|
| Thread: Game Mechanics Changes |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
posted September 09, 2008 05:09 PM |
bonus applied by GenieLord on 17 Sep 2008. |
|
Game Mechanics Changes
Hello all,
In this thread I'd like to propose some changes to internal game mechanics.
1. How Attack, Defense, Spellpower and Knowledge work
First of all, I would like to say that what we have in Heroes 5 is not "fair". By this I mean that when you have 50 Attack or Spellpower, +1 is not such a big deal anymore, as it was when having 1 Attack or Spellpower. That is because it is multiplicative: you see, when you had 1 SP, +1 meant you double the amount, and therefore double the damage of most spells (ex: Lightning Bolt, and all those who don't have a "base" damage (Ice Bolt has a huge base damage, etc...)).
However, I would like to implement a system where +1 SP will have the same effect regardless of the Hero's spellpower. This is done with an exponential function. (NOTE: the ^ is the exponent operator, meaning that a^b = a at the power of b)
For Spellpower and spell effects and damage, we'll need a new variable. Let's name it SpellCoefficient. This SpellCoefficient is calculated as follows: 2 ^ (SpellPower / 10) (note: the exponent is rational and not necessarily an integer)
Now, this SpellCoefficient can be used in spell effects and damage calculations, much like we used the Spellpower until now. For example, Lightning Bolt would do a damage of 20+20*SpellCoefficient at Expert Level. (note: most numbers would probably change, because this way Lightning Bolt will deal only 60 damage with 10 Spellpower )
What does the above mean? That every ten points of Spellpower you receive, you double the effects of a spell (or its damage), regardless if you receive these 10 points when you have 1 Spellpower or 100. It's much more fair than what was before IMO.
For Knowledge and mana, we'll also need a new variable. Let's name it ManaCoefficient. This ManaCoefficient is calculated as follows: 2 ^ (Knowledge / 10)
Now, the total mana of the hero can be calculated as 10*ManaCoefficient, without taking other factors such as the Intelligence perk (note: the 10 number would probably change as well); and the mana regeneration can be calculated as simply ManaCoefficient (without taking any other factors such as the Mana Regeneration perk)
The above means that you receive double mana each ten points of Knowledge, regardless of your knowledge value (doesn't matter if it's 1 or 100). This is fair since double mana means to be able to cast double as many spells.
Now there's another thing, and that's the fact that Knowledge is actually "worse" than pure Spellpower, because you WILL cast double as many spells and thus deal double damage (like having double SP) but the time to cast grows with the Knowledge (since it takes a lot of time to deplete 300 Mana). For this I would suggest to change the number in the ManaCoefficient calculation to something a little lower than 10 to compensate. I don't know what is balanced, but let's say an 8 for now.
Thus, ManaCoefficient = 2 ^ (Knowledge / 8)
For Attack/Defense, we'll need a new variable named DamageCoefficient. This DamageCoefficient is calculated as follows: 2 ^ ((Attack - Defense) / 10) where Attack is the attack of the offensive creature, and Defense is the defense of the creature that takes the damage.
The total damage inflicted should be DamageCoefficient * CreatureDamage (where CreatureDamage is a random value selected between a creature's min damage and max damage). Note this doesn't take into account other factors such as the attack skill, Cold Steel perk, etc, which simply multiply the result by a specific value.
The above means that every 10 points of Attack you receive, your creatures deal double damage. And every 10 points of Defense you receive, your creatures suffer half damage from attacks. This is regardless of how much Att/Def your hero has.
Now of course, I think the 10 value in that formula should be changed because having creatures that deal double damage is much stronger than having hero's destructive spells to deal double damage
2. Ranged Penalties
In the system I propose, there won't be an abrupt change in damage when getting closer than half of the arena to a shooter. Also, for my system, all shooters would need a new property: Range. This Range varies from creature to creature, and more "experienced" shooters like the Hunters would have a higher range value, obviously.
