Frogboy Frogboy

Keeping your sovereign alive: The Sequel!

▼

Keeping your sovereign alive: The Sequel!

Last time on "Die King Die!"

from Elemental Forums

Okay, here's our latest thought process on the sovereign.

First, let me say that the sovereign dying is a non-negotiable thing to us.  It's an important core concept.

That said, we do not want users to have to play defensive with their sovereign. The idea is to give players the option to gamble it all if they want.

So here's what we're thinking:

Heroes will have a skill called Evade.  The evade skill determines the odds of them escaping a disaster (lost battle, taking of a city, etc.). When they escape, they are transported to the nearest friendly city.

Players will be able to put points into evade when they design their character.

There will be major evade modifiers. For example, if your sovereign is in a city when it's attacked, odds are, he'll escape.  If he's in a large army, he'll probably escape too.  But if it's a 1 on 1 encounter, odds are, he wouldn't escape. 

The entire system would be automatic and players worried about losing their sovereigns can simply put some points into him and park him in a city and not have to worry.

elemental
562,098 views 238 replies
Reply #101 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Tormy-, reply 98
^ wow...just wow! Denryu, according to your profile you are 46 years old....I am speechless. That was totally uncalled for. You don't understand what we are saying at all. NON-NEGOTIABLE or not....doesn't matter. We are talking about an alternative system as an additional gameplay option. No one said, that the CORE concept should be changed. You are flaming like a 11y old WoW player to be honest. uke:

Ad hominem is sooo mature. Yep I am 46 years old, although I will admit I am feeling a bit cranky this morning.

Reply #102 from Elemental Forums Top

My two cents:

The Sovereign should be allowed to die.

When he dies the following should happen:

1) Your empire loses much prestige, not a crippling amount but enough to make it a tough go for awhile.

2) If no heirs game over.

3) If there is an heir and he/she is of age then that person will become faction leader.

4) The heir will not have magic abilities but have a high reistance to magic, so they can be used in combat with other summoners present.

5) The heir can win just as much prestige back by leveling up, great generals have lead nations before.

6) The heir cannot create cities, but can take them over.

Thanks - J

 

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #103 from Elemental Forums Top

Wow. I didn't notice the flamefeast the last time I post! XD   Reading it now, I missed some "Carebear" here and there as well as some "Boicot" (flavor of the week, you know) in those flames. :P

I warn you that Landisaurus is our resident troll...:-"

Reply #104 from Elemental Forums Top

How about a Harry Potter-inspired horcrux-like system, where sovereigns can throw some spell to invest a part of themselves in some item/unit/whatever in exchange for a terrible price, say, splitting the sovereign's power -- her essence, casting ability, etc. -- by the number of times the spell is cast? Obviously the specifics would need to be worked out.

Reply #105 from Elemental Forums Top

The sovereign should not be a recyclable unit you throw into battle. I like the idea that he is a super unit that is also game losing should he die.

Afraid the game will end when you lose him in battle? Don't use him, as some AI players shouldn't either. YOU play the sovereign in the Elemental campaign and I like that it ends there.

It makes the game tactical while rewarding risk without punishing defensive gameplay. That to me is a fun way to play.

Reply #106 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Rishkith, reply 105
The sovereign should not be a recyclable unit you throw into battle. I like the idea that he is a super unit that is also game losing should he die.

Afraid the game will end when you lose him in battle? Don't use him, as some AI players shouldn't either. YOU play the sovereign in the Elemental campaign and I like that it ends there.

It makes the game tactical while rewarding risk without punishing defensive gameplay. That to me is a fun way to play.

 

Again, you should get the first Age of Wonders, (it is a fun little game, so why not?) and see what happens when on turn 118 your leader gets killed by mistake by a neutral unit which just popped out of nowhere... My guess is that you will reload the game (cheat), or if you can't for whatever reason you'll be VERY angry.

Reply #107 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Black-Knight, reply 106



Quoting Rishkith,
reply 105
The sovereign should not be a recyclable unit you throw into battle. I like the idea that he is a super unit that is also game losing should he die.

