|
| Thread: Towns have Building Points |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
posted October 29, 2003 08:49 PM |
|
|
Imagine a Town where all population was killed by a plague or something. Town has many built structures, but contains no people due to plague.
Then imagine a Town with just their houses and normal town structures.
According to your argument, the first Town will produce a LOT both in the form of new recruits and/or new structures, while the second Town will produce nearly nothing.
If you introduce population then you can also have global spells which affects the population. A player could cast a spell that spoils the harvest, and causes starvation and death in city. If buildings are all that makes up production points, then you get some problem to detail the result of the spell correctly.
Also if the other player can kill part of your population, then production points should be lowered because there are less people doing the producing.
I don't disagree with you in that there are other than heroes and creatures in town. The population I speak of consists of labour/workforce and also includes trained creatures ready for recruitment. What gave you the idea that I disagreed with this?
Normally, you need a certain number of people in a town before the citizens would consider to build some types of dwellings.
If you have 100 then perhaps citizens will start to consider building a fort, but wouldn't never consider to make say a Citadel.
If you have 500 then they'll consider the citadel, but would still not consider a great Castle.
If town have 50 citizens then they are not likely to build a university which can accept 100 students.
The town size determines how much labour is available and what is reasonable to build and how fast it can be built.
A castle on the other hand doesn't work, and can't build anything. It could have many other effects, though I have hard to see building things as one of them.
I've assumed that people work, and they can work on different things. The work the people do is "building points". If you look at my first post, you can see a number of things which I've counted as work:
- Making structures/buildings
- Training creatures in city so player can recruit them.
- Merchandise (Increases town income, not more specified)
- Produce Housing (This is actions to attract more people to town by making the town a better place to be.)
Structures can also give added value in some of these areas as the building points can. A Treasure would give more income just as merchandise does. There might be an Obelisk of Summoning which attract a certain type of creatures to town, and this would have a similar effect to produce Housing. There can also be buildings which make people more effective in their work, and such a structure would increase building points.
And all of the above can coexist with each other.
Sir Stiven:
There will still be resources, but perhaps not as many as there is in previous installments.
Building up and cater to your towns is a much larger part of the game than gathering resources if you ask me.
Building up your army is more or less the same to as building up your towns (since most of your creatures are produced in towns). The more you build up your towns the more they produce and the faster your army grows.
So I disagree with your assessment that this ruins the core of the game. It improves it.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted October 30, 2003 12:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sir Stiven:
There will still be resources, but perhaps not as many as there is in previous installments.
Building up and cater to your towns is a much larger part of the game than gathering resources if you ask me.
Its simple, if playing at harsher difficulties... no resources means no building because you cant afford it.
So without any gathering of resources there will be no resources to spend on buildings.
That should make the gathering of resources equal to building up towns IMO since one cant be without the other (no new buildings means no more creatures to fight for new resources with).
Quote:
Building up your army is more or less the same to as building up your towns (since most of your creatures are produced in towns). The more you build up your towns the more they produce and the faster your army grows.
lol
couldnt disagree more.
It all comes down to which kind of play you got. If playing h3 dungeon at a high diff poor random map you will get nowhere in buildings.
Why? because dungeons biggest random weapon is the shak attack. Meaning you upg. trogs and hags fast and then clear area to boost up attributes but also to make sure to reach exp tactics to take out shooters w/o probs.
BUT...when playing dung i would not recommend building up your first town. Instead i would go for upg. trogs and hags and go for high lvl dwells only (for summoner) and more importantly, go for creature banks.
With shak you can take out small cons without probs the first day.
So basically your tactics with dungeon should be to go for a fast attack with creatures you have gained from cons/hives and if yoú have built up a 2nd town and gotten a nice dwell which you also can summon creatures from.
Few towns can resist an attack consisting of 4+ angels and some wyerns week 2-3 on a poor map. And you basically need to build almost nothing to accomplish this.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted October 30, 2003 03:45 AM |
|
|
Instead of replying to everyone, I will revise my original thoughts a bit.
