|
| Thread: Bored of the beta: a mini-review |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Warmonger
Promising
Legendary Hero
fallen artist
|
posted July 12, 2011 08:37 AM |
|
|
|
I think that not only numbers of neutrals are fine, but also they grow rapidly over time especially in comparison with previous series. The problem is too high survivability of player's units due to massive healing and ability to amass huge armies with town converting.
|
|
Crayfish
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 07:22 PM |
bonus applied by alcibiades on 15 Jul 2011. |
Edited by Crayfish at 19:26, 12 Jul 2011.
|
So what do people think to the points I suggested a while ago for the skill trees? Do you have any alternative suggestions? Do you agree that the current skill trees are lacking or do they work for you? I was thinking about making a poll, but it would be more interesting to talk about it qualitatively.
Those suggestions were:
1. Skill trees are faction specific; there are some shared skills but also a good number of unique faction skills.
2. Might heroes do not have mana, they have another statistic (calculated from might attack and might defense in the same manner as mana) that powers warcries. Warcries are buffed to balance spells.
3. Might heroes have no access to magic. Magic heroes have no access to Might skills. Both Might and Magic heroes have access to basic skills such as logistics and pathfinding. Faction unique skills appear in both might and magic trees, some are accessible by both Might and Magic heroes, others are restricted to one or the other.
4. Magic schools are either (a) unique to each faction (e.g. Sanctuary has only water magic, Inferno has only fire magic) or (b) reduced from 5 schools per faction to 2 or 3 schools per faction.
|
|
jackissocool
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 07:57 PM |
|
|
I generally like all 4 of those suggestions, especially faction-specific skills and further separation of might and magic heroes. I don't think they should be absolutely exclusive. Maybe instead of two levels of the opposite school available, just one. I think this is a good middle ground. That way, a might hero can access basic spells and a magic hero can provide some limited buffs to his units (and other such mighty things). This would make the separate mana(ish) system for might heroes pointless, but I think that would be unnecessary anyways with something like this. However, I am not opposed to pretty much exactly what was proposed above, I'm just providing more of a compromise.
Oh, and definitely limit magic schools more between factions. But if you do that, you may need to also limit might schools, I'm not sure.
|
|
einomida
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 08:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
3. Might heroes have no access to magic. Magic heroes have no access to Might skills. Both Might and Magic heroes have access to basic skills such as logistics and pathfinding. Faction unique skills appear in both might and magic trees, some are accessible by both Might and Magic heroes, others are restricted to one or the other.
I haven't played Homm VI, but I'm liking the system right now. Maybe they need to restrict it more so that Magic heroes can still learn Might Tier 1, Tier 2 Might skills come with a penalty and Tier 3 are not avilable.
This would also allow both early Might and Magic to be very different from each other so that the dev's aren't forced to balance the two out completely (I mean duplicating similar skills).
Quote:
4. Magic schools are either (a) unique to each faction (e.g. Sanctuary has only water magic, Inferno has only fire magic) or (b) reduced from 5 schools per faction to 2 or 3 schools per faction.
From those options, I'd choose maybe 3 schools per faction. I'm not sure, however, maybe a system where factions have an affinity towards some schools. So either these schools are more powerful for them (maybe even with unique spells), or the other schools can't be used to their fullest (maybe limit higher level spells).
|
|
jackissocool
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 08:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
4. Magic schools are either (a) unique to each faction (e.g. Sanctuary has only water magic, Inferno has only fire magic) or (b) reduced from 5 schools per faction to 2 or 3 schools per faction.
From those options, I'd choose maybe 3 schools per faction. I'm not sure, however, maybe a system where factions have an affinity towards some schools. So either these schools are more powerful for them (maybe even with unique spells), or the other schools can't be used to their fullest (maybe limit higher level spells).
I think three is the perfect amount per faction, you just have to make sure those without prime are not at a huge disadvantage.
____________
|
|
Davy
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 08:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Those suggestions were:
1. Skill trees are faction specific; there are some shared skills but also a good number of unique faction skills.
2. Might heroes do not have mana, they have another statistic (calculated from might attack and might defense in the same manner as mana) that powers warcries. Warcries are buffed to balance spells.
3. Might heroes have no access to magic. Magic heroes have no access to Might skills. Both Might and Magic heroes have access to basic skills such as logistics and pathfinding. Faction unique skills appear in both might and magic trees, some are accessible by both Might and Magic heroes, others are restricted to one or the other.
