|
| Thread: Regarding Unit Sizes | |
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
posted April 05, 2015 08:39 PM |
|
Edited by Elvin at 00:09, 06 Apr 2015.
|
Poll Question:
Regarding Unit Sizes
From the looks of things square tiles are here to say and the two unit sizes are 1x1 for small and 2x2 for large units, which is 4 times the size of a small unit. I personally find that problematic for calculating pathfinding(amount of tiles walked changes on diagonals) and large unit maneuverability suffers because of it, they are a lot easier to block. It is no secret that I would have preferred hexes but we'll leave that for another poll. For now I would like us to focus on unit size with a system of square tiles.
JJ once had the idea of further dividing tile space so that a small 1x1 unit's speed would not be measured in 1x1 tiles. That instead, tiles would be 1x1 and small units would be 2x2. That way, we could have 3x3 large units that would only be 225% larger than a small unit instead of 400% larger as it is now.
So the question would be, keep tile size as it is and stick with 1x1 and 2x2 unit sizes or reduce tile size by 4 and work with 2x2 small and 3x3 large units? That would also allow the possibility of immense 4x4 units or 1x1 tiny units as special cases though I don't find that really important.
Bonus question, do you even care if units have a different size? Perhaps large unit sizes are more trouble than they are worth?
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
posted April 05, 2015 08:44 PM |
|
|
I guess increasing their size makes sense.
Still prefer hexagonal battlefields, even more if flanking is a thing.
____________
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted April 05, 2015 08:45 PM |
|
|
decrease tile-size and increase creature size? the second one anyway since at the moment big creatures are just to damn big and bulky, bordering on useless. miss hexagonial fields 
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted April 05, 2015 09:00 PM |
|
|
|
I would also go for hexagonal tiles instead of squares, on top of having the smallest ones occupy more than one tile. In that case, 7 tiles (a central one with a ring around it) would be the minumum, with larger creatures occupying 19 tiles (effectively a central one with 2 rings around it).
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted April 05, 2015 09:01 PM |
|
|
kiryu133 said:
decrease tile-size and increase creature size?
What in H5/H6 was 1x1 tile, would be divided in 4 tiles. So what I refer to as 2x2 small units in the second option is the same as 1x1 in the old system. The only thing that changes is that you can have more variety in speed ranges and that you can tone down the size occupied by large units.
What I mean about greater speed range variety: 5 tile movement, would become 10 and 6 tile movement would become 12. That would allow for an inbetween movement of 11 tiles.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Protolisk
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2015 09:06 PM |
|
|
Hmm. Interesting. When I first read it, I thought you were trying to introduce 3x3 huge units in addition to normal and large, but if it's just normal is 2x2 and large is 3x3, that would make some sense. As of right now, normal takes up 1/4th the area of large units, but under this idea, they'd take up about 4/5 or about half the area. And the size differences could be better managed, such as the problem I keep bringing up where units look just too big for one square, but too small for 4.
This could further bring up actual Huge units, if they were neutral or something, because as it stand now, if the base is 1x1, with large 2x2, then Huge units would be 9 times the size of normal units, but if the normal base is 2x2, with large 3x3, and a perhaps massive 4x4, then normal would be just 1/4th the size of hypothetical huge units, and the difference between "large" and "huge" would be only 9/16, which is a bit less than doubling in size.
My whole reasoning behind these "huge" units are things like the size of H6's Cyclops, which were quite massive, while the Cerberus and Panther warriors, while "large", paled in comparison to the bulk of the Cyclops.
I could easily get behind this up-scaling of units. I would have reservasions about hexagonal grids too, unless this same idea was used, where instead of a single hex used for normal units, 7 hexes are, and large the next symmetrical addition up.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted April 05, 2015 09:16 PM |
|
|
Elvin said:
kiryu133 said:
decrease tile-size and increase creature size?
