|
| Thread: Creature-cap or the thing missing from heroes campaigns |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
G0b1in
Adventuring Hero
|
posted March 23, 2012 07:21 PM |
|
|
Creature cap is a good thing. Why ? well let me tell reasons (i told my view before but i will recap):
- Brings in secondary heroes - instead of one big army you have two or three (or more!) smaller ones.
- Every battle is more of a "equal terms" match (similar than duel) only your selection of skills and hero lvl and your gameplay determines the winner
- one lost battle does not mean lost war! You will lose some battles and win some in the end better man is the winner.
- Currently better creaping in beginning and better map knowledge determines the winner - i never ever lost or won a match coz of superior or inferior skills on battle - i lost or won only coz oponent had bigger or smaller army. With all skills and spells in Heroes army size is what matters in the end. Nothing else. All else is minimal, and only comes into play if both players are equal skilled. This is no good imo and army cap would improve it.
- In all previous Heroes games there was actualy a soft army cap. You have Heaven and Inferno castle under your control? Merge armies if you can - i dare you. Sure you can replace troops, but not add. In H6 and only here, can we convert and merge. Result? One big army.
- Player who creeps better - will still have bigger army in beginning. Army cap does not eliminate this. At all. Example: Hero can have: 20 Champions, 70 Elite, and 500 core creatures. This is cap. it will take long time to reach it - if you creep better you can still have 5 Champions and 100 cores, while your oponnent has 1 Champion and 80 cores for eg. By the time Cap comes into play your few less losses wont matter anyways.
- Player who is better, plays better (in longer games), has more wins, and losses less, may still have same size army than oponent .... but! - oponnent has only one army left while you have 5!! Even if you lose a fight, by now this wont matter. Instead of outgrowing your oponent by having army 5 times his size, you will have 5 armies same size.
- Castles will always be defended. If you wanna take castle, there will be costly siege to deal with.
- Hero level, skill selection, artifacts, battleground tactics etc. will have much greater effect on final outcome of game.
- less teleporting. Teleports will still have it's use, but it will be limited at best. Currently there's too much of this! I explore peacfully, just flagged gold mine, picked some artifacts ... enemy hero apears who has more troops. TOWN PORTAL! Now i have reinforcements and will catch you...TOWN PORTAL!! This just dosen't feel right.
These are just some reasons, I can think of of top of my head that would make gameplay with army caps better. There are just three reasons that go in favour of no army cap.
1. Faster decided battles - I creeped better than you - our heroes meet - i won the battle - now you will die slowly. You can just give up, so we can have another 4 week round to see who's better creeper.
2. Drooling over "epic" armies of hunderets and hunderets of champions. (this gets old very fast tho)
3. Tradition - In previous heroes there was no hard caped army size. That doesn't mean the game can't improve tho. We can merge towns now. We lost even that small restriction that was in place - why?
Phew. Actualy I think this is my longest post thus far. I hope i convinced atleast one person that army caps are good.
|
|
krs
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 23, 2012 07:43 PM |
|
|
Well you convinced me that it would be also nice to have SOME non-campaign maps designed for creature cap.
If it is optional... fine from my part.
Actually lots of stuff could have been optional in H6. (Like zones and conversion) and let the map makers decide what to put in place.
|
|
Falconian
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 23, 2012 11:37 PM |
|
|
Bad idea.
In almost all Heroes campaigns, creatures grow weekly and you can even mod the percentage they increase.
Furthermore, if you think Heroes campaign are easy you -obviously- never played them on Heroic.
On Heroic no matter what you do, the opponent is always going around with 2x the amount of creatures you have or so.
Your units grow just like enemies', so I don't see the usefulness of a creature cap.
Even if you pop 1000 titans the enemy is gonna pop 2000 black dragons.
|
|
G0b1in
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2012 09:58 AM |
|
|
i agree with that Falconian. I don't think campaigns are too easy at all.
Problem i see with campaign is that every mission lasts soooo long ... it's painfull. Missions should be shorter. Much shorter. I don't have the problem in let's say having 1000 Seraphs in my army ... my problem is that campaign takes so long to build 1000 seraphs in first place!
I played Haven campaign - Mission 1 - took me good 3 hours to do, mission 2 - 5 hours, mission 3 - again 5-6 hours  When i arriver at 4'th lvl i simply lost will to continue, coz i knew i will again be faced with building my army from very beginning, battling endless ammounts of enemy heroes for hours on end - it's borring.
Adding creature cap would make missions shorter - that's all benefit i see in them. 2 months is more than enough in my eyes for a single scenario. Besides, in my grand post I was actualy disscussing for army caps in Multiplayer games (wich would i think benefit of such cap most)
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 24, 2012 10:04 AM |
|
|
|
I doubt that you will find many proponents for the creature cap in MP - amassing a bigger army than the opponent/keeping your creatures alive more efficiently is one of the main things that makes the players distinguishable skill-wise.