4. Magic schools are either (a) unique to each faction (e.g. Sanctuary has only water magic, Inferno has only fire magic) or (b) reduced from 5 schools per faction to 2 or 3 schools per faction.
My opinion to your suggestions:
1.I think it would be nice to add some faction-specific skills,but it doesn't have to be too much.
2.yeah something like this would be quite cool,to make warcries really better,when they are used by might heroes,but I don't think that might abilities should work like Might-spells.
3.I think that is ok,but it shouldn't be a too huge difference
4.1 magic school would be too less,3 would be better,because many factions match not only a single theme(for example the orcs worship both air and earth,inferno matches darkness,fire and prime,...)So I think,that there should be at least 3 magic schools per faction,alternativley,every faction could specialize in 3 magic schools(for example sanctuary could specialize in water,light and air magic),but are also able to learn a low number of spells from other schools(earth and prime magic in sanctuarys case)
|
|
vaeledrin
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 01:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So what do people think to the points I suggested a while ago for the skill trees? Do you have any alternative suggestions? Do you agree that the current skill trees are lacking or do they work for you? I was thinking about making a poll, but it would be more interesting to talk about it qualitatively.
Those suggestions were:
1. Skill trees are faction specific; there are some shared skills but also a good number of unique faction skills.
2. Might heroes do not have mana, they have another statistic (calculated from might attack and might defense in the same manner as mana) that powers warcries. Warcries are buffed to balance spells.
3. Might heroes have no access to magic. Magic heroes have no access to Might skills. Both Might and Magic heroes have access to basic skills such as logistics and pathfinding. Faction unique skills appear in both might and magic trees, some are accessible by both Might and Magic heroes, others are restricted to one or the other.
4. Magic schools are either (a) unique to each faction (e.g. Sanctuary has only water magic, Inferno has only fire magic) or (b) reduced from 5 schools per faction to 2 or 3 schools per faction.
I don't really like the 4th suggestion to be honest because I think there are more creative ways to deal with that and bring uniqueness; there is after all already affinity to an extent such as with Liches and also magic attack schools (creatures). Some factions like Necropolis also have a more obvious affinity if you go the blood route with Mark of the Necromancer (correct me if I am wrong please, but I think it increases effectiveness of all dark magic).
Instead of railroading heroes I think it would be better if your skills worked in tandem with your creatures and also provide support covering weaknesses therefore, it's better to keep as many schools open. That being said skills should diversify your game play and options rather than just enhancing existing options if I am making any sense at all.
Oh, who am I kidding, I also disagree with all the other suggestions. There should instead be a great deal of interaction between Might and Magic heroes allowing hybrid type builds and adversarial type builds. It really should be a meta game of its own on top of the faction/creature game. I would rather prefer there be more interactive skills like Mana Leech type abilities but perhaps things like 'Reduces Might of enemy hero to zero for X turns' or 'Moves all magic buffs onto might creatures/move all might buffs onto magic creatures' that sort.
I simply do not find it agreeable to further restrict players when there are other creative ways of enhancing what currently exists and making it flavorful. There are enough restrictions/punishments already , there should not be anymore (and I speak of existing faction weaknesses and external factors like maps/resources).
____________
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 03:23 AM |
|
|
|
Can't say I'm too keen on the proposed restrictions either, I mean sure, include some faction-specific stuff, but whole trees? No bloody way. The same for classes, might and magic heroes need some specialities, but also some overlap.
|
|
vaeledrin
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 03:56 AM |
|
|
Quick thought, probably requires more elaboration:
I dislike the whole feel about two heroes dueling it out with just their creatures and no interaction with one another. Heroes 4 did a hilarious thing to change that, but well... anyways...
Why not develop hero vs hero interaction a bit more and through that give more spice to hero skills? Some skills, much like the current racials, could be given a property like this 'Does not expend the hero's turn'. It's in the same vein as 'Increases hero initiative by 50%' in HMM 5.
____________
|
|
Sorceresss
Tavern Dweller
Witch
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 06:04 AM |
|
|
Link to Crayfish's Thread on the Ubi/H6-beta forum :
[url=http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8611048239/m/2721051639]Skill trees & Faction differentiation[/url]
|
|
Austere
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 02:59 AM |
bonus applied by alcibiades on 15 Jul 2011. |
|
Quote:
So what do people think to the points I suggested a while ago for the skill trees? Do you have any alternative suggestions? Do you agree that the current skill trees are lacking or do they work for you? I was thinking about making a poll, but it would be more interesting to talk about it qualitatively.