What in H5/H6 was 1x1 tile, would be divided in 4 tiles. So what I refer to as 2x2 small units in the second option is the same as 1x1 in the old system. The only thing that changes is that you can have more variety in speed ranges and that you can tone down the size occupied by large units.
What I mean about greater speed range variety: 5 tile movement, would become 10 and 6 tile movement would become 12. That would allow for an inbetween movement of 11 tiles.
sounds pretty perfect to me 
|
|
The_Green_Drag
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2015 09:38 PM |
|
|
I like the improvement, and also would prefer hexes. Wouldn't mind a few 4x4 units like dragons and behemoths. Then they would have three kinds of unit sizes to play around with instead of just large and small. 
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2015 10:23 PM |
|
|
Just for the record, a 3x3 unit is 225% bigger than a 2x2, not 50% 
That is still much less than the present ridiculous 400% though, so I'm all for your proposal Elvin. I also like the idea of the 3 different unit sizes: small (2x2), medium (3x3) and large (4x4).
On a side note: they really should stop making large the default size of a champion. Making the sworddude small (or medium in the new system) would've really distinguished him from the other champs. Now I don't really see that much of a difference between him and the cyclops (except looks of course).
____________
Can you make a faction including these units?
Join the Finding Harmony competition 2.0!
|
|
fuChris
Promising
Supreme Hero
Master to the Speed of Light
|
|
posted April 05, 2015 11:00 PM |
|
|
The more the field gets divided the more H4 like battles become and thus loses much of it's chess like charm. Terrain won't be as easily blockable as well with small units slipping through the cracks easily.
Do we really need 3x3 size units?
2x1 and 1x2 size units would solve much of the problems that 2x2 units cause. Maybe even let core units change their formation during battle? Spearmen forming a shield wall around another unit shifts them into 1x2 formation while in an attacking mode they are the ususal 1x1 size.
Cerberus on the other hand cold easily be a 2x1 unit. Same with centaurs, wolves and even the griffin.
____________
"Now I am become Chris, the destroyer of worlds." - Robert Oppenheimer.
|
|
Protolisk
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2015 11:05 PM |
|
|
fuChris said:
The more the field gets divided the more H4 like battles become and thus loses much of it's chess like charm. Terrain won't be as easily blockable as well with small units slipping through the cracks easily.
Do we really need 3x3 size units?
2x1 and 1x2 size units would solve much of the problems that 2x2 units cause. Maybe even let core units change their formation during battle? Spearmen forming a shield wall around another unit shifts them into 1x2 formation while in an attacking mode they are the ususal 1x1 size.
Cerberus on the other hand cold easily be a 2x1 unit. Same with centaurs, wolves and even the griffin.
Except that many creatures need to rotate to face an enemy or to navigate. Rotating would be very awkward for a 2x1, as what would happen if they were attacked from the side? If there was a 1x1 gap in a wall, they'd have to turn and walk in side ways. That would look... very dumb. I'm sorry, I don't think that could work.
|
|
NamelessOrder
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2015 11:16 PM |
|
|
I'd say that game features should be:
- relevant - or meaningful, basically there should be a clear reason why we have it
- clear - you should be able to learn them without much effort;
among other things but the aforementioned are crucial.
The 1x1 and 2x2 distinction is relevant (although i think there should be more abilities that works with them) and clear (hard not to see the difference - the game feedback is perfect in this case). I have absolutely no problem with the fact that the large creature takes 4 times as many tiles. Actually i like it since it makes small creatures very different from large creatures. I don't need realistic geometry in fantasy games.
Usually i agree with JJ but his proposal is weird and i disagree (although it's hard to say sth definite without trying it first). I don't feel the need to change the current system and make small and big creatures less different. His proposal is less elegant and i usually support simplicity in games. Also we really do not need a third creature size (Boss battles being an exception). Such a one would require it's own mechanics (like this ability effects only small and medium-sized creatures etc.). You can't add a new feature base on why the heck not philosophy.
