Gnomes2169 said:

---

Because of that cost, there needs to be some meticulous designing of spells in an RNG system... or things just need to be so generic that it doesn't matter what you roll into. Scaling up your magic should be comparable to scaling up your army, and when you build or upgrade a creature dwelling you know what you're getting. Spending the same resources on a mage guild shouldn't randomly roll you a gaggle of worthless spells and leave you feeling like you wasted your time and resources that could have been spent upgrading your creatures.

(Also, since bringing up H3's system implies this, the idea that different towns have lower or higher maximum levels of mage guilds despite giving every town a might AND a magic hero is... definitely something that needs to die with H3 and stay dead. The claim that Fortress was "Just a faction that was more focused on might, so it only got level 3 mage guilds" is like saying that Tower shouldn't have a tier 7 creature and doesn't get a tier 6 upgrade because "It's a magic focused town, so it shouldn't have all the might features!" The disparity was needless, and just needlessly nerfed entire playstyles for certain factions, making magic heroes somewhat of a trap in specific factions despite offering them anyway.)

---

LordCameron said:

---

Now I want a magic faction without a Tier 7.

---

Galaad said:

---

Maybe the sweet spot for Olden Era is to keep the Observatory truly situational -a rare fallback when you’re really missing something essential- while letting randomness remain the main driver. That way you keep both flexibility and the thrill of discovery.

From my experience so far, though, it doesn’t really feel that situational. If it ends up becoming part of the regular progression rather than an occasional lifeline, we risk losing some of that unpredictability that made the classic system so memorable. But we’re still in the playtest phase, so there’s hope the system will get fine-tuned further.

---

Stevie said:

---

I don't agree with much here, Gnomes.

First of all, if game allows for "useless spells", then that's a bad design problem, not RNG per se. Of course, RNG can further exacerbate it by being very prohibitive and punishing, but that's a symptom of a deeper flaw. For example, if at the first mage guild level only 1 of the spells you could get was good and 9 were bad, then getting exactly that one spell would be paramount. To that end, removing RNG from the equation would make things "work", because people could then pick the one that matters. But in reality you're still stuck with a system that has too many useless spells which is the real issue. At any rate, things would have to be in a very bad place if removing RNG is how things become bearable.

But that's a worse case scenario. In a more realistic scenario, most spells should be all around good and/or situational. And in that case, it's always worth rolling the die to see which ones you get. Some may be more coveted than others, some may fit your strategy better and you really want them, but even if you don't get exactly what you wanted there should at least be something you can work with. Maybe you get one you didn't expect and could get you to pivot your build. It's up to you. It's not an automatic failure if you didn't get what you wanted, it's still the correct decision to go for it, and hindsight doesn't make it incorrect.

In my experience, the people who want to play one thing and one thing only are the ones that blame RNG when they don't get it. I've seen this in the Arena playtest a lot. That's mostly on them for being inflexible or taking their chances and not being able to live with the outcome. Like them, you assume that investing in a mage guild always warrants getting what you want. In other words, your base case is certainty, and any deviation means you are "unlucky", and so it shouldn't happen. I think the exact opposite, that the base case should be uncertainty, and whenever you roll the die and actually get what you want you're "lucky". So disappointing outcomes are mostly a result of unanchored expectations, or playing too much into one strategy and not having a backup plan.

And you also compare how getting the exact spells you want should be as sure as upgrading troops. I believe most of the meaning behind might and magic would be lost if they worked so similarly that you could compare them 1 to 1. The point is that they should be different. How do you compare getting Slow or Force Field or Antimagic  to upgrading footmen? They're things that play out very differently on the combat map.

---

Gnomes2169 said:

---

>>>>>>>I enjoy both approaches, though in the case of the H3 system it requires a lot more work to ensure that all the spells have at least niche usability in every situation. Low-rolling into spells that won't have any use (like getting Protection from Water in a matchup vs H3 Inferno) functionally blanks the resource expenditure of building your magic guild, which typically includes lots of precious resources AND the time penalty of spending your only building charge for the day on an RNG spell lootbox when you could build a creature/ resource/ gold/ fortification generating building instead.