I don't like the population method for determining town output. It's too much like starcraft where you build tons of resource gathering things and then build really fast. This to me is the same thing.
As for changing building points. Building structures will change this. The structures available will be limited. This is why I don't like the housing thing, it's a suitable for mainly large scale building only IMO. Castle, Citadel will increase building points. Also my reason for regenerating building points is that people will be able to work better when well rested kinda like taking a vacation.
My purpose in exchanging gold for building points is so that you can kinda use the marketplace thingy, but with building points.
All structures must still be paid with gold, wood, etc. but you must also spend building points. Let's say your dragon cliffs are 80 building points. You have a max of 40 points. The Cliffs cost 40,000 gold. You don't have 40,000 gold. You can invest in the Dragon Cliffs to start now spending 20,000 gold and 40 building points building the Dragon Cliffs halfway. This is called investing in a building.
There should be artifacts that increase the max building points or regenerated points. There should also be extraneous structures kinda like mines that give building points. These could be called work camps.
Here's another idea. The game could have blueprints or tools that give building points. These are resources that can be found by heroes like treasure chests and stuff.
Since Sir_Stiven was the only one who opposed the idea I will reply to you. Maybe I can get you to agree with me. Yeah right. You do make some good points. However, I think that you should contribute to the idea rather than put it down. Problems can be worked out with minor tweaks.
There can be a supply in every town called professional work force. It is limited and only available on week 2. Therefore you can't buy 50 building points a turn something smaller like 5 or 10 depending on the town.
Another thing, whoever said that Behemoth Crag may only require 20 building points instead of like 60 for dragon caves? Prerequisites will still obviously apply for every building. This is one of the great things that makes the various towns distinct. Taking away this would be a travesty.
In fact building points can make towns even more unique. For example, you could have a really cheap town that builds really fast, with tons of small creatures, but won't get really powerful.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted October 30, 2003 05:05 PM |
|
|
look, the reason im "putting this idea" down isnt because im looking for an argument or anything... its just because i think this is a braindead idea which removes the concept that heroes really is.
Building points?
Removing resources?
Professional workers?
lol
same idea to you as i gave do djive:
stop try and mess the heroes series up and instead start playing civilizations which basically has the all 3 above things and like heroes is a turn based game.
Dont get me wrong, there are many aspects of heroes that can improve but trying make heroes another game isnt the way IMO. I just think it would be better if more constructive and ideas that could work were brought up and discussed.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted October 30, 2003 07:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Its simple, if playing at harsher difficulties... no resources means no building because you cant afford it.
I haven't proposed to change this at all. All structures cost resources as before, and if no resource then no building. The only thing changed is how long it takes to construct the building (which is dependent on building points).
I haven't proposed that there won't be mines, campfires, and loose resource lying around, or being guarded. This things will still exist as before!
Therefore I fail to see why you are complaining about "loss of resource gathering", because it hasn't been changed at all.
The existense of seven different resources named money, ore, wood, and so on is not central to the game.
To take your dungeon example. My proposal allows player to choose how much to spend on developing town and how much to spend on training creatures, making them available for recruitment.
So player could choose to train more Trogs and delay town developement to later, could only build in town and train no Trogs, or split up between the two. Just like the player has the same choices in H3.
Creatures banks, mines and loose resource will still be important because without resources you won't be able to build at all.
RedSoxFan:
The Castle is a defensive structure meant for military warfare. It's inappropriate to let this structure give building points, since there are so many other things which it could give which fits much better. If you had argued that say a Blacksmith or a Worskhop should give building points, then I can agree but not the castle.
You also assume that you always have enough work force to do whatever you have building points for, and that is an assumption I don't like.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted October 31, 2003 03:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
RedSoxFan:
The Castle is a defensive structure meant for military warfare. It's inappropriate to let this structure give building points, since there are so many other things which it could give which fits much better. If you had argued that say a Blacksmith or a Worskhop should give building points, then I can agree but not the castle.
