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


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Heroes 6 - The New Beginning > Thread: Complete 1.5 Balancing list!
Thread: Complete 1.5 Balancing list! This thread is 12 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV
hobo2
hobo2


Promising
Known Hero
posted July 14, 2012 08:32 PM

In Latin, the word "bonus" when used as a noun means "an honest man". "Boni" therefore means "more than one honest men". It doesn't have anything to do with discreet objects that give you a marginal benefit - which is the English word "Bonuses".

As to the lack of ability to influence attack and luck, that's only vaguely true. In Heroes 3, you got Luck as a Skill, which could have instead been Offense or Archery. So there's still a tradeoff between damage always-on damage and Luck that you can make through skill assignments. So the underlying point that Luck wasn't a fungible property that could be taken in lieu of direct damage augmentation is just not true.

And of course, comparisons between Heroes VI and King's Bounty continue to be inevitable. And in King's Bounty, you can indeed spend runes to raise your crit chance or spend runes to raise your attack. It's directly comparable and far superior in KB.

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

Tavern Dweller
posted July 14, 2012 08:52 PM

I've taken the Fan Manual Formulas and Stats for stuff (modified per the OP). This is the Haven results, I'll finish the Spreadsheet for other races (Necro and Sanc with 3 units of each power type will likely get a better deal than below)

Level 30 Might Hero, 1 Week of Troops, No Bonuses

Average Damage :- 719.37
With
Assailant I :- 743.34
Arcane Exaltation I :- 727.59
Destiny's Chosen I :- 729.54

Level 30 Magic Hero, 1 Week of Troops, No Bonuses

Average Damage :- 652.07
With
Assailant I :- 673.01
Arcane Exaltation I :- 661.45
Destiny's Chosen I :- 661.29

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
lithium_111
lithium_111


Hired Hero
posted July 14, 2012 09:24 PM

so having a high attack and defence rate is always better than having luck and leadership?

man i played a map yesterday against the A.I and my luck was something around 19 and leadership 14 while his was luck was 5 and leadership 0.

But his attack and deffence was both at 28 and my attack was 25 and def was 12

i was inferno and he was necro, i had 7 pit lorfs and he had no 0 champions but slightly high creatures numbers. He owned me so bad and everytime vamp or lich hit, they severely injury someone, gating didnt work out well for me lol

ravager was dropping fast and tormentor is always targeted, dogs was killed last.

so, is it really worth it to spend all those points on luck? should i always go for attack and def?

advice needed thnx

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


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 14, 2012 10:05 PM

Quote:
In Latin, the word "bonus" when used as a noun means "an honest man". "Boni" therefore means "more than one honest men". It doesn't have anything to do with discreet objects that give you a marginal benefit - which is the English word "Bonuses".

As to the lack of ability to influence attack and luck, that's only vaguely true. In Heroes 3, you got Luck as a Skill, which could have instead been Offense or Archery. So there's still a tradeoff between damage always-on damage and Luck that you can make through skill assignments. So the underlying point that Luck wasn't a fungible property that could be taken in lieu of direct damage augmentation is just not true.

And of course, comparisons between Heroes VI and King's Bounty continue to be inevitable. And in King's Bounty, you can indeed spend runes to raise your crit chance or spend runes to raise your attack. It's directly comparable and far superior in KB.


You have no point. None whatsoever. Or what would your point be? Just say, I don't like it. Case closed.

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


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
posted July 14, 2012 10:24 PM

JollyJoker, I don't know if you saw what I wrote on bottom of last page, but you were one of those it was aimed at, so if you didn't see before, please respect it from now, or simply leave this thread if you find the discussion so upsetting.
____________
What will happen now?

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


Famous Hero
posted July 14, 2012 10:55 PM
Edited by jhb at 17:57, 15 Jul 2012.