Afraid the game will end when you lose him in battle? Don't use him, as some AI players shouldn't either. YOU play the sovereign in the Elemental campaign and I like that it ends there.

It makes the game tactical while rewarding risk without punishing defensive gameplay. That to me is a fun way to play.


 

Again, you should get the first Age of Wonders, (it is a fun little game, so why not?) and see what happens when on turn 118 your leader gets killed by mistake by a neutral unit which just popped out of nowhere... My guess is that you will reload the game (cheat), or if you can't for whatever reason you'll be VERY angry.

So get rid of the mechanic that a unit "pops out of nowhere". Give the sovereign the ability to cast a costly "Oh crap!" spell at the beginning of combat to teleport home. Someone suggested the ability to port out during the battle if things go badly - I don't like that it gives people too much of the ability to use the channeler with impunity and then poof when they are going to lose. But something that lets you size things up in the first round of tactical and make a judgement of whether to run or not - I think that is a good option. Because AoW did it poorly doesn't mean it cannot be done well - I trust Stardock to be able to find a way of doing it well.

No one wants a game that is going to end after many hours from just some random generated crap. That's why I don;t like the evade option Brad talks about - it is too dependant on the RNG, who wants to lose the entire game on one bad die roll? No one.

But there are ways to address that without the much sought after "dynasty" system, or the above suggested "horcrux" system.

Reply #108 from Elemental Forums Top

As for the random number generator deciding the outcome of the game idea:

Just Don't get your sovereign into a situation where he can die.  If you happen to get in that situation, it is the players fault.

 

The only decent argument I can see is the ability of an AI using the sovereign. 

Reply #109 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Denryu, reply 100



Quoting arunodayt,
reply 91



Quoting Demiansky,
reply 90
If sovereign death = game over, it will greatly benefit the player and severely penalize the AI.  Essentially what you will have is a moral hazard in which the character will be motivated to use his sovereign more carelessly and level up/ gain rewards faster than the AI's.  When faced with throwing away hours of work upon defeat of their sovereign, the player will invariably decide to load their game.  With this on their mind, the player, conciously or unconciously, will adjust their behavior to take into account this safety net and thereby behave more boldly with their sovereign than the AI (after all, the player gets the rewards without the risk that the AI must face.)  The end effect is that the player's sovereign will be more average per average game than the AI's.


This is true, IMO.



And I say anyone that designs a game around the fear that OMG the player might save/load and that is unfair to the AI is going to end up with with shitty game on their hands. And OMG I see in reply #90 that our enlightened friend Demiansky even goes so far as to say with no heirs and sovereign death = game over that players are "forced into a reload." Um no, this is the thinking of someone whose mom wouldn't let them keep score in little league soccer because losing might hurt their little psyche. I agree that losing should not come down to a bad roll on the RNG, however, if you do something stupid with your sovereing and gamble where you shouldn't have, this is what grown ups call a learning experience. Now of those with delicate psyche's being able to accept that they lost may just be too tramatic, and that is what we have the save/load button for, so they can just pretend that never happened and they can merrily play their game. This whole concept of "OMG I LOST ALL THOSE HOURS OF GAMEPLAY WAAAAAH! Where's my MOMMY?" Umm, this is a game. If you played a two hour game of chess and lost would you say OMG I LOST THOSE TWO HOURS OF GAMEPLAY!??? I hope not. See for some of us losing is as valuable as winning because we can evaluate what went wrong and hopefully play a better game next time. The hours weren't lost because we learned something "Hopefully" that will make the next game better (for our side!) I think I have said enough on the issue I am sure everyone is going to boo hoo about how mean spirited I am, I am just tired of all the ghey, socialilst whiners.

