|
| Thread: Wishes for future patches (1.6 and 2.2) |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
dfortae
Known Hero
|
posted February 19, 2007 03:10 PM |
|
|
Good points UncleJJ about the spellcasting.
I don't think a linear formula should be used unless the spells get a HUGE nerf. Spells bypass armor. That alone makes them much more powerful than normal attacks.
Also, it's really silly how dark/light magic spells work right now. Increasing unit count ONLY increases the duration. If you're going to buff destructive magic, dark/light will only suck more. What is needed is something similar to what JJ described. Perhaps duration AND power increases with unit count. Having a single druid eldar being able to increase endurance by 12 (for one round) is ridiculous. It should be like 3 for 1 round. Add 4 druids and then it's 4 for 2 rounds, etc.
Also, vulnerability is majorly bugged. The number of units don't matter!
There's major problems with the spells, no doubt about it. But having a linear formula will only make things worse. It will cause imbalances (at either early, middle, or late - or all).
The problem is no one has suggested an EXCELLENT fix. JJ has offered the best suggestions, but they're still not excellent.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 19, 2007 03:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think a linear formula should be used unless the spells get a HUGE nerf. Spells bypass armor. That alone makes them much more powerful than normal attacks.
Yeah they cost mana while normal shots (who don't bypass armor) don't.
Quote:
Also, it's really silly how dark/light magic spells work right now. Increasing unit count ONLY increases the duration. If you're going to buff destructive magic, dark/light will only suck more.
I don't think so.. Slowing down 10 Titans for example is muuch better than wasting for a destructive spell that does less damage than a normal shot.. This is ridiculous. As it's now, only Dark/Light are useable for big armies in creature spells.. Destructive sucks as it gets a lesser damage than normal shot, what's good about it?
Quote:
What is needed is something similar to what JJ described. Perhaps duration AND power increases with unit count. Having a single druid eldar being able to increase endurance by 12 (for one round) is ridiculous. It should be like 3 for 1 round. Add 4 druids and then it's 4 for 2 rounds, etc.
I think this sounds cool, though for destructive still a linear formula is best.
Quote:
Also, vulnerability is majorly bugged. The number of units don't matter!
No it's not bugged -- the spell is permanent man  and doesn't use spellpower
Quote:
There's major problems with the spells, no doubt about it. But having a linear formula will only make things worse. It will cause imbalances (at either early, middle, or late - or all).
That's because you got used to how the spells work right now.. From a different perspective, now it's imbalanced:
early - overpowered
middle - hmm
late - underpowered
See what I mean?
Quote:
The problem is no one has suggested an EXCELLENT fix. JJ has offered the best suggestions, but they're still not excellent.
I think Alc's idea is better for destructive spells
|
|
Shauku83
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2007 04:10 PM |
|
Edited by Shauku83 at 16:10, 19 Feb 2007.
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think a linear formula should be used unless the spells get a HUGE nerf. Spells bypass armor. That alone makes them much more powerful than normal attacks.
Yeah they cost mana while normal shots (who don't bypass armor) don't.
They cost mana but shots cost shots as well . There is a limited amount of shots, for example Mage has 3 shots, Titan has 5. Shooter cannot act when a creature blocks it, nothing can prevent a casting. Shooting does 1/4 damage behind castle walls, spells do full damage. Spells do the same fixed damage to a creature with defense of 5 and defense of 40. Etc.
But as I said, the non-linearity doesn't have to be as strict as it is now... it could be "toned down". But I would oppose complete linear damage. For the reasons given above.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 19, 2007 04:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They cost mana but shots cost shots as well . There is a limited amount of shots, for example Mage has 3 shots, Titan has 5. Shooter cannot act when a creature blocks it, nothing can prevent a casting. Shooting does 1/4 damage behind castle walls, spells do full damage. Spells do the same fixed damage to a creature with defense of 5 and defense of 40. Etc.
Really? There are many more shooters than casters, and casters are always more expensive.. mana is limited, shots can also be infinite with ammo cart.. and shots are not expensive. Yeah, and shots do extra damage against creatures with less defense 
Quote:
But as I said, the non-linearity doesn't have to be as strict as it is now... it could be "toned down". But I would oppose complete linear damage. For the reasons given above.