Quote:
so, is it really worth it to spend all those points on luck? should i always go for attack and def?


luck is especially good for inferno, because of the racial ability. Necros can also stack a bit more of luck (they don't gain morale with lvl ups)

Well, luck was known as a weak attribute, but for the skills, now you get more luck than attack:

· Assailant I bonus increased to +2 (from +1)
· Assailant II bonus increased to +3 (from +2)
· Assailant III bonus increased to +4 (from +3)
total +9

· Destiny’s Chosen I bonus increased to +3 (from +1)
· Destiny’s Chosen II bonus increased to +5 (from +2)
· Destiny’s Chosen III bonus increased to +8 (from +3)
total +16

you must also consider luck affects both might and magic units.
Inferno troops are also more "lucky" after the 1.5.

And btw imo, both bonuses and boni are correct, there is one thing called foreignness. So if you want to say schadenfreudem, voilà, déjà vu or even an anglicized version "deja vu". There is no problem, but seriously does it matter that much? lol

Edit: This also depend a bit on your play  style, if you want rely more on might units, if you want to rely more on magic units, or both. I think they don't want to make luck as powerfull as might attack neither as powerfull as magic attack. They want luck more as an universal stat which affects every kind of damage, then you can fit it in several builds. Also don't forget, the ultimate millimetrically optimized build isn't always to most fun the play.

Edit2: I meant "the most fun to play" rofl. I was sleepy.

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


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 14, 2012 11:10 PM

Quote:
JollyJoker, I don't know if you saw what I wrote on bottom of last page, but you were one of those it was aimed at, so if you didn't see before, please respect it from now, or simply leave this thread if you find the discussion so upsetting.

Alci. Hobo writes a lot, but has no point. He claims a lot - but there's no conclusion. He says, the patch doesn't solve the main problems.
Well, the patch doesn't scratch basic game formulae. However, you'd have to accept that the main problems were the basic game formulae. Which is just bollocks.
So THE POINT. Where is it? WHAT is it? Sure, the patch doesn't make Heroes 6 heroes 3. But no one claimed it would.
THE POINT!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hobo2
hobo2


Promising
Known Hero
posted July 14, 2012 11:34 PM

Quote:
Quote:
JollyJoker, I don't know if you saw what I wrote on bottom of last page, but you were one of those it was aimed at, so if you didn't see before, please respect it from now, or simply leave this thread if you find the discussion so upsetting.

Alci. Hobo writes a lot, but has no point. He claims a lot - but there's no conclusion. He says, the patch doesn't solve the main problems.
Well, the patch doesn't scratch basic game formulae. However, you'd have to accept that the main problems were the basic game formulae. Which is just bollocks.
So THE POINT. Where is it? WHAT is it? Sure, the patch doesn't make Heroes 6 heroes 3. But no one claimed it would.
THE POINT!


JJ, have you considered doing what the mod asked you to do and cease senselessly flaming me? I don't know how heavy handed the mods can be here, but in general I find that following their instructions after you've been asked twice is good policy on any board.

As for the Destiny/Attack issue: the effects of a Luck result are too small for any chance of triggering them to be competitive with increasing attack bonuses in Heroes VI. That's just a mathematical fact. There is a skill called Assailant that raises your Might Attack and there is a skill called Destiny's Chosen that raises your Destiny, and the former is substantially better than the latter because the bonus provided by Luck successfully triggering is too small for any amount of Luck to be competitive with a moderate pile of Attack.

I genuinely don't know why you claim to be unable to find "the point" of that observation, but if you genuinely can't you should at least respect the moderator's repeated requests for you to stop posting flames in all caps.

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


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
posted July 14, 2012 11:59 PM

Quote:
Alci. Hobo writes a lot, but has no point. He claims a lot - but there's no conclusion. He says, the patch doesn't solve the main problems.
Well, the patch doesn't scratch basic game formulae. However, you'd have to accept that the main problems were the basic game formulae. Which is just bollocks.
So THE POINT. Where is it? WHAT is it? Sure, the patch doesn't make Heroes 6 heroes 3. But no one claimed it would.
THE POINT!

Frankly, I don't really care who or what. If you don't like his posts, you are free to ignore them. You are also free to reply to them and point out where you think he is mistaken - as long as you do it in a civil tone. Picking on someone over a petty language issue does not seem to have a point on a community board where at least half of the users are non-native English speakers, unles you just want to create a bad atmosphere, and that's not even pointing out that you weren't correct. And that was just one of the things that I was bothered by. So either keep the discussion on a civil level or leave it.
____________
What will happen now?