Denryu, you have done an exceptional job of illustrating my point about the relationship between impoverished imaginations and flaming.  I can't tell if you are being satirical, drunk, or simply foolish.  I was wondering what more meaningless pejorative you could use than "whiner," but you put my pondering to rest by following up with "socialist" (tactfully mispelled, though).  Classic.  So yeah, I'm going to go with satirizing, in case I'm the only one who isn't in on a good joke.  Besides, I refuse to believe that someone who enjoys strategy games so much would voluntarily embarrass themselves so rigorously.

As for the loading issue, I've grown tired of trying to explain it.  It's elementary game theory and the simple economics of behavior.  Talk to someone in insurance--- they will tell you all about how people will adjust their actions when they are assuming less risk than they normally would.  If you want a more proximate example, just look at the debate over the financial institution bail outs.  The concern with the bailouts were that it would give entities that were "too big to fail" a green light on risky investments because they would not be shouldering the full weight of a catastrophe as a result of their investment.

As for my willingness to lose, I enjoy the process of losing even more than winning, but I, along with many others, don't like losing unexpectadly and with little warning.  Fighting a lengthy, losing war against an unholy alliance of foes is fun, and I will fight to the last soldier.  Having a 20 hour game abruptly end because your sovereign was mugged in a dungeon by a bigger-monster-than-your-scouts-reported is fun to very, very few people.  I know what you are going to say already. "You shloudnt have sent yur geh guy in wihout guys with him" to which I respond: At some point, no matter how careful you are within reason, you will make a minor misjudgement with your sovereign, to which your game will meet an outrageous and catasrophic end.  And when that happens, will you just start a new game, rather than load it?

If sovereign death = prompt game over, you are inviting many more opportunities for this kind of loss.  I'm not going far off on a limb when I say that the vast, vast majority of players will load their game if their sovereign dies while they still had a robust kingdom and an exciting game.  You can plug your ears and hum "It's a Grand Old Flag" all day long, but denying that most players would load their game under these circumstances is just another embarrasment to add to your litany.    

Reply #110 from Elemental Forums Top

... As for what I would have liked to say before my attention was hi-jacked by hobby-flamers: Rugby, I like your bulleted points.  That's essentially what I think I would add for valuable balance to the issue of sovereign death. 

Reply #111 from Stardock Forums Top

So get rid of the mechanic that a unit "pops out of nowhere". Give the sovereign the ability to cast a costly "Oh crap!" spell at the beginning of combat to teleport home.

or make the sovereign "immunes" to the death that this unit can bring to him.

Reply #112 from Elemental Forums Top

Well, when it is difficult to reach an agreement I would  take the MOM way, but improving it.

In MOM you can research the Recall Hero spell, and use it when things go badly, if you have enough mana, indeed. Also you can try to flee, but this doesn´t work all the times. The main difference is that the first one only affects a hero (that reappear in you summoning circle) while the second one is for all units.

In Elemental both issues could be improved.

The spell way would must be harder to research, and more expensive to use, being all of the Sovereign´s essence in case of use on him, with a great minimum required. For other heros it would be cheaper, but variyng according to the essence imbued on them.

For the flee way, well, I like the idea of retreat to some border tiles of the tactical map (from where you came into battle)  and from there try to flee, if the evade skill of the hero allows it.

And talking about the revealed evade skill, well, I think that if a Hero is ready to flee or evade he must not be a brave one, so it would be fine that the evade/brave skills would be opposites, so choosing one negates the other, and vice versa.

The evade skill would be fine for scout heros, while the brave would go to leader heros, or to the "not take one step back" heros.

Reply #113 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Denryu, reply 107
So get rid of the mechanic that a unit "pops out of nowhere". Give the sovereign the ability to cast a costly "Oh crap!" spell at the beginning of combat to teleport home. Someone suggested the ability to port out during the battle if things go badly - I don't like that it gives people too much of the ability to use the channeler with impunity and then poof when they are going to lose.

The questions are:

How much do you want the sovereign used?

Should it be possible for the enemy to do a sovereign hunt?

How much risk are you supposed to expose your sovereign to?

My personal preference is to have the sovereign used now and then at least, maybe even often with a certain kind of sovereign build. Sovereign hunt possible, but hard. And to make that possible at least some risk for the sovereign needs to be managable.

