Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Heroes 5 - Temple of Ashan > Thread: Wishes for future patches (1.6 and 2.2)
Thread: Wishes for future patches (1.6 and 2.2) This thread is 11 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · NEXT»
alcibiades
alcibiades


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
posted February 18, 2007 07:31 PM
Edited by alcibiades at 15:23, 20 Mar 2007.

Wishes for future patches (1.6 and 2.2)

We've had quite a lot of patches for the game so far, that has made some major changes on the game - especially the late 2.1 patch and the upcoming 1.5 patch has redefined Necromancy and Training. So, what are your future wishes for future patches?

Update on ideas discussed in page 1-7:

- Linear Spelldamage (controversal! But majority seems to support at least testing this)
- Further restrictions on Haven Training to prohibit +17 Paladins per week
- Necropolis DE: Further tweeking (more DE), but probably needs more game testing to know for sure
- Costs of Fortress buildings reduced
- Other possible resource changes (suggestions: Resource costs for Academy and Sylvan (wood) reduced)
- Rebalancing of Ultimate Abilities and changing requirements from 4 to 3 skills
- A better AI ...
- Modification of Shieldguards from Guard Post
- Two Hero Classes for each faction
- No Morale bonus to Griffins when Battle Diving
- Teams option
- Flaggable Waterwheels, Windmills and Gardens of Wee Folk, and further Gardens to provide also Crystal, Sulfur and Mercury.
- Display ATB value of creature, either always, or in the detailed effects box when right-clicking.
- Remove randomization of ATB values at start of combat. Preferably give the Attacker upper hand (initial ATB > 0) because he angages the combat, whereas the Defender is passive (initial ATB = 0).
- Modification of Luck and Morale. Simple suggestions: Let creatures have Morale rolled at start of combat (to give chance of entering combat with good morale) and maybe reduce Luck damage bonus a bit (suggestion: 77 % - remember, 7 is the number of Luck. ). Advanced suggestions: Remove cap on Luck and Morale, so that they can go all the way from -10 to +10, and possibly tweak chance of triggering per unit. Also, maybe let Luck bonus maybe only apply to standard damage, and not Attack modified values, etc.




Personally, I have two wishes:

Linear Spellpower increase for Casters
The none-linear spellpower increase for caster units (Druids, Mages, etc) has bugged me for a long time. The idea that each unit in a stack of 100 does less damage than each unit in a stack of 50 just seems completely contradictory too all the core concepts of the game for me. Therefore I say: Change this to linear Spellpower scale.

I don't know how exactly this would work, but one could calculate this based on the current power of a stack of 20:

Growth 1: Power = 1.25 x Numbers
Growth 2: Power = 1.00 x Numbers
Growth 3: Power = 0.85 x Numbers
Growth 4: Power = 0.75 x Numbers
Growth 5: Power = 0.65 x Numbers
Growth 10: Power = 0.5 x Numbers
Growth 15: Power = 0.3 x Numbers

I don't know whether these are the exact right numbers to choose - but I think the none-linear approach which they currently have is very strange and ill suited for the game.

Further restrictions on Training
I would like to have a cap on not only how many units in total you could train, but also how many of one specific type. Thus, training 13  Paladins for a total weekly growth of 17 seems pretty broken! I think it would be nice to have a restriction saying that you could only train, say, a number corresponding to 100 % of the weekly growth of each unit (that might be 50 % instead).

With the 100 % limit, for instance, you would be able to train:

4 Priests -> Paladins
6 Squires -> Priests
10 Peasants -> Marksmen

Giving a total growth of 8 Paladins, 8 Priests, 14 Squires, 34 Marksmen and 40 Peasants.

With the 50 % limit, the corresponding numbers would be 6 Paladins, 7 Priests, 17 Squires, 36 Marksmen and 38 Peasants (with the option for training 3 Marksmen into Squires, if one had the wish).

I don't know which solution is the better, but I think it'd be much more balanced than the current solution.

____________
What will happen now?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 18, 2007 07:41 PM
Edited by Doomforge at 19:42, 18 Feb 2007.

Nice idea, although the training is naturally restricted by lack of gold.. btw why only 13 palas? You can get 20 if you are very rich + 6 base, for a total of 26/week! That would be sick And with Klaus, attack, retribution, antimagic spell, divine guidance, etc? Wtf.

