|
| Thread: Heroes 7 - Ideas for the future |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 24, 2015 01:18 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 13:26, 24 Sep 2015.
|
Maurice explained it.
Maurice said:
Let's assume an example:
A Fire Elemental does part Might damage (the Fireball it slings is a physical object with physical impact, after all) and part Fire damage (as a Fireball is on fire, by definition ...). When the Fire Elemental attacks, the Might damage is held against the Defense skill of its target, while the Fire damage is held against the Fire Resistance of the unit. Ignoring the Might component for the time being, we can discuss the variety of the Fire damage component: If the Fireball deals 100 Fire damage and the unit has 40% Fire Resistance, it will only suffer 60 Fire damage effectively.
Now, introduce two Heroes: a Might Hero and a Magic Hero. The Might Hero has Expert Fire Magic and 10 Spell Power. Effective Fire Penetration is therefore 30% (2x 10% for the Mastery Level and 10% from Spell Power). The Magic Hero has Master Fire Magic and 20 Spell Power, so that one has an effective Fire Penetration of 50% (3x 10% for the Master Level and 20% from Spell Power).
When each of them commands the above mentioned Fire Elemental against the equally above mentioned unit with 40% Fire Resistance, the Fire Elemental will end up doing more Fire damage. Against the Might Hero, the Fire Resistance is effectively only 10%, so the target suffers only 90 damage. With the Magic Hero, however, the penetration drops the Magic Resistance to -10%, so the target of the Fire Elementals' Fireball suffers 110 Fire damage. But since the Might Hero highly likely has a higher attack score, the Might damage component of the Fireball will be somewhat higher than for the Magic Hero.
I personally find this idea so solid that I can't see the game without it. The system is already in place more or less, where the differentiation between physical and magical sources exists. What me and Maurice tried to do is grasp the whole concept in its currently unrefined state and take it to the next level. But if you guys don't like it then there's nothing I can do about it. I can only hope that not all attempts at innovation are encountered with the same kind of conservative mentality, otherwise the series cannot improve.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 01:28 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
I personally find this idea so solid that I can't see the game without it. The system is already in place more or less, where the differentiation between physical and magical sources exists. What me and Maurice tried to do is grasp the whole concept in its currently unrefined state and take it to the next level. But if you guys don't like it then there's nothing I can do about it. I can only hope that not all attempts at innovation are encountered with the same kind of conservative mentality, otherwise the series cannot improve.
There certainly should be a step to improve it. Might be a bit different from the gamplay we used to, but if it creates some replayability (and some sort of pleasure), then go for it.
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 01:40 PM |
|
|
Maurice said:
One of the main issues with Magic Heroes casting spells is that they don't scale as well as Might Heroes do.
I agree with that. However, your solution still sticks to the linear model. Mathematics is full different models that can easily be implemented instead of linear function. I'll show a few other functions that will alow for improved damage dealt by spells in late game. However, I'll do that in the evening, as soon I'm going to leave my home for a lecture.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 01:58 PM |
|
|
Pawek_13 said:
I agree with that. However, your solution still sticks to the linear model.
For specific spells, yes, that's for sure. The only remedy that's provided here is the penetration which increases. It's "deeper" than Might Heroes since the latter will likely have lower Mastery level in a given Spell School and have lower Spell Power.
However, the main benefit doesn't come from Spells, but from how the Magic Hero affects the damage output of the troops under his command. In my post in the Resistance thread, I mentioned a few items, the first one being "Torches and Pitchforks", which added Fire damage to all units. The Hero's Magic Mastery level adds to that by making sure his troops land more of that damage, penetrating enemy Fire Resistance.
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 03:20 PM |
|
|
|
What about Might-focused units and abilities? Will their damage calculation remain the same?
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 03:24 PM |
|
|
Magic penetration (eh hehehe(sorry)) derived from spell power for elemental damage does sound pretty great. I'm still against it increasing the potential damage dealt: It shouldn't increase the damage beyond 100%. So a creature that fire elemental with the magic hero should not do more than 100 fire damage. the increased damage for creature is for might skills only. That said, hero spells should totally be able to go beyond the base spell-damage with high enough penetration.
____________
It is with a heavy heart that I must announce that the cis are at it again.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 03:27 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 15:32, 24 Sep 2015.
|
Pawek_13 said:
What about Might-focused units and abilities? Will their damage calculation remain the same?