Now, for each tile you get closer to the shooter you receive more damage from him, and for each tile you get away you receive less damage from the shooter. For this, I would propose a new damage coefficient that would multiply with the Creature's damage value only for shooters. Let's name it RangedCoefficient. This RangedCoefficient is calculated as follows: 2 ^ ((RangeProperty - DistanceBetweenShooterAndTarget) / 10) (note: the 10 value could change based on the battlefield size, this was just an example - I don't know if it's balanced or anything...)
This means that when the enemy is at a distance of the same value as the Range property of the shooter, the shooter inflicts full damage. When you get closer, you receive more and when you get away, you receive less.
Note that the Distance takes diagonals into account as well, it's not the number of horizontal tiles added with the number of vertical tiles to the target.
So, what do you all think of my system?
____________
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
posted September 09, 2008 06:28 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 18:42, 09 Sep 2008.
|
If you ask me we need totaly new system with new and more stats.
Main stats: Strenght, Intellect, Agility, Defence/Armor and Resistance
Second line: HP, Mana, Block, Parry/Dodge
Third line: Morale, Spellpower -> Magic effect
Neutral: Luck
How it works? The whole idea is that the main stats effect line 2 and 3, line 2 effect line 3.
Here is the table:
So what we have here:
Strenght - increase HP, armor, melee damage and block, it's just a basic stat.
HP - creatures HP, depends on hero's strenght and base creature hp.
Armor - decrease melee and ranged damage taken, depends on your strenght and base armor, armour increase your reduction.
Melee damage - well just melee damage by you and your creatures, depends on base melee damage and strenght.
Block - chance to completely neutralize enemy melee attack or to absorb part of ranged damage, a block can't follow another block, block can't be used by shooters, casters or flyers, useless against magical damage, block effect your reduction.
Reduction - gives you chance to neutralize enemy melee or ranged critical hit, with ohter words, instead of double damage, you'll receive normal.
Intellect - increase you mana and spell power, basic stat.
Spell power - increase you magical damage, magical crit rate and effect, semi basic stat.
Magical damage/healing - the damage you deal with magic, effects only damagic or healing spells.
Magical crit - chanse for double damage with spells.
Magical effect - affect the duraration of you spells, it also increase you Magic reduction.
Agility - base stat, increase you parry, ranged damage, ranged and melee crit
Melee crit - chanse for double damage with melee attacks.
Ranged crit - chanse for double damage with ranged attacks.
Parry - same as block but for creatures with better agility, works with ranged and flying units.
Ranged damage - your damage with ranged attacks.
Resistance - you have one stat for every element (resistance to air, water, earth, fire...), it reduce the magical damage taken. It increase your Magic reduction
Magic reduction - equivalent of the reduction but for magical crits.
Level - higher level, higher morale.
EDIT:
Why we need them? To prevent lamias, one town will have great Agility --->>> good crit and ranged damage, but not very good in magic and melee damage, other will have a lot of strenght --->>> huge HP pool, great melee damage, nice block rate and reduction, but lower crit rate, poor ranged attack and magic, and why not resistance? Third will raly on Intellect --->>> a lot of mana, strong spell damage, crit and effect, but low melee and ranged crit rate.
It's simply the best way, let's have battle between strenght and agility - the strenght hero will need to reach the one with the agility. The agility hero will use ranged attack and will crit more often, but the strenght one will manage to neutralize some ctirs and damage, when he reach the ranged units, they will crit with melee and will parry often, but he will block also.
____________
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 06:43 PM |
|
|
Excellent and complex ideas Vok
But still I would like to see those abilities to affect the HP, Mana, etc in an exponential way, like I explained in my first post.
____________
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 06:56 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 18:57, 09 Sep 2008.
|
Outside this the whole thing will work better, if we have more supporting creatures, like healers, tankers, stronger ranged units, mana batteries (the imp is mana battery for example), buffers, debuffers, etc...
____________
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 08:11 PM |
|
|
Nobody to comment on my "exponential" grow idea?
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 09:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hello all,
In this thread I'd like to propose some changes to internal game mechanics.