Those suggestions were:
1. Skill trees are faction specific; there are some shared skills but also a good number of unique faction skills.
2. Might heroes do not have mana, they have another statistic (calculated from might attack and might defense in the same manner as mana) that powers warcries. Warcries are buffed to balance spells.
3. Might heroes have no access to magic. Magic heroes have no access to Might skills. Both Might and Magic heroes have access to basic skills such as logistics and pathfinding. Faction unique skills appear in both might and magic trees, some are accessible by both Might and Magic heroes, others are restricted to one or the other.
4. Magic schools are either (a) unique to each faction (e.g. Sanctuary has only water magic, Inferno has only fire magic) or (b) reduced from 5 schools per faction to 2 or 3 schools per faction.
I feel as if your motivations for an overhaul to the skill system come from a unique perspective: semi-competitive/semi-casual.
You like the randomness of systems similar to the one in H5 because it produces interesting and varied gameplay and wish more of the same were possible in H6, yet you mention "the best" skills and ideal setups / leveling paths that will get played out and hope those don't happen in H6.
Here's why I say your perspective is unique:
A competitive player doesn't care very much about quirky or odd skills. They care about the best skills that help them win the most: if this is not Skill A it's Skill B, and if Skill B gets nerfed so that Skill C is the best now, that's the one the competitive player will usually use. No matter how perfect a game's balance, there are always powerful and effective strategies that are used more than others.
A casual player doesn't care very much about the best skills. They care about the skills that interest them that will allow them to have the most fun. Regardless if Skill B is better than Skill A, a casual player will still use Skill A because it's the coolest and most exciting to them. Depending on the methods of play for the casual player, it may be important to make sure that Skill B isn't SO MUCH better than Skill A that the casual player can never with with Skill A given similar play skill.
A static skill system as is implemented in H6 meets both of these player's demands perfectly:
A competitive player will always be able to choose the build(s) he or she likes most and produces the best outcome for them. If I were playing H5 and lost to an opponent because for 8 levels I never once got offered the 15% skill I was playing towards exploiting, I would be pissed.
Similarly, a casual player will always be able to choose the build(s) that excite them and interest them. Something that comes to mind is a Golem favoring Academy hero in H5. That sounds fun and quirky and different, but I have a 2% chance to get offered Logistics for my March of the Golems and another 2% chance to get offered Leadership for my Artificial Glory. Extremely unlikely I can PLAN to play with this build.
I think your concern over "cookie-cutters" is a bit off the mark, depending on what kind of game you're playing. I guess if you're playing against 5 other players each with unique factions you kind of just have to go with a "generally good" approach to building your hero... but I can see this system having just as much cat and mouse mind games in a 1v1 type setting as H5 had.
For example, certain Sanctuary heroes gain advantages using Air magic vs. "Soaked" enemies. Wouldn't it be highly likely then that a Sanctuary Magic hero would have invested in Air magic? What if your opponent specifically had it in his mind to counter this style with his hero and instead the Sanctuary hero invested heavily in Earth magic and caught his opponent off guard?
Looking more closely at the skills, I can see some of what you're concerned about: in this particular set of skills, I see few "build around me" skills like the aforementioned March of the Golems. I also see a LOT of activated abilities (be they magical or not) and your hero will only have so many turns to act. At the same time, it seems, many of the passives are boring, linear, and their benefits appear quite small. I think it would be a good move to include some faction specific skills (again, March of the Golems, or something like Gating Master).
In the end, though, this is not necessarily a strike against the basic implementation of the system, but rather the individual choices made available to the player.
Hopefully this long post adds to the discussion!
____________
|
|
vaeledrin
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 07:41 AM |
|
|
Austere,
Let me clarify something for you, there is a difference between the theoretical competitive player and the actual competitive player. When people speak of the competitive player they often mean the former and rarely ever the latter. Which brings me to point two...
Game mechanics determine largely who will be competitive in it, and I will elaborate for clarification by pointing at.. oh god here we go again, Starcraft. Looking at the competitive history of Starcraft you will notice an abundance of play styles. From players who specialize in ONE unit usage, to players who are known for their incredible early game - garnering names like Cheddar Terran - and other players who are known for their mastery of macro-management.