____________
Uplay: ZergRusher | H6: Thoughts on duels | DoC: Cassa
|
|
Protolisk
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2015 12:30 AM |
|
|
NamelessOrder said:
I'd say that game features should be:
- relevant - or meaningful, basically there should be a clear reason why we have it
- clear - you should be able to learn them without much effort;
among other things but the aforementioned are crucial.
The 1x1 and 2x2 distinction is relevant (although i think there should be more abilities that works with them) and clear (hard not to see the difference - the game feedback is perfect in this case). I have absolutely no problem with the fact that the large creature takes 4 times as many tiles. Actually i like it since it makes small creatures very different from large creatures. I don't need realistic geometry in fantasy games.
Usually i agree with JJ but his proposal is weird and i disagree (although it's hard to say sth definite without trying it first). I don't feel the need to change the current system and make small and big creatures less different. His proposal is less elegant and i usually support simplicity in games. Also we really do not need a third creature size (Boss battles being an exception). Such a one would require it's own mechanics (like this ability effects only small and medium-sized creatures etc.). You can't add a new feature base on why the heck not philosophy.
I think there is a good reason behind it: many units are just "large" for large's sake. What makes the Centaur "large", and somehow as large as a cyclops? I personally could see many units being in a middle ground state, between "large" and "small". Raising the square zie for small targets not only allows for more variability within a size based stat, like speed (I believe the previous example was where we had 5 or 6 speed, the space halving in size makes speeds that could be now 10 or 12... or an intermediate of 11.) This makes a good way to balance some units better: if a unit is pretty strong, but isn't supposed to be super slow, you can place them between other's in the speed stat so faster units have a better distance between them and the slower ones, but some units help make the very distinct differences more variable. Further more, with spells and hero abilities, maybe even some creature abilities like Leap, are based on speed, or make variables to speed. Thus, a spell making a unit have 1.5 times the speed, for 5 and 6, doesn't seem all too different, between 8 and 9 (if rounded up, other wise it might be 7) However, with more differentiation, 10 and 12 being multiplied end up with 15 and 18, which is much easier to obtain, with our new 11 speed having perhaps a 17 (or 16 if rounded down). The whole point it, it adds in a new balancing factor that can be more finely tuned.
Look back at H5, a similar proposal was made for the initiative system: instead of having the base number being quite small, which made the slow units really slow and the fast units really fast, one could add 10 or so to all initiative values, and the extreme gaps become less drastic. Sure, the sizing may not need to be as balanced as the past initiative system, but the fact that it can be made better could still be beneficial in the long run.
Sure, "if it ain't broke...", but the idea against the "why the heck not" philosophy both trivializes any real reasoning, as well as being an enemy to any change at all, unless one person sees "true" problems, which then puts it on the person making the accusation of "Why the heck should we?" Beauty is in the eye of the beholder shadow lurker?, and therefore any single aspect of the game could be put under such scrutiny and then the "no true Scotsman" fallacy could reign, which is generally a bad thing.
To put the actual size distinctions as "relevant", it's just another layer of strategy. Big units can't get where little units can. So creature placement becomes a bigger issue the more map elements are put on the field, and supposedly, in H7, there will indeed be more map elements. With less space for units, larger units start to have lots of pathing issues, especially in more "mazelike" battlefields. With 2x2 and 3x3 instead, it eases the large units' problems with all these map elements. They are still likely locked out of some areas due to being just too big, but it's eased.
I have also just thought of a (possibly dumb) spell idea, that would help facilitate the increased strategy of decreasing basic square size: a growth or shrink spell. As of right now, you could never shrink a small unit, but with the base size being small, you could possibly shrink a unit down to squeeze through even the smallest of your enemies' defensive oversights. I dunno, I think it'd be interesting.
|
|
PandaTar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
|
|
posted April 06, 2015 02:32 AM |
|
Edited by PandaTar at 02:33, 06 Apr 2015.
|
Reduce tile size, I think, to offer more combination of sizes, as long as they mean something in mechanics.
