanas]

Very good idea, indeed.

[Vavutsikarios]

I disagree.

I beleive that the retreating hero should get NO experience at all.

Why?

Because usually its a part of the strategy for most players to build their second and third hero by giving them huge amounts of armies.
And the countermeasure for it is to destroy their army before the heroes get developed.

Also, sometimes you want to attack a hero -to oust him from an area or when you are going for her castle- and the whole point of the attack is EXACTLY not to let your opponent gain any experience.

Another example.
The retreating hero who was lost in the wild...
A quick way back to the castle is to attack a group of overpowering mosters and get back to tavern, losing all your army. If you get xps while losing, then where is the dilema?

I could think of more if i had the time -and the mind.

Generaly, i beleive that xps for the losing side means less strategy and tactics in the game.

[DavHero]

Nice idea! I was about to put a little of it (some idea of mine, quite similar to this one) in the "the hero in the battle" topic, when I have seen this topic!

I completely agree with you in the "loosing and failing is a good experience", it would be good that a Hero(ine! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) fighting to weaken an enemy learned from these combats. It would result in heroes closer one each other in experience, being the most active heroes the ones with higher knowledge of the battlefield (it's quite logic!). Besides, it is already enough punishment loosing large amounts of troops when loosing a battle, to, apart, having your hero died, thrown to the mud like a beggar, and without having learned anything from this shameful experience (which would't, ironically, give him not even a poor experience point!)

I hope people making the game read this (and agree! :P).

Bye!

DavHero

[dino_rpg]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vavutsikarios:
Another example.
The retreating hero who was lost in the wild...
A quick way back to the castle is to attack a group of overpowering mosters and get back to tavern, losing all your army. If you get xps while losing, then where is the dilema?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah! this could be a quick way to get back to your castle before it gets attacked, but if you do so, you still lose your units so the hero is alone inside the castle, besides, if during this battle against those overpowering mosters the hero didn't kill anything, then he didn't get XP either, because the general idea on this post is getting half the XP of the killed enemy units during the battle
Losing some levels before re-recruiting the hero don't seem as good as paying gold according to the hero level (after all, if the hero is recruited as a mercenary, more likely better mercenaries are going to ask for greater amounts of gold than lower grade mercenaries), which to my eyes is far a better way to balance this issue

[BoogieMan_GG]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vavutsikarios:

Because usually its a part of the strategy for most players to build their second and third hero by giving them huge amounts of armies.
And the countermeasure for it is to destroy their army before the heroes get developed.

Also, sometimes you want to attack a hero -to oust him from an area or when you are going for her castle- and the whole point of the attack is EXACTLY not to let your opponent gain any experience.

Another example.
The retreating hero who was lost in the wild...
A quick way back to the castle is to attack a group of overpowering mosters and get back to tavern, losing all your army. If you get xps while losing, then where is the dilema?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Your point doesn't quite stand.

Obviously, the retreating hero too would receive experience according to the type and number of opposing creatures he has killed during the battle (somewhere around 25%-50% of what he would have gotten after a won battle with the same enemy casualties). If so, it means that you must actually cause some damage to get experience from a battle you've retreated out of. E.g. if you attack a pack of Black Dragons in order to get back to the tavern you actually have to kill some to get XP. In this case, why would retreating from a pack of Black Dragons in order to get back to the tavern be any different (in terms of what a hero "learns" during it) from retreating from a pack of Black Dragons while trying to take a relic?

With the secondary heroes, it's the same thing. Why should his hero get nothing from the battle if he actually manages to kill some of your troops?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Generaly, i beleive that xps for the losing side means less strategy and tactics in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the contrary! If this, as you say yoursef, favours building up side-kick heroes, it would actually lead to MORE strategy! You have to agree that managing 3-4 active combatting heroes is more tactically demanding than managing just one uber-hero.

[stevenlynch]

Yes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

[Talzar13]

Heroes that flee should suffer a serious moral penalty, and should only gain 25% of the xp for defeating any creatures, if that much.

Also it should be harder to flee. If combat takes place in a zoomed-in area of the overland map, then the victor should be able track down the retreating hero, possibly engaging in combat again.

The retreating hero should have reduced movement for at least the next turn.


On the otherhand, guerilla tactics are a viable form of combat. A hero with fast units should be able to attack a larger force, inflict some damage and retreat back into the brush.

Both systems are viable, but perhaps it should be a map option, allowing for a different level of play. Or perhaps if there were magics/skills that could be used to prevent hit-n-run tactics from being used all the time.

[smec]

Good idea.
I also think that the longer the battle, the more moving points should be consumed (eventually for both sides). What about a battle that finishes after 20 turns or so and has to be continued tomorrow as both sides are too "tired" and the day is over anyway! In this way you can try to slow down a powerful enemy army so that you can reinforce your defense (or you can pull out if you barely survived the first day of the battle).
I would also like some ambush units that can attack and withdraw quickly (it could be a hero with this special ability or something summoned).

[Aseved]

I like the idea of giving some experience to the retreating hero http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif 50% is fine for me.

Yes, there could be exploits that should be checked and avoided - as the armagedon strategy already explained, and also that fast-creature,bolt,retreat strategy. Some ideas:

- As commented, creatures killed by spells do not count for XP - Instead, spells cast are taken into acount in a different way.

- Still, that does not solve the "fast retreat" strategies commented. Maybe the first combat turn should not count in the experience gained also. (The "XP counters" start adding from turn 2nd or 3rd)

- Another option might be to not give experience for a battle that ends in the 1st or 2nd round - maybe ONLY not give experience to the loser/retreating if the battle has been fast. That would prevent giving experience to heroes that have not really "battled".