That being said, my real argument is this: If Heroes 6 is about a renewal through re-branding and broadening of the franchise then so too must the game play reflect the developers' intent. They must therefore reach out to the various play styles and make them competitive. The competitive player and the casual player thus have a crossroads where they meet and that is exactly contrary to your statement (or at least implied intent) which is that competitive players do not care about skills that interest them. In a matter of fact, those skills that interest them make or break competitive players.
For many players casual and competitive alike what determines their overall ability is the amount of fun they have when they're playing things that interest them. When you take them out of their environment they perform less and less. While some may be able to maintain their performance for a short while they inevitably burn out and move to other things.
Thus to speak of the competitive player as something that is monolithic is a bit awkward and, well, wrong. Which is kind of weird because you say "A competitive player will always be able to choose the build(s) he or she likes most and produces the best outcome for them." So it should follow that the competitive player will also want to make sure that his or her skill sets are balanced. Therefore, they do indeed " care about the skills that interest them that will allow them to have the most fun". So you're kind of weird in how you contradict yourself on some of the premises.
That aside, I don't really see the point of your post admittedly. You point out the 'is' but you don't talk much about the 'ought' unless I am missing something. Well, aside it from being a refutation of Crayfish's argument. In which case, personally, I am more interested in seeing what creative solutions we have for ENLARGING the franchise rather than what Crayfish is suggesting (railroading etc.) but alas, my interests do not reign supreme ;P
To be honest, I feel that there should be skills that dip into 'all of the above' , some that are close to faction specific and others that provide more interaction on many levels. I dislike, like I have mentioned millions of times, anything that resembles railroading beyond the fact that you are already picking a faction which is full of linearity in game play already (punishing enough, please no more.)
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 10:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A casual player doesn't care very much about the best skills. They care about the skills that interest them that will allow them to have the most fun. Regardless if Skill B is better than Skill A, a casual player will still use Skill A because it's the coolest and most exciting to them. Depending on the methods of play for the casual player, it may be important to make sure that Skill B isn't SO MUCH better than Skill A that the casual player can never with with Skill A given similar play skill.
(...)
Similarly, a casual player will always be able to choose the build(s) that excite them and interest them. Something that comes to mind is a Golem favoring Academy hero in H5. That sounds fun and quirky and different, but I have a 2% chance to get offered Logistics for my March of the Golems and another 2% chance to get offered Leadership for my Artificial Glory. Extremely unlikely I can PLAN to play with this build.
(...)
Hopefully this long post adds to the discussion!
Well, I think you made a great post with some excelent points here. First of all, your description of what you call the casual player is very much spot on for how I play - I like to try out new weird builds just for the fun of them, and I liked how Heroes 5 allowed me to achieve synergy between skill picks to sometims achieve a very usefull build in spite of the individual skills not being the best for the faction - the "Golem mage" being an obvious example.
I think the reason Heroes 5 failed at some points with this very much boiled down to the fact that there wasn't dual Hero classes. Had their been an 'Alchymist' (Academy Might) class in Heroes 5, he obviously would have had Logistics and Leadership as some of his major skills, with this build in mind - but they never implemented that. I sort of solved the problem myself by modding Razzak to start with Logistics > Pathfinding insted of Defence, which opened the door very much to this build - but even then, it was not easy to get Leadership.
So yeah, I agree that Heroes 6 might have some advantages in that direction - problem is I don't really see the same synergies in the new skill system, which is sad. Furthermore, like you mention, the 'casual play style' only works as far as skills are not TOO poorly balanced, and obviously they ARE very poorly balanced in Heroes 6 [beta stage], which very much DOES lock one with picking the same skills each time. And the slow level progression doesn't help with that at all. So I really hope they'll fix some of those issues.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 10:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So what do people think to the points I suggested a while ago for the skill trees? Do you have any alternative suggestions? Do you agree that the current skill trees are lacking or do they work for you? I was thinking about making a poll, but it would be more interesting to talk about it qualitatively.
Those suggestions were:
1. Skill trees are faction specific; there are some shared skills but also a good number of unique faction skills.
Yes, obviously. There are currently a gazillion available skills, and leveling is almost impossible. They could easily take some of the existing ones out to make more difference - and please add some faction specific ones.
Quote:
2. Might heroes do not have mana, they have another statistic (calculated from might attack and might defense in the same manner as mana) that powers warcries. Warcries are buffed to balance spells.
I suggested the very same thing here: Stamina.
