|
| Thread: Creature-cap or the thing missing from heroes campaigns |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
krs
Famous Hero
|
posted March 13, 2012 05:21 PM |
|
|
Creature-cap or the thing missing from heroes campaigns
Kings Bounty Campaigns are really beautiful while Heroes(3-6) ones tend to be boring. And one of the main reasons is creature unavailability.
In Heroes if there is no time limit (on of the things I really hate), starting from month 2 campaigns are presenting no challenge. And that is because you will amass such a great army that every fight will be trivial or low.
On some maps, if you do not follow the path thought of by the developers sometimes you stumble onto some (maybe otherwise interesting) quests where you find yourself in such an advantage that the fight is over turn 2 with 0 casualties.
All this can be regulated by limiting the amount of creatures you can have for the point in the game you are. (Before a gate is open or the like). The level of the hero is capped with good reason and so should the creatures be.
Related to this is poor quality of Dynasty weapons "quests"... I've expected them to be obtained as a feat of power, doing some hard quest or battle something in the like. Instead you just stumble upon them on the map and clear the guards like regular creeps and add the artifact to your dynasty inventory. Add to this that the great majority will just be staying there like an "achievement" or reminder, never to be touched again.
|
|
G0b1in
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 13, 2012 08:14 PM |
|
|
I agree on some (most) of these things. Imo Heroes would benefit so much if there was a creature cap introduced. And not just campaign, but in general. There would be more reasons to divide your troops strategicaly. There would be more battles between heroes on equal footing, and losing one big battle wouldn't mean lost cause. There's reason why most strategy games have some sort of population cap or army cap or the like. This is one thing I would defenitley like to be implemented in future games (if there ever will be one).
Now regarding campaigns ... they're long and tedious! After 3'rd Haven campaign I just lost will to continue tbh, just because of this. I played 3'rd campain for hours on end, capturing one castle, only to lost another on different end of the map. Constant "pingpong" with heroes and armies that grow to ridiculous amounts just left bad taste in my mouth. I much rather play with my brother or friends via lan or against AI, or multiplayer (but only short maps which I don't like much so I don't do that often) - I realy realy miss sim turns and RMG (there's so little amount of official maps this time around).
And dynasty weapons... I can't help but agree. Tho I would add to this. There's nothing wrong with unlockables per se, just the way they're implemented. There's currently no normal weapon artifacts in game. At all. None what so ever! That means if you didn't finish campaigns you would have empty artifact slot. And I don't even want to start skirmish map with dynasty bonuses. I prefer to find all my artifacts and battle guardians etc. Now in campaigns they work - they are one of good things (too bad campaigns imo suck in general - just my opinion), and in multiplayer they kinda work - if both players have them - but against AI or against ppl who didn't do campaigns - this doesn't work. We need non-dynasty weapon artifacts ubi, and we need them now!
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted March 17, 2012 11:26 AM |
|
|
One thing the campaigne would benefit from are time limits.
A good old "Do it in 3 months or die" limit.
This would make bosses and final enemys mor chalanging due the limit of unites and also some scenarios more fun.
Also achievments for the bosses woudl be somehow harder to get.
Half of them can be easily done by "Wait a half year and then kill everything in one turn" style of game. The half year is pushed a little to far due to the creature pool and conversion. Thanks to them you do not need more then a month to overun anything.
Example. The achievments from the fallowing bosses can be done easily thanks to no time limit.
- Michael
- Uriel
- Mother Namtaru
- Arhiban
- Daughter of Malassa
- Breeder queen
The funny fact is, that the Dragon Eel and Abbysal worn actualy have a form of time limit. But the limit is so benevolent, that they actually do not represent a problem.
So the only boss achievment that is not influenced by the lack of time limits is the one of Azzkal.
About the DW:
Most of them are a part of a main quest. The rest are parts optional quests. Only few of them are now on the map itself since the 1,2 patch that took them away from the random relic pool, and most of them are just regular rewardes for the quests.
The only problem I have, is that they are to tide with the main story line and mandatory quests, they could have been spread in such a way, that it would be harder to obtain them (ex. like the staff of Sandor sidequest, wich many people missed at there first game)
____________
I'm just a Mirror of your self.
We see, we look, we gather, we store, we teach.
We are many, and you can be one of us.
|
|
krs
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2012 12:41 PM |
bonus applied by alcibiades on 17 Mar 2012. |
|
I am arguing for creature cap since it does not put so many constraints as time limit and achieves the same but more predictable result.
Time limit give you the feeling that you are under pressure, that you must always be on the run. that you have to stick to the main road and forget everything else. Some players like this kind of play but many TBS players (myself included) like the "do how you want it and at your own pace".