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


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 15, 2012 11:58 AM
Edited by JollyJoker at 15:57, 15 Jul 2012.

Okay, let's get this straight.
Quote:
So THE POINT. Where is it?

Quote:
As for the Destiny/Attack issue: the effects of a Luck result are too small for any chance of triggering them to be competitive with increasing attack bonuses in Heroes VI. That's just a mathematical fact. There is a skill called Assailant that raises your Might Attack and there is a skill called Destiny's Chosen that raises your Destiny, and the former is substantially better than the latter because the bonus provided by Luck successfully triggering is too small for any amount of Luck to be competitive with a moderate pile of Attack.
I genuinely don't know why you claim to be unable to find "the point" of that observation...

Ah, so the point is, that the patch doesn't fix the "Luck problem"? Then why did you write this?
Quote:

The changes don't seem to address the real core issues, which are that the game is boring... Changing skill values aren't going to change that issue, even if the changes are extreme enough to cause a one-time change in build priority. The armies are monotonous: you get seven unit slots and all of them have to come from your faction and your faction produces 7 units. Fiddling with the numbers of the units isn't going to address the issue that your late game army always looks exactly the same. You might want Furies or Marksmen more or less, but you're still going to have them in your army if you're playing Stronghold or Haven respectively.
Unless and until they shake up the core assumptions of the game, it's still going to based on the same horrible design. And it's still going to be a repetitive mess.

That's a rant, right?
Then on it goes:
Quote:
The reality that Heroes VI is incredibly, horrendously, unforgivably poorly designed shouldn't be news at this point. But the second reality that fixing those terrible design decisions actually isn't very hard and nonetheless hasn't been done despite the fact that the game was released for real money (in a totally unfinished and embarrassingly buggy state) almost a year ago should also be setting in.

Ranting again: how would YOU know, how hard it was to change these things? Or why are you even convinced it would be better that way?

You also ignored completely this one:
Quote:
So for me, a change of that formula would change nothing in principle, but it would make a complete rebalancing necessary. Not to mention the fact that changing basic  "core game" stuff doesn't seem to be all that easy. If you don't believe me, ask Elvin about how many different suggestions we made concerning Destiny - but they would have all needed a code change, which is a last ressort because the dangers and risks would seem to be quite high.
That made rebalancing the game a bit awkward in many respects - but it would certainly not have helped, when Destiny got a 100% fix, that would have introduced a hundred new bugs.


This already addressed your "point", but if your point iss REALLY about destiny, then you are talking about the possibility of the 3 skill picks Assailant 1-3 versus Destiny 1-3 - because this is the only chance in the game where you really can PICK one over the other.

Realistically spoken, creatures have an attack value of 0, but they do have a defense value. Which means, when we talk about attack, a hero really starts from the bottom with attack, and you won't reach crazy numbers.
Unaided, the best Attack value a level 30 hero can get is 21. However, this value will influence only PART of the army (MIght OR Magic damagde, not both). Level 30 is unrealistic, though. Let's say, the best value short of game comnclusion is 15. Add to this location visits up to that points plus this or that artifact and you may have 25 attack points - (without any of your doing, mind you!). This is 175% of attack, albeit only for part of your army. AT THIS STAGE, one point of attack is worth about 3.5% of damage, but only for that part of your army which is actually affected (damage type). (For defense it's the other way round - since your creatures come with a defense, that part of creatures that is affected will profit less and less, the higher defense gets.)
Now - Destiny. Again, practically spoken, AT THIS POINT, a Luck trigger will give you 50% added DAMAGE, and for that part of attack we investigate now this equals 87.5% of damage (and less for the other damage type, but probably something like 65%). So 1 point of Destiny will be worth AROUND something in between .7 to .8 %. We will equal two of them with 1.5%, while 2 attack points (one might, one magic) will be at 3%.

Which means, attack is double as good as Destiny. You get 2, 3 and 4 points of attack for Assailant 1-3, respectively, and you get 3, 5 and 8 points of Destiny for Chosen 1-3, respectively. 4, 6, and 8 would be more "correct", but 3,5 and 8 is by no means bad in comparison.

