|
| Thread: Game Mechanics Changes |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted September 13, 2008 02:38 PM |
|
|
Regarding the luck factor, I have done some statistical calculations, basically this system "converges" to the average number of lucky shots. It is good because it's still random -- which hit exactly is lucky is random. But the amount will not exceed the average if the battle tends to infinity.
As for the speed system, it's a great idea (even though I would think attacking should not lose 1 point, but rather 1 creature does less damage afterwards since it killed the peasant). That is, if you have 100 Paladins and attack 1 peasant, then after killing the peasant, only 99 palas will do the damage (the first one already attacked and kill that 1 peasant).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 04:48 PM |
|
|
Hmmm ... Well I know that this goes against the belief of a lot of gamers, but I actually think this is one of the places where we should consider letting gameplay get ahead of realism. Ok, I agree that the super peasant is a somewhat stupid concept, but on the other hand, if it get's too difficult to protect your archers, much of the tactical concept of the battle disappears (*cough*Heroes4*cough*). Again, this ties closely with another discussion we've had numerous times, namely that of retaliations at the same time as attacking, and I think that the danger of making the game too realistic is that it becomes boring - if you cannot affect the outcome of the battle with planning of your actions, why then bother?
However, I think your idea holds a lot of merit, and I would like to bring forth a proposal which I have upped before (can't find the specific thread right now): I don't know whether you are familiar with the D&D Roleplay system, but the 3rd edition of this classic series had some really ingenious concepts, some of which would be applicable in this discussion. Particularly, I'd like to mention:
Unit turns: A unit turn, which would be somewhat comparable to what we have now as turns, can be made up of two actions: A move-equivalent action and a standard action. You can take these in any order you like.
Move-equivalent action: A move-equivalent action corresponds to moving your unit the specified movement range.
Standard action: A standard action can be either a) an attack; or b) a(nother) move-equivalent action.
What does this mean game-wise? Well, it means that you can use your turn to either:
1) Move and attack (like now),
2) Attack and move (not possible now), or
3) Take a double move (not possible now). When you take a double-move, essentially you convert your standard action into a move-equivalent action, and thus take first a move and then another move. This allows you to move double your movement range, but not to attack in this turn!
An interesting side effect of this would be that base movement of units should be much lower, because they can take a double-move if they simply need to get from one place to another. Thus, a unit with speed 3 would still be able to move 6 tiles - however, it's combat radius would be much lower (only 3 tiles). Personally, I like that.
The above model does not exactly solve the super-peasant problem, however: You'd still have to move -> attack, and hence you'd lose a tempo compared to the ranged stack. Thus, if we want to solve the super-peasant problem, we either need to adopt your suggestion (move-attack-move) or to tweak the above system. My idea would be the following:
When you eliminate a stack, you can choose to move into the square it occupied. This would be a compromise between what you suggest and the current system, because you'd be able to block the archer but not attack it. The model that Death sugests also holds merit, however it has one flaw that I'll return to below.
Making such a change can cause trouble when creeping, however, because splitting your stacks to protect your shooter stack will now make you much more vulnerable. To prevent that, I think it would be good to include a feature like area of control. Area of control means that a hostile unit cannot immediately pass through tiles adjacant to your stack (which controls these tiles) - thus, if you have your stack of archers in the corner, and have a large "guard" stack diagonally in front of it, the archers would still be protected, because the guard stacks prevents enemies from passing around it to attack the archers directly. If one thinks complete control is too powerful one can also make it so that passing through tiles controled by a hostile unit provides an attack of opportunity which is a free attack (without retaliation) from the controlling stack.
I know this is a very long post, but these are some ideas to refining the whole movement system.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 04:55 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 16:56, 13 Sep 2008.
|
Nice ideas Alc , but I'd just like to point out that what you say that creeping against walkers will be harder is indeed true. BUT, I have to ask the question: why is it a problem? I mean, walkers will still be easier than ranged stacks even with my system, what we have now makes (some) walkers simply too abused and easy. If these abuses didn't exist (not only protecting archers, but also Furies with stacks of 1 Scout so that you can clear A LOT of Death Knights easily ) maybe there wouldn't be so "overpowered" walkers placed on some maps and I think it would be more enjoyable.
I mean, do you really enjoy that you have to place on a map A LOT (and I mean too many to handle in a respective week - without abuses, that is) of, e.g Death Knights, to compensate for the abuses?
EDIT: Not to mention there are units like the Thane and Dragons who simply can't be stopped with this abuse: are they really game-breaking? On the contrary, I think the others are either too easy, OR placed to many on the map specifically to compensate for the abuses
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 13, 2008 05:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
... but I'd just like to point out that what you say that creeping against walkers will be harder is indeed true. BUT, I have to ask the question: why is it a problem?
I'm not sure, really, how much of a problem it will be. To be honest, I think most combats are too easy as it is, and not so much because of abuse like this but rather because you can own almost anything with just one of a large number of spells at your hands. Phoenix, Confusion, Puppet Master, Blade Barrier, even Fire Traps can be abused when creeping. What have the Might heroes got at their hands? War Machines is pretty potent during creeping, and to some extent makes up for it, but still, as I see it there seems to be a tremendous imbalance between Might and Magic during the first two weeks.
Seen in that light, I think it's important not to cripple Might's creeping opportunities (further) - but to be honest, that's not my main scepticism to this. I think what I fear most is that removing these "tactical" options (lame as it may be) will reduce the game to another version of Heroes 4 - and don't get me wrong, there were good things about Heroes 4, but I loathed the combat system! For a starter, it was impossible to see where your units - or the enemies units - could go, and even if you managed to plan something, it didn't matter in the end, because whether you attacked first or he did made no difference - you suffered the same losses.