The biggest problems of time limit as I see them are:
- map quality! If the map is without any restrictions you will just loose enough time on a dead track not to finish the map. And then you have to start it over again. So this will be more suited for a custom map that you are supposed to play more than one time anyway, rather than a campaign.
- player experience. Some players are more experienced than others at creeping. On a good map, if you restrict the time, the casuals will have a hard time and for the pros it will be like a walk in the park.
The advantages of creature cap:
- play at your own pace. You have all the time in the world to explore the map in its entireness but have exactly the same experience when it comes to a final(intermediary) fight.
- good players will go faster, casual players will go slower but they can both reach the cap.
Now I am not saying remove time limits and have only creature cap. There is enough room for time limits also. But the current campaigns pose ZERO problems after month 1 and become a boring/tedious/let's be done with this, experience after that time frame.
As an extra: chess like fights.
In creature capped maps, you will know exactly the size of the army for the planned fight. So scenario creators can introduce more intelligent/tricky fights. (something like: white moves and check-mates in 2 turns. You can fight in 10 ways but only one will lead to victory). And since it is just a fight you can restart just the fight and try again. (Like azkaal fight.)
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted March 17, 2012 12:48 PM |
|
|
I personally think it should be an option, that you can turn off and on, but not something that you have no choice but to use; I, for one, don't particularly like the sound of a creature cap. I prefer to build up a huge army, even if it is easy fighting neutrals later on.
____________
|
|
War-overlord
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Presidente of Isla del Tropico
|
|
posted March 17, 2012 12:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I personally think it should be an option, that you can turn off and on, but not something that you have no choice but to use; I, for one, don't particularly like the sound of a creature cap. I prefer to build up a huge army, even if it is easy fighting neutrals later on.
Seconding this.
____________
Vote El Presidente! Or Else!
|
|
krs
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2012 01:04 PM |
|
Edited by krs at 13:04, 17 Mar 2012.
|
Creature cap and huge armies are not mutually exclusive.
I am not arguing about neutral fights so much as for staged fights inside the map. When a fight is presented like the end of the world as we know it but when you do fight it you can finish it in round 1-2... it leaves a sour taste.
As for tedious/repetitive creeping only to clear a map (that we have now). It would be much better if a map would pose some challenge.
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted March 17, 2012 04:03 PM |
bonus applied by alcibiades on 17 Mar 2012. |
|
Its funny that you say the creeps are to weak because the growth of there strenght is the best that there ever was. But it is unnoticed because the conversion and creature pool, that spawm creatures in unholy ways and numbers
But generaly I am not the creep all you see type of a player so that doesnt bother me.
The reason I did not like te creature caps as they were in KB (TL) was the problem with reinforcements. You were limitied to what you could Fight and when you lost to much or your leadership has risen to high, you had either desmis and re-recruit half of your army or go half game back and to fill up your numbers.
This should not be a problem with heroes.
If the caps were put in the game, it would have one positive effect, and that is, that the resurrection spells would not be needed. The lost you would get could be easily regained from those in your castel/ secondary hero.
A question on you Krs... should the cap be a limit to time, or to level?
____________
I'm just a Mirror of your self.
We see, we look, we gather, we store, we teach.
We are many, and you can be one of us.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted March 17, 2012 05:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I am arguing for creature cap since it does not put so many constraints as time limit and achieves the same but more predictable result.
Time limit give you the feeling that you are under pressure, that you must always be on the run. that you have to stick to the main road and forget everything else. Some players like this kind of play but many TBS players (myself included) like the "do how you want it and at your own pace".
The biggest problems of time limit as I see them are:
- map quality! If the map is without any restrictions you will just loose enough time on a dead track not to finish the map. And then you have to start it over again. So this will be more suited for a custom map that you are supposed to play more than one time anyway, rather than a campaign.
- player experience. Some players are more experienced than others at creeping. On a good map, if you restrict the time, the casuals will have a hard time and for the pros it will be like a walk in the park.
The advantages of creature cap:
- play at your own pace. You have all the time in the world to explore the map in its entireness but have exactly the same experience when it comes to a final(intermediary) fight.
- good players will go faster, casual players will go slower but they can both reach the cap.
Hmm, these are actually good points. I was not much in favor of this idea initially, but I do think this makes sense on all accounts, so I agree it's something that could be considered at least on some maps.
With regard to the Boss problem, we also previously discussed bosses scaling with time, which will sort of have the same effect in a different way.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
krs
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2012 06:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A question on you Krs... should the cap be a limit to time, or to level?
