idea about newbie guide . plz share your opinions

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Boron:
you have to chose whether to risk your hero or not .

You aren't choosing whether to risk your hero. You are using extremely gamey tactics to make sure that your most valuable units always act Last, and are the only ones to kill any other units so as to maximize your experience. If experience was granted for damage dealt, then you would at least have to fight lots to gain levels. If it was granted for some kind of spellcasting, then your casting heroes would be more useful as well.

[Boron]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boron:
you have to chose whether to risk your hero or not .

You aren't choosing whether to risk your hero. You are using extremely gamey tactics to make sure that your most valuable units always act Last, and are the only ones to kill any other units so as to maximize your experience. If experience was granted for damage dealt, then you would at least have to fight lots to gain levels. If it was granted for some kind of spellcasting, then your casting heroes would be more useful as well.

---

you could get spell casting 1-5 in age of wonders 2 as levelup reward .

age of wonders 2 had tactical combat where you had full battle control .
in dom 2 you can only give very limited battle orders .

so the ability to exploit that is quite limited .
and it would reward those killing something more
i assume hitting something by damage shields counts as hitting too or ?
don't you agree that pretender sc's which conquer indies get maximum xp level too fast ?

so with xp for killing only your weak and almost worthless troops like militia would get almost no expierience while knights and other good troops would get some .
furthermore a sc wouldn't get max xp as quick as he does now .

you have to see expierience more abstract : authority/respect also matters .

if you look at any "barbarian" tribes in real history like the germans at the time of the roman empire there battle prowess and valor were very important .
only the most fierce and strong and successful warriors ( those who killed most enemies ) had a chance to become leaders , later kings .
there are many examples in history of warrior kings which rose from common , but brave soldiers to generals and finally kings .
even in rome there was the time of soldier kings .

so how else should you prove your valor and bravery in battle than by killing as much enemies as possible ?
war is not about hitting as many enemies as possible but killing as many as possible .
one hit , no kill is always a bad option .
was even in ancient times suboptimal .

a shortbow archer can hit a heavy armored soldier 10 times but he doesn't even scratch him . then the armored soldier is in range and kills the archer .

so i still can't see why getting xp only for killing doesn't make sense in pc games

[Boron]

Originally posted by atul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cainehill:
A console RPG that did the same - Final Fantasy VIII or IX or X or some such - it was a _huge_ PITA because if you want your people to level up, you had to swap each of them in long enough to take an action.

Arcanum? The amount of xp for kill was so minor compared to the one you got for bashing the critter up you could leave them lie unconscious if you were the kind type (and without followers, as they butchered without mercy).

---

oh yeah i played arcanum too . i have to admit that i enjoyed it very much .
i exploited that by using a low damage gun . this way i got more xp .

since dominion is the game i ever wanted i am forgetting almost all my gaming expierience from former games lol although it is only about 1 year ago when i played arcanum .

but still xp for killing is better than for hitting

@ cainehill : yeah that party joining and leeching was great

just rush to hell difficulty in 1 hour , join cowruns , leech and have a lvl 80 char in 2 days or even faster if you would have played nonstop .
loved that times

edit : me and a friend even offered that service for sojs
we got 1 soj for shuffling to hell ( complete ) and about 4-5 for even leveling up to lvl 80 .

was quite profitable .

ah well diablo was great you could betray the new and unexpierienced . and they even thanked you . so great and funny

[ July 29, 2004, 22:48: Message edited by: Boron ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Frankly, the idea that you only get experience for killing is stupid, and it leads to game play abuses. First, in the real world, you learn by doing. If you were practicing martial arts, or marksmanship, or whatever, you do really learn by trying to hit an opponent. If you only learned by defeating them, no one would ever learn anything, because beginners could never defeat experts. As for the gameplay abuses, it's not fair that one character gets all the XPs because they were lucky enough (or in MP, aggressive/sneaky enough) to land the Last blow, regardless of whether someone else did 99% of the work to kill the target. Which was one of the things I liked about the SWG MMORPG: you got XPs proportionally based on your share of the damage that was inflicted when you gang-banged an enemy.

There is no perfect XP system: Your great SWG system, for instance, neglects the value of support characters. If you only get XP for something based on the amount of damage you actually inflict to a target, then characters which are "support", and perform actions such as healing, buffing, and other tasks which allowed the party to inflict such damage, but did not actually cause damage directly, are without value to the XP system.

A system which rewards only for killing, on the other hand, results in the "vulching" issue where weakened units are saved for the person who is to finish them off, or, in a MMORPG, people "steal kills".

A system which rewards you for merely performing an action, on the other hand, results in players that perform purposeless actions for the sole purpose of acquiring XPs. An adaptation of this in which only acts performed upon appropriate targets qualifies results in "punching bag" behavior, in which the player intentionally preserves an otherwise crippled opponent, who has been intentionally hobbled due to a pile of negative status effects or is trapped upon an terrain obstacle, so that he can beat on this opponent repeatedly.