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted March 24, 2012 10:35 AM |
|
|
It may not look So. but I think such a cap would beneft multiplayer more then the current new features introduced in heroes VI.
The tactic level of "Keeping your creatures alive" is now much more unimportant, since 80% of any casualties can be reduced to almost none. Combined with the extrem population the tactiacal value of "zero casuelties" is much lower then in the previus games.
Also it looks like not many people seem to think about the progresiv creatur cap. That would not limit the standarde and traditional gameplay but only lowers the impact of the new unbalancing and game symplifying features.
____________
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.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 24, 2012 10:47 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 10:50, 24 Mar 2012.
|
It's not that simple. If you can beat one small neutral stack without casualties even if you are not very skilled to begin with, there will a bigger stack next to it (guarding an important artefact for example) which will require some skill to defeat with little to no casualties without waiting for the next week population. In short - there's always a bigger fish. Your ability (including speed) to handle such "big fishes" is one of the determinants of your performance.
Besides, you seem to overlook one thing - introducing a creature cap will require re-shaping of the whole weekly growth concept - both in the towns and of the neutrals on the map.
|
|
G0b1in
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2012 11:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
amassing a bigger army than the opponent/keeping your creatures alive more efficiently is one of the main things that makes the players distinguishable skill-wise.
Yes, but i can't immagine how army caps would eliminate this. Why?
1. A few less losses during creeping plays a role only in first weeks of gameplay. Once you have army of example - 20 champions, 100 elites and 800 cores, it dosen't matter much if oponent has for eg. 21 champions, 110 elites and 850 cores. It matters only when numbers are much lower.
1 champion vs 3 champions - that's 3 times more. 21 champions vs 23 champions - hardly makes a diference.
2. in week 4 for example - your army wouldn't reach cap at all. Only on maps with insane growths. Cap will only play role in games that last for several months. You won't have 100 seraphs in one army but 5 armies with 20 seraphs in each.
3. If you're so much better than oponent to have double the army size - now you will have double the ammount of heroes instead. In a sense you will still have more creatures than him, they will just be spread trough more armies.
And i feel currently games are too much decided by better creeping anyways. What is the point in having so much skills, spells, creatures, etc. Bigger army is what wins. That's why I normaly only play duels in multiplayer or i play H5 via LAN with my friends, on RMG maps - so noone knows where treasures are, what is best creeping path etc.
I can't immagine why ppl complain on every faction has same building order. This is good. Also i don't know why ppl complain on skill system. No randomness is good. If i read forum a perfect heroes game would have one faction, with no skill trees, no hero levels, no artifacts etc. That is not needed. This comes to shine only in "equal terms" matches (duels) and when 2 ppl have same skill level.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 24, 2012 12:27 PM |
|
|
|
Introducing a cap that will have effect too late in the game will achieve nothing - if it can't be reached in reasonable time (say, 1 month, 2 at most), why should it be introduced in the first place? Progressive cap similar to the one in King's Bounty on the other hand has the problems mentioned above. I don't see what is the final aim, apart from advertising a play style without a super-hero approach which dominates since Heroes I (this I could agree with by the way) - but I doubt that it will manage to achieve even that.
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted March 24, 2012 02:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Introducing a cap that will have effect too late in the game will achieve nothing - if it can't be reached in reasonable time (say, 1 month, 2 at most), why should it be introduced in the first place?
¨
To work as a brake for the conversion/creature pool feature that is the main source of unit outnumbering
Lets say there is a progresiv creature cap bassed on the wekly growth but higher than a single castel can ever reach.
1 castle: No influence, you have a hard time reaching it
2 castles: You will reach it later in the game, (starting mounth 3 and on) the beginnig is still the same like with no cap. But the later game brings more tactical options like multiple strong heroes or defended towns (Not like now where you can take a town just because the enemy did not manage to teleport into it in time)
3 and more castles: You now have such an income of units that you thet the game has basicly lost any reason to be played. Your enemies have no chance of ever to stand up to you. The game becames boaring and repetiv. Creature cap here keeps the game more interesting for you if you are on any sides. More equal and interesting battels are present and there is a reason to keep playing the game.
And for all those that say that there never was a creature cap. You are wrong because there was one. It was the fact that you were only limited to the population of you fations town which is no loger the case now. Many people just do not seem to realize this.
____________
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.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 24, 2012 03:22 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 15:24, 24 Mar 2012.
|
Quote:
To work as a brake for the conversion/creature pool feature that is the main source of unit outnumbering
This is a logistical nonsense which can easily be rectified (at least the common pool). On the other hand, a cap which stops you from buying the creatures from the converted towns (or limits you too much) effectively renders the conversion useless, a pointless loss of resources. I agree that the current implementation of the conversion as a whole is clumsy and too noob-friendly but you are suggesting something that will nullify it completely instead of balance it.