Escape abilities that only work at combat start have the disadvantage that you have to be able to judge the outcome of the battle and that means only sending in your sovereign when it means sure victory. And that would be boring tactical battles, wouldn't they? If the tactical battle has meaning, then it will be possible to change the outcome if you play well.

If the other player uses the sovereign with impunity, then just plan ahead and counter the escape possibilities.

Reply #114 from Elemental Forums Top

As I posted somewhere else, the mortality of a sovreign should be proportional to the size of his empire. Maybe a sovreign could respawn if killed as long as the player has some "temple of life" build in some city somewhere else.

For those like me, worried that the game would is destined to become a sovreign hunt: no point in hunting the leader if you don't know whether he will be able to respawn.

Reply #115 from Elemental Forums Top

How about this: When a sovereign dies, only his physical form is destroyed. His spiritual essense is still floating around. In essence, the very nature of your sovereign changes he is killed to either:

Option A: Some kind of ghostly form.

Option B: Some kind of ambient spirit. So he is no longer manifested as a unit in the game, but rather as a force.

The dead sovereign will be crippled and not have nearly the flexibility of a living sovereign, giving players an incentive to go after the sovereign. They might be able to cast spells, but not participate in tactical battles, as an example. However, the spirits do have some unique advantages. The nature of the sovereign can change depending on whether they used life magic or death magic. As an example, maybe life mages can elect prophets, and death mages might be able to possess people and objects. You can send a dead sovereign to the afterlife, but you have to cast a specific spell/destroy a specific artifact/kill a specific individual or whatnot.

I find option B to be the most interesting. There might even be an elaborate method of resurrecting dead sovereigns. In any case, I find losing so early in the game to be a little unsatisfying.

Reply #116 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting MagicwillNZ, reply 115
How about this: When a sovreign dies, only his physical form is destroyed. His spiritual essense is still floating around. In essence, the very nature of your sovreign changes he is killed to either:

Option A: Some kind of ghostly form.

Option B: Some kind of ambient spirit. So he is no longer manifested as a unit in the game, but rather as a force.

The dead sovreign will be crippled and not have nearly the flexibility of a living sovreign, giving players an incentive to go after the sovreign. They might be able to cast spells, but not participate in tactical battles, as an example.However, the spirits do have some unique advantages. The nature of the sovreign can change depending on whether they used life magic or death magic. As an example, maybe life mages can elect prophets, and death mages might be able to possess people and objects. You can send a dead sovreign to the afterlife, but you have to cast a specific spell/destroy a specific artifact/kill a specific individual and whatnot.

I find option B to be the most interesting. There might even be an elaborate method of resurrecting dead sovreigns. In any case, I find losing so early in the game to be a little unsatisfying.

This is an excellent idea. [Option B.] This idea reminds me of Sauron from LotR. :)

Reply #117 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Denryu, reply 77



Quoting Sammual,
reply 76
Add me to the legion of people who are not a fan of this idea.

If you want to give the player a 'get out of Sovereign death free card' don't make it random.

There is good random (Map generation) and bad random (Do you loose the game or not).

If you want players to be able to spend character creation points to avoid thier Sovereigns death, let them buy a Contingency spell. 

Contingency: A spell for emergencies, Contingency will teleport the Sovereign, should he die, become stunned, or disabled, to the location chosen when the spell is cast with full health and no active debuffs. Casting cost: 5 Essence.

Sammual



I don't like this option because it is a no-brainer. Who isn't going to spend 5 essence for a ressurection when the alternative is game over?

I much prefer something that presents a choice say at the beginning of the battle. Do I leave my channeler here in the fight and risk losing the entire game, or do I bug out and leave the rest of my army to get slaughtered? And nothing wrong with assigning an essence cost to the teleport spell.

Do you see the difference between a strategic choice and buying an insurance policy?

I understand where you are comming from. 