A system which rewards you for simply being in a group and/or being in proximity of those who commit an act which gains such an award, on the other hand, results in leeching: People that join and follow others around, and do not actually make any kind of contribution, for the express purpose of acquiring this experience.

All known XP systems have some sort of abusive pattern built into them: Either some form of artificial behavior becomes the easiest path to gaining XP, or some actions become artificially unrewarding or even counterproductive.

In theory, the only way you'd come up with a "fair" XP system is to include all of these methods simultaneously: At least then, there's no single pattern of abuse that can be followed, as you can abuse the system in a variety of ways. Until somebody comes up with a better solution than manually awarding the XPs, however, XP systems will always be abused.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Boron:
you could get spell casting 1-5 in age of wonders 2 as levelup reward .

You're missing the point. Your spellcasters had to go into physical combat to gain levels. They were not granted experience for any spell that they cast that did not actually kill the enemy.

age of wonders 2 had tactical combat where you had full battle control.

Which doesn't make the problem of giving experience only on kills any easier to deal with.

i assume hitting something by damage shields counts as hitting too or ?

It doesn't.

don't you agree that pretender sc's which conquer indies get maximum xp level too fast ?

No, I don't agree, since I'm pretty sure that the _only_ five star unit I've ever seen is Orion.

so with xp for killing only your weak and almost worthless troops like militia would get almost no expierience while knights and other good troops would get some.

What would be the point of this? Your expensive troops should not be any better at learning to be effective warriors than your cheaper troops.

furthermore a sc wouldn't get max xp as quick as he does now .

SCs don't get maximum experience unless they Last for a very, very long time.

you have to see expierience more abstract : authority/respect also matters .

Which is what the leadership rating represents, not the amount of experience that the unit has. Experience is combat ability, you gain it by the means already described. It would be pointless to change it, since the system is working as designed.

if you look at any "barbarian" tribes in real history like the germans at the time of the roman empire there battle prowess and valor were very important .

And this doesn't matter at all for combat ability.

only the most fierce and strong and successful warriors ( those who killed most enemies ) had a chance to become leaders , later kings .

Experience doesn't represent leadership ability.

so how else should you prove your valor and bravery in battle than by killing as much enemies as possible ?

A unit's experience also doesn't represent valour and bravery. Bravery is represented by morale. Experience represents the amount of combat that the unit has been involved in.

war is not about hitting as many enemies as possible but killing as many as possible .

Your ability in combat is certainly about hitting as many enemies as possible. As you hit more enemies, ie, as you are involved in more combats, you will become better at it.

a shortbow archer can hit a heavy armored soldier 10 times but he doesn't even scratch him . then the armored soldier is in range and kills the archer .

So what? That archer managed to hit _10 times_. That's quite an accomplishment, and he would certainly become a better archer after that.

so i still can't see why getting xp only for killing doesn't make sense in pc games

You've used a double negative in this sentence, so it's kind of hard to figure out what you mean.

[Boron]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

don't you agree that pretender sc's which conquer indies get maximum xp level too fast ?

No, I don't agree, since I'm pretty sure that the _only_ five star unit I've ever seen is Orion.

---

well your vq is level 5 really fast too in general

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

only the most fierce and strong and successful warriors ( those who killed most enemies ) had a chance to become leaders , later kings .

Experience doesn't represent leadership ability.

---

no but it was a requirement . it still is .
there is a figure of speech in german : von der pike auf dienen . unfortunately i don't know what the correct american figure of speech for that is .
so if anyone can translate that plz do it .
i try to describe what i mean :
you start your career as soldier as a basic soldier . once you haven proven worthy you get a low leader .
even without military skill you can get a midlevel leader through valor .
the main assessment factor for that are the kills achieved .
in ancient barbarian kingdoms physical weak sons were often even murdered if they were first successor to the throne and a more adept other son was available .
so the ability to kill is a must for becoming a leader , leadership abilities are only a good benifit but no crucial requirement .

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

war is not about hitting as many enemies as possible but killing as many as possible .

Your ability in combat is certainly about hitting as many enemies as possible. As you hit more enemies, ie, as you are involved in more combats, you will become better at it.

---

true but see below

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

a shortbow archer can hit a heavy armored soldier 10 times but he doesn't even scratch him . then the armored soldier is in range and kills the archer .

So what? That archer managed to hit _10 times_. That's quite an accomplishment, and he would certainly become a better archer after that.

