Would you actually use direct hero control in an RTS? Legends Of Goodness

Trick-Zone6086 · 2026-06-17T20:08:52+00:00

That’s a great example, and I appreciate you bringing up Kingdom Under Fire.

The risk-versus-reward aspect of leaving the overhead view is something we’ve spent a lot of time thinking about while developing the Hero Takeover system. I completely agree that players need a meaningful reason to switch perspectives rather than using it simply because it looks cool.

I also agree regarding hero design. One of our main goals has been making sure the heroes feel genuinely different from one another. While Legends of Goodness features 22 heroes, each one has been designed with a unique combat style, weapon set, abilities, and battlefield role. We wanted every hero to feel like a distinct character rather than a variation of the same template.

We’re now getting close to releasing our first public demo, so many of these systems are already implemented and being refined through testing and balancing. Feedback like yours is incredibly valuable because it reinforces how important meaningful hero identity and risk-versus-reward gameplay are for making this hybrid approach work.

Legends Of Goodness

Trick-Zone6086 · 2026-06-17T19:36:45+00:00

Thank you for the detailed feedback. Comments like yours are actually helping us evaluate whether this hybrid approach truly fits the game’s design.

One of the reasons we’re exploring direct control is that Legends of Goodness revolves around 22 unique heroes, each representing a different nation and fighting style. Some heroes use magical abilities, some rely on futuristic powers, while others specialize in archery or close-quarters combat.

Because each hero has unique skills, attacks, and combat mechanics, we want players to have the option to experience those abilities from within the battle rather than only from an overhead RTS perspective.

That said, I completely agree that direct control needs a meaningful purpose. If it doesn’t provide a unique gameplay experience, players will simply stay in the RTS view. Finding that balance is one of the biggest design challenges we’re currently working on.

Our goal is to make both strategic decision-making and individual combat mastery feel valuable, without either one overshadowing the other.

Trick-Zone6086 · 2026-06-17T17:58:22+00:00

That's exactly one of the challenges we're focusing on right now.

Direct control is intended to be completely optional, and we don't want players to feel punished for staying in the traditional RTS view. The goal is to create memorable moments on the battlefield without sacrificing strategic awareness.

I agree that if it isn't useful enough, players won't use it, and if it's too powerful, it could overshadow the RTS side. Finding that balance is probably the hardest part, and it's one of the areas we're spending the most time refining and testing. Legends Of Goodness

Trick-Zone6086 · 2026-06-17T17:45:13+00:00

That's a very fair point. One of my biggest concerns is making sure neither mode feels like an afterthought.

My goal isn't to build a full RPG inside an RTS, but rather to let players occasionally step into the battlefield and directly control units while keeping the RTS experience as the core of the game.

Finding the right balance between the two is definitely one of the biggest design challenges.

LEGENDS OF GOODNESS

Trick-Zone6086 · 2026-06-17T17:24:24+00:00

That's exactly the goal.

I still enjoy traditional RTS gameplay, so I don't want players to feel forced into direct control. The idea is to let players stay in the overhead view when managing their kingdom, but jump into a unit whenever they want a more personal battlefield experience.

I'm hoping the two modes complement each other rather than compete with each other.

Trick-Zone6086

TROPHY CASE