Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Is there space for starting with a major transformation?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Age of Wonders 4 3064 Bug Reports 4479 Suggestions 1445 Multiplayer 60 User Mods 120 After Action Reports (AARs) 10 News & Updates Archive 117
D

Diovidius

Second Lieutenant
5 Badges
Mar 28, 2023
192
495
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Magicka
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic
The devs have stated quite explicitly that they are against introducing a form trait that lets your faction start with a major transformation. The reason given is that it is a core design element that you change and adapt your faction over the course of a game instead of having a static faction from the start.

I have two questions for the community about this:

1. Do you agree with the devs? Because personally I would be in favor of giving players the choice to do this. It would do wonders for RP.

2. If you are against the idea or if you think the devs are unlikely to change your mind, what do think of an alternative where only your ruler (if it is a Wizard King or Champion) starts with a major transformation? This could be done through a society trait for example.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I agree with them, but not because of their concept (I also like and define my faction more through front-loaded options.)

If you WERE going to start with a transformation, it would have to be something not too powerful.
Umbral Disciples transformation only does anything in gloom, and it's just a morale and healing boost.

I don't overly feel like I need a major transformation at the beginning of the game for customization purposes, either.
You're allowed to stick one on an ascended ruler, for that matter.

What I HAVE requested, either this game or the next, is an additional selection for ruler traits, or moving some society traits over it.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I disagree with the devs on that, but to be fair it depends how it would be implemented.
First and for most it should be an optional addition without tying it into other core systems, this way part of the community that want to have somewhat competitive MP games aren't being forced to use it. So my suggestion would be do it only for ascended factions and make it acquirable with Pantheon points (making a closed loop system for those points) with cost going up exponentially if more than one transformation is added.

For me personally I would like to see it 'cause this allows to set up more interesting games vs AI without being restricted by handful of static realm Presence Traits as it works now.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Kitschy said:
I disagree with the devs on that, but to be fair it depends how it would be implemented.
First and for most it should be an optional addition without tying it into other core systems, this way part of the community that want to have somewhat competitive MP games aren't being forced to use it. So my suggestion would be do it only for ascended factions and make it acquirable with Pantheon points (making a closed loop system for those points) with cost going up exponentially if more than one transformation is added.

For me personally I would like to see it 'cause this allows to set up more interesting games vs AI without being restricted by handful of static realm Presence Traits as it works now.
Click to expand...
I personally dislike tying too much to the pantheon as one's only option. If I wake up one day and want to set up a warcraft game for example, I don't want to have to use an ascended faction to create a faction that is undead from the start. I personally wish there was an option to just do that (for example through a 5-point form trait).
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Diovidius said:
I personally dislike tying too much to the pantheon as one's only option. If I wake up one day and want to set up a warcraft game for example, I don't want to have to use an ascended faction to create a faction that is undead from the start. I personally wish there was an option to just do that (for example through a 5-point form trait).
Click to expand...
Fair enough, my concern is that if it would be a part of the core systems like traits for example it would cause balance problems (or become overly dominant in comparison to others) and this in turn makes the whole system requiring at minimum a look but most likely a rework.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
One thing I wish is that they'd let us start out as winged. Not the complete major trasnformations that also give you wings, but just the options to add your choice of feathery or leathery wings to your faction form the very beginning by selecting a trait. We already have winged mounts, so would this really be that much more "unbalanced"?
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Orphalesion said:
One thing I wish is that they'd let us start out as winged. Not the complete major trasnformations that also give you wings, but just the options to add your choice of feathery or leathery wings to your faction form the very beginning by selecting a trait. We already have winged mounts, so would this really be that much more "unbalanced"?
Click to expand...
If they could actually fly, you'd basically be asking for a trait that costs all five points. If they can't fly, you're asking for cosmetics that don't mesh with the game. Or, it could be wings that either only work in combat, maybe negate some terrain maluses, but not such terrain as forests.

If they were going to add it, they probably would have; it would also pointlessly conflict with Angelic, though I don't think Draconian.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Blanch Warren said:
If they could actually fly, you'd basically be asking for a trait that costs all five points. If they can't fly, you're asking for cosmetics that don't mesh with the game. Or, it could be wings that either only work in combat, maybe negate some terrain maluses, but not such terrain as forests.

If they were going to add it, they probably would have; it would also pointlessly conflict with Angelic, though I don't think Draconian.
Click to expand...
Nah, if it is just flying it would be not that far from Eagles/Pegasus (that is 3 points now).
 
