|
| Thread: Line-ups suggestion for Heroes 8 |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Drakon-Deus 
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
posted October 04, 2018 04:26 PM |
|
|
NimoStar said:
As you can see, creature manteinance opens some very interesting and flavorful options for the game.
It's a good idea, I'd like it as a feature in a future Heroes game.
... although that game is unlikely to be made. 
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
NimoStar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Modding the Unmoddable
|
|
posted October 04, 2018 04:31 PM |
|
Edited by NimoStar at 16:45, 04 Oct 2018.
|
"the same but better"
Nothing ever got better by trying to be "the same". In fact the two things are antagonic. If you want something to be better, you have to change something. If you want something to be the same, it can never be better.
4 years is nowhere close to a "wait". It is closer to a "Rushed Sequel" if anything (and it was literally rushed with missed deadlines everywhere).
Not a long wait, Considering in the middle there was two big expansions. H5 expansions were good, that much I will concede, and some even say it saved the game from being mediocre.
In fact, H5 expansions were the ones that deviated the most from H3. They introduced mechanics like alternative upgrades, dwarven runes and Blood Rage, which were very well received. Which further shows copying H3 is not everything.
And I actually respect the Heroes VI developers and what they tried to do, such as town conversions and Blood or Tears reputations. It didn't pan out at the end, but much of what panned the game was Elvin's ideas about creating a single special resource or doing away with town screens (which was eventually corrected but was already too late), or the lack of beloved towns.
But I sympathize even with Elvin's failure. Even though he was an idiot, its easy to imagine how anyone in his position would be stressed out. He manned an underbudgeted sector trying to sell his big-name ideas (which sucked as they were all lore-oriented and a terrible lore at that, but that is another story) and getting feedback from the community only as "We want everything as it was in h3 hurr durr", "could you not make it more like h3?" "This lineup is not like the H3 one", etc. 
____________
Never changing = never improving
|
|
bitmaid
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 04, 2018 04:36 PM |
|
|
|
hmm... plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|
|
red_flag
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 04, 2018 04:38 PM |
|
|
NimoStar said:
H5 was sucessful because it was the first game in over 10 years, not because it was so good. Today H5 is still played less than H3. If it was so much "Improved", you would think it would be the opposite.
Not 10 years, H3- 1999, H4 – 2002, H5 -2006, but doesn’t matter, generaly you might right.
Heroes 5 gave a new streingh up for the franchise, but what happened next destroyed this good start.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted October 04, 2018 04:46 PM |
|
Edited by Elvin at 16:52, 04 Oct 2018.
|
Huh. Obviously big stacks are an issue, nobody said it wasn't. Also my suggestion involved percentage AND fixed damage so it wouldn't be possible to see a single meteor shower kill 10 pixies here and 666 archdevils there.
Stevie said:
What I find a bit concerning is how someone who used to tweak and balance a Duel map would take a stance against limiting stack sizes, when that person adjusted available armies, damage and abilities to the number. One week's army more and that frail balance would've been in chaos again, but who cares if that's just how Heroes is.
That's because my map is but one of many personal projects. It is not a real, dynamic game, it's just a tiny aspect of the game, frozen in a particular moment. It is built around the H5 balance issues much like past toh mapmakers tried to balance the game through their map design.
You misunderstand one thing, I am not strictly against stack caps. I am simply not convinced it is the best means to bridge the gap between spells and army growth. Practically, one can avoid might armies growing too strong by developing and attacking faster. But as far as game design goes, I'd much rather factions were 'balanced' whether in early, mid or lategame.
Upkeep costs were also used in age of wonders. I honestly didn't like the feature much but it would certainly help with preventing absurd army growth..
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
NimoStar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Modding the Unmoddable
|
|
posted October 04, 2018 04:50 PM |
|
|
Hello? hello? My proposal already adressed that. Ho ho ho.
Percentage damage will never be a true balance to magic because it just makes you to always target the bigger stack where percent damage matters most, then destroying the tactical part of the game.