You also assume that you always have enough work force to do whatever you have building points for, and that is an assumption I don't like.
I'm sorry I meant capitol or town hall. You're right.
Sir_Stiven:
I wasn't implying that you were looking for an arguement. But I think that the problems you point out with this method of building would satisfy all of your complaints with a few minor tweaks here and there.
btw, I've never played Civilization.
Could you give me some advantages the old system has over this one?
I believe you make a great point so far that in HOMM your heroes are what gets you the resources to build. Failing to do so with your hero means you don't build.
I agree this is an important part of HOMM. However, I think the building points system, which has its advantages over the old system one structure per day. Your arguements are that it will take away from HOMM. Good points. I think there is a way that nothing can be lost from what makes HOMM, HOMM and add more strategy in building at the same time.
btw, most other turn-based strategy games are TOO building-oriented and don't have the battle tactics that heroes has. I think there can be a best of both worlds with HOMM.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted October 31, 2003 01:52 PM |
|
|
@Djive: lol... resources not a "central part" of the game?
lol the game is all about how fast you can get these resources to build up your army. That whats seperates a good player from a bad - speed.
And by making this building point based system instead you remove that skill because anyone could get buildings going in such rate of "building time".
There is a big difference in for example getting beths day2 or week 3-4 in heroes. Because with a beth day2 you can take out alot... but with building point system you then would have to wait until building to be done. Which by listening to you could be a long time.
But to get enough resources each day to get that daily building, now that requires planning and speed... or skill as you might prefer to call it.
One thing that makes the heroes such a strategical game IMO is that some things are set. And therefor you fight on the same terms. The game got set limits and you gotta fight within those boundries. By lifting these limits you get a more luck based game which also could be fun but then HOMM will lose its strategical touch.
@Redsox, you should really try civ3 its a good game which includes alot of what you talk about. Problem is a game usually takes 10h+ to finish..in singleplayer.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted October 31, 2003 06:55 PM |
|
|
Sir Stiven, you would never be able to build for the highest level creature on day 2. First you must build all the prerequisites, then in the very unlikely event that you have gathered enough resources (because you've spent no money on creatures or other stuff, so your "speed" has been hampered to zilch) you will perhaps start on the dwelling in week 3, and have it ready to produce in week 4.
There is also nothing saying that one town will have significntly easier to build the highest level than any other town.
And in week four the opponent will perhaps already have taken your castle.
It's entirely inappropriate to assume that towns and building costs will be like in Heroes 3, since towns and building costs are redone for every new installment of the game. Instead you must assume that towns are balanced so mechanisms like "building points" doesn't cause any unfair imbalances.
And you're not listening. How many times do I have to say that resources on the map will still exist and that without resources you can't build structures, regardless if you have 100000000000000 building points. No resources, no builds.
When you say Resource gathering, I associate to picking up loose resources like campfires on the Map, that's not very exiting for the player. You get a popup telling you that you found 500 Gold, and 500 Gold is added to your resources total.
Strategically speaking I'd call the term exploration or conquerering the map, or even speed or logistics.
It will still be so that the game promotes conquering the map quickly. If you can get enough resources from the Map, perhaps you can get the highest level building say 1 or 2 weeks earlier than your opponent.
I don't see how the game would be more luck based with building points. I say it will be less luck based.
While you don't get to build daily, the cheaper builds would just be 1-2 days to complete. It still gives the player a lot of deadlines that must be met if they want to maximize build speed.
I wouldn't call getting highest level creature on day two fighting on the same terms, since this is a specific advantage for Stronghold, which is not possible for any other town in Heroes 3.
I'm also of the opinion that the time where the best creatures can be produced should be a few weeks into the game. Having them already in the first week tends to make all the other creatures worthless, which IMO is clearly undesirable. Fighting on small or medium maps should in some cases end before the top level of creatures can be produced.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted October 31, 2003 07:47 PM |
|
|
first of all by gathering resources i mean as in clear the map. Not only lose piles but also fighting creatures for them... chaining your units to get as plenty as possible for your daily builds.