Neither  . I was thinking about having the maps divided just like right now into quest zones with doors/portals that block movement until a condition is completed (hero defeated, castle taken, etc). So the same trigger should apply to creature cap. You complete 1'st zone, doors open and level cap is increased/lifted. No time constraints, no level constraints. (Although complementary a level cap could also exist, but it is not as use-full and has not that much of a influence).
If you tie creature cap to time we will have the same problem as now. Just wait and get troops, so it's not good.
If you tie it to hero level... well this could work but I think it is way simpler to tie it to map quest "zones".
Now yo got me thinking about different hero level caps for different zones. (Complementary to creature cap).
Heor Level cap is not so much necessary since you can control that from objects on the map. The problem arises only with different monster stack sizes that give more exp... it is trickier to implement and from what I can tell it does not have such a great impact.
|
|
G0b1in
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2012 09:59 AM |
|
|
|
well i think creature cap should be tied to hero level and/or might or magic orientation of a hero. If done this way, it could also be introduced to multiplayer games, which i think would benefit because creature cap just as much. this might be trickey to implement due to might vs magic balance but it would give more strategic gameplay, where there would be a factor on how well you manage your armies - would also bring secondary heroes into the game, and lastly would give more intense fights. So I like creature caps - it is good
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted March 18, 2012 11:48 AM |
|
|
I am strongly against the cap beeing tide to the level of the heroes. The cap should work as a tool to make the game more balanced, interesting and entertaining
If you tie it to the level of the hero what will happen. if in PvP the player who has the higher level now hase more spells/skills, higher statistics AND a bigger army. So in this case the cap would do the oposite, give all the advantages to the higher leveled player and take away the only option of the other player to math him.
Also this would destroy the intention to give secundary heroes more meaning. Since they would generaly have lower levels and therfor could not math any hero.
This is why I originaly was ageinst creature caps and this danger is still there.
My purposal is limiting through time
Eache hero can hold up to 1,5x the units standard castel population times the weak of the game. The limit would be set individualy for each unit acording to its growth. The limit should be higher then the the population of a fully developed city to make external dwellings and secundary cities of any meaning. Also this ration can be used to balance the strenght of creature tiers. Ex: Core creatures are limited to 1,5 t, Elite 1,4, champions 1,2. Or any set of numbers if nescesary.
Also Might heroes could have a skill that would increas this limit.
An example what could happen if you tie the cap to the level.
You find chest. What will you do? A: take the gold. But why? to biuild units that you could not even comand? or B: Take the XP so you can comand more troops?
If the cap would be level related I am 100% against it. If it would be connected to the map, or any other general aspect of the game that has eaqual impact on all the players, then this is an interesting purposal and there is space for duscusion from my side.
And also do not forget that the level cap is also general. It is not limited to a Player or an individual hero.
____________
I'm just a Mirror of your self.
We see, we look, we gather, we store, we teach.
We are many, and you can be one of us.
|
|
G0b1in
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2012 12:52 PM |
|
|
well ok you got a point - making connection between hero lvl and army cap might not be the best - but it must be some factor that distinguishes might hero vs magic hero - imo magic hero should have less army and more spells, while might heroes should have greater army.
Don't forget tho - about option of "heroless" army defending town - wich have no limit - meaning it would be eventualy impossible to conquer town if this is so, but heroe's cap doesn't increase somehow. Unless ofc. you implement army limits to town as well.
After thinking a bit currently i see this options:
- tieing creature cap to towns controlled - imo not the best since once you start losing towns it's hard to "get up" again
- making all heroes have same cap since lvl 1 - but ofc there need to be town cap aswell (maybe tied to wall upgrade) - after rethinking this i think would be best.
- tieing to time played - this is another good option imo - each hero should have same army cap, that depends on number of the week
- making army size dependant on hero lvl - i see your reson why this might not be so good, but if perhaps making a skill (like luck, morale and defense) that increase army cap - this would esentialy be tieing it to hero lvl as only lvl 15 heroes can have third row of skills (I actualy had something like this in mind instead of making direct connection between lvl and army)
- in campaign - it could be reletated to your progress - something like krs proposed is good imo
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted March 18, 2012 01:22 PM |
|
|
The problem of town has come to me aswell
But I think it can be done aswell
Point one: If there would be a hero defending the town, the cap would be limited to his.
Point two: If there was no hero in the city, there can be imho two options:
- A town cap related to fortification structures
ex.: No fort 1x the towns max income of troops, fort 2x the towns max income of troops, citadela 4x the towns max income of troops, castel 6x the towns max income of troops.
ex.2: or you could tie them also to the week limits (Fort 1,5 times the week and growth, Citadela 2 times the week and growth, Castle 3 times the week and growth)
- No town limits at all. Due to the simple fact that towns without a garison hero are not so dangerous.