____________
Never changing = never improving
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted October 04, 2018 04:50 PM |
|
|
NimoStar said:
But I sympathize even with Elvin's failure. Even though he was an idiot, its easy to imagine how anyone in his position would be stressed out. He manned an underbudgeted sector trying to sell his big-name ideas (which sucked as they were all lore-oriented and a terrible lore at that, but that is another story) and getting feedback from the community only as "We want everything as it was in h3 hurr durr", "could you not make it more like h3?" "This lineup is not like the H3 one", etc.
Oh crap, they figured I'm Erwan's secret account! 
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 04, 2018 04:56 PM |
|
|
|
Stack size isn't an issue. A game that wants to offer "different playstyles" depending on what kind of "faction" you play, can never be balanced for all situations anyway - and in fact, whether a certain spell, skill or even creature or artifact or whatever will retain their value or see it wax or wane depending on how long things take, what oppoents you meet and so on, is part of the game challenge.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted October 04, 2018 05:01 PM |
|
Edited by Galaad at 17:03, 04 Oct 2018.
|
Quote:
Not a long wait, Considering in the middle there was two big expansions.
No, vanilla was 2006. I counted from after last expansion.
Quote:
But I sympathize even with Elvin's failure. Even though he was an idiot, its easy to imagine how anyone in his position would be stressed out. He manned an underbudgeted sector trying to sell his big-name ideas (which sucked as they were all lore-oriented and a terrible lore at that, but that is another story) and getting feedback from the community only as "We want everything as it was in h3 hurr durr", "could you not make it more like h3?" "This lineup is not like the H3 one", etc.
Well, if this is what the community asks, why wouldn't they make it more like H3? 
____________
|
|
bitmaid
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 04, 2018 05:10 PM |
|
|
There is actually SUCH a simple solution to stack size. Make it tied to Hero level. There is no need for stack cap, but at the same time level cap must be removed. So a level 3 hero is only fit to lead a small army while a level 30 can lead a legion.
You don't know how many times I saw the AI put a bunch of creatures with an undeveloped hero and when you meet them in combat it's just sad. When you play any game you want to meet your match, and that was just a waste of time.
Also any game is just a complex mathematical model, and it doesn't make sense to put variables there that don't have anything to do with anything such as having unlimited stack space for everyone across the board. The more one variable affects others the more complicated and challenging the model (game) is.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2018 07:42 AM |
|
|
That has nothing to do with anything. I could just as well say, the more variables are limited to operate in a certain space only, the less complex things are because the less variation is possible.
Stack size is in reality a variable that HAS a lot to do with something else, and that is production on one hand and buying produced creatures on the other. It doesn't make a lot of sense to allow production and buying of millions of creatures but limit the stack to just a dozen.
The problem is actually non-existant, if handled correctly.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted October 05, 2018 09:21 AM |
|
|
L2P, the ultimate solution to everything ^^ In the end maps with numerous towns that reach the 'critical point' faster, require different play and skills.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
bitmaid
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2018 02:19 PM |
|
|
No, I specifically said UNLIMITED stack space.I also didn't say anything about production. In implementation, there should never be a scenario where production exceeds stack volume.
Heroes is a fantasy strategy game and the fantasy part applies mainly to the worldview. There ought to be some realism and logic in strategy. A level 1 hero shouldn't be able to lead as many troops as a level 30 hero, period. It also offers a better sense of progress in level up.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted October 05, 2018 02:44 PM |
|
|
Why not? Anyone can tell a big army to march even if he cannot command the troops well.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
bitmaid
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2018 03:43 PM |
|
|
It's like saying a McDonald burger flipper is fine to press the nuclear button. Why should 999 firebirds follow a level 1 hero with no skills?
There should be some flexibility that allows various styles of play, but the game design should also maximize the probability of well matched battles.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted October 05, 2018 04:28 PM |
|
|
If we're gonna get more realistic we might as well implement anarchy/revolt incidents, creature arrogance levels, syndicate unions and heroes switching sides. If not, I see no issue with green heroes carrying bigger armies.
Besides, hero level may not work as well as you think. Imagine a dungeon warlock hit lvl 15-17 by end of week 2. Then imagine his opponent a knight hero without warmachines that got lvl 10-12 due to might limitations, lack of learning/enlightenment and haven's nature as a mid-lategame faction. Who needs the extra army in this scenario, dungeon or haven? Similarly, if a warmachine specialist started creeping nonstop with few casualties and faced off against another might hero without warmachines. The one in need of a bigger army would be the latter.