I'd suggest following balance changes:

Necropolis' re-balancing. Seriously, new necropolis is weak. Very weak. The extra 5 liches, or something like that, you can get per week is pathetic and doesn't boost the army much.. without the skellies, the faction is poor. Seriously. Level 7 unit is, still, not only weak, but practically unreachable. Ore and mercury requirements are RIDICULOUS! Necromancers always had great specials to compensate their no-morale disadvantage, but H5 necro lost it (where's aging, double strike, etc?), and it lost the strength of necromancy in 2.01. Definitely a faction that needs a bit of balance. Some extra specials and re-balanced spectrals would do wonders.. Wraights and spectrals scream for specials. Seriously. And no, I don't want to start another wraight discussion, but I think it really sucks that they don't have anything. Maybe lower their damage, but give them something interesting, Nival?

Costs balance - Thanes? Come on 20 crystal? Is it a joke? It was hard to get cyclopes in heroes3, which had the same cost for cyclops' dwelling, and there were bigger piles/more rich maps there! And here it's ridiculous. Same for magma dragons.. spectrals.. shadow dragons.. and a few more. Needs a patch IMO.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ZombieLord
ZombieLord


Promising
Famous Hero
that wants your brainz...
posted February 18, 2007 08:06 PM

Quote:
Linear Spellpower increase for Casters

I fully agree with that!

Quote:
Nice idea, although the training is naturally restricted by lack of gold.. btw why only 13 palas? You can get 20 if you are very rich + 6 base, for a total of 26/week! That would be sick  And with Klaus, attack, retribution, antimagic spell, divine guidance, etc? Wtf.

20? How? You don't have 20 Priests/Week! That's the problem!

The perfect (13 Paladins) combo is:
Train 6 Priests to Paladins
Train 7 Squires to Priests and then to Paladins

As you see, you have only 13, not 20

And about Necropolis... some say it's stronger than before although I don't have HoF so I can't say it for myself

My wishes:
1.Remove the Random Start ATB thingy. If two creatures have the same initiative, just pick one with random chance to act first and that's it. It's extremely annoying when a init 8 creature (Marksman) acts before one with init 10 (Hunter) Especially with neutrals!

2.Add an option to watch the allies' battles. I want this implemented as I often play with a friend of mine as an ally and I want to get rid of some boring stuff.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 18, 2007 08:15 PM

Quote:

The perfect (13 Paladins) combo is:
Train 6 Priests to Paladins
Train 7 Squires to Priests and then to Paladins

As you see, you have only 13, not 20


And why not to train 14 Squires to priests? Honestly, I never tried training that much paladins, so I dont know. Is there some kind of restriction?

Quote:
1.Remove the Random Start ATB thingy. If two creatures have the same initiative, just pick one with random chance to act first and that's it. It's extremely annoying when a init 8 creature (Marksman) acts before one with init 10 (Hunter) Especially with neutrals!


Maybe not totally removed, but limited randomness would be nice..

Quote:
2.Add an option to watch the allies' battles. I want this implemented as I often play with a friend of mine as an ally and I want to get rid of some boring stuff.


hey, good idea

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ZombieLord
ZombieLord


Promising
Famous Hero
that wants your brainz...
posted February 18, 2007 08:37 PM
Edited by ZombieLord at 20:38, 18 Feb 2007.

Quote:
And why not to train 14 Squires to priests? Honestly, I never tried training that much paladins, so I dont know. Is there some kind of restriction?

By training 14 Squires you lose 14 points of train this week, so you're left with only 6 more.

Training a Peasant to a Paladin, for example, takes 4 points (Archer->Footman->Priest->Cavalier)

Hope it's clear now

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 18, 2007 08:40 PM

ah. Got it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shauku83
Shauku83


Promising
Famous Hero
posted February 18, 2007 09:41 PM

Quote:


Linear Spellpower increase for Casters
The none-linear spellpower increase for caster units (Druids, Mages, etc) has bugged me for a long time. The idea that each unit in a stack of 100 does less damage than each unit in a stack of 50 just seems completely contradictory too all the core concepts of the game for me. Therefore I say: Change this to linear Spellpower scale.