Therefore, I would hate to see the game becoming simply a matter of who has the larger army or who has the better spells. However, that does not need to be the case. It's true that if you use larger stacks for protection, they will not go down in one turn, and hence will serve their purpose of buying you time. The good side-effects will be that:
a) Tank stanks become much more important than they are now (suddenly, Demons, Zombies and Squires will actually be very important stacks); and:
b) It will become a lot more difficult to battle fast powerful creatures - particularly powerful creatures with area attacks - without severe losses.
And I think that's a good idea because it, like you say, is way too easy to rush in the game as it is. When you can break lots of level 7 creatures in week 2, there is a flaw in the game if you ask me. So I'm deffinitely open for changes - I just want us to consider what possible bad implications there also are.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 14, 2008 06:26 PM |
|
|
Ok another idea... I don't know if you'll really like this because in some way it will "boost" spells and effects that resurrect troops, but anyway here it goes:
How about being able to cast resurrection (or First Aid Tent's shots, etc) after a battle, instead of ending with casualties when you kill all enemy troops. I mean, on one hand it will boost those things, on the other it seems more logical AND it will get rid of abuses like: "leave 1 No-Retaliation creature alive so I can regenerate my troops."
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2008 06:56 PM |
|
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 14, 2008 10:47 PM |
|
|
Hmm three more ideas
1) I'd like to see some spells that affect the heroes themselves as well (both friendly and enemy). Something like: increasing/decreasing the initiative of the Hero, the Spellpower (for a duration), etc...
2) The Hero's Attack. Obviously what we have now is pretty stupid IMO. I'd like to see some kind of linear damage, like 10 per Level. If you want it more complex, you could take Attack into consideration as well. Or Attack for Might Heroes and Spellpower for Magic Heroes. Want it even more complicated? Make Defense affect the Might Hero's attacks as well, just like a normal creature, but the Magic Heroes, like a spell, ignore the Defense of the target (in this case the damage per level should be lower for magic heroes to balance things out)
3) How about a multiple hero-battle? (from multiple heroes). For example, when two allied heroes are adjacent and one of them goes into battle, they BOTH enter the battle. The combat would be like some form of 3x3 duel, but maybe (?) you shouldn't be able to switch heroes until one of them loses. However, after the battle, if one of the heroes in the winning party lost all his/her troops, the allied one can send some troops so that he/she will continue on the adv map and not return automatically to Tavern (like it happens now when you kill ALL troops - friendly and enemy alike - with e.g. Armageddon). If no troops given, the hero will return to Tavern and the owner WILL be able to hire him/her. As for the Losers, normal "defeat" situation applies: you lose the hero permanently. HOWEVER, there IS the option to "Flee" like now, anytime in combat, but when one flees the other must continue the fight (like the first one was defeated) OR flee himself.
You can attack a 2 hero-party with a 2 hero-party as well. One of the players will have to get close to the 2 "defenders" and then the other will go adjacent to his ally and initiate attack with the other party.
Or heck, if there's a total new battlefield system, which could be much bigger as well, then ALL heroes would fight at once, why not?
Hmm, my mind's dry of any more innovative ideas now
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 15, 2008 08:09 AM |
|
|
As for Resurrecting after battle I say no for balance reasons. Against neutrals it could be a possible option, but I still say no. I know you can sometimes abuse some features (like small stacks with no retaliation) but doesn't happen too often anyway - and, I should add, it's really not in those battles you have your big losses. Against enemy Heroes it's a BIG NO. Would simply skew the balance completely, because as it is, you can always retreat on your Hero turn if you deem it most favorable for you to prevent him resurrecting - without that option, the one with the bigger army can always come out lossless from encounters, which makes you essentially immortal.
As for:
1) Spells that affect Heroes; and:
2) New forms of Hero attack:
Yes please, we need a whole new Hero combat system.
3) Multi-battles: I don't really see the need for this. Would be difficult to merge with the turn-based system anyway, and I really don't see the big gain for the game.
|
|
zahariev
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted September 19, 2008 11:21 PM |
|
|
|
All your ideas are too complicated. How do you want new people to be start to play the game if it is so complicated? Heroes should try to stay close to the ordinary fans... It should be no more than a game of chess with fantasy elements... And most important - all the items must be visible without moving the camera all the time. I get headeache doing that...
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted September 20, 2008 02:33 PM |
|
|
They are too complicated indeed, but this isn't a board game, it's not like you yourself will calculate all those things (and luck, etc). The computer will handle that in the "background", you just play the game
____________
|
|
Knut_Are_M
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 12:01 PM |
|
|
att/def seems in homm 5 to quite similar to what you suggested.
In homm5 you get +50% damage for each 10 attack, and -33% damage for +10 defence compared to attacker.(+20 for double damage/half damage if defence is higher).
+30=150%, +40 200% and so on. opposite for defence.
I do not know if there is a cap though.
____________
|
|
LucJPatenaude
Disgraceful
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 04:37 PM |
|
|
Yes, there is a cap for all heroes to reach in leveling up only, though.
Swapping your artifacts from the ones that you get as a Spoils of War at defeating another champion enemy hero can get you even better skills perks. As to making the complete set of the dragon armor that covers, your newest maxed out champion hero, head to toe and, grants you all the powers of the most powerful type of Dragon.
Think of it, a maxed out hero having twice the power he/she is normally allowed to get just because of all the combined artifacts put on that specific hero. Your troops, from level 1 to 7, being as powerful as Dragons, just because of all the attack and defence boosters of your god-like hero.
|
| |
|
|