Meaning: speed.
What ive been trying to tell you know in my last two posts is that speed in this game series is what seperates a good player from a bad one.
And there is no skill in trying to get resources early on for many buildings and not be able to get them until "week 3-4" anyway because of no buildings points.
Hopefully i made this clear for you now because i gotta run off and do something in a hurry.
Might edit this post later though to talk more about for why things like beths day2 as in heroes3 is a good idea like having most towns to get top lvl creatures first 2 weeks.
I know you dont play online djive but you make a game where you get top creatures week 3-4 and get blocks to suit that and you will have games thats about to week 5-6 in average. No online player wants that since it would mean spending maybe 6-7 hours on playing a 1v1 game instead of 2-4 hours.
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted October 31, 2003 08:04 PM |
|
|
Sir_Stiven:
well, do i need to say i disagree that the production point system would unbalance anything, etc?
and djive could use her production points to produce more low level troops and go conquer while you have made the strategic decision of waiting to build your high level building.
but there's one point that i agree with: there has to be something that makes you want to conquer the map as fast as possible. maybe it has to be resources. maybe just treasure chests. maybe tax-paying willages (or just a large number of unbuilt towns - you choose which towns you want to build and which you want just for income).
etc.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted October 31, 2003 08:52 PM |
|
Edited By: Djive on 31 Oct 2003
|
If a player tries to rely on town income only to build up town then they would get nowhere.
Simply put, you need to take external resources to build up your town(s). And if you don't, then by the time you've built up so you can begin training the best creatures the other players will have taken huge parts of the map, AND will already be producing their best creatures several days ago.
One of things you can get from the map in AOW is a free building in the closest Town. There also other ways to offer extra production from the Map.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted October 31, 2003 10:31 PM |
|
|
btw i don't think it's bad that this top-creature-in-two-days topic was brought up in connection with the production points.
the way my suggestion would be atm is:
(1) a town's production points are filled up every morning.
(2) the effectiveness of adding a production point to a job depends on how many production points are already being spent on the job daily.
it could be implemented e.g. based on the way of customizing stats in mume (a mud).
there is a base stat value, e.g. 12, and if you want to add 1 stat to get 13, you spend 1 point. if you want to add 2 stats to get 14, you spend 1+2=3 points. if you want to add 5 stats to get 17, you spend 1+2+3+4+5=15 points. i.e. the higher from the base stat, the more it would cost.
maybe this particular system would be too cruel and even totally unbalanced when applied to production points, but the idea is just that the effectiveness of a production point should decrease with more points on the job.
why? to make it cheaper to produce reasonably slowly, many things at the same time.
it might also help to balance out some strong creatures, e.g. if you just want to spend all your production points on training vamps you get less than if you produced a variety of creatures.
(3) unused production points generate money.
(4) using production points is often associated with using materials that cost money/resources.
(5) building should be a lot more expensive than recruiting (both in production points and money/resources).
so it would often become more beneficial to train lots of reasonably low level troops in the beginning of the game.
the effect of the combination of daily production points and the high cost of buildings is a critical part of strategy also in a different way.
usually people just accumulate low level troops in their buildings, and when an enemy gets near, they recruit them all. with daily production points it would not be possible. to make the creatures accumulate in the buildings, they would already have to be trained and equipped with production points and money, i.e. they would have to be recruited.
(6) i'm a bit doubtful here, but maybe recruited troops should have monetary upkeep. or maybe just troops that are not in a garrison, like in kings bounty. and the upkeep of highest level creatures would be especially significant.
this way, at some point of the game, you would have to use production points to generate money for upkeep and cannot build or recruit any more. maybe some system that automatically subtracts troop upkeep from available production points would help to avoid the desertion problem present in kb.
i havn't really thought much about this one.
edit: something that was reminded in some later posts.