I don't know how exactly this would work, but one could calculate this based on the current power of a stack of 20:

Growth 1: Power = 1.25 x Numbers
Growth 2: Power = 1.00 x Numbers
Growth 3: Power = 0.85 x Numbers
Growth 4: Power = 0.75 x Numbers
Growth 5: Power = 0.65 x Numbers
Growth 10: Power = 0.5 x Numbers
Growth 15: Power = 0.3 x Numbers

I don't know whether these are the exact right numbers to choose - but I think the none-linear approach which they currently have is very strange and ill suited for the game.


I am going to have to copypaste myself from another thread... I am lazy to write again
I think non-linear damage gives a nice emphasis on casters at the beginning, and it prevents them from becoming unstoppable at the end. We have an experience of a linear destructive caster from Heroes 4, Genie. As they grew in numbers, they became one-hit-killers. It was a disaster. Damage that doesn't take castle walls, range or any defence into account is wise to be non-linear. It doesn't have to be as strict as it is now, though.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ZombieLord
ZombieLord


Promising
Famous Hero
that wants your brainz...
posted February 18, 2007 09:45 PM

No, I think Alc is right:

Now, when there are few casters in a stack, they damage more than they should! imbalanced!:sick:

But when there are many, the spells become useless

Seriously, I don't see any reason for not making the damage linear. What's the problem? The damage is linear, so as the spell damage should be. It doesn't matter it ignores defense, if it is a small value per spell power (as most of the creature spells have) it will be very well balanced

The logarithmic formula that currently is now is one of my first wishes i'd like to be changed (along with the other two I've posted)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elvin
Elvin


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
posted February 18, 2007 11:23 PM
Edited by Elvin at 23:28, 18 Feb 2007.

My wishes:

Less resource costs for academy, fortress and sylvan(less wood for this one)

Buff some weak abilities such as estates, soulfire, recruitment etc

Rebalance these damn ultimate abilities to not require bad skills and up to 3 skills, not 4.

A decent AI.

No new introduced bugs...

More heroes and refine the existing ones as some are plain bad.

Fort option for RMG. Also allies and water content.

Reduce crazy summoning spell costs for warlocks and necros to use.

Reduce the accursed shieldguard stack from guard post. Most factions can't hope to take it down! Without having an outrageous advantage in lvl and armies that is.

Finally fix the existing bugs.
Simple things.


____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jospan
Jospan

Tavern Dweller
posted February 18, 2007 11:42 PM

I agree with most of what people are saying. In the Linear VS. Non-Linear, i stay with.... well, at the middle LOL!

Linear damage would create archmages that never shots at anything, just keeps Fireball'ing everything. Altough, the damage their spells do now, decreases IMENSELY with numbers. I use academy a Lot (i'm playing HOMMV from few days, but I've been playing Wizard>Tower>Order>Academy all the way), so i say that i choose the mage-oriented hero of Academy that starts the game with a mage. This mage destroys many things with Fists of Wrath, But at the week two, when I recruit 7 more mages, the spell already became useless and I only attack and attack :/

The formula to the damage of the spells of creatures should be so, that u need to chose wisely when to attack and when to shot/fight, not use one or another by the numbers of creatures u have. So I'm saying: "Balance between spell and regular attacks"

Hope i made my idea clear enough, as English is not my native language

But most of everything what I want to see at 2.02 is FASTER AI, PLEASE! I'm going back to the game without the expansion, cause i play it very fast, even on larger maps and longer games, and in the expansion, AI takes EXTREMELY long to play, it becomes boring and unplyaiable. Is it just me or what??
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
alcibiades
alcibiades


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
posted February 19, 2007 12:26 AM

Quote:
I think non-linear damage gives a nice emphasis on casters at the beginning, and it prevents them from becoming unstoppable at the end. We have an experience of a linear destructive caster from Heroes 4, Genie. As they grew in numbers, they became one-hit-killers. It was a disaster. Damage that doesn't take castle walls, range or any defence into account is wise to be non-linear. It doesn't have to be as strict as it is now, though.


