World map perception

[Muefigilo]

I have a small issue with the way perception works on the world map.

Basically, it seems unreasonable that one person traveling on foot is just as easily spotted as 100 knights on horseback. I'll even go so far as to say it's silly. My suggestion is that an extra value be considered when perception on the world map is involved, and that it should be determined by the size and number of horses of a party. And it could even be set up in a simply coded way that would also not be totally unreasonable; namely, the more this value reflects a single person without a horse, the shorter the distance must be between that party and the observing party for them to be seen. How the value is built, i.e. does a large value signify a large or small group, would clearly be up to armagan, so I'm trying to refrain from just saying "higher" or "lower" values.

Adding this one simple feature would add a number of interesting strategical elements to the world map, where currently there are few. It also gives characters without horses a better chance of survival, if only because they will see stronger and faster forcese before they themselves are seen, and can maneuver to avoid thei path. For faster and stronger parties, it makes the tracking skill more useful than it is now (which I was disapointed to see is largely useless unless it is night-time, and even then is still largely useless, imho) because it will have to use tracks to find weaker, slower parties which it cannot yet see and which are no doubt doing their best to avoid your own very visible party.

 

[armagan]

Good idea. I was thinking of such a feature too. It will no doubt add more depth and realism to the game.

 

[DominicWhite]

Indeed - right now, there's not much use in putting levels in spotting, but it it not only increased your sight radius, but also allowed you to spot smaller, harder-to-find units closer up, then it'd be far more useful.

Makes sense that a fully equipped warband should be very easy to spot at a distance, but 5 or 6 raiders on horseback won't be visible until they're right under your nose.

 

[Balor]

Well, mounted troops should be more visible, sure... but it depends on terrain. Only ninja will be able to hide in the open field .
However, steppes usually covered with rather high grass - with sertain effort, you can use it as cover.
Anyway, why not go E5 way and make Concealment/Visibility<->Speed slider? That will also add realism.
However, you should also add faster warbands (that uses horses exclusively) so it will be feasible to hide from them... like Khergits.
Btw. as world (hopefully ) will get larger, better leave the corrupted practice of fine-tuning enemies with player level, but make them dependant on location or progression of the story (or certain events).

 

[DominicWhite]

Well, I like the idea of increasing the strength of enemies across the board as the player grows more powerful. Perhaps not to the degree it currently happens, but it stops the game from ever becoming a complete breeze. It'd suck if you could build up your own little force to a point where absolutely nothing could possibly hurt you.

 

[Stromko]

Balancing enemies to your level should only be done to a limited extent I think, because it is pretty sucky in RPGs where that feature is used too much and the result is you never feel more powerful.

The way it is now you control the level of challenge, you might just with a couple of heroes want to hunt down river pirates, or maybe you just want to get five or six knights and take on small raider bands and such. Or maybe your goal is to get a gigantic uber army and take on packs of 50 Dark Hunters (that's fun but costly ). The important thing is it's your choice.

Also a high level character might have a turn of bad luck and =need= to go back to fighting weaklings in order to regain money, trained troops, etc. It would be intensely frustrating if you had a level 30 character who lost his/her army, and can't get started again because the countryside is filled with nothing but gigantic stacks of powerful enemies that totally obliterate any peasants or footmen he can recruit and cut off retreat lines..

 

[Balor]

My point exactly. And unrealistic to boot, if anyone but me cares about it .
Like I mentioned, some events SHOULD influence enemies, their quality and quanity, but not just player level - that is too 'artificial'.
Like, at first, it's 'armed neutrality' between the sides, and they are slowly amassing numbers.
Then, full-scale war breaks out - and more refugees and bandits appear, plus bandits start to merge into bigger groups to be protected against more frequent military patrols, etc.
All this should be time, not level based, and to implement this in a balanced way, make player lose like 1/5 of HP he lost in a duel, make duel take an hour or two of real time, and make shops (and arena) close at night. This way, fighters will not be able to gain virtually limitless amount of money in NO game time, compared to traders.
That will add a great lot of atmosphere to the game, and will not be too annoying - after all, you can always 'fast-forward' time by sleeping 'to the morning' in the tavern.
Also, (like in SR) each unit bought and sold should also give you a few exps... btw, better only in case if YOU are making then transaction (Party skill in trading is listed as yours).
This will make it way more logical, realistic, will balance traders and warriors, and, I think, make game more enjoyable in the long run.

 

[corksacker69]

you could also make a new skill, called stealth, which makes it harder to spot when you're traveling on foot, to complement this idea.

 

[Seikeden]

Fog of war would be a nice feature too. I really like it, though I think it often gets a bad rep

 

[Kdar]

Fog of war would be a nice feature too. I really like it, though I think it often gets a bad rep

I am for Fog too. I makes more fun to discavery distant lands and stuff
(we can have quest like make map for you fanction about enemie distant territory etc....).

Plus it let you see how far can your party can see.

 

[Tiedye]

Fog of war has already been discussed in another thread, and a good reason for why it cannot be implemented (hint: read armagan's reply to a suggestion in this thread) has already been given.

 

[[bulletproof]]

please, absolutely do not make the player level have an effect on every enemy. As was said earlier, it takes away from the player's sense of power and growth, and just isn't realistic. I can't stand certain RPGs (like Sacred) any more because I just never got anywhere, I never felt a sense of accomplishment in fighting the same enemies from earlier levels but now upgraded.

It is very satisfying to pay back the band of Khergit Knights who once took your wife and kids (and Footmen / Militia).

well, maybe not 'absolutely', but please keep some units that have fairly static levels on the map. It truly is a good way to measure your power, seeing how well you do against enemies you fought earlier. I think there just need to be even higher level enemies, perhaps on the outskirts so they dont demolish early players, to keep highest level (im at 30) occupied in the end-game. I dont think party size matters, as i can just as well kill 50 bandits as I can 10. It just takes longer.

 

[Ferox]

there already is a fog of war technically, It just doesnt count towards the actual land itself.


I like it the way it is. Maybe when the world is made 20x bigger it would be neat to "explore" a black map, but not now.