I redirect you to the quoted passage that you decided to ignore. We ALL agree that the initial Destiny design was bad - and easy to see bad. But no one will profit from "repairing" the skill when this will introduce a ton of new bugs.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hobo2
hobo2


Promising
Known Hero
posted July 15, 2012 03:43 PM

Well, at least you're responding to statements instead of throwing all-caps rants. That's progress. Now if only we could get you to not make multi-quote messes, or at least get all your quote tags correct. This was pretty difficult to cut through.

JJ:
Quote:

Ah, so the point is, that the patch doesn't fix the "Luck problem"? Then why did you write this?


The point is that the game has many problems which are of a more fundamental nature than fiddling with the skill bonuses or creature stats can address. The Luck issue is the one I am bringing to the fore, because I assumed you could at least follow that one because it involved the comparison of numbers that were bigger with numbers that were smaller. If you can't at least do that, then we should simply agree to disagree, because you aren't going to be able to follow any of the other related arguments, as they involve choice optimization, which is way more complicated than comparing big numbers to smaller numbers.

Quote:
Quote:

The changes don't seem to address the real core issues, which are that the game is boring... Changing skill values aren't going to change that issue, even if the changes are extreme enough to cause a one-time change in build priority. The armies are monotonous: you get seven unit slots and all of them have to come from your faction and your faction produces 7 units. Fiddling with the numbers of the units isn't going to address the issue that your late game army always looks exactly the same. You might want Furies or Marksmen more or less, but you're still going to have them in your army if you're playing Stronghold or Haven respectively.
Unless and until they shake up the core assumptions of the game, it's still going to based on the same horrible design. And it's still going to be a repetitive mess.

That's a rant, right?


No. That is about choice optimization. See you have a "real" choice of army composition if you can field an appropriate number of Unit A or an appropriate number of Unit B. Having the choice between having Unit A and not having Unit A is not a "real" choice, because having Unit A is obviously better than not having it. Each and every unit in your faction is displacing nothing in a Heroes VI army.

This stands in stark contrast to other entries in the series. For example, in Heroes 3 you could field an appropriate number of cross-faction units and cherry pick units for your army. Further, since slower units slowed down your army, not having particular units might indeed be worse than having them in situations where speed mattered more than strength (such as exploration and raiding). Thus the inclusion of particular units or not in your army was a "real" choice.

If you can't understand the difference between having multiple optimal choices and not having multiple optimal choices, then we should simply agree to disagree on this point, because I am not going to explain choice theory on the internet to someone whose opening salvo was to shout "What is things?" at me in all caps several times. But if there are not multiple optimal choices, the game is by definition not a very "deep" game. And the way Heroes VI is set up, taking each unit in your faction is always the only optimal choice, no matter how good or not the unit is. Changing the Might Defense or Growth Rate or Base Damage of a unit is therefore not going to make the game any deeper. It is mathematically incapable of doing so.

Quote:

Ran´ting again: how would YOU know, how hard it was to change these things? Or why are you even convinced it would be better that way?


Computers do "math" very easily. They are pretty bad at "pretty pictures" and "making choices". That's computer science at its most basic. Things which involve moving little numbers up and down are really easy, things which involve the look and feel of the game or the AI behaving "intelligently" are not.

The water effects in Heroes VI are really gloriously beautiful. However, those water effects take more lines of code than the entire Heroes 2 game. That's not an exaggeration or piece of hyperbole for effect, it's literally true. You can open up the .orc files and compare the file sizes of the resources - those graphics packages take up more file space than would actually fit on the digital media that the earlier Heroes games came on. And yet, creature values and the defines of attacks and defenses and such - those are small files measured in kilobytes rather than megabytes.

For example, let's open up data8.orc: the Haven unit abilities are 29kb, and "shadecachereference" is 88mb. Those abilities are over three thousand times smaller than one of the texture modifiers. That is how we know that modifying something like "damage calculation" is comparatively easy. Because we're at all familiar with how computers work.

I'm sorry if someone told you early on that fixing Luck was really hard as a way to tell you to take your ideas and shove them - but that was a lie. Basic number adjustments like that are easy. You can open up the resource files and check for yourself.