I can follow the reasoning in that, but as I see it, that's just a matter of ballancing the spellpower per unit properly. Let's consider a couple of examples:

100 Elder Druids do Lightning Bolt at advanced level = 17 x Power + 17. Normal ranged attacks of these guys would be 900-1400 at full range. If these guys had a spellpower of 0.75 x Numbers as suggested (more or less randomly) before, that'd correspond to a damage of 1292. That's 12.9 damage per Druid, whereas a Druid in a stack of 10 currently does 18.7 and a Druid in a stack of 100 does 5.0 (!). 1292 is a bit below full damage at full range, but considerably more than average damage at half range. Maybe that's too much, I don't know. Going for 0.6 x Numbers (that's the power of a group of 30 Druids with the current system), the damage would be 1037. That's actually below average damage at full range, not considering Attack and Defence value modifications or Archery bonuses. Considering that Spells cost mana (and thus are limited), aren't affected by Luck or Attack modifiers, etc., I think 0.75 as multiplier for the Elder Druid is pretty ok.

100 Mages using Fireball would, using the same calculations, do 975 damage. If the multiplier at stack-size 30 is used, they'll do 761 damage. A current stack of 100 Mages does 390 (!) damage with a Fireball - that's 3.9 damage per Mage.
___

But these were just numbers to throw some light on the matter. From a more theoretical point of view, I understand that people will want spells not to be overpowered, so that the ranged attack is also favorable sometimes. That's a very healthy point, but it should not be obtained by making spells useless in late games. Rather, one should find the perfect multiplier that takes the following things into account:

- Ranged damage is affected by Stats and Abilities, which might increase damage potential.
- Ranged damage is affected by range. Therefore, one might make it so that Spells are more attractive at long range whereas direct attack is favorable at short range.
- Luck modifier may apply to normal attack for double damage but will not affect spells.
- Spells require mana, a resource that will generally be depleted before # Shots, and should therefore be more powerfull.
- Spells can be resisted.

All this speaks for a choice that makes Spell Damage equal to about half average Ranged Damage at full range. That would favor Spells at long range, where Ranged damage is halved. At short range, the attacks would be similar in strength, but Divine Strength, Luck and Archery would favor Ranged Attack at short range. All this would lead to a set of multipliers somewhat similar to this:

Growth 1: Power = 1.00 x Numbers
Growth 2: Power = 0.80 x Numbers
Growth 3: Power = 0.70 x Numbers
Growth 4: Power = 0.60 x Numbers
Growth 5: Power = 0.50 x Numbers
Growth 10: Power = 0.40 x Numbers
Growth 15: Power = 0.30 x Numbers

For stacks of 20 (the stack number is important because the damage bonus is divided over the number of creatures, for instance 17 x Power + 17; the damage bonus here being 17) the damage of spells per creature for the current offensive casters will be:

Pit Lord: 12.75 (Meteor Shower) and 9.35 (Fireball) vs. 13-31 for melee attack (hardly impressive, but fair since Pit Lord is not ranged).
Druid Elder: 11.1 vs. 9-12 for ranged attack.
Water Elemental: 10.8 vs. 8-12 for ranged attack.
Archmage: 7.7 vs. 7 for ranged attack.
Sprite: 1.3 vs. 2 for normal melee attack.

This does not seem overpowered to me - in fact, I believe this could work very well. (Numbers will be slightly higer in smaller stacks and slightly lower in larger stacks.)





Oh, and a note for Elvin:

Quote:
A decent AI.

No new introduced bugs...


Now don't be ridiculous!
____________
What will happen now?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Elvin
Elvin


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
posted February 19, 2007 12:29 AM

Hehe
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
pomo
pomo


Famous Hero
The lone peasant
posted February 19, 2007 04:57 AM
Edited by pomo at 05:00, 19 Feb 2007.

I'd like to add a different point to the spellpower balancing discussion. Basically I would like to see damage scale non-linearly with spellpower, so that destructive magic retains its usefullness in late game. At present you simply can't continue to accumulate spell power at the same rate as you can accumulate army, which makes warlocks and wizards rather weak in late game imho. I don't have a specific formula in mind, but the basic idea would be that each successive point of spell power would add more damage than the previous one.

