|
|
conqr
Adventuring Hero
|
posted July 12, 2011 03:41 PM |
|
Edited by conqr at 16:05, 12 Jul 2011.
|
Quote:
A unit with 80 Atk would gain more from a hero with 20 Atk (+129%) than a unit with 0 Atk (+57.74%)
Quote:
A unit with 0 Defense will gain more from a Hero with 20 Defense (+37%) than a unit with 80 Defense (+5%)
The functions are basically the inverse of each other. Comparing the percentages in such manner is unfair to defense. Lets say a hero is 0/0, and it has a creature with 0 def. Giving a hero 50 attack the creature will do 2.7 times more damage, giving it 50 defense the creature will recive 2.7 times less damage. Giving a hero further 50 attack will resoult 5.6 times more damage than the original, while giving another 50 def the creature will recive 5.6 times less damage. (There is a little inaccuracy though.)
Quote:
So I did some testing (on Normal, shouldn't be very different on Hard) with different combos during the first few weeks and my overall impression is as follows:
I will comment on some of your findings, i only play on hard though.
Getting champ week1 is possible with any faction on hard diff as well (preferably on position 2) sometimes even with basic fortification, but the latter needs luck, and breaking out of your starting location. Getting it might not always be safe in a competitive game, on week2 the one going for cores can rush the one going for tech (50-60 cores difference)
Quote:
Stronghold - I'm still sticking to my initial conclusion that the Cyclops is the strongest Champion at the moment
In my opinion pit fiend is uncontested for the 'best champion' title. The biggest advantage of it is, the less you have the better they are at creeping (yes, im pushing it a little). A low level hero with 1-2 of them with life-drain and maybe stand your ground can creep almost anything on the map. 1-2 cyclops will have a harder time going through 30-50 elits.
Quote:
Inferno - the Pit Fiends are excellent for creeping and rushing to get them before the end of week 1 could pay back. Still, it seems better if you get all the Cores or 2 Cores and one of the Elites (preferably Tormentor) or eventually 3 Cores + 1 Elite (which is rather hard) in week one and Pit Fiends in week 2. The problem is that I simply can't get proper populations of Pit Fiends after week 2 to see if it really makes sense to have them early - for some reason during another game the said bug did not manifest itself and I managed to gather about 20 Pit Lords until month 3 but there was only 1 AI on the said map which behaved like it wasn't there.
Demented + life drain + stand your ground can also creep very effectively early on. (A good amont of mana is neccessary).
Quote:
On the other hand investing in 2 or 3 Cores and 1 Elite (preferably Vampires)
Vampires + tactics + spell to reduce moral is 'pretty' effective against big/foursquare creatures.. Getting the town in the middle on week1-2 is very easy (also archery2 to decrease the length ot the battle).
Every faction can creep pretty easily on BA, but some can be really agressive (creeping in at least ~3 directins, getting a pretty big part of the map on week2-3).
|
|
pacifist
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 05:05 PM |
|
Edited by pacifist at 17:31, 12 Jul 2011.
|
Now that the limit of 1 secondary hero per town owned is confirmed, we should adapt our strats and limit ourselves in that aspect of the beta . The fortification bug appears sometimes even on week1/week2 transition  . As for the champions (a good mention to the kirin with double growth) they can cross the battlefield in one turn with rush, receive all attention from creeps while the shooters, healers, or other help. One kirin + 36 coral priestresses (couldn't have that number with 2 heroes only anymore so that will change) beat 27 lamasus with a lv2 hero on day 7.
edit: No more architect spamming now that's a good thing too . Maybe architect was meant to work that way after all? I've heard it was a bug too but not confirmed yet...
____________
http://www.youtube.com/user/alkoriak#g/u
|
|
conqr
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 06:34 PM |
|
Edited by conqr at 18:44, 12 Jul 2011.
|
Quote:
(couldn't have that number with 2 heroes only anymore so that will change)
You can have that number. Just sac the secondary on a natural, then build another.
Quote:
beat 27 lamasus with a lv2 hero on day 7
Although in certain cases champions can be very helpful while creeping (less spells needed), many of the cores do very well on their own. Not long ago I beat 28 jaguar/panther warriors with 22 demented and a level 2 hero (without losses).
|
|
pacifist
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 08:25 PM |
|
|
For the secondary heroes, I suppose it works like that in the beta but maybe in the final product the condition 1 hero/town will also mean you are forced to rehire your dead hero from pool since he is considered available. I don't know but it will be logical.