Still, prefer hexagon-shaped tiles.
***
Regarding sizes, they could have innate capabilities, which could prove useful or disgraceful logically speaking.
Presuming there would have 4 sizes in total: tiny, small, large, giant.
Innate abilities for a tiny unit could involve being harder to hit (large and giant would have this penalty over tiny units), move not so far on battlefield (the distance a large one could cover in the same amount of time - which is to say, a turn - would be longer than a tiny unit generally speaking), also being vulnerable to upcoming critical damage when being struck by those same large and giant units, with odds being greater regarding giant units.
Giant units, on the other hand, would be easier to target, to be flanked, but could also block spells, ranged attacks, get halved (in the same odds of their own critical damage) damage from tiny units etc. They couldn't also be bound to the ground so easily, like a small unit could, or pushed away. You get the picture.
This is the idea I would appreciate. Small and Large units would be pretty much better balanced between themselves, reserving less penalties or bonuses per se.
***
On another, but related subject, adding those size differences, I would rather add Height (differences in terrain height, I mean) to battlefield, so as to explore more the idea of units sizes and also to allow different battle strategies rather than direct clash, save from this and that obstacle, which seems like only a game of chess where everyone is a queen and the king is not in battle; and some dirt on the board so queens must go around it.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS – Portal 2
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2015 05:42 AM |
|
|
|
NamelessOrder
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2015 11:32 AM |
|
|
Protolisk said:
I think there is a good reason behind it: many units are just "large" for large's sake. What makes the Centaur "large", and somehow as large as a cyclops? I personally could see many units being in a middle ground state, between "large" and "small".
Look i see the Large feature (= occupies 4 tiles) as a game mechanics (a creature stat) that doesn't have to be 100% real. Centaur is not as big as Behemoth it just occupies 4 tiles as well - it's a game element. The image of a centaur is much smaller than the image of a Behemoth. I have no issues with that but, apparently, others have.
Quote:
Raising the square zie for small targets not only allows for more variability within a size based stat, like speed (I believe the previous example was where we had 5 or 6 speed, the space halving in size makes speeds that could be now 10 or 12... or an intermediate of 11.) This makes a good way to balance some units better: if a unit is pretty strong, but isn't supposed to be super slow, you can place them between other's in the speed stat so faster units have a better distance between them and the slower ones, but some units help make the very distinct differences more variable.
Just to clarify:
- i don't think that there is sth such as "size based stat". You said "like speed" but speed has nothing to do with size. You can have upgraded Glories (small) with speed of 8 and unupgraded Minotaurs (large) with speed of 5
- i consider large/small dichotomy as a creature stat that is independent from other stats. It is almost always better to be a small creature than large (at least from my H6 experience) and with flanking the difference might become even bigger
While it's true, you can have the same argument by increasing the ratio not by 4 but by any other higher number. JJ proposal was to create a 20x20 battlefield and increase the speed and size of creatures accordingly. It would allow some creatures to have more variety in speed and small and large creature would be more alike. It makes no sense to me. We are sacrificing a big difference between a small and a big creature and get what exactly? A possibility to have 20 different speed options instead of 10? In how many units and how meaningful it would be? I would say it makes almost no difference but it makes it harder for people to learn the game (there are twice as many speed options to remember).
Protolisk said:
Further more, with spells and hero abilities, maybe even some creature abilities like Leap, are based on speed, or make variables to speed. Thus, a spell making a unit have 1.5 times the speed, for 5 and 6, doesn't seem all too different, between 8 and 9 (if rounded up, other wise it might be 7) However, with more differentiation, 10 and 12 being multiplied end up with 15 and 18, which is much easier to obtain, with our new 11 speed having perhaps a 17 (or 16 if rounded down). The whole point it, it adds in a new balancing factor that can be more finely tuned.
well first of all percentage based modifiers of speed were quite uncommon in H6 (it was a static +1 (haste) or +2 (Heroic Charge), there was a rather rarely used Rush that gave +50% to the target creature and as you mentioned there was the Leap +100% but Webbing Spears -1, Rage Agaisnt the Living +2, Ferocious Wound -3, Shroud +1/+2, Curse of Shadows -1, Chilled -1, Sky and Earth +1/+2 or -1/-2 etc.) but putting this aside let's say that we will have percentage based speed-related abilities.
