|
| Thread: Upgrades Analysis |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 14, 2008 07:39 PM |
|
|
I didn't try it yet.
I've made a complete system for Homm3, but 5 is more difficult since the specials are weirder and more complicated.
One problem is rating a shooter. As long as a shooter can act as one it's basically a no-retaliation unit, but as soon as there is contact it's not. Moreover you have the siege combat where a shooter has an advantage as well over a ground pounder at least.
If you rate a shooter there must be a difference between
a) no range penalty versus range penalty
b) no hand-to-hand penalty versus half damage
This means, for a shooter you must put together an attack part for full range, for half range and for hand-to-hand-combat. This could be one third for all, of course.
Still, it needs tweaking. Caster are difficult as well. Speed of ranged units isn't so important. And so on.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted October 14, 2008 07:47 PM |
|
|
From what I've seen from some Nival balance I think shooters are like ordinary troops with some 6+ Speed.
Let's analyze from far range: Shooting results in No Retaliation, which is a bonus, but is compensated by dealing half damage.
From close range, the shooter deals full damage AND has no retaliation. However, this is compensated by the fact that when blocked, a shooter will deal both half damage AND receive retaliation.
So I think shooting isn't really a "positive" ability - but of course there may be situations when you'll prefer a shooter, or other situations when you'll prefer a walker.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2008 08:45 PM |
|
|
another suggestion is simply comparing ranged attackers with ranged attackers and melee attackers with melee attackers.
I think ranged attackers are supposed to be less strong anyway.
btw, I had an excel sheet on which I made a lots of comparisons on creatures...
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2008 10:21 PM |
|
|
Depends on the shooter. No range penalty shooters and no melee penalty shooters are definitely better than normal ground units.
Let's take simple Gremlins. If they were a ground troop they would be
sqrt(1.5/1.3*5/1.35)*0.7*0.6=0.87
We have to give now 3 attacks with 3 possible retaliations, while we will be attacked still only once (and retaliate with only half damage. That amounts to 2.5 full attacks (instead of 2), while the no-retal factor isn't 2 as for the sisters, but 1.5 only. Speed on the other hand isn't important, so we leave it out for the moment.
This changes things to
sqrt(1.5/1.3*1.25*5/1.35*1.5)*0.7=1.98
which looks quite a bit different.
What we need now is to factor in ammunition and speed. Skeleton Archers have, for example, 8 shots and speed 4, while Gremlins have 5 shots and speed 3. This should make a difference but one not too big.
I have no idea how to do it at this point
|
|
Nebdar
Promising
Supreme Hero
Generation N
|
|
posted October 14, 2008 11:50 PM |
|
Edited by Nebdar at 00:11, 15 Oct 2008.
|
Looks like this thread it is making better and better with time, definetly in maths and calculations there is an huge progress.
so how to make good unit and upgrades my way)
- if one alternative upgrade is better then the other increase the cost ofthe better one.
- the simplest solutions are often the best solutions
- make to "bad" upgrades in such way that all players will say that they are good upgrades
- make totally new creature
- the 1st upgrade must be better in some situations then the 2nd one and the 2nd one is bettere in situations where the 1st is weak(those siuations should have a probabilty close to 40-50%)
- play with the upgrades and then play against them to see all aspects of the game
- math and calculatiuons are static and the game very dynamic so they can help in some small degree.
an example:
Wraith Banshee
Att 26 26
Def 26 26
Dmg 25-30 25-30
Int 11 11
Spd 6 6
HP 100 100
Abil Harm Touch Death Wail
Balanced now 
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 12:23 AM |
|
|
|
but now it's the same problem than with titan / colossus. those 2 abilities are too specific to a few situations, you could choose one of the 2 randomly, it wouldn't make a difference in many cases.
|
|
Nebdar
Promising
Supreme Hero
Generation N
|
posted October 15, 2008 12:31 AM |
|
|
yes it is pretty tight balance but any of those alternatives are obiously better then the other. And choice makes a difference but as not so huge like AA an MH, MinGuards and MinTask.
____________
|
|
RedFury
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 10:13 AM |
|
|
The differences between the Minos are only considered as if it were a single unit agains the rest ... but if you factor in the usage of raiders (Sorgals,to take an extreme), for which they are ment as a support unit, their usage increases, at least in later creeping...and IMHO the Aura thing is useful only against necro or if you happen to have some AA naturals join your army...
Blood Sisters are going to act twice before an average 10 init, 5 speed creature is going to cross the field and hit them, while furies are going to act 3 times ... now again, who has the greater survivability? 
BTW... jolly, good lucky making your math work with the fact, that assassins are actually walkers, who can also shoot with half their damage (only 1/4 on distance, something like Cycs ability). And that 100% of their damage is done in the next 3 turns, like Ignite should be working(Lets say that poision is 1 additional dmg to the existing 2-4... so per 3 turns we get the 3 average that the assassins have  , but only once per 3 turns per creatre  )
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 12:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So I think shooting isn't really a "positive" ability - but of course there may be situations when you'll prefer a shooter, or other situations when you'll prefer a walker.