1. How Attack, Defense, Spellpower and Knowledge work
First of all, I would like to say that what we have in Heroes 5 is not "fair". By this I mean that when you have 50 Attack or Spellpower, +1 is not such a big deal anymore, as it was when having 1 Attack or Spellpower. That is because it is multiplicative: you see, when you had 1 SP, +1 meant you double the amount, and therefore double the damage of most spells (ex: Lightning Bolt, and all those who don't have a "base" damage (Ice Bolt has a huge base damage, etc...)).
I tried to do some calculations on what you suggest in the masterpost, and while I understand what you mean when you say that "+1 doesn't have the same effect when you have 50 Attack" from a mathematical point of view, it is actually not true that the current system is unfair - quite on the opposite, the current system is fair in the sence, that every point of Attack corresponds to an increase in Damage by 5 % - no matter whether you have Attack 1 or Attack 50.
However, that being said, I still think it's worthwhile to discuss whether there could be BETTER solutions. Now I know I can bore you all to death by throwing numbers in your face, so that's what I'll do. In order to evaluate the implications of this, I made a calculation in Excell. On horizontal axis is in this case (Attack - Defence), i.e. surplus of Attack, and on Vertical axiz is Damage multiplier - what we see is that if Attack - Defence = 0, we have a multiplier of 1 (i.e. 100 % = normal damage) and if Attack - Defence = 60, we have a multiplier of 4 (i.e. 400 % damage) with the Heroes 5 model, here shown in the black curve.
Also shown is the model you propose, 2^((Attack - Defence)/10) in the red curve, labeled Growth/10 in the legend. What we see is a enormous growth in Damage - at surplus attack of 20, damage multiplier is already 4, and at 60 the multiplier is 64. A single Archangel does 3200 damage with this multiplier.  That's beside the point, however, this is just a matter of changing the growth factor (10) into something bigger. Orange and Yellow curve shows result of changing factor to 20 and 30, respectively.
Discarding these very-high-growth models and looking only at the interesting range in the diagram, what one sees is this:
Here I have shown three models, growth 20, 25 and 30. Which of these is favored is a matter of taste I guess - obviously, power / 30 gives multipliers lower than current values for all Attack - Defence (as multiplier is capped at 4), whereas values 20 or 25 gives values higher at Attack - Defence higher than 20 and 39, respectively. They reach the multiplier cap of 4 at smaller differences, 40 and 50 respectively. These details are sort of besides the point, however.
What is important is the this: An exponential model favors high values. We see that at low values, the growth is smaller than in current game. It is true that relative growth between levels is the same, but in terms of absolute extra damage, this means that extra damage is negligable at low values. On the other hand, as your Attack (- Defence) value increases, extra damage becomes larger and larger for each step. First point of Attack gains you 3 and 4 % extra damage, respectively, in these two models. 21st point adds you 7 and 5 % extra damage, and 41st point adds you 14(!) and 9 % more damage.
What is the impact of this on gameplay? Well, to cut it down extremely, such a model favors specialization. Consider the Barbarian, who puts everything into Attack: How can go to very high levels and reach very deadly levels of extra damage with his last points. On the other hand, the Wizard who only has a meager 10 % chance of increasing Attack will never reach high levels. He is already crippled in terms of Attack, this model will cripple him even more. Thus, this model will make the Heroes better to the things they are good at, and worse at the things they are bad at.
Does this mean it's a bad idea? Not necessarily. One can argue that if it's too easy to be versatile, i.e. good in both Might and Magic, it's too easy to ride both horses. This decreases the value of being a good tactician - you can always chose the safe middle-road. Furthermore, such a change might justify some of the options the Wizard has at his hand - a Wizard increasing Attack of all his creatures by 12 points with a single spell (that's +60 % damage!) can seem pretty overpowered as it is; considering the Wizards low Attack, such a spell would be less deadly with the other system. On the other hand, imagine what such a spell would do in the hands of a Knight or Ranger who already has high Attack! To give an example, +12 Attack corresponds to +136 (!) and +86 % damage for a Hero who already has a surplus Attack of 28 with the models discussed above.
Another important point which needs to be taken into account here is the way a hero develops his levels and stats during the game. In a typical game, Heroes increase in levels and hence in stats very quickly in early game, whereas the level-up rate decreases steadily during game as XP-requirements increases exponentially. This will actually act like a natural counter to the above descriped issues: In early game, you gain levels and stats fast, but the effect will be small; in late game, you gain levels slowly, but the effect will be large. In that sense, it'll correspond to a more "linear" growth in Damage output, not in terms of stat growth, but in terms of game time.