Such a decision would mostly favour fast creepers and there is no need for that.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
bitmaid
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2018 05:05 PM |
|
|
I don't see how making army cap tied to hero level leads to any of that, and that's a big "we might as well" which is nowhere as realistic as the army cap. For whatever it's worth, leveling already ups Leadership and in that sense, Elite creatures should rebel against a "leader" with little to no leadership.
The scenario you painted has more to do with skill balancing. If we were to remove the level cap the whole skill tree needs to be reworked, though I think it needs to be reworked regardless. There have been entirely too many dominant strategies throughout all the Heroes games. You have such overwhelming advantage once you master Air spell/War machine/Faction-specific skills/even passive ones and Economy etc. that the size of army becomes more and more irrelevant in late stage of the game. Another example: a powerful chain-lightning spell easily eclipses what all your/your enemy's towns produced in a week.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2018 05:12 PM |
|
|
Heroes 3 is a dead end anyway and arguing with how things work there make no sense.
High creature numbers devalue the single creature. Losses SHOULD matter, no matter how small, which means creature numbers should be kept low. H3 has idiotic creature numbers.
|
|
lantranar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2018 05:41 PM |
|
|
Elvin said:
Besides, hero level may not work as well as you think. Imagine a dungeon warlock hit lvl 15-17 by end of week 2. Then imagine his opponent a knight hero without warmachines that got lvl 10-12 due to might limitations, lack of learning/enlightenment and haven's nature as a mid-lategame faction. Who needs the extra army in this scenario, dungeon or haven? Similarly, if a warmachine specialist started creeping nonstop with few casualties and faced off against another might hero without warmachines. The one in need of a bigger army would be the latter.
Such a decision would mostly favour fast creepers and there is no need for that.
what you have just mentioned is not a problem, rather, it is just a minor balance issue. It is indeed when you apply the limit mindlessly upon the shell of previous Hmm games, but whne you think about it as a resource, then there will obviously be other resourse-management mechanics to be introduced.
There could be factions/heroes that have high growth rate and low unit cap and vice versa, low growth rate with high unit cap. Or you can also consider other unit-related resource like unit slot, general slot (H3 WOD), ressurection, necromancy, diplomacy/charm, war machine ,ect, as supporting mechanics.
Unlimited unit stacking is among the nastiest flaw of Hmm franchise and it gets in the way of game balancing too much, while, at the same time, roots too deep into fandom. It is not just my own opinion but also from some game designers of big companies I managed to come into contact with. If it is a good mechanics, you ll see many other games trying to adopt it. In reality, it is unique to Hmm for a reason.
Just name any broken features in Hmm games so far (necromancy in H3, OP unit abilities, training in H5) and you can all trace them back to this unit limit problem.
Perhaps I was not clear when I said "Unlimited unit stacking", it is more like "unconditional unit stacking". Stacking more unit into one stack is strictly better than not, and any advantage without condition will be abused over and over again until it is broken. Unit cap is just one obvious condition. Other games implements many ways to deal with this : upkeep cost, slower army speed, hero level requirement, higher detection level, and so on.
Galaad said:
From the looks of modding community I think the "classic" formula still works today. Imo, the remaining fanbase would embrace a new title going that direction and could even lure back folks who lost faith already a long time ago.
I never doubt that old fan still love the old formula, I do too. What I doubt is how appealing it is to new players, which is obviously what ubisoft is more concerned about.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2018 05:56 PM |
|
|
The problem is, the developers you spoke with probably didn't understand the game they were talking about. In this case the problem is, that the game is GEARED to maximize production. Everything you need resources and gold for is put into increasing creature production in some way - be it vertically or horizontally -, and it would be completely and utterly silly to PUNISH players for doing that well, by introducing COUNTER-balancing elements.
One example to make that very clear is creature XP (you can have with WoG). Creature XP is a COUNTER-balancing element, because you WEAKEN your high-XP-level elite creatures when you merge them with new recruits. Now, you MIGHT say that means you can equip more heroes and so on, but that doesn't work because XP IS LIMITED in the game...
Things that work well with other games just do not work with HoMM - and, as I hope I have shown - it's even easy to see why that is so.
|
| |
|
|