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


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 15, 2012 04:45 PM
Edited by JollyJoker at 16:53, 15 Jul 2012.

I fixed the last post.Let's see what is left.
Quote:


The point is that the game has many problems which are of a more fundamental nature than fiddling with the skill bonuses or creature stats can address. The Luck issue is the one I am bringing to the fore, because I assumed you could at least follow that one because it involved the comparison of numbers that were bigger with numbers that were smaller. If you can't at least do that, then we should simply agree to disagree, because you aren't going to be able to follow any of the other related arguments, as they involve choice optimization, which is way more complicated than comparing big numbers to smaller numbers.

That is a pretty offensive remark - and it obviously serves to hide the fact that the Luck issue is a NON issue, as my last post did show. The fact that you don't answer to that, but instead start offending me speaks volumes.

Quote:
Quote:

That's a rant, right?


No. That is about choice optimization. See you have a "real" choice of army composition if you can field an appropriate number of Unit A or an appropriate number of Unit B. Having the choice between having Unit A and not having Unit A is not a "real" choice, because having Unit A is obviously better than not having it. Each and every unit in your faction is displacing nothing in a Heroes VI army.

This stands in stark contrast to other entries in the series. For example, in Heroes 3 you could field an appropriate number of cross-faction units and cherry pick units for your army. Further, since slower units slowed down your army, not having particular units might indeed be worse than having them in situations where speed mattered more than strength (such as exploration and raiding). Thus the inclusion of particular units or not in your army was a "real" choice.

If you can't understand the difference between having multiple optimal choices and not having multiple optimal choices, then we should simply agree to disagree on this point, because I am not going to explain choice theory on the internet to someone whose opening salvo was to shout "What is things?" at me in all caps several times. But if there are not multiple optimal choices, the game is by definition not a very "deep" game. And the way Heroes VI is set up, taking each unit in your faction is always the only optimal choice, no matter how good or not the unit is. Changing the Might Defense or Growth Rate or Base Damage of a unit is therefore not going to make the game any deeper. It is mathematically incapable of doing so.

Again, the same offensive stuff. You could call me just as well an idiot and be done with it, but what you call so pompously real choices and then throw in "choice theory" for good measure, is just based on a certain game feature of other entries of the series - different towns, unconvertable. So what we have here is a rant against conversion, that has the effect, that like Necro before everyone can now convert everything into one faction, which means, IF you do you eliminate the possibility of cross-faction armies, eliminating a certain kind of choice.
That's of course just because you made the choice to CONVERT. You don't have to, obviously. Single player - no one can force you to convert... Having a look on Sanctuary and certain types of map, keeping a Sanctuary town may well be QUITE beneficial. You MIGHT say, that you got one more choice, since you can now convert as well, which is pretty costly, once the non-conversion was producing useful units for a cross-town army.
It's also important to note that the game gives you MORE choices in the building department: Since everything is basically costing the same kind of resources, every choice FOR one building is always a choice against others, which was not consequentially so in other HoMM games.
But, hey, YOU are the expert for choice theory, so I don't need to explain that to you, right? You just choose to ignore the choices you have - probably because they don't appeal to you.

Quote:
Quote:

Ranting again: how would YOU know, how hard it was to change these things? Or why are you even convinced it would be better that way?


Computers do "math" very easily. They are pretty bad at "pretty pictures" and "making choices". That's computer science at its most basic. Things which involve moving little numbers up and down are really easy, things which involve the look and feel of the game or the AI behaving "intelligently" are not.

The water effects in Heroes VI are really gloriously beautiful. However, those water effects take more lines of code than the entire Heroes 2 game. That's not an exaggeration or piece of hyperbole for effect, it's literally true. You can open up the .orc files and compare the file sizes of the resources - those graphics packages take up more file space than would actually fit on the digital media that the earlier Heroes games came on. And yet, creature values and the defines of attacks and defenses and such - those are small files measured in kilobytes rather than megabytes.

For example, let's open up data8.orc: the Haven unit abilities are 29kb, and "shadecachereference" is 88mb. Those abilities are over three thousand times smaller than one of the texture modifiers. That is how we know that modifying something like "damage calculation" is comparatively easy. Because we're at all familiar with how computers work.