So for example say you have a spell that under the current system adds 100 points of damage per spell power (obviously that would be overpowered but it makes the numbers easy to deal with). Under my proposal the first point might (for illustration, numbers would need tweaking) add 100, the second point 105 the third point 110 etc. So a cast with 3 sp would give 100+105+110= \315 damage. I think it would be fairly easy to find some kind of exponential function that would allow destructive to remain viable, but not overpowered.

This would be an alternative solution to linear spellpower for creature casters, as implementing both together would have very serious balance problems. It would however help to solve the problems listed above about creatures damaging spells becoming basically worthless in late game.

What do you think about this as a way to keep destructive magic AND casters spell damage viable in late game?

As a side note, I would like two hero classes for each faction, one might and one magic please.

edit: I also agree that training needs to be nerfed more. Available dark energy also needs to be increased for necro - At present you can usually use it all on the first day of a new week, and the additional troops are insufficient.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 19, 2007 08:59 AM

What's wrong wth destructive, Pomo? With correct arties, skills, and around 20+ spellpower, a lucky implosion deals almost 4000 damage, and almost 5k if it triggers elemental chain.. which kills 26 titans at once.. You find this weak? I don't think so.. And with Titans' growth, you'd need like 4 months to get that much (taking the time needed to get the dwelling and castle in consideration), and after 4 months, there is little problem with achieving 20+ spellpower. You can get like ~15 in the end of first month, if lucky enough.. I got 12 in third week without enlightment a few times.

Other factions, well, maybe except Academy, won't have such a great time with destrucive and it will obviously weaker, but they aren't meant to use destructive as their prime weapon, so what's the problem?

Recursive formula for destructive spells would cause MAJOR imbalance in the game.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ZombieLord
ZombieLord


Promising
Famous Hero
that wants your brainz...
posted February 19, 2007 09:51 AM

I agree completely with Alc. I don't understand why some of you don't want a linear formula. You want the spells to be less effective than the normal shot? Then make the spellpower grow slower (although as Alc said, there is mana and double damage at close range (in fact, half the damage at far range)). But why non-linear?

There is no reason for the spellpower to be non-linear. Why when you have few troops the spells are overpowered and when you have many they become useless? It makes no sense to me.

A linear formula is something much better than now.

There is no problem if the spells deal more damage than the normal shot, because, as Alc said there is mana, no-luck, no-favored-enemy, range penalty (so the spells are useless at close range), magic resistance, magic mirror, etc...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
siinn
siinn


Adventuring Hero
posted February 19, 2007 12:18 PM

I agree with alc: creature's spells must obey to a linear logic in the damage calculation.

4 things I would like to see in the futur patch (incoming soon I hope...):

1 DE must be slightly changed:
  - each necromancy level could give DE bonus
  - "lord of the undeads" capacity should give a big DE bonus
  - another clever way...

2 Spectral dragons must be buffed! they are too weak really!

3 Free dwarves stack at the forteress has to be nerfed! It's far too easy to defend a forteress with thoses free guys even against a far stronger army

4 Beautiful furies and witches now have a graphiq bug in their hair (just zoom at a dark elf woman and you will see glitches). the legendary beauty of those girls must come back!


by the way I think the game is near to be almost perfect with all these patches!!!
beau boulot les gars!


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
crepus
crepus


Adventuring Hero
Nuclear Power Plant
posted February 19, 2007 01:25 PM

Two smaller things...

Hullo all

Often when I fight Deep Hydras I find it irritating that their healing ability often resurrects a creature if they have extra HP to use for healing. This should be fixed.

Further I think the Knight ability Divine Guidance should give more than just a one time 0.33 boost in ATB value. I think that boost automatically should be given twice to each affected creature. Thus making the ability a bit more at par with the Teleport Assault.
____________
Mater tua criceta fuit, et Pater tuo
redoluit bacarum sambucus.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elvin
Elvin


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
posted February 19, 2007 02:27 PM

Quote:
Hullo all

Often when I fight Deep Hydras I find it irritating that their healing ability often resurrects a creature if they have extra HP to use for healing. This should be fixed.


No way! They would be near useless otherwise.

Quote:
Further I think the Knight ability Divine Guidance should give more than just a one time 0.33 boost in ATB value. I think that boost automatically should be given twice to each affected creature. Thus making the ability a bit more at par with the Teleport Assault.