First off unless the cost of the Contingency is so low as to be negligible I will not be using it (I LIKE the you die and the game is over).  I feel that many users will not choose to spend Essence at Character creation time for a spell that they will have to spend more essence on at the time to avoid death when we all believe we are smart enough to avoid the situations where we get our channeler killed.

I also dislike the insurance policy over a strategic choice but I hands down prefer an insurance policy over the let a random roll determine if the game is over or not so I offered what I think is a better option if they want to help out the newbs.

Sammual

Reply #118 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Demiansky, reply 109



Quoting Denryu,
reply 100



Quoting arunodayt,
reply 91



Quoting Demiansky,
reply 90
If sovereign death = game over, it will greatly benefit the player and severely penalize the AI.  Essentially what you will have is a moral hazard in which the character will be motivated to use his sovereign more carelessly and level up/ gain rewards faster than the AI's.  When faced with throwing away hours of work upon defeat of their sovereign, the player will invariably decide to load their game.  With this on their mind, the player, conciously or unconciously, will adjust their behavior to take into account this safety net and thereby behave more boldly with their sovereign than the AI (after all, the player gets the rewards without the risk that the AI must face.)  The end effect is that the player's sovereign will be more average per average game than the AI's.


This is true, IMO.



And I say anyone that designs a game around the fear that OMG the player might save/load and that is unfair to the AI is going to end up with with shitty game on their hands. And OMG I see in reply #90 that our enlightened friend Demiansky even goes so far as to say with no heirs and sovereign death = game over that players are "forced into a reload." Um no, this is the thinking of someone whose mom wouldn't let them keep score in little league soccer because losing might hurt their little psyche. I agree that losing should not come down to a bad roll on the RNG, however, if you do something stupid with your sovereing and gamble where you shouldn't have, this is what grown ups call a learning experience. Now of those with delicate psyche's being able to accept that they lost may just be too tramatic, and that is what we have the save/load button for, so they can just pretend that never happened and they can merrily play their game. This whole concept of "OMG I LOST ALL THOSE HOURS OF GAMEPLAY WAAAAAH! Where's my MOMMY?" Umm, this is a game. If you played a two hour game of chess and lost would you say OMG I LOST THOSE TWO HOURS OF GAMEPLAY!??? I hope not. See for some of us losing is as valuable as winning because we can evaluate what went wrong and hopefully play a better game next time. The hours weren't lost because we learned something "Hopefully" that will make the next game better (for our side!) I think I have said enough on the issue I am sure everyone is going to boo hoo about how mean spirited I am, I am just tired of all the ghey, socialilst whiners.



Denryu, you have done an exceptional job of illustrating my point about the relationship between impoverished imaginations and flaming.  I can't tell if you are being satirical, drunk, or simply foolish.  I was wondering what more meaningless pejorative you could use than "whiner," but you put my pondering to rest by following up with "socialist" (tactfully mispelled, though).  Classic.  So yeah, I'm going to go with satirizing, in case I'm the only one who isn't in on a good joke.  Besides, I refuse to believe that someone who enjoys strategy games so much would voluntarily embarrass themselves so rigorously.

As for the loading issue, I've grown tired of trying to explain it.  It's elementary game theory and the simple economics of behavior.  Talk to someone in insurance--- they will tell you all about how people will adjust their actions when they are assuming less risk than they normally would.  If you want a more proximate example, just look at the debate over the financial institution bail outs.  The concern with the bailouts were that it would give entities that were "too big to fail" a green light on risky investments because they would not be shouldering the full weight of a catastrophe as a result of their investment.

As for my willingness to lose, I enjoy the process of losing even more than winning, but I, along with many others, don't like losing unexpectadly and with little warning.  Fighting a lengthy, losing war against an unholy alliance of foes is fun, and I will fight to the last soldier.  Having a 20 hour game abruptly end because your sovereign was mugged in a dungeon by a bigger-monster-than-your-scouts-reported is fun to very, very few people.  I know what you are going to say already. "You shloudnt have sent yur geh guy in wihout guys with him" to which I respond: At some point, no matter how careful you are within reason, you will make a minor misjudgement with your sovereign, to which your game will meet an outrageous and catasrophic end.  And when that happens, will you just start a new game, rather than load it?