I am personaly for a general cap for all players that rises with the spend time. A general cap could be te source of new skills or hero specializations. A skill for might heroes that lets them master more troops while magic heroes have stronger spells that can damage or influence units. The town capacity limited to the fortification level would also be nice, and a source of new faction special buildings. For example army based factions like orcs or knights could have baracks that would increase the town limit.
As G0bl1n pointed out. Limiting the cap to towns/forts/regions controled would also lead to a situation where one player can easy overun the other players. And again we have the same problem her as with level related sistem. Even now the player who controles more cites has a big advantage, why limit the disadvataged side even more.
____________
I'm just a Mirror of your self.
We see, we look, we gather, we store, we teach.
We are many, and you can be one of us.
|
|
krs
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2012 01:56 PM |
|
|
I am totally against introducing a creature or level cap!  ...
...Unless it is in a campaign or a map especially designed with that cap in mind. I think in multi-player it makes no sense. You do your best and your opponent can do the same. For the Might vs Magic case. They should have the same army, the difference in made by skills you have to improve that army. Maybe a leadership skill has some space here but should be minimal not predominant like in KB or Disciples.
|
|
G0b1in
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 18, 2012 03:46 PM |
|
|
well "no limits" has it's benefits for sure, but I think creatre cap would defenitly improve multiplayer in more than one way.
- first I would like to point out that in all previous Heroes there always was sort of a soft "army cap". It's only H6 that this is missing. How you ask? well - you couldn't merge diferent castles in one huge army - this is new to H6 - this kinda worked like a soft army cap, specialy in H5 where mixing factions was a no-no. Undead were exception to this with undead transmutor, that's why I always liked them. Second thing are teleports. Sure there was a town portal, but not like this. You couldn't simply buy your army, teleport your secondary hero to fort and merge with main hero. So dividing army was here. I can't tell how many times i won a game against my brother simply because i was lucky and nerby computer player had same faction as me.
- second, from my multiplayer H6 experience (which i must say is limited coz I mostly still stick with H5), currently there's very little battles between players going on. And practicaly no sieges. Vast majority of gameplay is chasing each other, teleporting around like maniacs, and flaging each other's castles with secondary heroes. Sure that's how multiplayer always was, you might say, but is this best way? does this need be so? Adding creature cap would make more armies marching around and more pvp encounters. Simple as that.
- and finaly, when armies get huge out of proportion there's huge unbalance going on. Might heroes always outclass their magic counterparts, and buff-type spells are way more powerfull than direct damage ones. Having cap on certain creatures would also mean healing wouldn't be skill of choice anymore. And balancing factions could be much easier.
this is atleast how i view things on army cap
|
|
sylvanllewelyn
Hired Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2012 12:28 PM |
|
|
Let's define the problem before the working out a solution.
I see the problem as saving up a massive army and then killing bosses easily in a few rounds.
Then the solution is simple: a very loose time limit like 6 months or something. It's generous enough for you to kill all creeps and collect all goodies, but not so much that you can have 3000 elite units.
|
|
avalon00x
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 22, 2012 10:52 AM |
|
|
I am with Krs's last post.
Also against a creature cap unless in some specific scenario.
I think if the Difficulty Scales are correct.
Easy being easy and Hard actually being Hard.
Then a creature cap should not make anything better as it is right now.
My resionings:
-A creature cap is like a Punnishment for a player that dous well. Instead of being rewarded you are punnished by not being able to buy more units. How dous this compliment a feeling of Reward for playing well?
-Creature growth
On a map without a timelimit with a creature cap. if you take to long and some random neutral gets too large for your creature cap.
How is it in any way fun to go to the end of a level just to encounter a unit that you will never be able to beat becouse it has grown outside of the range of your creature cap?
-Dous it feel fitting to the Homm series to have a creature cap?
I dont think a Creature cap suits any of the games in the series. and nether has any of the homm games i played one.
-Crippling multiplayer
Again a player that dous better gets punnished. You reach the cap well before the other player dous. on your way there you lose units. putting you below the cap. By the time you arrive you should be well under the cap and the other player Can be at the cap and be all safe and sound.
I could name many more reasons why i am against a creature cap.
But the only advantage i can see is that some campaign maps can get balanced easier.
But instead of opting the easy but crippling route of a Creature cap.
I would suggest Adjusting the difficulties. and the neutral stack growth per week.
As for time limits they could be adjusted to be longer and shorter depending on difficulty.
Edit:
@sylvanllewelyn
I dont see the problem with someone beating the level with a God awfull score for spending too much time on the map.