Look, the numbers and percentages could be adjusted. Initially I was thinking that there would be a higher percentage of physical damage transferred from Attack than magic damage would be from Spellpower. What I'm interested in if things working that way is either good or bad at a concept level, because if the theory behind the mechanics is sound, then numbers can surely be adjusted to match a specific end.
kiryu133 said:
Magic penetration (eh hehehe(sorry)) derived from spell power for elemental damage does sound pretty great. I'm still against it increasing the potential damage dealt: It shouldn't increase the damage beyond 100%. So a creature that fire elemental with the magic hero should not do more than 100 fire damage. the increased damage for creature is for might skills only. That said, hero spells should totally be able to go beyond the base spell-damage with high enough penetration.
So you're saying to drop conversion of Spellpower into magical damage for creature attacks, but keep the dimension of magic penetration to them?
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 03:33 PM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 15:35, 24 Sep 2015.
|
Pawek_13 said:
What about Might-focused units and abilities? Will their damage calculation remain the same?
Might should still use the good old Attack and Defense scores to detail the effects. The only thing that might be needed is to make sure the balance between Might damage and Magic damage is maintained. But like Stevie said, that's stuff for the balancing that follows implementation of the concept.
And for the record, I think that when you add up the numbers across a game for Might and the 7 Magic damage types, most damage will fall under the Might category; after all, units under command of a Magic Hero still deal their Might damage component to the stacks they attack.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 03:37 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
So you're saying to drop conversion of Spellpower into magical damage for creature attacks, but keep the dimension of magic penetration to them?
pretty much. I can agree that a magic hero can help get through a creatures magical defenses but I'm not gonna agree that it should improve the damage dealt (that's might territory). Only allow said damage to get through. Unless there is a spell that does that of course.
Another way of adding some more oomph to magic heroes (or at least wisdom) could be to put spell duration on wisdom while the effectivity still comes from spell power.
____________
It is with a heavy heart that I must announce that the cis are at it again.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 03:44 PM |
|
|
kiryu133 said:
Stevie said:
So you're saying to drop conversion of Spellpower into magical damage for creature attacks, but keep the dimension of magic penetration to them?
pretty much. I can agree that a magic hero can help get through a creatures magical defenses but I'm not gonna agree that it should improve the damage dealt (that's might territory). Only allow said damage to get through. Unless there is a spell that does that of course.
You know what? I quite like it. Just as long as there is some factor which can make spells and magical attacks better. Balancing numbers then should provide the appropriate fine tuning. A good thought 
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 03:51 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
kiryu133 said:
Stevie said:
So you're saying to drop conversion of Spellpower into magical damage for creature attacks, but keep the dimension of magic penetration to them?
pretty much. I can agree that a magic hero can help get through a creatures magical defenses but I'm not gonna agree that it should improve the damage dealt (that's might territory). Only allow said damage to get through. Unless there is a spell that does that of course.
You know what? I quite like it. Just as long as there is some factor which can make spells and magical attacks better. Balancing numbers then should provide the appropriate fine tuning. A good thought
That might be a bit too much. I'd rather prefer if it was the classic one - attack increases damage, defense decreases dealt damage, spell power increases spell duration and damage, while knowledge increases mana capacity, only add to decrease hostile spell damage.
I mean, if knowledge is over 20 or more, there isn't much use of it, considering there are ways to replenish mana quickly.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 03:58 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 16:17, 24 Sep 2015.
|
I have modified the OP to read like this:
Stevie said:
(*) Attack improves physical damage. Defense improves physical resistance. Spellpower improves the power of spells and magical attacks, and also increase magic penetration by 1% per point. Knowledge improves mana pool, mana regeneration, and also base magic resistance by 1% per point.
The part stricken out should be disregarded. I think that was a good idea. I'm sold. Does anyone else feel the same?
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 04:15 PM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 16:16, 24 Sep 2015.
|
EnergyZ said:
That might be a bit too much. I'd rather prefer if it was the classic one - attack increases damage, defense decreases dealt damage, spell power increases spell duration and damage, while knowledge increases mana capacity, only add to decrease hostile spell damage.
I mean, if knowledge is over 20 or more, there isn't much use of it, considering there are ways to replenish mana quickly.