It is very important to take into account here that the nature of the map is very important in this regard. If your Hero grows to level ~30, he'll put ~15 points into his primary stat (+ some more with Enlightenment). If the map is very "rich" in stat boosters (Mercenary Camp, Arenas, etc.), this number may be insignificant, and growth will be more or less linear with time. On the other hand, if map is poor in stat boosters, this number will dominate, and the stat will stagnate after a certain point. Artifacts is another unknown that will normally cause a primarily late-game growth.
So, what's the conclusion of all this? I'm not sure, really, as it's obviously a very complex issue. From my subjective point of view, I'm not sure I favor the new system - I don't really see the need, to be honest. I'll probably try to evaluate the impact on spells at some point, because (particularly Destructive spells) is one of the main areas where one tends to see a stagnation in late game - more specifically, the longer the game lasts, the less likely will you be to win it with Destructive Magic only.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 10:12 PM |
|
|
Ok I made some (ridiculous I know) examples to show my point:
Creature A
Attack 10
Defense 10
Damage 50
...
other stats are not important
When this creature attacks itself (the same type, not the same stack) it deals 50 Damage.
With +12 Attack (Let's say from Righteous Might) it will deal 80 Damage.
80 / 50 = 60% extra damage.
Now let's consider it is leaded by a Hero with attack 100.
When it attacks itself, it deals 300 Damage. This is 600% extra damage.
With +12 Attack, it will deal 330 Damage.
330 / 300 = 10% extra damage. As you can see, it is not the same as above, where Righteous Might increased the damage by 60%.
This simply makes Attack boosts less important when you already have high attack.
However, what seems "balanced" in Nival's system until now is that when both Attack and Defense are high, they cancel each other. So if you had 110 Attack and the enemy 110 Defense, then increasing the Attack will have the same effect as when having 0 Attack and the enemy 0 Defense. However, this is what I consider "not fair": that increasing attack by +x has not the same effect no matter the situation.
I know, 100 Attack is ridiculous, but I wanted to prove my point easier
The "unfair" thingy is also proved by Nival's formula: it isn't "global" and needs an IF statement (if Att>Def, or if Def>Att), mine doesn't and works perfectly in both cases.
And besides, what you said that those with specializations will be favored is not true. Actually, those with specialization are unfavored now, so maybe indeed my suggestion will make them stronger
Unfavored because when you have high Att/Def/SP, gaining one point is not such a big deal. If you have your stats diversified, you are a lot more stronger with a system as the current one. I want to balance this.
Now, consider a RPG system (RPGs have the same flaws, I always wanted to suggest an exponential system in them)
We have three characters:
BOB:
Strength: 2
Stamina: 2
JOE:
Strength: 3
Stamina: 1
JIM:
Strength: 1
Stamina: 3
Let's say that 1 in an ability provides no bonus, and the total damage is multiplied by that ability value. Although all 3 characters have the same number of points distributed to their stats, Bob is clearly superior, because his stats are diversified. Bob deals double damage than normal and dies twice as hard, while Joe and Jim only do triple damage and die normally.
Result? Bob wins in a 1v1 fight (ofc it's oversimplified). Let's take this practical:
Bob has 60 HP, and deals 2 damage.
Joe has 30 HP, and deals 3 damage.
Jim has 90 HP, and deals 1 damage.
Let's consider they attack each other simultaneously, so as to not make it too complicated.
Bob vs Joe:
Bob attacks Joe 15 times and kills him
Joe attacks Bob 15 times and doesn't kill him (deals only 45 damage) - this proves that Bob is better.
Bob vs Jim:
Bob attacks Jim 45 times and kills him
Jim attacks Bob 45 times and doesn't kill him (deals only 45 damage) - same story as with Joe, because they both "specialized" in an ability.
That's the flaw with the systems that use a simple multiplication.