Quote:
3. Might heroes have no access to magic. Magic heroes have no access to Might skills. Both Might and Magic heroes have access to basic skills such as logistics and pathfinding. Faction unique skills appear in both might and magic trees, some are accessible by both Might and Magic heroes, others are restricted to one or the other.
Hmm, I don't think 'no access' is good, I don't like restrictions so hard. But I like the idea of three trees: Might, Magic and Common. All have acces to common skills (Logistics, Pathfinding, "Realm", perhaps others?). Might heroes only have access to level 1 and 2 magic (like now), but also they are shifted, so that they need level 5 to have first rank of magic, and level 15 to pick second rank of magic.
Conversely, Magic heroes only have access to rank 1 and 2 might skills (Warcries, Attack, Defence, perhaps also Leadership and Luck - they could also be common), and again, they cannot access them before level 5 (rank 1) and level 15 (rank 2).
Quote:
4. Magic schools are either (a) unique to each faction (e.g. Sanctuary has only water magic, Inferno has only fire magic) or (b) reduced from 5 schools per faction to 2 or 3 schools per faction.
No thanx to unique schools, that's again too restricted, but less schools per faction is good. 3 schools per faction seems like a good choice. Oh yes, and I would have wanted less magic schools overall, but guess it's too late to ask for that.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 10:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But I like the idea of three trees: Might, Magic and Common. All have acces to common skills (Logistics, Pathfinding, "Realm", perhaps others?). Might heroes only have access to level 1 and 2 magic (like now), but also they are shifted, so that they need level 5 to have first rank of magic, and level 15 to pick second rank of magic.
Conversely, Magic heroes only have access to rank 1 and 2 might skills (Warcries, Attack, Defence, perhaps also Leadership and Luck - they could also be common), and again, they cannot access them before level 5 (rank 1) and level 15 (rank 2).
On first look, I like that idea veryy much. 
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 01:34 PM |
|
|
Some very good ideas in general. I'm keeping notes 
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 01:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But I like the idea of three trees: Might, Magic and Common. All have acces to common skills (Logistics, Pathfinding, "Realm", perhaps others?). Might heroes only have access to level 1 and 2 magic (like now), but also they are shifted, so that they need level 5 to have first rank of magic, and level 15 to pick second rank of magic.
Conversely, Magic heroes only have access to rank 1 and 2 might skills (Warcries, Attack, Defence, perhaps also Leadership and Luck - they could also be common), and again, they cannot access them before level 5 (rank 1) and level 15 (rank 2).
On first look, I like that idea veryy much.
In extension of this, I would also suggest that heroes every level or every other level get ability points that are dedicated to their specific tree - so that you (sometimes) get one free ability point and then one ability point you can only use in Might/Magic abilities (for Might/Magic heroes, respectively).
That could help with the fact that currently we don't get enough ability points (faster leveling will also help with this, but a combo of both could work) and would also ensure divergence between Might and Magic hero propagation.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
mike80d
Famous Hero
Map Maker
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 01:47 PM |
|
|
I agree that the H5 random skill options were frustrating for competitive play. I'd much prefer a skill tree with everything possible. This better enables you to get what you want, as well as select options that you think might be a good counter to your enemy.
I also agree that having some faction specific skills would make it more fun. And any hard-line no access to a tree is not good either. As has been stated before, it should just be easier for a Might hero to obtain more Might skills, but a Magic hero should have some possibilities within the Might tree too.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 01:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But I like the idea of three trees: Might, Magic and Common. All have acces to common skills (Logistics, Pathfinding, "Realm", perhaps others?). Might heroes only have access to level 1 and 2 magic (like now), but also they are shifted, so that they need level 5 to have first rank of magic, and level 15 to pick second rank of magic.
Conversely, Magic heroes only have access to rank 1 and 2 might skills (Warcries, Attack, Defence, perhaps also Leadership and Luck - they could also be common), and again, they cannot access them before level 5 (rank 1) and level 15 (rank 2).
On first look, I like that idea veryy much.
In extension of this, I would also suggest that heroes every level or every other level get ability points that are dedicated to their specific tree - so that you (sometimes) get one free ability point and then one ability point you can only use in Might/Magic abilities (for Might/Magic heroes, respectively).
That could help with the fact that currently we don't get enough ability points (faster leveling will also help with this, but a combo of both could work) and would also ensure divergence between Might and Magic hero propagation.