Maybe it could be tested in the campaign where the condition applies. It seems many bugs are fixed in the campaign but not in mp map.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/user/alkoriak#g/u
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 08:32 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 20:35, 12 Jul 2011.
|
Quote:
Getting champ week1 is possible with any faction on hard diff as well (preferably on position 2) sometimes even with basic fortification, but the latter needs luck, and breaking out of your starting location. Getting it might not always be safe in a competitive game, on week2 the one going for cores can rush the one going for tech (50-60 cores difference)
Yes, it is possible but it is not always necessary, nor it makes you more powerful on its own. Even if you don't get rushed, going for an "inappropriate" Champion may not be a very good idea because your economy can suffer disproportionally. For example, I don't think that going for quick Fate Spinners is a very good investment as their dwelling is very expensive while their potential doesn't seem to be that great if their numbers are low.
Quote:
In my opinion pit fiend is uncontested for the 'best champion' title. The biggest advantage of it is, the less you have the better they are at creeping (yes, im pushing it a little). A low level hero with 1-2 of them with life-drain and maybe stand your ground can creep almost anything on the map. 1-2 cyclops will have a harder time going through 30-50 elits.
When it comes to creeping the Pit Fiend is unmatched, I agree. This is perhaps the only Champion which can handle large numbers of neutral Cores and Elites on its own. Against a human though its most dangerous skill - Hateful Retaliation - seems to be more difficult to use. I tried it against myself (can't find anybody for hotseat at this point) and mainly used creatures which can't be retaliated against and archers against the Pit Fiends/Lords and the latter never really used their full potential. Blade of Hatred could be nasty as well but it could also backfire. On the other hand using the Cyclops against a human is much easier. Mighty Slam is a AoE attack without retaliation - which at the moment seems to easy to abuse, except if its unlimited usage isn't actually a bug - and the upgraded Cyclops can also shoot. Impervious to Pain keeps it dangerous during each round (except if the stack is really small) and perfect for blocking important enemy stacks. The Pit Fiend still could be quite a pest but it seems a bit easier to defend against it than against the Cyclops.
Quote:
Demented + life drain + stand your ground can also creep very effectively early on. (A good amont of mana is neccessary).
Yes, this is a good choice, especially with some Succubi for support.
Quote:
Vampires + tactics + spell to reduce moral is 'pretty' effective against big/foursquare creatures.. Getting the town in the middle on week1-2 is very easy (also archery2 to decrease the length ot the battle).
The Vampires in general are an excellent defensive creature and one of the Elites which are actually doing something on their own. Combined with Ghosts they are very hard to kill, even without spells from the hero. At the moment creeping with the Necropolis is easier than with any other faction.
|
|
Conan_dw
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 08:58 PM |
|
|
only 1 sec. hero per town means: no chaining anymore? wtf?!
for me this is the dead of h6 :-(
____________
|
|
vicheron
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 10:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The mechanics of the game has shifted more in favor of mid and lower creatures.
In previous Heroes games, a hero's attack skill benefited higher level creatures more while a hero's defense skill benefited lower level creatures more. That's because the bonus damage from having a higher attack is greater than the damage reduction from having a higher defense.
That's totally wrong!
The more defense a unit has, the less the hero's defense will impact it and the more a unit has attack, the more the hero's attack will impact it.
If you check the topic I made : http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=35738
A unit with 80 Atk would gain more from a hero with 20 Atk (+129%) than a unit with 0 Atk (+57.74%)
This is the damage bonus from Attack evolution :
And this is the damage absorption bonus from Defense evolution :
A unit with 0 Defense will gain more from a Hero with 20 Defense (+37%) than a unit with 80 Defense (+5%)
But since all creatures have 0 attack in Heroes 6, they all gain equal benefit from the hero. In Heroes 6, both an archangel and a goblin gains 27% bonus damage from a Hero with 10 attack. In Heroes 3, an archangel commanded by a hero with 10 attack gains 50% damage bonus against any creature that has a defense of 30 or less, which is about 98% of the creatures. Even the 7th level creature with the lowest attack, the Hydra, can beat the defense of about 80% of the creatures. On the other hand, a goblin only gains 50% damage bonus against creatures with a defense of 4 or less, which is about 4% or 5% of the creatures, against creatures with 14 defense or more, it only gains 25% more damage.
|
|
Nelgirith
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 11:13 PM |
|
|
|
They have an attack value equal to the average of their damage.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 11:19 PM |
|
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 11:26 PM |
|
|
What JJ means is that this is not an attack, just the average dmg.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
vicheron
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 12:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
They have an attack value equal to the average of their damage.
But it's not the same thing. In Heroes 3, if an Archangel attacks a creature with 10 defense, it would gain a 100% bonus on its damage, letting it do 100 damage.