My system would look like this: Each point of Strength provides DOUBLE damage. Let's say a formula like 2 ^ (Strength-1). The same for Stamina and HP.
So,
Bob would deal 2 ^ 1 = 2 damage, and have (2 ^ 1) * 30 = 60 HP (Bob is the same as before)
Joe would deal 2 ^ 2 = 4 damage, and have (2 ^ 0) * 30 = 30 HP.
Jim would deal 2 ^ 0 = 1 damage, and have (2 ^ 2) * 30 = 120 HP.
Bob vs Joe
Bob attacks Joe 15 times and kills him, dealing 30 damage, the same as required to kill Joe.
Joe attacks Bob 15 times and kills him (deals 60 damage - the same as required to kill Bob)
Bob vs Jim:
Bob attacks Jim 60 times and kills him, dealing 120 damage, the same as required to kill Jim.
Jim attacks Bob 60 times and kill him (deals 60 damage - the same as required to kill Bob)
As you can see, in my system Bob is not favored anymore because he has more diversified values in his abilities.
btw, it gets more and more unfair as the numbers are higher.
Do some tests with the following chars and see for yourself:
Bob:
Strength: 100
Stamina: 100
Joe:
Strength: 200
Stamina: 0
Jim:
Strength: 0
Stamina: 200
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 10:22 PM |
|
|
|
Obviously, we have different concepts of what is fair. I'll return to this subject tomorrow, you won't get off the hook this easily.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 10:27 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 23:00, 09 Sep 2008.
|
On a related note, do you consider gaining 1 ArchAngel when you have 150 already the same in importance as when you have only 1? It's the same with Spellpower. With Attack is a little more "balanced" by Nival because Defense exists, and as I said when having both of them high they cancel each other.
But the unfair stuff comes when the difference between Att/Def is big, such as when a Barbarian fights a Warlock. As you can see in my above example with 100 Attack difference, Righteous Might becomes almost useless, increasing only by 10% the damage. (actually, you're right in a way, it does increase by the same amount - 30 - but to compare them fair is to compare them in percents, not in damage units)
EDIT:
Another thing:
A skill like Cold Steel increases the final damage by 10%. This means that in the above examples, it will increase the damage from 50 to 55, from 80 to 88, from 300 to 330 and from 330 to 363. As you can see, it increases each time differently (and this is fair)
Now, the story about Attack increasing the damage by 5% per point is NOT TRUE. Attack increases only the base damage by 5%. Attack is like +x damage (instead of +x%) to a creature. The only thing that differentiates it from a banal +10 damage is the fact that it is based on the base damage of the creature. So a creature with more damage will get a higher bonus from attack, but, for example, a creature with 50 damage will receive +5 damage per two points of attack, NOT +10%. If the creature deals 100 damage because of high attack it has versus the enemy defense, increasing the attack value of the creature by +2 will only make it deal 105 damage (+5), which is not +10% anymore (but only +5%).
And now you have to admit that +10 HP to a Magma Dragon is pretty lame compared to +10 HP to a Peasant stack (a lot of them to compensate in power to a Magma), is it not?
One more attempt to persuade you ()
(btw Alc, I thank you for at least discussing my ideas, even if you don't agree)
Let's consider you have +20 Attack than the enemy (possible when fighting with a low-defense hero and you're a high-attack hero yourself)
Let's consider two identical stacks of creatures who have 10 attack, 10 defense and 50 damage.
Now, fighting against each other, you deal 100 damage to the enemy.
Now, let's say you level-up. You are offered that ability which gives +2 Attack (I don't know if it exists, but let's assume it does) and the Cold Steel ability (+10% damage)
According to you, it is "fair" and +2 Attack is +10% damage, therefore both abilities have the same effect, hmm? (Also, I hope you agree that Cold Steel, etc, are fair abilities, no?)
WRONG.
Because of your 20 Attack, Cold Steel is better than the other, which will give a smaller bonus than +10%.
Test:
You have +22 more Attack now, so your creature does 105 damage, while with Cold Steel (and only 20 Attack) it would deal 110 damage. As you can see, it is NOT the same, and is only because of this system. If you had 0 Attack with your Hero higher than the enemy's Defense, the situation would change.