(7) each town has it's individual production points that are to be used in that town only.
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted October 31, 2003 10:44 PM |
|
|
lol are we still talking heroes now? 
@Djive: I understand your view but i dont share it, for me its still a long wait for nothing.
But it would be nice to see a solution from you on online problem as i brought up...
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 03:54 AM |
|
|
Gerdash
The whole point of building points is to add strategy in how you build your town. By placing such penalties for building one thing quickly would be only another extreme to the current one build a day. It would be instead, build all of your structures at once.
Sir Stiven
Basically what you are saying is that you think that having building points doesn't require you to meet deadlines for building. If you miss a build you are set back an entire day of building. These deadlines are met by how quickly you consume the map.
I agree that keeping Heroes unique is important, so all changes we make must be changes in the format that keep the same vital strategies of past heroes games. So before we go changing everything, we should make sure we don't lose the style of play that defines heroes.
Here is my solution to your problem:
First, building points created by the town alone will be enough to build your town extremely inefficiently, therefore I propose their to be various artifacts, structures, and resources that give building points for the heroes to attain in order to supply the town with ways in which to build. Those who can collect these resources with great haste could theoretically build their town twice as fast.
My ideas for these resources:
Architect - Artifact - +5 building points when garrisoned in a town per turn
Tools - resource - this is simply an amount that is used like gold.
Work Camp - mine - +5 building points to the town of your choice per turn.
Construction Yard - Something like the trading post except you can purchase tools for an expensive amount of other than resources.
These changes can allow building to take place much faster with a good player or much slower for a bad player.
Suppose a player can consume a map fast enough to build everyday and make an army. One build a day restricts the speed of building and as a result you are left with no choice, but to spend extra resources on an army.
With building points you cannot consume a map faster than you can build. If you want to keep building faster than you can. Now you have a choice between building faster and having an army. The essence of strategy is choice. Where restrictions to the game occur lies a lack of choice or a lack of strategy.
If players can build town as fast as they can, then maps will be run dry much faster, so I propose there to be another cool feature to go along with building points.
The maps respawn themselves. For example, you beat a level 5 monster to get a treasure chest and 2 random resources. A few days or maybe weeks later you might see a level 4 monster guarding 2 treasure chests in the same spot. This will make it so that maps are perpetual and that controlling an area of land will give you the rights to plunder for spoils.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 11:43 AM |
|
Edited By: Djive on 1 Nov 2003
|
Quote:
usually people just accumulate low level troops in their buildings, and when an enemy gets near, they recruit them all. with daily production points it would not be possible. to make the creatures accumulate in the buildings, they would already have to be trained and equipped with production points and money, i.e. they would have to be recruited.
I've assumed a different approach here. You spend production points to train and make the troop available for recuitment at any later time.
Then you need to spend money/resources to actually recruit the creature. (And at this later point, the recruited number is removed from the population of the town. If you recruit say 100 Peasants from a small town, then it could become a village.)
This would also solve mass recruiting problem, since you have to spend time building them up.
I also tend to believe that once properly recruited a player should be required to pay upkeep for troops.
Why would troops cost production points in towns? And just which town do you want to take production points from? Once recruited troops belong to the player, and not the town (just consider wandering armies). So upkeep should be taken from the player's coffer. (While trained and unrecruited, they still work and contribute to the town in a normal way.)
Sir Stiven:
On the online problem. I'd like to see a reduction on turn time. This can be achieved by reducing movement points for armies to perhaps half or thereabouts of what they are now. Perhaps combined with reducing the default Scouting radius around towns, armies, and mines.
Chaining should not be a workable Tactics. (It's an exploit which should be discontinued as it was in Heroes 4.)
I would also consider a limit to the number of wandering armies by limiting the number of recruitable heroes. (And not allowing lone crature stacks as they did in Heroes 4.)