Kitschy said:
Nah, if it is just flying it would be not that far from Eagles/Pegasus (that is 3 points now).
Click to expand...
For cavalry. Athletics is ranked 4 for all units being faster. If you're only requesting some units fly without cavalry, then I guess maybe it doesn't have to be 5. Or if they fly, but aren't faster. But there are bonuses and maluses to units being horsed, and I don't really have the thoughts for how a non-cavalry flying maneuverability compares. Except that it's 4 if all non-cavalry units are faster.

(edit: my brain appears to be in an older patch)
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Nekron's faction is thematically undeadish. If we were given an undead lite trait, it would probably be under an additional screen, and I don't know what it would be called, or what it would look like. It probably wouldn't be life-stealing, which is under Dark and Wightborn. Additional life-stealing apart from the mechanic of Dark would potentially defrock it's value along with that of Ritual Cannibals and Herbivore, and possibly whatever they'd come up with under a vampire DLC.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Blanch Warren said:
For cavalry. Athletics is ranked 4 for all units being faster. If you're only requesting some units fly without cavalry, then I guess maybe it doesn't have to be 5. Or if they fly, but aren't faster. But there are bonuses and maluses to units being horsed, and I don't really have the thoughts for how a non-cavalry flying maneuverability compares. Except that it's 4 if all non-cavalry units are faster.
Click to expand...
By "ranked 4" do you mean Athletics cost, 'cause it is 3 points. Also don't forget that Eagles reduce the amount of models making unit damage less reliant on model count (so a buff). It being only for specific units (mounted/optionally mounted) isn't that much of a disadvantage when you are encouraged to monostack regardless. The only real disadvantage is cav tag.
So imo just flying on its own as a trait could comfortably fit around 3 points without making it overly OP.

Now the biggest problem imo is that I am not so sure how exactly it will work when it comes to visuals if combined with transformations. Like what will happen if you get a trait Flying but then get Draconian transformation, will there be 4 sets of wings there or something.
 
Vilenecromancer said:
I agree with the Devs, but I see a partial compromise. Allow factions to start with certain creature types. May not be wightborn, but they are undead. Examples like that, if you will.
Click to expand...
I think, for me, the issue is two-fold:

For one, the mechanics. Given that major transformations are from tier 3/4 tomes, their effects are strong and your choice of major transformation (or not) is a major one. The creature type change is a major component of that in certain builds, such as turning all of your units undead to work better with certain necromancy effects.

For two, the thematics. If you can start as undead, then having a ruler manage to turn his entire faction into the living dead in a grand ritual is made much less impressive.

So I agree with the devs. I do see some compromise available for creature types for rulers and heroes, though we already see that with different ruler types like Dragon Lords. I'd probably want to see the unique sorts of rulers also extend to unique types of heroes, if anything.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Perhaps special additional Minor Transformations could be a compromise? Related to each affinity theme and keeping them seperate from the capstone majors, they could be integrated with affinity major transformations while providing earlier tag changes.

An alternative to Mount Masters or Exotic Mounts traits, providing earlier affinity bonus and weakness while altering forms slightly. In the case of Shadow affinity, Wightborn as capstone major transformation encompasses skeleton, zombie, and umbral ghost themes.

A 3 to 5 point minor transformation trait that provides the undead tag earlier to units could showcase Skeleton OR Zombie OR Ghostly themes, with Wightborn continuing to be the major transformation that unites all undead themes in their units. A special minor transformation trait can also work the same for Frostling and Umbral paths.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Diovidius said:
2. If you are against the idea or if you think the devs are unlikely to change your mind, what do think of an alternative where only your ruler (if it is a Wizard King or Champion) starts with a major transformation? This could be done through a society trait for example.
Click to expand...
This is already in the game, if you have Pantheon Rulers enabled and start a new game with an alread-ascended ruler, the ruler has all the transformations that they ended the game they ascended in with.

I personally hope to see something like Planetfall's Empire Mode come to AoW4, I think there's space for a lot of goofy and busted things people have been asking for (Ascending rulers multiple times, starting with abnormal unit rosters, starting with major transformations available) in that format.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
ZacmanTheDamned said:
This is already in the game, if you have Pantheon Rulers enabled and start a new game with an alread-ascended ruler, the ruler has all the transformations that they ended the game they ascended in with.
Click to expand...
I know and like I said earlier in this thread I dislike that as a 'solution'. If I want to create a game with a few different transformed rulers in it, I don't want to go through the proces of ascending each and everyone of them first before being able to do that.

Just like people want to have a way to determine the Tome path of factions they create if those factions are played by npcs, even though you can do that by ascending a ruler.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back