You are overestimating the difference between the 2 systems. Since each space related stat will be doubled, 6 in the current system and 12 in the JJ proposed system are the exactly same space. So will be +50% - 9 and 18. Yes there will be some differences for odd numbers but even in your own example 5 and 10 would become 8 and 15 so the difference is minute. I just don't see that it "adds a new balancing factor".
Quote:
Sure, "if it ain't broke...", but the idea against the "why the heck not" philosophy both trivializes any real reasoning, as well as being an enemy to any change at all, unless one person sees "true" problems, which then puts it on the person making the accusation of "Why the heck should we?" Beauty is in the eye of the beholder shadow lurker?, and therefore any single aspect of the game could be put under such scrutiny and then the "no true Scotsman" fallacy could reign, which is generally a bad thing.
The thing is, at least to me, the proposed system is worse than the current one. And i'm definitely not against changes in the game.
Also my argument was different. I said that you can't create new features that don't bring new, relevant mechanics even if the new feature is easy to implement and doesn’t change much.
Quote:
To put the actual size distinctions as "relevant", it's just another layer of strategy. Big units can't get where little units can. So creature placement becomes a bigger issue the more map elements are put on the field, and supposedly, in H7, there will indeed be more map elements. With less space for units, larger units start to have lots of pathing issues, especially in more "mazelike" battlefields. With 2x2 and 3x3 instead, it eases the large units' problems with all these map elements. They are still likely locked out of some areas due to being just too big, but it's eased.
that's the point - big creatures are clunky while small are easier to maneuver but susceptible to some creature abilities (like H7 Long Range or H6 Mighty Slam/Slash) The new system would make the difference much smaller and thus less relevant. So it's not an another layer of strategy – the proposal just makes the disparity less important (which is not always bad - i just don't see a point in this case).
-------------------------------------------------
EDIT:
Quote:
Regarding sizes, they could have innate capabilities, which could prove useful or disgraceful logically speaking.
Presuming there would have 4 sizes in total: tiny, small, large, giant.
Innate abilities for a tiny unit could involve being harder to hit (large and giant would have this penalty over tiny units), move not so far on battlefield (the distance a large one could cover in the same amount of time - which is to say, a turn - would be longer than a tiny unit generally speaking), also being vulnerable to upcoming critical damage when being struck by those same large and giant units, with odds being greater regarding giant units.
It's like a bidding war in this thread. We started with a pretty simple proposal but the next person mentioned 3 different unit sizes. Now we are hearing about 4 varied sized. Can anyone give me 5???
And the next person is talking about isometric battlefield.
I will just say this. A lot of people complained about H6 abilities system claiming it was too complicated and difficult to learn. And i kinda agree. Now with almost any feature discussion you want the more complicated option. Most of you struggle when talking about specifics of the gameplay (just look at the initiative discussion) and you are rather advanced players. Most people who will take H7 aren't and they have only vague sence of the series. How on earth are they supposed to remember specifics of interactions between units of 4 sizes and above that creature passive and active abilities and hero abilities and spells and racials etc.
____________
Uplay: ZergRusher | H6: Thoughts on duels | DoC: Cassa
|
|
PandaTar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
|
|
posted April 06, 2015 12:35 PM |
|
|
You may be right. Sometimes I forget we are talking about H7 at all. Just don't put me along that group of people who complained about H6 units abilities, given that I didn't buy that game, and I'm one that likes more depth and complexity in game mechanics rather than visuals.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS – Portal 2
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2015 03:45 PM |
|
|
| |
|
|