Because of that cost, there needs to be some meticulous designing of spells in an RNG system... or things just need to be so generic that it doesn't matter what you roll into. Scaling up your magic should be comparable to scaling up your army, and when you build or upgrade a creature dwelling you know what you're getting. Spending the same resources on a mage guild shouldn't randomly roll you a gaggle of worthless spells and leave you feeling like you wasted your time and resources that could have been spent upgrading your creatures.<<<<<<<<<

---

Stevie said:

---

>>>>>>>First of all, if the game allows for "useless spells", then that's a bad design problem, not RNG per se. Of course, RNG can further exacerbate it by being very prohibitive and punishing, but that's a symptom of a deeper flaw. For example, if at the first mage guild level only 1 of the spells you could get was good and 9 were bad, then getting exactly that one spell would be paramount. To that end, removing RNG from the equation would make things "work", because people could then pick the one that matters. But in reality you're still stuck with a system that has too many useless spells which is the real issue. At any rate, things would have to be in a very bad place if removing RNG is how they become bearable.

But that's a worse case scenario. In a more realistic scenario, most spells should be all around good and/or situational. And in that case, it's always worth rolling the die to see which ones you get. Some may be more coveted than others, some may fit your strategy better and you really want them, but even if you don't get exactly what you wanted there should at least be something you can work with. Maybe you get one you didn't expect and could get you to pivot your build. It's up to you. It's not an automatic failure if you didn't get what you wanted, it's still the correct decision to go for it, and hindsight doesn't make it incorrect.<<<<<<<<<

---

Stevie said:

---

And you also compare how getting the exact spells you want should be as sure as upgrading troops. I believe most of the meaning behind might and magic would be lost if they worked so similarly that you could compare them 1 to 1. The point is that they should be different. How do you compare getting Slow or Force Field or Antimagic  to upgrading footmen? They're things that play out very differently on the combat map.

---

LordCameron said:

---

Now I want a magic faction without a Tier 7.

---

Stevie said:

---

The exact same thought crossed my mind. What's so bad about breaking the mold in such a quirky way? I would welcome it. Anecdotally, one of the biggest requests for SoC since its inception was to make factions more unique and different from one another. People seem to prefer that over factions which have the same base template and just a slightly different skin.

---

Gnomes2169 said:

---

Hmmmm... perhaps the system could be balanced so that it's very expensive to research a new spell (as expensive as upgrading it by two levels, maybe?) but you still get a decent number of random unlocks each time you upgrade a mage guild (5 at level 1 and 2; 3 from the "primary" schools of the town and 2 from the others, 4 at level 3 and 4; again, 3 primary schools and 1 other, and 3 at level 5; all from the primary spell schools).

That could encourage you to use the spells you randomly generate, since they would upgrade much faster, while still allowing for occasionally purchasing a spell that you need but didn't luck into. And it seems like this would mostly just be a numbers tweak, so it shouldn't be too hard to implement inside of a playtest environment.

---

Gnomes2169 said:

---

Howdy there, Stevie, I missed your response because you were a ninja and posted while I was making a response for Galaad. But thank you for aggressively agreeing with me. Did you miss the part where you did that? Here. Lemme point it out for you:

vvvvvvv

Gnomes2169 said:

---

>>>>>>>I enjoy both approaches, though in the case of the H3 system it requires a lot more work to ensure that all the spells have at least niche usability in every situation. Low-rolling into spells that won't have any use (like getting Protection from Water in a matchup vs H3 Inferno) functionally blanks the resource expenditure of building your magic guild, which typically includes lots of precious resources AND the time penalty of spending your only building charge for the day on an RNG spell lootbox when you could build a creature/ resource/ gold/ fortification generating building instead.

Because of that cost, there needs to be some meticulous designing of spells in an RNG system... or things just need to be so generic that it doesn't matter what you roll into. Scaling up your magic should be comparable to scaling up your army, and when you build or upgrade a creature dwelling you know what you're getting. Spending the same resources on a mage guild shouldn't randomly roll you a gaggle of worthless spells and leave you feeling like you wasted your time and resources that could have been spent upgrading your creatures.<<<<<<<<<

---

^^^^^^^

vvvvvvv

Stevie said:

---

>>>>>>>First of all, if the game allows for "useless spells", then that's a bad design problem, not RNG per se. Of course, RNG can further exacerbate it by being very prohibitive and punishing, but that's a symptom of a deeper flaw. For example, if at the first mage guild level only 1 of the spells you could get was good and 9 were bad, then getting exactly that one spell would be paramount. To that end, removing RNG from the equation would make things "work", because people could then pick the one that matters. But in reality you're still stuck with a system that has too many useless spells which is the real issue. At any rate, things would have to be in a very bad place if removing RNG is how they become bearable.