Are you kidding?
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
UncleJJ
UncleJJ

Tavern Dweller
posted February 19, 2007 02:44 PM

Regarding the ineffectiveness of large stacks of casters, here is a potential solution although it is somewhat complex.  I appreciate the need for some sort of non linearity in spell damage versus stack size but that could be offset in other ways.  How about varying the amount of caster mana that is used for spells and how about altering the initiative cost of spells?  

So a small stack of casters would act very much as now with perhaps an increased mana cost for its spell.  

A medium sized stack would also be dealing damage very much as now except its spell cost would be lower (so it might be able to cast another round of spells) and it could have its initiative cost casting reduced 10% (equivalent to basic sorcery) thereby allowing it to act faster in subsequent rounds.

A large stack would have its spell cost significantly reduced (say 50% so it could act twice as often as a nominal stack we have now).  Furthermore it would have a 20% initiative boost for casting equivalent to advanced sorcery.

A very large stack of casters would have 1/3 rd the mana costs and expert sorcery so it could cast many more spells and also act at high initiative after the first action.

I am not sure of the exact numbers (as to what constitutes a small, medium and large stack size) and how spell damage or effects (for spells like slow) should be adjusted from how they are now and would welcome other people's suggestions and opinions.  This idea would mean that there is a significant difference between using a large stack for spell casting versus simply shooting especially since the sorcery effect would have a timing impact on the ATB.

Dark Energy:

I agree with those saying Dark Energy is a weak effect in the late game.  That is primarily due to the fact that a necromancer gets a basic 200 DE points and then the only significant way to boost that is by building a pillar of bones for another 150 DE points.  Other sources of DE are basically the main hero level and maybe a few additional secondary necromancer heroes.  The only way to significantly increase the necromancers special ability is to capture more necropolis and build more pillares of bone and that is map dependent.

Other people say that the higher level necromancer creatures are not worth the DE points paid for them and they need strengthening in some way.  I agree with them too.  

How about boosting the DE of a necromancer by getting DE points for each of the high level creatures he has in his armies or garrisons?  This would lead to a system something like this.


Archlich 1  DE point
Wight  1
Wraith 2
Bone Dragon 2
Spectral Dragon 3

This would encourage a necromancer to upgrade his creatures and to buy the ones in his castle at the end of the week to boost his DE income next week.  Would this go someway to making the DE system a bit more powerful in the late game?
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 19, 2007 03:00 PM

My suggestions:

Like alcibiades, a Linear formula for spellpower of creatures -- destructive spells become useless at the end game, since the normal shot does more damage.. this is ridiculous, because a spell is supposed to deal more damage, whether the target has high defense or not, because it costs mana. Most of you don't realize the power or limitation of mana I guess (only 2 Fireballs for Pit Lords, etc).

Reduced resource cost for mages, but also decrease their high masteries.. It annoys me because they are the weakest (cost the least) spellcasters in the game (without the Sprite), so yeah, their high masteries are ridiculous -- Pit Lords have the same Fireball as mages? I don't see a reason why Druids are better, and you have less per week (at casting spells I mean). And they should be.

The Guard post seriously nerfed, like Elvin said.

An option to choose when you create a game, which team to play on in addition to which side (color).. kinda like Custom teams selectable not hardcoded in the map.

Increase Shadow matriarch masteries for some spells.. especially Confusion -- at least Basic is required, though I recommend Advanced (90% yeah ).

Increase Druid stone spikes mastery to basic.

Option to allow players to select which spells to use in mage guild instead of it being random -- or at least to "see" them early at day 1 (before building mage guild for all lvls), so you can plan your moves and level up options...

Necro I think is powerful even with DE, and some even complain about it being too strong with MotN. It's just a racial skill, it shouldn't be uber-powerful. And that is not the necro army, it's just a hero skill.

Cavalier & Paladin damage decreased from 20-30 to 20-25 as they have Jousting and are really cheap.

Griffins should not receive morale when battle diving.

Some other changes that look more like wishes.. I don't bother putting them as probably you'll not like them and start quotes like "this is heroes, not other strategy game or tbs, etc"

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 11 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1059 seconds