Without any perks, the creature would deal 50 damage.
With Cold Steel, it would deal 55 damage.
With +2 Attack, it would deal 55 damage as well (since you have +2 more attack than the enemy)
In this scenario, Cold Steel = +2 attack in power (like you said it IS right now regardless of the situation, but unfortunately it isn't)
But in the first scenario, Cold Steel (which is a fair ability) is better than +2 attack, and only because you have a higher attack value, and the +2 ability diminishes in power.
This is what I consider "unfair"
On a related note, why do you think Enlightenment gives more Att/Def points as your hero gains more levels? Because Nival saw this "unfair" thing
Phew, I hope I managed to Persuade you (at least to understand my point)
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 11:21 PM |
|
|
While your system is "fair" in a way Ash, I have to say it's not very realistic. If you work 5 hours a day, and in a year you get enough money to buy a car, then the first year you get a car. Second year, your amount of cars "doubles" so to speak (2 cars), for just 1 extra year of work. Third year, however, your cars will only increase by 50%, but you still work one year, not half a year.
Or the first year, you get an infinite amount since you had 0 cars, and you multiply by what? Infinity to get 1 car?
Of course just because it isn't realistic doesn't mean it's bad. I just shared my thoughts.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 11:22 PM |
|
|
Hmm, this is a game with rules that aren't supposed to be "realistic" but "fair" and balanced
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 11:25 PM |
|
|
Truthfully I don't know. Let's take two examples:
first you hire 2 creatures.
you hire another 2 creatures, the "damage" just doubled.
you hire another 2 creatures, the "damage" did not double, even though you paid the same money.
Of course every game uses the above system for hiring/building/recruiting creatures, right?
Now for Heroes, it COULD be similar, that is "hiring" an ability point by using money (experience) or whatever.
still I think your ideas should be applied but only in some abilities, not stats. Or maybe I will think more about it -- seems interesting enough though
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 09, 2008 11:32 PM |
|
|
You have a point here, Death, as I said, hiring 1 Archangel when you have 1500 has almost ZERO effect compared to hiring an Archangel when you have none Therefore, hiring creatures is also "not fair"
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 10, 2008 09:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You have a point here, Death, as I said, hiring 1 Archangel when you have 1500 has almost ZERO effect compared to hiring an Archangel when you have none Therefore, hiring creatures is also "not fair"
I have ot dissapoint you, you did not persuade me - quite on the contrary. I think your argument above just goes to show that things may not be "fair", but they may still make sense.
First off, let me address the "Archangel" issue - although Death has pretty much covered this. As the game is now, we gain 2 Archangels each week. According to your arguments, that is not "fair", because the relative growth of your Archangel population will be smaller and smaller as time goes by. However, should this be the case, your Archangel growth should go like this:
Week 1: +1 (base growth)
Week 2: +1 (double up)
Week 3: +2 (double up)
Week 4: +4 (")
Week 5: +8 (")
Week 6: +16 (")
etc.
On the opposite hand, the current system offers you a steady +2 each week. Which is more fair? Well, it depends on the point of view you take. It's true that the current system means that the relative growth becomes less and less as time goes by, but I don't think that's unfair.
In the same way, currently, Attack offers you a 5 % each damage for each surplus Attack point. As you very correctly say, for the Archangel, that amounts to an extra 2,5 damge for each point, i.e. Damage = 50 + 2,5 x A*, where A* = A - D is the surplus attack. As you say, for A* = 1 this amounts to +5 % damage, while for A* = 41, the last point only adds another 1.7 % damage.
Personally, I think it's fair that each point of Attack adds the same amount of damage. For me, that seems the most logic way for it to be, also. To draw a parallel, the logarithmic growth of stack spellpower always bugged me, why would 20 mages do less than 20 x the damage of 1 mage with their spells? That's another discussion, however.