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 01:04 PM |
|
|
RedSox: So what you basically say is that one of the best sides of having building points is the choice between recruiting units or keep building?
IMO thats making a solution to a problem that doesnt exist. Because while you with building points would basically have to wait for top creatures built to really start recruiting you have the same issue now with heroes3 except that it is gold that restrains you.
Its really rare that you can get all the buildings you want week1 and yet be able to make a "buy out" day1 week2. What usually happens is that you buy out what you think you need and then start collecting to make lvl 7 creatures or upg. your lvl 7 creatures to break out. That way you keep saving up and wont be able to both buy your creatures out and keep building your vital buildings. So you (just like you would do with building points) build up your town and then go for all the creatures you can get.
@Djive: Im sorry but i think you work in the wrong direction here, instead of making the game faster and more up to heat to play you seem to wanna slow it down. That makes no sense to me.
Personally i hope they bring back chaining as i think it adds another tactical dimension to the game. And it also gives the game pace and keeps you busy. And thats really important IMO.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 02:58 PM |
|
|
Stiven:
It seems you want a copy of Heroes 3, with no new innovations at all to game play or game mechanics. You'd probably be a lot happier if they gave out a new expansion pack to Heroes 3, than if they made a new Heroes installment.
Does it really matter if you have say 30 turns at 3 minutes each or 60 turns at 1.5 minutes each? (Exluding battles time, though you should assume that the number of battles get scattered out to half the rate in the 60 turn case.)
I'd say the feeling for speed is overall the same. You seem to be of the opposite opinion.
[Numbers just give as an example as they would vary widely depending on map and difficulty, and player's style of playing.]
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 03:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Stiven:
It seems you want a copy of Heroes 3, with no new innovations at all to game play or game mechanics. You'd probably be a lot happier if they gave out a new expansion pack to Heroes 3, than if they made a new Heroes installment.
nope i dont want a copy of heroes3, as stated earlier i think there can be plenty of improvements (like heroes gaining experience also after losing battles as an example). But i dont see changing a games core to be an improvement, i concider it to try and make a game series some thing its not.
Quote:
Does it really matter if you have say 30 turns at 3 minutes each or 60 turns at 1.5 minutes each? (Exluding battles time, though you should assume that the number of battles get scattered out to half the rate in the 60 turn case
Off course it does. 30 turns of 3 minutes is just 30 turns and therefor you will get a higher pace in the game. What heroes is alot about (like pointed out in basically every post of mine so far) is speed, so while i maybe can clear my area in these 30 turns my opponent maybe would need 40-50 turns to do it and that gives me a huge advantage... because speed alot equals skill in this game.
But if you play 60 turns of half that time chances are alot higher that both of us has worked same things out but still are waiting for our top creatures to be recruited to beat the block thats in our way for further expanding. And by for example limit hero movement you limit the skill part even more because you wont be able to visit the places you wanna and make quick important calls. Because you can wait until next turn and think it all through.
The failure in communication here seems to be about game speed, which i partly can understand since i dont know if either of you have played online much and therefor have really understood the importance of speed in this game.
Online you cant take it slow and wait for better units and then start clearing map with no losses. Because then you are dead because you havent been able to get the stats+creatures necessary to stand up agaisnt a fight.
Why do you think tactics like rushing are so good? exactly because your opponent hasnt got the chance to do the things he wanted and is unprepared for a fight.
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 06:51 PM |
|
|
Sir_Stiven:
lol, no need to worry so much about us (-:
RedSoxFan3:Quote:
The whole point of building points is to add strategy in how you build your town. By placing such penalties for building one thing quickly would be only another extreme to the current one build a day. It would be instead, build all of your structures at once.
exactly the other way round, lol! if there's no penalty for building a lot in one day, then people will build as fast as they can, i.e. like in previous homms. ok, let's slow down a bit.