I would rather have a different XP ladder characteristics.
|
|
Austere
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 05:45 PM |
|
|
I agree that leveling right now happens way too slowly. You can finish a 3 or 4 month 6 player multiplayer game and be below level10 it seems! I can understand a slower level progression in single player where you keep your hero each new map with their previous benefits, but in multiplayer where you're level 1 at the beginning every time, you should be able to climb the ranks and access the skills you desire more quickly.
Here are some issues I find with the skill situation at the moment:
No mage guilds has pros and cons. Mage guilds were a drag, in my mind, because A) they were often expensive and prohibitive to fit into your builds B) they were random so you could invest the resources and turn of building in a new mage guild upgrade and be severely disappointed by the spells and C) they created yet another incentive for your hero(es) to return back to town. Getting rid of all of these downsides is a huge plus.
The negative aspect, in my mind, is that it's exceptionally hard to get a repertoire of spells going on with the new skill setup and leveling system. It takes forever to level up and to get mass Slow you have to spend an entire level learning Slow and an entire other level learning Mass Slow, at which point you only have 3 other spells in your book AT MAXIMUM and the cost of that is having zero passives whatsoever like +spellpower, +mana, Enlightenment, Logistics or Tactics. To make it worse, you're pressured to vary your spell set because of cooldowns. Cooldowns are fine and I see the point behind them, but their current implementation alongside slow leveling and skill-gained spells seems far too restrictive.
My solution to this issue is to reinstate the "Mage Guild" in a new way:
The Mage Guild now levels up alongside your castle (the Town Hall to Capitol path) and contains all the spells that would be available to your faction at each rank. A base level town contains no spells. a town upgraded once has access to rank 1 spells, and a Capitol has access to rank 3 spells. There are rank 1 spells, rank 2 spells, and rank 3 spells, each corresponding to a hero level tier (spell rank 1 requires hero level 1, spell rank 2 requires hero level 5). A hero that has visited a town with a certain level Mage Guild has those spells in his or her book automatically, but using them is a different story.
In order to use/unlock a class of spells, a hero must invest a corresponding point in that school's tree. So, Firebolt is now learned automatically by all heroes at any town higher than base rank. However, to USE Firebolt a hero must invest a point in the level 1 Fire school tree. That hero can now also access all rank 1 Fire school spells. In my mind, this is similar to the choice of selecting "Basic Destructive Magic." If this ends up being too broken and abusable, perhaps a certain number of spells are unlocked per point invested in the tree.
To learn a level 5 spell, like Lightning, for example, a hero must invest a point in level 5 Air skills, but must also have at least 1 point invested in level 1 Air skills. Naturally, this would preclude Might heroes from learning any rank 3 spells, as they don't have access to the skills required to unlock them.
I think it's fine to keep some spells linked to the skill tree, something like Puppet Master requiring the player to use skill points seems fine to me. The other skills could be reworked a bit to do more buffing of the spells you get through the guild. (I.E. improving Slow, rather than just unlocking it for you).
I think this "specialization" brings me to another problem I have with the skill tree: your choices don't have a lot of consequences other than each choice is the spending of a skillpoint. In H5, sometimes I would be planning a certain build with a certain set of talents on my Academy hero and then at level 3 be offered Logistics, which at 2% chance to see Logistics as Academy I definitely wasn't expecting. In that situation, I was really torn. Do I take Logistics because it's so good, using one of my 5 talent slots, and lock myself out of the setup I was intending? Or do I pass on a very powerful talent in order to stick to my gameplan?
I like that kind of hard choice, especially early on when you don't know everything you're going to encounter yet. It doesn't have to be linked to randomly offered talents.
In H6 I can invest zero skill points in Air magic and then at level 5 I can get Lightning anyway. I think a player should be picking a path, and paths should have consequences. For me, at the moment, far too few skills require previous skills to be unlocked, and, IIRC, NONE whatsoever require more than a single unlock skillpoint (I.E. Snatch doesn't require both Logistics and Pathfinding), except level 15 spells/skills that follow a linear level 1 -> level 5 -> level 15 path.
This is bad, in my mind, because heroes thus have no identity or specialization. They're free to just cherry-pick the best skill from any corner of the skill setup at any point, because there's no restrictions (aside from the small variation of Might vs. Magic and certain spell school differences) and no downsides. I would like to see a little risk vs. reward, I want to have to make hard choices. Restrictions and consequences would allow you to choose and get whatever you want AT THE BEGINNING. But, and this is just an example, a hero that has invested too heavily in Fire spells/skills can't also invest in Water spells/skills because they're enemy schools.
____________
|
| |
|
|