We were talking about the magic damage component of creature attacks getting boosted by a Magic Hero somehow. As Kiryu pointed out, adding Spell Power to that would be too much, since Spell Power is already a part in determining Spell Penetration.
One thing that we did discuss between us, was allowing Knowledge to increase general Magic Resistance by 1% per point. A Hero with 20 Knowledge therefore provides a base 20% Resistance to the creatures under his command. This is also the reason why Spell Power should be added to Spell Penetration. This enables Magic Heroes to emphasize the Magical damage component of the creatures under their command, while a Might Hero does it like always, with Might damage.
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 04:19 PM |
|
|
|
Now that you said it, it could be a good idea. Though this does change the game mechanics much, and not everyone may like that.
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 07:33 PM |
|
|
Personal opinion: A change to the range mechanics.
Idea: replace the penalty based on the battlefield size with a distance based one. Instead of the a percent based range, attach a numerical value to each range unit representing the effective distance of its attack. Attacks on targets out of this range would suffer a penalty based on the number of times the effective range can be but between the units, rounded up.
Example:
If the Cabiry would have a range of 5, units in the distance of 2-5 tiles would be dealt 100% of the damage. Units in the distance of 6-10 tiles would be dealt 100/2=50% dmg. Units in the distance of 11-15 tiles would be dealt 100/3=33% etc. .
This would help balance each range unit individually, Would be useful if we would be able to create much larger maps. And would add new a level of strategy to battles.
Skills like archery and some artifacts could boost the range of heroes units.
Idea 2: Make the deploitig areas on battlefield detached from the sides of the battlefields. This could prevent turtling at the start of the battle and would enable to flank units in the back row of the starting area.
____________
I'm just a Mirror of your self.
We see, we look, we gather, we store, we teach.
We are many, and you can be one of us.
|
|
Herry
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
100% Devil
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 07:52 PM |
|
Edited by Herry at 08:44, 25 Sep 2015.
|
Disclaimer: I didn't read the whole mumbo-jumbo in this thread(e.g all the stuff after the first post), but I have an idea that I would like to share, regarding the Skill system. Now, I'm not too familiar with the Heroes VII skill system(I only know how it works, skill levels and how to get that stuff). Sorry if I intruded, but here you go:
In the Heroes of Might and Magic game that I dream of, any hero can learn any skill, but the system that I thought about isn't that simple. Naturally, you get a skill each time you level up, but there's more to it than that. Skill progression use AoEs, short for Area(s) of Expertise. AoEs are decided by the race and the identity of the hero. For example, we have a custom hero that comes from, say, a human faction which fights for good. Instead of learning how to fight and lead an army, he decides to learn magic. Of course it's not possible to learn stuff like necromancy(I mean, his faction is both good and human, so yeah  ). Hence, AoEs are decided by the race and identity.
You can learn a skill outside your AoE, but to do so, you have to cough up some money/resources, because, in the game's universe, your faction doesn't happen to have manuals(of the kind a Hero uses) on stuff other than their AoE. But it's not done yet. After you learn a skill from another AoE, your "Familiarity level" increases. First of all, before I explain what that is, there are 3 types of it:
* Familiarity A
* Familiarity B
* Familiarity C
Familiarity A is with skills that involve fighting, leadership, and tactics in general. Type B involves pretty much everything that is related to magic. Type C involves errands and stuff other than the past 2, for example, the "Horse tamer" skill(A skill that doesn't exist in HoMM games I played, which I imagined of course. In short, this skill increases your movement points by a bit(like, a really small bit), and, per week, you have a chance of finding a good horse, which temporary increases your movement points). Getting it will increase your familiarity level for type C. Familiarity is something that tends to help you with simply "picking up" skills from other AoEs, not your gateway to have some invincible hero. There is a limit to the skills that can be learned from other AoEs, it's not a small number that hampers your expansion, but it will ensure that you don't become better in things than people who are experts in them.
Note: For this idea, I'm not really sure whether to go with that or decrease the effectiveness of skills from other AoEs instead.
Now, when you level up, you don't immediately get/hone a skill, I mean, time has to be spent in learning/researching. Thus, when you get a new skill(1 day after level up), it starts off as crappy, and starts getting better and better eventually, until the Hero masters the particular level of the skill. Of course, honing a skill takes a lot less time than learning one from scratch. I mean, it's a lot easier to get better at swordsmanship than to actually learn it for the first time, no?