Sorry, but saying that shooting is not a possitive ability is simply not making sense. We all know that shooting has huge value, particularly during creeping. If we discarded the super-peasant ability, maybe things would change a bit, but for now ...
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 12:35 PM |
|
|
It makes no sense to factor units in that "profit" from any unit simply being there because in that case it's not a property of the unit in question, but a property of EVERY unit.
For the rest, remember, my main point is that it makes no sense to make complicated arithmetics about units when you have no way to do the same for special abilities. I did manage a halfway decent way for Homm3, but Homm3 is a lot easier in that respect. WAY easier, you might even say. I don't see any realistic way to do a power rating that comes even close to balancing the more complex abilities. I mean, take Harm Touch. How will you rate that? Or take the War Dance Combo. Not only can you hit multiple enemies you can steer retal, so that there may not even be one. Or take any other ability.
What I basically wanted to say is that you can do the stat arithmetics differently and maybe even better, but it's of not much use because of the abilities.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 01:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry, but saying that shooting is not a possitive ability is simply not making sense. We all know that shooting has huge value, particularly during creeping. If we discarded the super-peasant ability, maybe things would change a bit, but for now ...
I wasn't talking about creeping lol
Creeping is imbalanced anyway; for example, Fast units are a lot more important than slow units at creeping - does that mean all fast units are overpowered?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 01:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't see any realistic way to do a power rating that comes even close to balancing the more complex abilities. I mean, take Harm Touch. How will you rate that? Or take the War Dance Combo. Not only can you hit multiple enemies you can steer retal, so that there may not even be one. Or take any other ability.
What I basically wanted to say is that you can do the stat arithmetics differently and maybe even better, but it's of not much use because of the abilities.
So how did Nival manage to balance it? Pure luck? Pure guess?
|
|
Nebdar
Promising
Supreme Hero
Generation N
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 01:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So how did Nival manage to balance it? Pure luck? Pure guess?
Did Nival manage to balance it at all
We can see that next addons and patches are efforts to make better and balanced game. IMO this project is still in middle of the way to balance.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 01:54 PM |
|
|
Did they balance it?
If you just take a comparison of the upgrades I don't think they did balance it with all of them.
The Minos are an example. Since Initiative is so important you are virtually always better off by taking the faster unit.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 02:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't see any realistic way to do a power rating that comes even close to balancing the more complex abilities. I mean, take Harm Touch. How will you rate that? Or take the War Dance Combo. Not only can you hit multiple enemies you can steer retal, so that there may not even be one. Or take any other ability.
What I basically wanted to say is that you can do the stat arithmetics differently and maybe even better, but it's of not much use because of the abilities.
So, by this definition, there is no "perfect" balance, since abilities are subjective, and the numbers (which are at least objective) are not important?
Quote:
We can see that next addons and patches are efforts to make better and balanced game. IMO this project is still in middle of the way to balance.
Following what JJ said above, what would you consider "Better and balanced" game? You may even change things in which people will disagree even more than now; or they may even be people that think now it's the perfect balance (for example, there was one that didn't think Arcane Archers are overpowered - there's a whole 10 page thread about this  )
Yes, abilities are definitely subjective, and I would provide a number (in percents) about how strong an ability may be. For example, I would consider Harm Touch around 7%-10%, so, after calculating the stats for the creature to be balanced WITHOUT any abilities, just decrease something (damage or hit points or even both, but less so the total is the same) by around 7%-10%.
Of course, this is subjective (how I rated Harm Touch) so the point is that we'll never agree on a "perfect" balance - that's why we can't do anything but play with what Nival did
____________
|
|
Nebdar
Promising
Supreme Hero
Generation N
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 02:47 PM |
|
Edited by Nebdar at 14:48, 15 Oct 2008.
|
So crusade for more balanced game is like never ending story like crusade for Holy Grail:
no body seen it, know if it's true what it does but somebody was looking for it whole life.(without luck)
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 03:02 PM |
|
|
Right, for a game like Heroes no perfect balance is possible. It's all the more difficult to get a semblance of balance the more fancy the abilities, racial skills and hero perks and spells are.
The art is now, to find a balance in limiting the fancyness of the abilities and stuff enough to allow a window of balanced playing that is big enough.
What that means is that an ability like Invisibility or at least Invisibility as it is now simply makes that window smaller.
|
|
Nebdar
Promising
Supreme Hero
Generation N
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 03:10 PM |
|
|
And what if instead this Upgrade system tier 4 =>> 1st upg <=> 2nd upg change it into this one tier 4 => 1st upg => 2nd upg.