I don't get this non-linear stuff, it's silly.. why shouldn't the damage or shots be non-linear too eh? why should splitting stacks do more damage?? it's ridiculous. if you want to nerf the damage, nerf the spell damage (spellpower), but still keep it darn linear. it's the most logical
|
|
Shauku83
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2007 04:44 PM |
|
Edited by Shauku83 at 16:44, 19 Feb 2007.
|
Quote:
Really? There are many more shooters than casters, and casters are always more expensive.. mana is limited, shots can also be infinite with ammo cart.. and shots are not expensive. Yeah, and shots do extra damage against creatures with less defense
And mana is expensive? For my casters the mana is always full at the beginning of combat, the same as with shots
Quote:
I don't get this non-linear stuff, it's silly.. why shouldn't the damage or shots be non-linear too eh?
Because the damage is different from that of shooting. I explained earlier. If it were made completely similar to shooting, then why have casting at all? Why not make them only shooters?
Because it is nice to have variety.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 19, 2007 04:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because the damage is different from that of shooting. I explained earlier. If it were made completely similar to shooting, then why have casting at all? Why not make them only shooters?
Because it is nice to have variety.
Yeah, but when splitting stacks and achieve different damage, it won't be a nice variety.. and when it does less damage than normal shooting it's even less so 'fun'.
Anyway, there are varieties here: spells bypass defense, shots bypass magic resistance, magic proof, etc..
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Shauku83
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2007 04:56 PM |
|
Edited by Shauku83 at 16:57, 19 Feb 2007.
|
Splitting stacks for your advantage is a tactical desicion and the game is FULL of those. It is balancing between a strong army of 7 stacks or less stacks and a) retal stealers b) shooters divided so they can't be blocked easily c) for special abilities like Harm Touch d) blockes for those 1000 Marksman, even a SINGLE (1) Peasant will do the job d) casters for more buffs and curses e) casters for more damage f) Succubus Mistresses for double changes for Hellfire....
I could go on. For me splitting casters is a tactical decision as any of those. However as I will state again that I do think the linearity could be toned down a little, so that splitting the casters won't be as advantageous as it is now.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 19, 2007 04:59 PM |
|
|
|
But when you split stacks for damage, it's silly.. not to mention the logarithmic formula is slower, poor CPU
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted February 19, 2007 05:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And mana is expensive? For my casters the mana is always full at the beginning of combat, the same as with shots
Yeah, but for all Caster/Shooters, it just happens to be that #Shots > Mana/Spellcost meaning that they will run out of Mana first, why Spells should be the more valuable ressource.
But that's actually besides the point. Like I said, it should not be so that Spells are stronger than Shots always (as it is in early game), or Shots are stronger that Spells always (as it is in late game). That is boring and removes the tactical aspect for me! With the proper balancing of the factors, like I mentioned in my post on the first page, you could have it so that the strength of the two depended on the tactical situation on the battlefield - and that would for me be much more interesting.
And no matter what you say, the idea that you will get more damage form two small stacks than from one big one is for me complete none-sense. That's the kind of thinking that reduces gameplay rather than increases it.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Shauku83
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2007 05:50 PM |
|
Edited by Shauku83 at 17:52, 19 Feb 2007.
|
Quote:
Yeah, but for all Caster/Shooters, it just happens to be that #Shots > Mana/Spellcost meaning that they will run out of Mana first, why Spells should be the more valuable ressource.
And Archmage can cast Fist of Wrath 5 times  But generally mana runs out faster, of course. It is a more valuable resourse because it has huge advantages over normal shooting..
Quote:
But that's actually besides the point. Like I said, it should not be so that Spells are stronger than Shots always (as it is in early game), or Shots are stronger that Spells always (as it is in late game). That is boring and removes the tactical aspect for me! With the proper balancing of the factors, like I mentioned in my post on the first page, you could have it so that the strength of the two depended on the tactical situation on the battlefield - and that would for me be much more interesting.
I agree to an extent. The fact that spells are always stronger than shooting early is not the problem for me though. Like you said, the mana is still more limited. In my games I have found numerous occasions when casting spells is far more useful than shooting, even though the stack size is huge.
a) deflect missile b) Treant c) Treant with Take Roots  d) Catle Walls etc.
But I do think the distinction is perhaps too great between a using a shot and a spell, those cases above were examples that are not in every game. So that can be tweaked.