If sovereign death = prompt game over, you are inviting many more opportunities for this kind of loss.  I'm not going far off on a limb when I say that the vast, vast majority of players will load their game if their sovereign dies while they still had a robust kingdom and an exciting game.  You can plug your ears and hum "It's a Grand Old Flag" all day long, but denying that most players would load their game under these circumstances is just another embarrasment to add to your litany.    

I have already offered solutions to every concern you have raised.

Yes "ghey socialist" was clearly said in sarcasm. The spelling was a typo, I know how to spell but I am a lousy typist despite 15 years of programming. For such an obviously bright guy you sure do seem to miss my point (and I don't think it is due to me being unclear on what my point is. Let me spell it out to you - I have no problem with you and Tormy's ideas - they seem to be a little heavy on the handwringing, but to each his or her own. What I have a problem with and which ignited this little flame war is the continued whining over a gameply mechanic that the developer has said is non-negotiable. I can tell from your posts that you have a fine grasp of the English language. So when thee person who is typing in the code and thus has ultimate control of what is in the game says something is "non-negotiable does it make sense to:

a) continue to plead/beg/whine/cajole that the feature that you want implemented be added "at least as an option" (this sounds like negotiating to me, but, hey maybe it's just me) OR

b) you offer suggestions to address your concerns within the framework of what the developer has said is non-negotiable. In other words, come up with suggestions that address your concern without negotiating the non-negotiable bits.

Now I am sorry if I got a bit short with you and Tormy. I think it is absolutely ridiculous for people to continue to harp on something whcih the developer has said is set in stone. I am sorry you are so sensitive to the "w" word. It gets tiresome to see posters get on their pet subject, like some people obsessing about eye candy being the one thing that was going to make or break EWOM. And now people a few people are obsessing about this dynasty concept which again, I have no problem with - I think it could be made into a very cool game mechanic. But alas, it seems it is not to be.

 

Reply #119 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Demiansky, reply 109

At some point, no matter how careful you are within reason, you will make a minor misjudgement with your sovereign, to which your game will meet an outrageous and catasrophic end.

I would say that this is quite a strange case (dying when taking appropiate measures to avoid dying), so not sure it's any useful to make a point.

Quoting Demiansky, reply 109

If sovereign death = prompt game over, you are inviting many more opportunities for this kind of loss.  I'm not going far off on a limb when I say that the vast, vast majority of players will load their game if their sovereign dies while they still had a robust kingdom and an exciting game.  You can plug your ears and hum "It's a Grand Old Flag" all day long, but denying that most players would load their game under these circumstances is just another embarrasment to add to your litany.    

Some people will reload when they lose their super-army, one unit of their super-army, their preferred hero, a normal hero, their preferred city, a new outpost,... Soverign dead is just another one to add to a pretty long list. Some people like reloading and others dislike it, sovereign dead is not going to change those facts and ways of playing much.

Reply #120 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting VicenteC, reply 119
Some people will reload when they lose their super-army, one unit of their super-army, their preferred hero, a normal hero, their preferred city, a new outpost,... Soverign dead is just another one to add to a pretty long list. Some people like reloading and others dislike it, sovereign dead is not going to change those facts and ways of playing much.

The difference here is that the game gets over, ie you have no choice but to reload or restart the game or lose the hours put into the current game. For most gamers, taking such a loss in their stride will not be possible. I, for one, would almost always reload in such a case.

That said, taking appropriate (and I should add, foolproof,) measures to ensure the safety of your sovereign should be enough IMO. If you want to take a risk, it's your choice.

Reply #121 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting VicenteC, reply 119


Some people will reload when they lose their super-army, one unit of their super-army, their preferred hero, a normal hero, their preferred city, a new outpost,... Soverign dead is just another one to add to a pretty long list. Some people like reloading and others dislike it, sovereign dead is not going to change those facts and ways of playing much.