As for the Cold Steel argument, I think your sort of mixing oranges and apples here. First off, I don't see Cold Steel and Attack being that different. It's true, you can say Cold Steel works on both Base Damage and Attack modifier - but you can also turn the argument around and say Cold Steel affects only Base Damage, and that Attack affects both Base Damage and Cold Steel:
Consider an Archangel with A* = 20 corresponding to 200 % damage. Base Damage is 50, with Attack this gives 100, and with Cold Steel, a total of 110. However, we can also say that Base Damage is 50, and with Cold Steel becomes 55, and with Attack this becomes 110. The result is the same either way.
And to get back to my previous post, I don't think it's make sense to say "which is more fair", because that's only a matter of which model we choose for our game. However, I think the linear approach makes most sense in terms of having stability - one week is the same as the other, all things being equal, and the same goes currently for Attack points, each point adds the same absolute amount.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 10, 2008 01:51 PM |
|
|
My suggestion for Attack/Defense was just so that +2 Attack (from that ability) is the same as Cold Steel in "power".
btw, Cold Steel and such abilities work like my system, exponentially. I mean, if you have both Cold Steel and Fiery Wrath, your damage will be increased by 21% (not 20% ). That's because 1.1 * 1.1 = 1.21. That's because the formula is with a multiplication, and not with an addition like it is in attack (1.1 + 1.1 or something like that)
Attack currently works something like this:
damage * (1 + 0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 + ... [for each point of attack])
Cold Steel and similar abilities work like this:
damage * 1.1 * 1.1 * 1.1 * ... etc
Therefore I wanted to make Attack work similar, like this:
damage * 1.05 * 1.05 * 1.05 * ... [for each point of attack]
But anyway, let's comment on my other idea as wellQuote:
2. Ranged Penalties
In the system I propose, there won't be an abrupt change in damage when getting closer than half of the arena to a shooter. Also, for my system, all shooters would need a new property: Range. This Range varies from creature to creature, and more "experienced" shooters like the Hunters would have a higher range value, obviously.
Now, for each tile you get closer to the shooter you receive more damage from him, and for each tile you get away you receive less damage from the shooter. For this, I would propose a new damage coefficient that would multiply with the Creature's damage value only for shooters. Let's name it RangedCoefficient. This RangedCoefficient is calculated as follows: 2 ^ ((RangeProperty - DistanceBetweenShooterAndTarget) / 10) (note: the 10 value could change based on the battlefield size, this was just an example - I don't know if it's balanced or anything...)
This means that when the enemy is at a distance of the same value as the Range property of the shooter, the shooter inflicts full damage. When you get closer, you receive more and when you get away, you receive less.
Note that the Distance takes diagonals into account as well, it's not the number of horizontal tiles added with the number of vertical tiles to the target.
____________
|
|
Warmonger
Promising
Legendary Hero
fallen artist
|
|
posted September 10, 2008 02:42 PM |
|
|
After some tests with unusual attack/defense values, I came to the the conclusion that H5 system is PERFECT. It gives virtually no limits and stays balanced nonetheless.
As soon as you'll have a chance to play one of my single scenario maps, you'll find it out on your own
For sure there are many players who wish to get insane levels and hero stats, though the game mechanics should not loose the balance if they do so. Linear damage progression fills that demand.
Let's think about the creature's power as an product of damage it can inflict and damage it can take. In that case, if creature gets +20 attack and +20 defense, its total power equals 2*2, which is QUAD the original power. Nothing to ignore imo.
The exponential coefficients, as Alci wrote, favour high values. But once the critical value is reached, it results in overpowering advantage which decides of game result before the other side has chance to overcome it. In other words, armies power increase also exponentially and gives them not only usual boost, but also the initiative and ability to take all resources / towns / secondary heroes instantly. That's not where we want it to go.
Quote:
Therefore I wanted to make Attack work similar, like this:
damage * 1.05 * 1.05 * 1.05 * ... [for each point of attack]
Mathematics say simply: big exponent => ridiculous result.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 10, 2008 02:57 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 15:00, 10 Sep 2008.
|
So for you things that increase damage by a multiplication such as Elemental Chains, Cold Steel perk and many others are "unfair"? Because, as I said, they grow exponentially (1.1 * 1.1 = 1.21, not 1.2!)