Yes player X beat it by waiting 3 ingame years and got a terrible score for it.
and if ANY form of creature cap could form i would suggest something like The campaign caps in Homm IV.
Being able to get as many units as you want but at the boss you have to go trough a gate only being able to take with you.
X amound of Tier 1 X amount of Tier 2 and X amount of Tier 3.
But once again. why? i Realy wont lose any sleep over someone being to bad at the game having to wait half a year. And thus getting a bad score. But some players prefer to play that way. and why would you want to prevent that?
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted March 22, 2012 12:12 PM |
|
|
@avalon00x
read some of my posts
The purposals I make are for a dinamic cap that changes with the time spent and does basicly not harm a game of one on one.
I would also like to point out one thing.
It is not the problem of time we are dealing with in the current campain.
It is as I pointed out the combination of Creature pool and town coversion.
A common limit of older games was 3-6 mounths. But still in this time a skilled player could get thousend of units even if he had onyl 1 castle.
Example: map 3 of the Dunegeon and dragons campaigne in heroes 3. A hard map for most of the players unitl you give them a simple trik. To capture only the dragon layer and build the summnoning portal. If you doo this befor week 2 ends. you can get up to : 2+(10x4)=46 black dragons until the end of mounth 3. Which is more then enought to cach Steadwick
And this is only until 3 mounth
Now you can convert castles an actuali get a production of more then 20 champions a week and very offten in less then 3 mounths.
I tell you this to point a very big problem.
Even if there was a time limit the curent game designe is able to reach the critical level of unites very fast.
In such a time that the difference between a medicore and a skilled player can be the difference between a good hard game and a walk in the park.
So if you want to make the current campaign system more interesting and sheild it from the unit overun, you must not only apply the time limit but also reduce the impact of Converison, Teleport web and creature pool. Because it is the combination of these 3 features that brings the unit imbalance into the game.
It was discused here that a cap system bassed on the number of towns could lead to a situation where a player reaches such a point that no enemy has a chance to cath up with him. We should not forget that this actually is the curent stand point. If a player in Heroes VI controles more castles then his oponents in is only a matter of a week or two until the game is decided. And weeks and months of endless cat and mouse game fallow.
A dinamic creature cap could be the the solution. I was originaly not fonde the idea of a creature cap, but more and more I think about it, it would be only benefit the game.
Example: In a game where 2 players play a map 1v1 with 5 castles the person who manages to maintain the higher number of towns has a very higher chance of succes.
But if in this game the dinamic cap as I purposed whould be used, the player with the higher number of castles would still benefit from it. He would have higher units reserves or two heroes with that would have an army equal to the creature cap. But the game itself would be more interesting. There would be more "Epic battles" of equally strong heroes and a higher world map tactic potentila woudl happen.
The creature cap I purpose does not even limit the palyer in a 1v1 duel/turnament style gameplay, due to the fact that in such a game the player would not be able to pruduce units as fast as the cap would grow. But it would bring more tactics and life into the gamplay larger maps and in campaigns.
This cap is only neede as long as the conversion feature is present. Due to the fact that it is the conversion that causes the unit numbers to scale in such a way.
____________
I'm just a Mirror of your self.
We see, we look, we gather, we store, we teach.
We are many, and you can be one of us.
|
|
avalon00x
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 23, 2012 11:43 AM |
|
|
@ dave_jame
After losing my looong typed message not once But TWICE!
i will now reply with an even shorter and slighly more annoyed version of the original intended reply.
Creature cap is bad mkay?
- your example of the dragons was an example of why a creature cap should not be implimented and an example of bad map design. because players are allowed to have different builds
you focus on glories and sisters for example but because of the cap you cant do that you have to spread your money around for different troops. this is a CHOICE not something mandatory.
- If you never hit the cap. why add a cap?
- battles will not be more epic of any sort Same amount of castle is and was same size of army.
- Castle taking / losing castles will be even MORE annoying with your cap bouncing all over the place.
- it adds nothing nothing at all it only limits.
- The problem is that not all the maps are built on owning two or more towns. Certain high loot areas should Have
more threatning stacks depenting on howmany towns one should have by the time they arrive. biggest issue
- it adds a ceiling for better players If i creep better i should be rewarded not punnished by not being able to buy units
while the less awesome creeper will spend sine gold to be at the same cap as me.
Town conversion and The shared creature pool are one of the best things added to the series.
The only problem with it is that the map design is not calculated in it.
of there is a map with four town. two on the left and two on the right and a center area to connect them
the center area should have stacs built to pose a thread against and army worth two towns
|
| |
|
|