Well, well....let's talk about the core concept a bit more. I have 2 serious issues with it right now.

1. Singleplayer = The AI must be very intelligent in order to play properly with his/her Sovereign. [IE. Hide when needed, don't explore alone, bring a nice big army with himself/herself when attacking an enemy city - it must be able to retreat if needed, it must be careful enough when exploring lairs, it must act properly, if the human/other AI player decides to launch a "focus attack on the pretender", etc. etc. etc.] The AI won't be able to reload the game you know.... ;)

2. Multiplayer. I think that in most of the cases, the players won't dare to use their Sovereigns in battles at all. It's just too risky, since Sovereign death = Game over.

I think that MagicwillNZ's idea is excellent btw. It's not a successor system, but it could work very well. [...as an alternate option of course.]

Reply #122 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Tormy-, reply 116

Quoting MagicwillNZ, reply 115How about this: When a sovreign dies, only his physical form is destroyed. His spiritual essense is still floating around. In essence, the very nature of your sovreign changes he is killed to either:

Option A: Some kind of ghostly form.

Option B: Some kind of ambient spirit. So he is no longer manifested as a unit in the game, but rather as a force.

The dead sovreign will be crippled and not have nearly the flexibility of a living sovreign, giving players an incentive to go after the sovreign. They might be able to cast spells, but not participate in tactical battles, as an example.However, the spirits do have some unique advantages. The nature of the sovreign can change depending on whether they used life magic or death magic. As an example, maybe life mages can elect prophets, and death mages might be able to possess people and objects. You can send a dead sovreign to the afterlife, but you have to cast a specific spell/destroy a specific artifact/kill a specific individual and whatnot.

I find option B to be the most interesting. There might even be an elaborate method of resurrecting dead sovreigns. In any case, I find losing so early in the game to be a little unsatisfying.

This is an excellent idea. [Option B.] This idea reminds me of Sauron from LotR.

Hmm... I hadn't thought of Sauron, but option B is very LOTR. I think it's interesting.

The balance would be where you'd have to make it advantageous to kill the sovereign, yet simultaneously make it not so that having a spirit sovereign would essentially mean defeat. It'd be kinda interesting, after you die, getting access to a building called "Eye of (Sovereign Name)" and essentially manifesting in the form of structures. Part of the challenge and advantage with having a spirit sovereign would be manifesting your will by using various channels. This could allow you to essentially be in multiple places at once, but restricted to whatever your "eyes" could see. You could even forge special cursed objects that allow you to see and manifest your powers within a small sphere of influence, like the palantir or something.

BTW, are you the same Tormy on the DF forums? I've seen your name around.

Reply #123 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting MagicwillNZ, reply 122

BTW, are you the same Tormy on the DF forums? I've seen your name around.

Yep, that's me indeed. :D [I have a sorta similar avatar there also...the Balrog :P]

I am not active on the DF forums nowadays, I don't have much freetime sadly, and reading through that forum takes a lot of time usually. :)

Reply #124 from Elemental Forums Top

Sounds like the only way to solve this problem is a game option:

 

Sovereign Dies = Game Over

OR

Sovereign Dies = Heir Takes Over

 

Problem Solved for Everyone! Yay! <3

 

 

Reply #125 from Elemental Forums Top

Problem Solved for Everyone! Yay!

Not for the devs that must take in account this option for:

- gameplay

- AI programming depending on the option

1. Singleplayer = The AI must be very intelligent in order to play properly with his/her Sovereign. [IE. Hide when needed, don't explore alone, bring a nice big army with himself/herself when attacking an enemy city - it must be able to retreat if needed, it must be careful enough when exploring lairs, it must act properly, if the human/other AI player decides to launch a "focus attack on the pretender", etc. etc. etc.] The AI won't be able to reload the game you know....

That is why I have proposed an Highlander like system: a sovereign can only be killed by another channeler ( a sovereign or a magic user hero). That should help the AI to keep its sovereign ;)