Also, let's take SpellPower into account since Attack is more complicated due to Defense as well. Now, consider that Summoning Perk that gives +4 Spellpower (but let's say we apply it to a Destructive Spell), and a new perk that gives +20% damage to Destructive Spells.
Let's take Lightning Bolt: it deals 20+20*SP
With Spellpower 1, the +4 SP perk gives a tremendous boost in Spell damage. Your Lightning Bolt would deal 120 damage, that's 120/40 = 3  that's 300% DAMAGE! While the other poor perk gives only a 20% damage boost.
Now, with Spellpower 30, things change dramatically. This is what I don't consider fair. Your Lightning Bolt would deal 620 damage normally. With +4 SP it would deal 700 damage. 700/620 = 1.129 it means ONLY 12.9% extra damage. Now, the other perk takes the lead with 20% damage boost. Honestly, I don't think the above is fair at all
If you think the above is "fair" then would you consider those artifacts that enhance your X-based-spells by 50% "not fair"? I mean, take your pick: either +x Spellpower in the current system is fair, or +x% damage to a spell is fair. I would go with the second option, and that's why I want to convert the +x Spellpower into a +x% damage of the spell regardless of SP.
Anyway, at least these "calculations" made me pick things that enhance your damage by a percentage over things that enhance attack/defense/spellpower when the aforementioned stats are high
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 10, 2008 04:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
btw, Cold Steel and such abilities work like my system, exponentially. I mean, if you have both Cold Steel and Fiery Wrath, your damage will be increased by 21% (not 20%). That's because 1.1 * 1.1 = 1.21. That's because the formula is with a multiplication, and not with an addition like it is in attack (1.1 + 1.1 or something like that)
Attack currently works something like this:
damage * (1 + 0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 + ... [for each point of attack])
Cold Steel and similar abilities work like this:
damage * 1.1 * 1.1 * 1.1 * ... etc
Therefore I wanted to make Attack work similar, like this:
damage * 1.05 * 1.05 * 1.05 * ... [for each point of attack]
I get your point, I'm just not sure it's better to change it. I can see why you think it doesn't make much sense that Cold Steel, Fiery Wrath etc. add exponentially, but then, in that case were talking 3 different properties - Attack, Cold Steel, Fiery Wrath - whereas in case of your 20 points of Attack, it just one property - Attack, Attack, Attack, etc. 20 times over. As such, you can argue it makes sense to have it as one.
And when all comes down to the end, I think it's important to consider both what makes sense but also what is best for game. To have Cold Steel work as just a +2 Attack bonus would make it much less interesting, and considering the fact that it has a number of prerequisites, I think it's fair to have it as it is.
Quote:
Let's take Lightning Bolt: it deals 20+20*SP
With Spellpower 1, the +4 SP perk gives a tremendous boost in Spell damage. Your Lightning Bolt would deal 120 damage, that's 120/40 = 3 that's 300% DAMAGE! While the other poor perk gives only a 20% damage boost.
Now, with Spellpower 30, things change dramatically. This is what I don't consider fair. Your Lightning Bolt would deal 620 damage normally. With +4 SP it would deal 700 damage. 700/620 = 1.129 it means ONLY 12.9% extra damage. Now, the other perk takes the lead with 20% damage boost. Honestly, I don't think the above is fair at all
While your numbers are mathmatically correct, you cannot run from the fact that in all cases, the +4 Spellpower equals +80 damage. True, it's less relative with high Spellpower - but that doesn't mean that the current solution is less logical or less fair than what you suggest - it's just different.
That being said, I agree that the current version of many of these "Master Of" abilities in Summoning Magic are pretty dull, and one way to spice them up would be to add a percentual modifier to the spell effectivity rather than just a fixed +4 Spellpower.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 10, 2008 05:28 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 17:29, 10 Sep 2008.
|
Ok, I see your point. I just wanted to make the hero attributes work "fair" (that means the same as the skills and abilities). But maybe it's better the way it is now
Also, what do you think of my "ranged penalty" idea
____________
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 11, 2008 06:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also, what do you think of my "ranged penalty" idea
Nobody? Is it so perfect that it doesn't need any comment or so ridiculous that it isn't worth discussing
____________
|
| |
|
|