Quote:
And no matter what you say, the idea that you will get more damage form two small stacks than from one big one is for me complete none-sense. That's the kind of thinking that reduces gameplay rather than increases it.
I accept that, and its a valid point of view. For me it is non-sense that a single Peasant can stop a rampage of a 100 Paladins. But i will not give up the tactics of splitting because I find this silly. Spitting contributes to the game IMHO, no matter how silly it is.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted February 19, 2007 06:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I accept that, and its a valid point of view. For me it is non-sense that a single Peasant can stop a rampage of a 100 Paladins.
Touché.
Sometimes we gotta let go of the logic.  But I still would pref... Ah well, I think I made my point.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
SuperDave9x19
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2007 09:29 PM |
|
|
i wish fog of war worked.
Once i walk thru an area, it's like I leave tiny electronic comeyes all around so I ALWAYS SEE THIS REGION forever and ever.
HOMM4 did good job with visibility and fog.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted February 19, 2007 10:08 PM |
|
|
An unnecessary complication that can make big maps really chaotic. I am glad I didn't have to see it in H5.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
pomo
Famous Hero
The lone peasant
|
|
posted February 20, 2007 12:43 AM |
|
|
Doomforge, yes destructive does a large amount of damage, but not imo sufficient to balance it against mass light/dark spells which are basically gamebreaking for the final fight.
You're not guaranteed the availability of implosion/meteor shower/slippers. Not having them will gimp you enormously. Paladins and some form of mass light magic are basically a sure thing.
Mana is likely to place a fairly severe limit on the number of empowered spells you can cast, and warlocks have no way to regain mana in battle.
Also there is no reason why an exponential formula HAS to be imbalancing, it is just an issue of finding the correct values for it so that damage does not become too overpowered late game... perhaps it could scale less well at the start but better later on? As I said I haven't figured out an exact formula, and I concede it would require a good deal of thinking to avoid imbalances.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted February 20, 2007 02:41 AM |
|
|
Hmm maybe I should let the case rest, but I actually think these numbers are kind of interesting, so I'll post them here to wrap up what I posted previously.
The tables below compare Spell Damage for Elder Druids Lightning Bolt and Arch Mage Fireball to their respective Ranged Attack.
Spell Damage is calculated as damage per unit using current Spellpower formula (first column), linear formula w. second set of multipliers from previous threads (0.6 for growth 4 units and 0.5 for growth 5 units) and linear formula w. first set of multipliers (0.7 for growth 4 and 0.6 for growth 5).
Ranged Damage is calculated as average damage at full range (FR) and half range (HR) and is also listed for a might vs. magic hero (in this case, Attack - Defense = +15 and Archery skill applies) and for a magic vs. might hero (in that case, Attack - Defense = -15; no Archery skill). These numbers were chosen to give some sort of estimate of the variability of the ranged damage.
The numbers are shown here:
 
Now what's so interesting about this? The interesting thing is, that with the second set of Multipliers (0.6 and 0.5 respectively), the damage per unit with Spell Attack approaches almost exactly the raw average damage of Ranged Attack. This shows, that with the coefficients, Linear Spell damage is certainly not overpowered, because large stacks (effectively # > 50) will do the same damage with Spell Damage as with unmodified Ranged Damage.
Now it is true, that Spell Damage doesn't suffer Range Penalty, which obviously favors this attack at long range. Furthermore, for a Magic Hero or vs. stronger creatures, the Spell will give a better damage rating because Defence value does not apply. On the other hand, against weaker creatures, or in the hand of a Might Hero, the Ranged Attack will be favorable, especially when creatures come within the full range area. At short range, the Ranged attack can easily do 150 - 200 % damage compared to the Spell Attack, and this is not even including the possible effects of Luck.
All in all, this tells me that it should quite easily be possible to find numbers that would make the linear Spellpower scale be balanced - from these simple calculations, the second suggestion from above seems to fit almost perfectly. Also, notice how the linear approach for small stacks (# < 30) will actually do considerably less damage than with the current system (where spell attacks are almost overpowered - which makes creeping vs. Elder Druids a pain ...), whereas large stacks will still do a reasonable amount of spell damage, where the curent system yields absolutely ridiculous numbers (0.9 damage per Druid Elder or 0.7 damage per Arch Mage!).