In Heroes 6, since creatures no longer have an attack skill, an Archangel that attacks a creature with 10 defense would get a damage penalty and only do 34 damage.
Basically, high level creatures are no longer the big damage dealers they used to be.
|
|
odium
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 01:26 AM |
|
Edited by odium at 01:27, 13 Jul 2011.
|
|
One easy solution: reduce the creatures' HP. Especially for cores from around 30 to around 8-10. Then champions will remain heavy damage dealears.
|
|
Razorphilia
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 01:28 AM |
|
|
I voted "I'm satisfied."
In my opinion (of course) the Cores are named Cores because they're supposed to be the main part of your army. Cores are your shock troops that are going to be dealing most of your damage and absorbing most of the damage. The Elites and Champions are more like the heroes in Warcraft 3. You are supposed to use your "micromanagement" skills to get the most out of your Elites and Champions by maximising the benefit of their skills. Some of them lack any cool abilities making them just shock troops themselves, but you can use them to "flank" what your Cores are fighting, giving you a couple turns of 2 vs 1 combat.
Since they've raised health so considerably, you are not penalized as much for giving up an attack to try and improve your position on the field. In previous heroes, whichever stack attacked first would devastate the other stack, resulting in lowering that stack's damage considerably. When that stack attacked back, they would kill much fewer of your units simply because you attacked first. Now it's more of an option to forfeit an attack to get out of a 1 vs 2 situation or to set up an eventual 2 vs 1.
I do understand the Attack/Defense math of the previous heroes, but have no information on heroes 6. It is very odd to me that units would have innate defense but no innate attack though.
|
|
vaeledrin
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 01:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I voted "I'm satisfied."
In my opinion (of course) the Cores are named Cores because they're supposed to be the main part of your army. Cores are your shock troops that are going to be dealing most of your damage and absorbing most of the damage. The Elites and Champions are more like the heroes in Warcraft 3. You are supposed to use your "micromanagement" skills to get the most out of your Elites and Champions by maximising the benefit of their skills. Some of them lack any cool abilities making them just shock troops themselves, but you can use them to "flank" what your Cores are fighting, giving you a couple turns of 2 vs 1 combat.
I don't think core means what you think it means here. Let us go with the theory of 'no domination of any tier', if we do that it ends up with something more akin of an exchange rate. If you look at the current game with all of its bugs and outdated client you can sort of see an exchange rate happening. You can go 3 cores by week one with possible upgrades, you can go 2 elites / 1 core with possible upgrades, or you can go champion/core with possible upgrades.
The definition of core shifts depending on how your army is initially built, and I think that's kind of the point as to 'prevent domination of any one tier'. The definition of core comes in when you see that almost all builds utilize core in some way. In some builds cores are your bruisers, support and tanks. In others, they are purely support.
I honestly believe with all my irrationality that this is what they're aiming for so as to preserve build diversity and longevity. To do otherwise is simply to fall into domination of one tier over another and that restricts game play and ultimately makes the game boring (or is a contributing factor).
____________
|
|
Razorphilia
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 02:11 AM |
|
|
My experience will limit me in this discussion, but are armies that choose to skip Core units fairly effective? Naming them Core rather than "Stock" or "Weaklings" has me imagine that they were intended to set up your basic needs for an army. For the Haven, your Cores will have you a ranger, a healer, and a defender/shock. Then based on your playstyle, you will choose which order you want to supplement your army with Elites. I suppose if an Elite served a similar role to a Core, then skipping that Core wouldn't hurt. Of course, you could always skip that Core's role, such as choosing to not bring healers.
It was my understanding that for (pure damage or health * growth) that the stack of cores would win over elites or champions, and that to make up for that difference the elites or champions would get special abilities.
|
|
vaeledrin
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 03:19 AM |
|
|
Growth is a different beast right now that needs to be tweaked otherwise the game can more or less be played pure core and no other play style would fit in. This isn't intended.
People here, don't ask me who because I can't remember off the top of my heads, do Pit Fiend pushes for Inferno with Breeders as a second unit choice, and for Necropolis you can focus on vampires/liches with ghosts being your only core unit and compete. Different factions have different experiences. Haven for example can go blazing glories and skip out on maybe focusing heavily on one of their cores. There is also Stronghold who has a very competitive Cyclops unit (even more so when upgraded).
Again it really depends on a few factors and while they can all be rolled into one "economic considerations" , it really boils down to your map position (relative to your enemy's) and nearby resources / external dwellings.