consider this example without the effectiveness penaly:
you want to build mage guild level 1, statue, and market place. mage guild would give you level1 spells that you can use in combat right away. statue would give you 250 gold per turn as soon as it is completed. market place lets you trade resources cheaper (e.g. suppose you need them as soon as possible in some other town).
scenario 1
you start building mage guild, statue, and market place, you put 10 production points on each (=30 points total). they all get completed after 9 days.
scenario 2
you put all 30 points on the statue, it's completed after 3 days. when the statue is completed in scenario 1 you already have got 6*250=1500 gold from the statue.
when the statue is completed on day 3 you start building the mage guild with 30 points per day and it's completed after 3 days, i.e. on day 6. when the mage guild is completed in scenario 1, you have already been able to support your army with spells for three days.
when the mage guild is completed on day 6 you start building the market place with 30 points per day and you start using it exactly the same time as in scenario 1.
you see? building slowly many buildings at once just doesn't make sense if you can build them one by one in the same time.
========
what i feel is that the homm building system is an approximation of the scenario 2. if we want the production point system to have any significant influence at all except increasing micromanagement and pre-planning (because recruiting takes more time), i guess we must make scenario 1 have some benefit over scenario 2.
and just to remind you, there was a reasoning behind decreasing effectiveness of production points: too many people working on same object work less effectively. of course, the reasonable formula for the decrease in effectiveness might be different from the one in my previous post.
(now, maybe i'm rushing again, but i would like to say that i am not saying that i like making things more complicated without gaining anything, lol)
i do think that the issue of production points in addition to resources adds strategical decisions and seems to bring the game closer to reality. hopefully we will be weighing homm3 or homm4 simpler building systems against the production point system before too long.
========
Djive:Quote:
I've assumed a different approach here. You spend production points to train and make the troop available for recuitment at any later time.
Then you need to spend money/resources to actually recruit the creature.
could be that way, depending on what you mean by recruiting.
personally, i think that the main benefit in my own approach is that building and recruiting are similar processes.
the "recruitment cost" in my approach is really the cost of training and equipping.
later, the troops are payed the upkeep without any additional recruitment cost (meaning your interpretation here). kind of like recruitment cost is included in upkeep.
now that you made me consider this issue, i think you should start paying the upkeep no sooner than when you take the trained troops out of their building (dwelling). so you kind of start paying the upkeep the moment you "recruit" them.
actually imho it would be better if some historian commented it and said if (and in what cases) there was any significant sum of money payed when rallying the troops (excluding equipment).
Quote:
Why would troops cost production points in towns? And just which town do you want to take production points from?
i associated production points with a town without thinking of alternatives, so this question is confusing to me. the way i see it, each town has it's own production points, determining what can be produced in a day in that town. you have some different ideas?
atm i am not very excited about bringing the population argument into this if we can help it.
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 07:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
(6) i'm a bit doubtful here, but maybe recruited troops should have monetary upkeep. or maybe just troops that are not in a garrison, like in kings bounty. and the upkeep of highest level creatures would be especially significant.
this way, at some point of the game, you would have to use production points to generate money for upkeep and cannot build or recruit any more. maybe some system that automatically subtracts troop upkeep from available production points would help to avoid the desertion problem present in kb.
My comment was on this part, and in particularly the part: "maybe some system that automatically subtracts troop upkeep from available production points"
I interpreted this to mean: (player recruited) troops have an upkeep in production points.
First I believe the upkeep should be in resources only (that is gold, wood, ore etctera, and not in town production points), and the secondly: which town shall pay the upkeep of your troops? (Since player troops are not associated to any town in particular any more.)
Otherwise I believe your system will work in a similar way. You do get two questions more on the workings:
- Since the cost to recruit is zero (assuming the creature is trained and equipped). How will this creature act during an attack by an enemy? If it does nothing will the opponent then be able to recruit it for zero cost?
- The second is a query. If you can recruit for zero.... Then I'd ask if it is possible to "unrecruit for zero" also. (Player might want to do this to remove the upkeep, but keep the trained creature for later.)
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
| |
|
|