But that's a worse case scenario. In a more realistic scenario, most spells should be all around good and/or situational. And in that case, it's always worth rolling the die to see which ones you get. Some may be more coveted than others, some may fit your strategy better and you really want them, but even if you don't get exactly what you wanted there should at least be something you can work with. Maybe you get one you didn't expect and could get you to pivot your build. It's up to you. It's not an automatic failure if you didn't get what you wanted, it's still the correct decision to go for it, and hindsight doesn't make it incorrect.<<<<<<<<<

---

^^^^^^^

(Parts where the most aggressive agreeing happened underlined for emphasis )

I wasn't writing a hit piece against randomly generated spells, -I started out by saying I actually like the system and it's one of the reasons I play H5 much more often than H6 (which... I haven't played in years),- I was pointing out the pitfalls that come with both the RNG and spell research approaches (note how I did say the research method could be "solved," and thus become boring). The pitfalls with the RNG system come when the work isn't put in to make sure the spells it generates are actually usable, because it exacerbates the problem of having poorly designed spells. Therefore, if designers put in the work and actually develop strong spells that are varied and viable, or build the generation system in a way that compensates for the niche spells in some way (give even the niche spells some kind of generic secondary utility, generating enough spells at each mage guild level to ensure you'll have enough spells to always get SOMETHING to cast, allowing you to reroll a generated spell once each week, etc) the RNG system isn't a problem.

---

Gnomes2169 said:

---

I was also pointing out that it's a lot of work to design those  varied and useful spells while still keeping them unique. H5 Destruction somewhat has this problem, where it's all just a bunch of damage spells that scale at different rates and have different templates, but ultimately are just picking a flavor of damage, where the best spells for each situation are, ultimately, just the ones that scale best and have the biggest area of effect. Did that make it so every upgrade to the mage guild of a Dungeon, Inferno or Sylvan town gave a useful Destructive spell? ... I mean, sure, but that's more because they're all very similar spells than because there were a variety of good options to roll into.

However, the other spell schools in H5 were also rather well-balanced for what you get. In Dark, the only truly mediocre and niche spells were Decay and Curse of the Netherworld... which both still had use cases (early game clearing for Decay, and being a one-sided Armageddon for Inferno and Undead for Curse). For light it was Regeneration (which only healed, it didn't resurrect, so it was hard to use early game and got out-damaged pretty easily in mid-late game, making it quite niche) and Holy Word (which only dealt damage to specific factions and was useless outside of that). And Summoning... well, the level 3+ spells are all power-houses, and the low-level spells are okay for early-game creeping (+Raise Dead for long-term sustain if you happen to be Undead). These three schools I'd hold up as perfect examples of an RNG system going right, even if only because the number of spells in H5 spell schools in general was kept smaller, so it was easier to make them unique while keeping them relatively powerful.

---

Gnomes2169 said:

---

So... yeah. I agree. If the spells are well designed, then an RNG spell system adds to the replayability of a Heroes game without any downsides. I'd like the spells in general to be varied, too (which H5 didn't really accomplish, what with each spell school only having 2 or 3 spells per school at each level), but that's when things get harder to design in a way that doesn't leave you with some broken and/ or worthless options. So it requires work. So far? Looks like Olden Era spells have that work put in for them, so a full RNG system might be totally justifiable if they decide to scrap the Observatory... but we'll see how things continue to develop.

---

Gnomes2169 said:

---

Stevie said:

---

And you also compare how getting the exact spells you want should be as sure as upgrading troops. I believe most of the meaning behind might and magic would be lost if they worked so similarly that you could compare them 1 to 1. The point is that they should be different. How do you compare getting Slow or Force Field or Antimagic  to upgrading footmen? They're things that play out very differently on the combat map.