---

the archer managed to hit 10 times but he is DEAD .
new modern , even more clear example : i take ww 2 cause i love that era for squad level tactical combat , you can simply replace it by any modern war :
the ability to hit is nice but as long as you can't kill what you hit it is irrelevant .

the russian KW/KV 1 series had so thick armor that it could only be penetrated long range through the 8,8 flak cannon .
so when the germans met the first KW/KV 1 when raiding russia in 1941 when the Pz III ( german mbt 1939-1943 ) shot at them at e.g. 1000/500 meters distance they had a really high hitting ratio because they had better targetting optics and the crews were better skilled .
but even the side / rear armor of the KW/KV 1 was so strong that it even couldn't be penetrated by the newer 5cm KwK's from the newer Pz III models at normal combat ranges .
the russian KW/KV 1 vice versa penetrated even the front armor of the Pz III at far combat ranges . although the Pz III landed probably something like 90% hits and the KW/KV 1 only like 50% he destroyed 1 Pz III with almost every hit while vice versa it was impossible .

so hitting is a requirement but it doesn't guarantee success = making a kill .

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

so i still can't see why getting xp only for killing doesn't make sense in pc games

You've used a double negative in this sentence, so it's kind of hard to figure out what you mean.

---

sorry i meant i still would prefer the d2 lod / nwn xp system with xp for kills / shared for party , bonus xp for the killer .

edit : typo

[ July 29, 2004, 23:27: Message edited by: Boron ]

[Boron]

something back to topic

[qb]Tramplers
Units with the Trample ability require a certain amount of finesse. A good group of tramplers can absolutely trash an enemy formation - but should those same tramplers rout they will trash your own forces as they flee! A common mistake after seeing this behavior (and probably losing most of an army and some commanders) is to put tramplers off on the side of a battle field so that if they flee they will be able to move away without crushing any friendly units. But this is foolish given that fighting almost always gravitates to the center of the battlefield.

The trick to using trample units is to just make sure that they don't break. The most effective way to do this is to manipulate their group morale by adding many high morale units to their group. This will insure that they stay in the fight even when they start getting wounded and killed. Of course you will also want your priests on hand casting SoC and Fanaticism.
[\qb]

you could add that 2 of the best tramplers are undead , behemoths + carrion beast tramplers .
they don't need any backup and can never rout because of morale 50 .
iirc in an older thread was found out that a 3:1 ratio of morale boost troops / trampler is enough as long as the boost troops aren't damaged severely too .
if you have long range bows who will hit an enemy in the first round of combat ( mans longbowmen e.g. or ulmish arlabests ) you can mix them into the tramplers and give them no battle orders .
the tramplers are then set by default to attack closest and the archers to fire closest .
as long as the archers suffer no casualities even if all tramplers get slaughtered they don't rout .
independent archers are always set to fire closest : so put a few high prot high morale troops with hold orders before the archer/trampler group . they will catch all indy missile fire .
since indy fliers are so uncommon these battle order can defeat 95% of indeps with almost no casualities .

What is this talk about me? I've been around, I just don't have time all the time to post. Though I am still around, like the Gestapo with a brick in a sock waiting for people to step out of line.



As for the QR's, a certain unnamed developer is on vacation (good for him) and I am waiting for clarification so the QR's are relatively accurate as I can get them before everyone comes with the little mistakes that drive me mad. The other two (SCQR and MIQR) latest Versions with all updated information are waiting to be PDF'd (or might be already PDF'd, my Email is being annoying with Spamfilters) and will be sent out as soon as they are satisfactoraliy "perfect".

[Boron]

i have much freetime at the moment .
so i got the following idea .
there are many things which are rather undocumented .

so my plan is the following :
i make a new thread were i ask all newbie questions on which i have no information so far and you experts answer .
the few questions left over for which either no one has a clue or there is disagreement between experts i post then in a small new thread and please illwinter for an answer because they have to know

after that i will write up a guide or two ( most likely in .doc or .xls ) and make them public then .
unfortunately i have no free webspace so if i would mail the guide to you arryn would you be so kind to host it on your site then ?
i think this would be a good solution

if i get enough positive responses to my plan in the next couple of hours i start my effort in 5-10 hours .
so hopefully my guide is finished in 3-4 days

[Edi]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
No, I don't agree, since I'm pretty sure that the _only_ five star unit I've ever seen is Orion.

Now that was a surprise! To me anyway. I've played Dom2 a lot less than you and most others here have, but I have seen a couple of 5 star units. Antrax is especially easy to punch up to 5 stars in a really short time, and my friend got a Machaka Black Sorcerer (ranbdom pick water) to 5 stars in something like 50 turns. Gave it Ring of Regen and Pendant of Luck and loosed it first on indies and later used it to singlehandedly wipe out rather large enemy forces (AI, yes, but still).

Of course, I suppose it's much harder to keep SCs or thugs alive long enough in MP as opposed to SP or co-op games against the AI as we've been playing.

Edi