I'm sorry if someone told you early on that fixing Luck was really hard as a way to tell you to take your ideas and shove them - but that was a lie. Basic number adjustments like that are easy. You can open up the resource files and check for yourself.


If it's so easy, go ahead and fix it.
You seem to have forgotten that it's not the creators of that code anymore who are in charge.
In fact these postings of yours and this last paragraph are oozing so much ignorant arrogance and assuming so many things, that a discussion makes no sense. What has size to do with it? A red herring. In earlier times whole games were on a 360KB disc - were they bug free? Nope, but they had decidedly less bugs. However, even when games came on a 1.44 MB disc, they got so buggy, that patches were necessary.
That's actually the reason why I got my first modem. You could download patches with COMPUSERVE, that would otherwise require sending patch discs around (I got a patch disc, for example, for The Lost Admiral, all the way from the States to Europe).

Anyway, I'm talking with a guy who wants to hammer through his opinion. All fine and well, but this may seem the wrong thread to rant against the game. They WILL NOT change Core Game mechanics - it would cost too much money. Make the patch, test it up and down and left to right ... whatfor? So that thousand other people start to complain about how they cannot convert their towns anymore?

Makes no sense. You just have to accept that Heroes 6 is Heroes 6 and no patch won't change that.

As a PS, people ARE complaining already about the fact that the Tutorial campaign seems to have become somewhat harder on Hard difficulty now that the Sisters cannot Heal anymore...

EDIT: Ah, let me add something, I just remembered. You will remember that patch 1.2 was released QUITE late, just before Xmas. That patch went into test End of October... (and then Black Hole was still at the helm). I'll assume that you will have no problems making the appropriate conclusions here.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hobo2
hobo2


Promising
Known Hero
posted July 15, 2012 07:01 PM

JJ:
Quote:
Again, the same offensive stuff. You could call me just as well an idiot and be done with it, but what you call so pompously real choices and then throw in "choice theory" for good measure, is just based on a certain game feature of other entries of the series - different towns, unconvertable. So what we have here is a rant against conversion, that has the effect, that like Necro before everyone can now convert everything into one faction, which means, IF you do you eliminate the possibility of cross-faction armies, eliminating a certain kind of choice.


Uh... no. Just... no.

Conversion is only a single part of the fact that there is only one optimal choice of units for troop selection. If conquered cities came with backlogs of troops, then converting would sometimes be disadvantageous because you'd have large enough piles of cross-factional soldiers to matter. If there were more recruitable unit types in your cities (or flaggable neutral dwellings) than you could fit in your army, then it is conceivable that you might be able to make the case for different army constituencies in different scenarios. If having units in your army was disadvantageous in some way (say: being worse at speed or stealth), then it would be conceivable that there would be circumstances where you'd rather have some subset of the available units in your army. And so on. There are many ways that you could have multiple optimization possibilities such that army composition was somehow deep. But none of those things are true about Heroes VI!

I'm sorry if you're offended by the fact that I am pointing out that you are completely incapable of having a discussion about choice optimization, but you're completely incapable of having a discussion about choice optimization. You just proved it without doubt. Again. Still. Every time I say something about choice optimization, you go off on a rant about how I don't have a point in such a manner as to make it blindingly obvious that you are not equipped to even have this conversation.

You attempted to reduce what I'm talking about to something you could understand, and you failed. Conversion is not incompatible with having meaningful choices in troop selection, it just happens to be that Heroes VI has no meaningful choices in troop selection and also has Conversion.

Note that for instant action battles, it actually does give you a choice of army composition: maybe you want to trade out your griffins for another stack of glories. That is an example of a meaningful choice, but it does not exist in the strategic game, because you don't get any extra glories for choosing to not have griffins. To put in such a choice, you'd need to make something like the old King's Bounty Leadership scores, such that a player might have the genuine choice of having two stacks of one creature in the place of having any stacks of another creature.

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


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
posted July 15, 2012 07:12 PM

As discussion has clearly gone way off topic, I consider this subject closed.
____________
What will happen now?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 12 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1184 seconds