The definition of core, like I keep asking you to read and respond to which you haven't (you haven't commented on the premises or definition of it either, please read more carefully etc.), is that you will always have them in your army for the most part. Even champion rushing builds will grab ONE core unit and all the others have core units in them. What does that mean? It means core units are named such because they always show up in optimized builds one way or another.
You really have to look at different army compositions before deciding who is what. Like I said before, a core unit can end up being purely for support while your damage dealers are actually units like liches and vampires. Or they're damage/support while your champion plays the dual role of range/tank (Cyclops).
They are core by the means of they will always find a role in your army regardless of circumstance unlike the other tiers. However, even though you haven't said anything to the effect I will continue, that does not mean they dominate any and all aspects/traits of an army.
In essence, I am saying it is the reverse of what you have just written but with a few adjustments. Depending on your play style you will choose which cores and which elites you will supplement your play style to. That's how it is in some cases in the current condition with bugs and abuses etc. But it's probably how the designers felt the game ought to be instead of having cores restricting you further and then having you supplement elites and champions.
____________
|
|
Razorphilia
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 04:59 AM |
|
|
"...like I keep asking you to read and respond to..."
We had a misscomincation. As I stated, my definition of Core is that they form the Core of your army, meaning the meat of your army, or perhaps the raw damage or raw health of your army. In this regard, I believe the growth numbers are balanced. I believe it was Ubisoft's (or whoever the developer is) intention that an equal number of weeks of growth of core units would be able to compete with elite units, unless the elite units abilities gave it an advantage to the Core unit. My earlier explanations of this were meant to be your response.
I acknowledge your seperate definition of Core, but as your viewpoint is based on the idea of Core units growth being imbalanced and needing to be changed, I would say that "Currently, I am more inclined to agree with my own definiton." If they do rebalance the creatures in a way that causes me to favor skipping the Cores, then your definition would be more appropriate. My personal feelings on the definition of core seem rather trivial as message board discussion, but the urgency in which you addressed the issue made it seem rather important to you. I assure you I did read your post, and I had intended for my reply to be a response.
|
|
vaeledrin
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 06:46 AM |
|
|
The discussion on this subject matter and its actual effectiveness is questionable, and being cynical I am going to say that pretty much all forums from Ubi's to even this one has a negligible influence on the outcome of developer decision.
Thus, the discussion is really just a mental exercise for everyone involved. Since I am here writing to you and the others, naturally it holds some importance to me and some urgency - mainly this is just as fun as playing a game.
If that is your response then I will have to ask you to address another factor: external dwellings. If the growth rate is fine then external dwellings will and necessarily interfere with balance issues. How do external dwellings figure into your scheme of things?
That question dominates my mind when I tackle on the issue of the various tiers of units, I don't think their current status is acceptable because it throws off the balance, other posters here would also be inclined to agree.
There are also factors like 'Week of X' and what not.
At any rate, right now as it stands, some factions do have very competitive champions which makes it possible to have diverse build orders such as champion rushing, or double elite one core, etc. Hence, my definition is highly influenced by that rather than yours. Thanks for the curt reply.
____________
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 08:38 AM |
|
|
The difference is simple:
Heroes 1 to 5:
The order of weakest to strongest:
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Tier 6
Tier 7
Now in H6:
Tier 3 - cores - 3 units - act in synergy with each other
Tier 5 - elites - 3 units
Tier 7 - champion - 1 unit
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 08:53 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 08:58, 13 Jul 2011.
|
Quote:
The order of weakest to strongest:
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Tier 6
Tier 7
That's a huge and incorrect generalization, even when Heroes I-III are taken into account. Heroes III Dwarvers more powerful than the Heroes III Centaurs? Not really, they were only tougher but tactically much more limited. Gorgons compared to Wyverns? Crusaders to Zealots? Skeletons to Zombies and even Wights? Vampire Lords to Power Liches? And - oh dear - Black/Dread Knights to Bone/Ghost Dragons? It's not so easy to say that the lower tier(s) was (were) inferior to the upper one(s), even in the older games where the balance between the tiers was hardly a consideration.
If you take Heroes V into account it becomes even more incorrect because every creature - save a few - had its place on the battlefield. For example, the Imps/Familiars were among the most important creatures for Inferno and certainly about 100 times more useful than this joke that the faction had for a tier 2 creature. Haven massed Marksmen, not Footmen or Priests/Cavaliers. The Master Hunters/Arcane Archers Sylvan were - along with their blasted dragon - among the most hideously effective Sylvan creatures. And so on.
In Heroes VI the Cores are not only overly-effective, they just can render the upper tiers unnecessary in certain situations, especially on smaller maps.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