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Shauku83
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2007 04:22 AM |
|
Edited by Shauku83 at 06:11, 20 Feb 2007.
|
Would you find Precise Shot on Marksmen to be overpowered if it worked for the entire combat area instead of 3 tiles? Well that is basically what casting destructive is about (without attack bonus though)
100 Druid Elders on average do 300 damage to Titans by shooting them. By their Lightning Bolt they do 493 damage. But with this new system of yours, by the Lightning Bolt they would do 1040 (by 0.6) or 1210 (by 0.7) You are only hoping the damage of the Druids to become 400% bigger in the latter case.
By splitting the 100 Elder Druids with the current (too radical) system you can get the damage up to 782, which is a lot less than you are suggesting the Elder Druids will do even in a single stack!! Ahh, but it seems really unbalanced to get that much extra damage right... Now, if you are having those 100 Druids splitted, what do you leave out? 300 Sprites? 224 War Dancers? 180 Master Hunters? 72 Silver Unicorns? 62 Ancieant Treants? 25 Emerald Dragons? 
So you want the Druids to become more powerful, even though they do now more damage than a level 4 shooter would normally do? As I showed, eevn if there are 100 Druid Elders, the spell will be usefull. Even if the Druids are in a single stack. (not to mention if you are sieging...)
|
|
ZombieLord
Promising
Famous Hero
that wants your brainz...
|
|
posted February 20, 2007 09:35 AM |
|
|
|
I'm tired of those that compare the damage of the spells with the damage of normal shoots against tier 7s. Spells must not be useable only for tier 7s, you know.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 20, 2007 09:39 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 09:40, 20 Feb 2007.
|
Quote:
And Archmage can cast Fist of Wrath 5 times But generally mana runs out faster, of course. It is a more valuable resourse because it has huge advantages over normal shooting..
And that huge advantage is what makes casters that way. Also, I'm tired of you considering only Archmages (which have No Range Penalty), they have so powerful spells and it isn't fair to compare them.. compare normal casters instead
Quote:
I agree to an extent. The fact that spells are always stronger than shooting early is not the problem for me though. Like you said, the mana is still more limited. In my games I have found numerous occasions when casting spells is far more useful than shooting, even though the stack size is huge.
a) deflect missile b) Treant c) Treant with Take Roots d) Catle Walls etc.
What about: a) Sap magic b) Magic proof c) Magic resistance d) Unicorn's magic resistance e) Magic mirror f) Spectres drain mana g)...
There is always variety, but what you said "weakness" to normal shots is compensated by weakness to spells
Quote:
And no matter what you say, the idea that you will get more damage form two small stacks than from one big one is for me complete none-sense. That's the kind of thinking that reduces gameplay rather than increases it.
100% agreed.
Quote:
I accept that, and its a valid point of view. For me it is non-sense that a single Peasant can stop a rampage of a 100 Paladins.
You're right, it's complete non-sense and I complained about it. It's not tactics, it's either a trick or an abuse.
This would be the correct solution:
100 Paladins attack 1 peasant by walking 6 tiles, and kill him
99 Paladins are left to attack with only 2 tiles left to move
That would be really strategical and non-abusing Just as the spellpower formula
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ZombieLord
Promising
Famous Hero
that wants your brainz...
|
|
posted February 20, 2007 09:40 AM |
|
|
If you want to nerf the damage of the spells then the non-linear formula is not the solution. Let's suppose you have a small army (a small map with rushes): the spells won't be overpowered against tier 7s, huh?!?
You don't get it the non-linear formula has nothing to do about the spells being too overpowered. If you want the Druid's spells to be as strong as they are now when there are 70 Druids, just change some numbers on the linear spellpower formula so that you achieve the effect you want. IMO, this will make 10 Druids be as 'effective' as 70 Druids that you want to be, not stronger.
IMHO, a linear formula will be much more balanced. If you think the spells deal too much damage, make the spellpower grow slower. What has this to do with logarithmic sh*t?
|
|
hellwitch
Known Hero
Skeleton Ruler
|
|
posted February 20, 2007 09:57 AM |
|
|
|
I just wont Necros back to normal: No skell archer but better skell in the upg. and the old necro system, maybe little buff ot the vampire lord or reduse cost for the spectrals(in resources).
|
| |
|
|