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Expanding on Talzar13’s comment, how about a “pursueâ€Â� option when enemy heroes run? With say a 50% chance of working, or a chance based on the speeds of all remaining creatures in both armies (perhaps providing a minor alteration in tactics to keep enemies from running succesively?). (And maybe Tactics or Logistics could give a bonus to this?) I mean, we can already pursue neutral stacks. Why should enemy armies be any different just because they have a little waving flag above them?

And for heroes getting half-experience from wandering stacks, I think it could be solved by:

1. Making the half-experience rule ONLY apply to losses vs. enemy armies/heroes.

2. Don’t apply it to creature stacks below a certain level. (I think #1 would work better, but that’s me.)

[phoenixzs]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aseved:

- Another option might be to not give experience for a battle that ends in the 1st or 2nd round - maybe ONLY not give experience to the loser/retreating if the battle has been fast. That would prevent giving experience to heroes that have not really "battled". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That could do the trick,minimum 2 rounds of battle sounds logical.But ı dont agree about "not giving experience for spells" thing since it gives disadvantage to the spell casters too much.

[Vavutsikarios]

Thats right.
No xp (or even less xps) from spells would easily unbalance the game.

Another point: the armagedon and retreat thing IS a guerilla tactic.

So its there.
Why mess with it?

[stevenlynch]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vavutsikarios:
Thats right.
No xp (or even less xps) from spells would easily unbalance the game.

Another point: the armagedon and retreat thing IS a guerilla tactic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as re-hiring heroes has costs relative to the level (and thus power) of the hero, I have no trouble with heroes doing hit and run attacks.

[Aseved]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
No xp (or even less xps) from spells would easily unbalance the game
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never meant no experience for spells, but a different way to take spells into acount for XP. So, i.e. if you cast armagedoon, you will get 500 XP, regardless of the creatures killed, and if you cast mass prayer you will get 300 XP even if prayer does not kill creatures.

Still, I like my second option also more, as tough:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Another point: the armagedon and retreat thing IS a guerilla tactic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does not mean is worth to receive experience from it. It would be easily exploitable if it was that way. That is the reason of purposing the "two rounds of battle minimum". If you want to get experience when you retreat, you have to stay battling at least a little (so you need to retreat after the first or second roun to win it). Hit and Run attacks, while still useful tactically, should not give experience to the retreating hero

[Vavutsikarios]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aseved:
I never meant no experience for spells, but a different way to take spells into acount for XP. So, i.e. if you cast armagedoon, you will get 500 XP, regardless of the creatures killed, and if you cast mass prayer you will get 300 XP even if prayer does not kill creatures. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
EXPLOIT:
Attack the black dragon, cast armageddon 10 times, get 5000XP then shot it in the eye and get 300 more.
You see the problem.
The battle is never over until i am drained of spell points. That way i get more XPs.

Its not practical. I know it from my experiance as a pnp rgp game master. It cant work that way. If you want to be fair, you must reward based on the effect/result/work/success etc.
In that case, this is translated as "cretures killed"+"battle outcome must be win".
OK, the "battle outcome must be win" is not necessarily true -that is what we are discussing here.

[Aseved]

Hmm... yep, that is easily explotable, I had not taken into account possibilities like these... Then, I only have 1 option.

[dino_rpg]

I can't understand why is such big problem the hit-and-run tactics, I see the exploit in using fast creatures, then entering a battle, cast a spell and retreat before the enemy could even attack after killing some of their creatures and thus obtaining free XP and getting stronger easily, but you still lose more than you obtain this way in most situations
As far as I see the things:
- You'll only get half the XP of the creatures killed, so you've to kill a lot of creatures in order to get high XP, and such a power with your spells could easily mean you're a high level hero who don't need XP that badly and could easily kill the whole enemy army without retreat
- In order to have faster creatures, you must have high level creatures, because lower level tend to be slower (not always) or use a hero with high Tactics (whatever you call that skill in other games) or artifacts in order to act first, but even in this case, this could only apply if the hero has the proper DD spells which require lots of effor to obtain and/or battle the AI or Human players which use low level heroes/creatures. In any case, even if the hero is able to cast a spell and kill some creatures before retreating, he is going to lose all of his creatures after doing it, if they're low level, then probably he isn't gonna be the first one to act, if they're high level, losing a creature like this for a little amount of XP is a really bad tactic. Even worst, do you actually want to come back all the way from your town in order to attack the same stack again, maybe taking 2-3 days of walk, just to have a little bunch of XP? while the enemy hero is making his way to certain artifacts or mines (and getting stronger/healthier) while you lose your time wandering for "easy" XP
- The cost of the creatures/time/resources missed against the XP obtained isn't worth the trouble, surely staying on battle and killing the opposing army completely should be a better tactic

Anyway, getting full XP, half XP, or none, hit-and-run tactics is only good to weaken a powerful enemy army, but it takes lots of time (unless is an army next to your town, in which case you're in trouble) and resources to make it worth it, getting 1/2 XP seems ok from my point of view.
Maybe this could help a little bit to make this tactic balanced for both sides:
- The hero who actually win the battle (either he kill all the enemy creatures or they retreat) get some XP based on something, maybe the enemy army size of even got the same XP as the retreating enemy army
- You could only retreat a battle if your whole army could move this turn (including the hero of course), this way if you try a fast creature army-casting DD spell-retreat tactic, you'll have to do it after the enemy army attacks (because once you cast a spell, you are unable to retreat). If the party affected for this hit-and-run isn't able to make damage even after one full turn finished, then it can't be helped and the guerrilla like army deserves the XP obtained

What do you think? (I hope I did myself clear enough with my poor english writing)