...
Well yeah, that's a general summary of the whole idea, but I need to do some more thinking before I add up to this, wouldn't want me to come up with a bull**** idea, would you?
In other words: Each Hero has his own Area of Expertise skills. Skills within the AoE are free, and there are couple of them to start with. Not to mention, you can level these skills to maximum. Skills that aren't in a Hero's AoE however, are the exact reverse of that: They cost money and/or resources, you don't start with any(maybe if they implement this unless with map maker's intention) and you can level them to the point that they are quite practical, but not completely master them.
However, paying gold to learn these skills, even 3 of them(the skills outside your AoE, that is), is too expensive. To get that balanced out, we have Familiarity levels, which also make sense in real life. With Familiarity levels, pretend you learned basic earth magic, it would be easier to learn other forms of magic, because it makes you more familiar with magic in general. Which means it increases your Familiarity Level for all other types of magic. Bear in mind this is only a basic example.
In even more basic terms: Heroes of the same identity and race have the same AoE, Heroes of the same race but with different identites have fairly different AoEs, but Heroes with different race and identity have completely different AoEs.
If that's not understandable enough, I'll even add pictures, just say so.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 07:53 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 19:54, 24 Sep 2015.
|
@Dave,
I like the first idea in theory, but I don't necessarily agree with the percentages. The creatures having a range value of their own seems legit, it helps with variety and uniqueness.
The second one though, I'm quite unsure. Especially since turtling is what some factions are meant to do.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 08:01 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
@Dave,
I like the first idea in theory, but I don't necessarily agree with the percentages. The creatures having a range value of their own seems legit, it helps with variety and uniqueness.
The second one though, I'm quite unsure. Especially since turtling is what some factions are meant to do.
At point A: The percentages could be adjusted, that's the advantage, it can be balanced rather easier.
At point B: This would only limit turtling from turn 1. Since you could still move your units to the sides and corners, but at the price of 1+ turns.
But both are just my ideas I think could be interesting and the game could benefit from.
____________
I'm just a Mirror of your self.
We see, we look, we gather, we store, we teach.
We are many, and you can be one of us.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 10:14 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 22:14, 24 Sep 2015.
|
Thanks for the contribution Herry. I have to admit that I didn't understood it all, but some concepts are familiar to me, like the Familiarity mechanics which resemble the Might / Magic / Neutral differentiation. One thing's for sure, the current hero classes and skills need to be improved upon as I consider that the incentive on replay value through restrictions is a misguided path. If I'll have the time, I'll be sure to expose some ideas of mine regarding classes, skill system, abilities and ultimates. No promises though.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 10:14 PM |
|
Edited by Pawek_13 at 10:52, 25 Sep 2015.
|
First of all, I must apologize you, Maurice. I've misled you. How? I've told you that with the whole penenetration (kiryu...  ) system you want to stick with linear progression in spell damage the truth, actually, is quite different. For a few next lines, I assume that magical defense of opposing site is set to 0, as otherwise I'll have to make a model using a function of two variables, which are a topic I haven't covered on maths yet.
Here is how equation of damage looks for Implosion on Expert Destructive Magic in TotE (d is damage, s is spellpower):
d(s) = 40 + 40s
However, whith your addition of magical penetration (this is wrong on so many levels), the equation looks like that (o is damage in new equation):
o(s) = (1 + 0.3 +0.01s)(40 + 40s) = (1.3 + 0.01s)(40 + 40s)
However, since we don't like brackets, we multiply their contents.
o(s) = 1.3*40 + 1.3*40s + 0.01s*40 + 0.01s*40s = 52 + 52s + 0.4s + 0.4s^2
The final formula for damage of Expert Implosion is:
o(s) = 0.4s^2 + 52.4s + 52
This is a quadratic equation! This is where I made my mistake. By not including penetration (I can't stop thinking about it), I've completely ommited the fact that your model is a polynomial of second order. I agree that quadratic equations are way more interesting for damage-dealing spells, as when set properly, they provide a slower start and very high damage during late-game. Just compare graphs of y = x and y = x^2 to see what I'm talking about, especially values of x>0.
There's one more question I need to ask - which hero stat increases damage done by magical units - Spellpower or Attack? In the master post only physical damage is mentioned.
|
| |
|
|