Of course getting an second upgrade would have some specific perequisites, and you could only upg 2 or 3 tiers to this lvl.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 03:23 PM |
|
|
|
Why would that change anything? I'd guess that it would make things even more difficult to balance halfway (albeit not impossible, of course).
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted October 15, 2008 05:37 PM |
|
|
While I think the perfect balance is an elusive concept, there are examples of alternative upgrades being balanced within the game - examples I could pin-point would be Conscript vs. Brute, Squire vs. Vindicator, Paladin vs. Champion and Arch Angel vs. Seraph, just to name some.
And here I would like to emphasize that by balanced, I don't necesarily mean that one is exactly as good as the other, because we will always tend to find a favorite when we have two to choose from. I think the central focus in this discussion is that the two units should have two different areas of specialization. This can come in two ways - either on a general level, like the Squire vs. Vindicator: One if offensive, the other is deffensive. That is always the truth, and you should make your choice based on what role you want the unit to play.
However, the division can also be on a smaller scale - and here the word situational plays a key role. Take, for instance, the Paladin vs. the Champion. Both units are pretty offensive, even if the Champion has a slightly more offensive edge. However, the Paladin is not redundant because it has a very situational combination of skills: Immunity to Frenzy + Lay Hands obviously becomes very - extremely - important once facing a Dark Magic faction. Thus, while the Champion when seen at face value seems the better pick of the two, in some cases the Paladin will be a far better choice.
So, when do things go wrong? Well, the Master Hunter vs. Arcane Archer is a classic example. The Master Hunter is a pretty offensive ranged unit, but along comes then the Arcane Archer, which is even more offensive. That's a bad start, but to make things, the Master Hunter lacks some sort of situational ability that makes it, sometimes, worth picking. On the bottom line, we come down to the fact that the Arcane Archer is practically always better than the Master Hunter.
So, what does this add to the current discussion? Well, to address JollyJoker's question from above, I think there are things you can do to evaluate the strength of abilities when weighing them against each other. And again, I think the word situational is important here: Strictly situational abilities are much less usefull than what you can call universal abilities. To give some examples:
Ranged > Universal.
No Range Penalty > Universal.
Flying > Universal.
Jousting > Universal.
Cleave > Universal.
Resurrect Allies > Universal.
I consider these skills universal, because they are (almost) always useful - or, to put it the other way around, they are almost never useless. Of course, sometimes you don't need them, but it's hard to imagine a battle where you might not come to need them - or benefit from them at least.
On the other hand, let's take skills like:
Immunity to Blind / Frenzy > Highly situational.
Champion Charge > Quite situational.
Precise Shot > Somewhat situational.
Lay Hands > Somewhat situational.
I rate these abilities as more or less situational, because in many battles, they simply won't benefit you anything. Immunity to certain spells, for instance, is simply without any value unless you are in the very specific situation where your opponent is actually able to cast these spells. Lay Hands, while less situational, also only has a real importance when you're facing an opponent who's actually likely to use Dark Magic or other forms of curses.
When rating abilities, I think that the more general an ability is, the higher its value - and very narrow abilities should have quite low value. Of course, that's not the only thing to take into consideration, you should also look at how "good" overall the ability is - for instance, Precise Shot might be quite situational but might still be better than some more universal abilities, like the Zombies Weakening Strike, simply because it can be really good in some situations (Dragon Utopias) whereas the Zombies Weakening Strike rarely makes much of a difference (which is, however, not so much a fault of the ability as of the bearer in this instance).
I think some of the very obvious problems in balancing comes when you match a very general ability - like No Range Penalty of the Crosbowman - vs. a quite situational ability - like Precise Shot of the Marksman - against each other. The Markman still has its uses, but if the application becomes too narrow, the alternative system breaks down, because you will in effect always choose one over the other. This, however, can also happen when matching two general abilities against each other - Elder Druids vs. High Druids is a good example of this, because Power Feed is simply so much better than Mana Feed (and still the Elder Druid is saved by its Lightning Bolt, which makes it in some situations an attractive pick).
Good examples of balancing are when two situational abilities are matched against each other - take for instance the Wraith vs. the Banshee. Both Harm Touch and Death Wail is what I would call quite situational. As for strength, I'd say Harm Touch is medium while I'd say Death Wail is medium-to-weak. Taking this into account, I'd say that they should have quite similar stats, perhaps the Banshee slightly higher overall stats. I don't think they should have equal stats, but their Attack + Defence rating should be roughly equal, and if one has better Damage the other should have more HP. What we see is indeed that Wraith has better damage (25-30 vs. 22-27) and Banshee has better HP (110 vs. 100), so that part seems ok. However, Wraith has much better primary stats (26/24, sum 50) than Banshee (23/23, sum 46) which points at poor balancing. Rather, I'd say that Banshee should have had slightly higher stats than Wraith - or at least similar, like 24/26.
I hope all this makes some sort of sense.
|
| |
|
|