---

I didn't say that you should get the exact spell you always want, actually. I said that upgrading your mage guild should be comparable to building/ upgrading a creature dwelling, and comparable =/= exactly the same. When you build or upgrade your creature dwellings, the usefulness of that creature might be niche or it might be vital, but it's always something you can use, and depending on your skill investments and specializations you can make the more niche options better.

Scaling up your magic works differently in multiple ways. First and foremost: Your hero needs the skill in order to learn the spell in the first place (In heroes 3, this is Wisdom. In 4&5, it's the relevant school skill). So you need to invest that time and the level-up resources, whereas a level 1 hero can pick up tier 7 creatures immediately (as long as the dwelling is constructed). If you generate a spell in a category that you don't have the skill to cast, then that's functionally a blank spell slot in the mage guild... and getting the magic skills is a little game of RNG in and of itself. Oh, there are certainly weighted magic skills for each faction, a H5 Warlock is almost certainly going to get Destruction eventually for example, but it is still entirely possible to not get an opportunity to pick up the signature magic school skill because it doesn't generate before level 12 (... ask me how I know). So the way the level system works is already adding in a touch of chaos.

Second: There are whole categories of spells that don't scale with time, whereas creatures, and thus "might" heroes, build up numbers and power every week. Buffs and debuffs can build up power as the creatures you're buffing or debuffing increase in numbers, but direct damage spells, healing spells and obstacle/ hazard spells all scale purely off of your hero's spell power and magic skill level.

Third: Your spells run off of Mana, not creature numbers and gold or other resources. You can run out of mana without losing a match (in fact, doing so means you've given yourself better odds of winning), but if you run out of creatures you immediately lose the fight. So, outside of H4 (where your heroes were easily stabbable idiots on the battlefield), every hero, might and magic both, will need to have creatures, while spells are more or less optional depending on the hero and playstyle. Thus, it's typically best to build base creature dwellings immediately, but spending the resources to upgrade mage guilds can often feel quite a bit more optional unless you're rushing for specific tiers of magic. And, thus, when I was comparing the cost and build time of upgrading your magic guild to upgrading/ building a creature dwelling, I was saying the benefits of both should be comparable.

Ultimately, in an RNG magic system, the "Might" investment is more consistent, since you know exactly what you're getting for your investment when you build a creature dwelling, while the "Magic" investment is a bit more chaotic (and still is even if magic was researched instead of randomly generated, thanks to how Heroes games generate skills... except in H6, but the weakest part of that game is how it removed as much variance as it did), but investing in both of them should still improve your army. Thus, the spells generated need to be at least partially usable, even if it's just one or two at each mage guild level. It's Heroes of Might and Magic, after all, both aspects should still be usable for your heroes even if they're focusing on one over the other.

---

Gnomes2169 said:

---

Spending the same resources on a mage guild shouldn't randomly roll you a gaggle of worthless spells and leave you feeling like you wasted your time and resources that could have been spent upgrading your creatures.

---

Gnomes2169 said:

---

I enjoy both approaches, though in the case of the H3 system it requires a lot more work to ensure that all the spells have at least niche usability in every situation. Low-rolling into spells that won't have any use (like getting Protection from Water in a matchup vs H3 Inferno)

---

Gnomes2169 said:

---

Because of that cost, there needs to be some meticulous designing of spells in an RNG system... or things just need to be so generic that it doesn't matter what you roll into. Scaling up your magic should be comparable to scaling up your army, and when you build or upgrade a creature dwelling you know what you're getting. Spending the same resources on a mage guild shouldn't randomly roll you a gaggle of worthless spells and leave you feeling like you wasted your time and resources that could have been spent upgrading your creatures.

---

Gnomes2169 said:

---

(Also, since bringing up H3's system implies this, the idea that different towns have lower or higher maximum levels of mage guilds despite giving every town a might AND a magic hero is... definitely something that needs to die with H3 and stay dead. The claim that Fortress was "Just a faction that was more focused on might, so it only got level 3 mage guilds" is like saying that Tower shouldn't have a tier 7 creature and doesn't get a tier 6 upgrade because "It's a magic focused town, so it shouldn't have all the might features!" The disparity was needless, and just needlessly nerfed entire playstyles for certain factions, making magic heroes somewhat of a trap in specific factions despite offering them anyway.)

---