Quote:
And for all those that say that there never was a creature cap. You are wrong because there was one. It was the fact that you were only limited to the population of you fations town which is no loger the case now. Many people just do not seem to realize this.
No, you were limited to how fast you can bring the populations from your secondary towns (and essentially the capitol) to your main hero. The only difference now is that all creatures use an invisible town portal at no cost to get to one of the towns if you need them there for whatever reason. The conversion needs balancing, true, but not like that.
|
|
Falconian
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2012 04:05 PM |
|
|
I found that creature numbers don't affect the game as much as Hero skills and planning do.
Most time it's the Hero who turns the tides of battle, and even more so the ability to counter the enemy Hero.
After that, it's -how- you use your creatures.
A bad move can really dictate the outcome of a battle, the infamous "if I didn't do that I could win".
And then of course, luck. 
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted March 24, 2012 04:14 PM |
|
|
I don't mind the convertion and shared pool, it is not the root of the problem in the campaigns. The problem is that bosses or hero 'bosses' can be outgrown in the first place which can pointlessly cause the game to drag on. I would much rather see bosses a) scale with hero strength. b) introduce a time limit by which the boss must fall. c) have a script that cuts short your army to an acceptable level, according to the difficulty you are playing. In the latter's case there would be a scripted event like a natural phenomenon or an ambush or anything that would separate / deplete a part of your army so that the fight is fairer.
* SPOILERS *
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
The abyssal worm, Cate and Michael were the worst examples of how a boss battle should be. Depending on what you had done you ended up being unable to win or took them down effortlessly.
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted March 24, 2012 05:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, you were limited to how fast you can bring the populations from your secondary towns (and essentially the capitol) to your main hero. The only difference now is that all creatures use an invisible town portal at no cost to get to one of the towns if you need them there for whatever reason. The conversion needs balancing, true, but not like that.
This would only be the case if your second town was the same faction as your original one. And in a custome game you had no garanties for that.
And also, the cap would not limit how much units you can buy but how many you can control with one hero or in one stack. You can have more heroes with similar armies or have two stack of the same unit.
____________
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 24, 2012 05:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Creature cap is a good thing. Why ? well let me tell reasons (i told my view before but i will recap):
- Brings in secondary heroes - instead of one big army you have two or three (or more!) smaller ones.
- Every battle is more of a "equal terms" match (similar than duel) only your selection of skills and hero lvl and your gameplay determines the winner
- one lost battle does not mean lost war! You will lose some battles and win some in the end better man is the winner.
- In all previous Heroes games there was actualy a soft army cap. You have Heaven and Inferno castle under your control? Merge armies if you can - i dare you. Sure you can replace troops, but not add. In H6 and only here, can we convert and merge. Result? One big army.
- Player who creeps better - will still have bigger army in beginning. Army cap does not eliminate this. At all. Example: Hero can have: 20 Champions, 70 Elite, and 500 core creatures. This is cap. it will take long time to reach it - if you creep better you can still have 5 Champions and 100 cores, while your oponnent has 1 Champion and 80 cores for eg. By the time Cap comes into play your few less losses wont matter anyways.
- Player who is better, plays better (in longer games), has more wins, and losses less, may still have same size army than oponent .... but! - oponnent has only one army left while you have 5!! Even if you lose a fight, by now this wont matter. Instead of outgrowing your oponent by having army 5 times his size, you will have 5 armies same size.
- Castles will always be defended. If you wanna take castle, there will be costly siege to deal with.
- Hero level, skill selection, artifacts, battleground tactics etc. will have much greater effect on final outcome of game.
- less teleporting. Teleports will still have it's use, but it will be limited at best. Currently there's too much of this! I explore peacfully, just flagged gold mine, picked some artifacts ... enemy hero apears who has more troops. TOWN PORTAL! Now i have reinforcements and will catch you...TOWN PORTAL!! This just dosen't feel right.
You are wrong tho these all have to do with Town conversion and are in no way related to a creature cap.
Unless you want a creature cap that a hero can have with him at the same time wich would be a terrible idea. and would re enlist supply chains of heroes.
Also you dont want to use weaker armies to feed the enemy hero Becouse a good hero is where you ether win or lose. considering he has atleast a fair amount of units.
I have to agree with xeno tho The creature pool is a bit poorly implimented. but then again even without it leaving an alternative hero in a castle and then town portal would have the same effect as it has now.
Additionaly tho this optional suggestion thing is getting really old . There are not that many games online If we make
- Town conversion
- Shared creature pool
- Creature cap
optional then.
i would have to disregard atleast 80% of all games
to look for the 20% of the games i would like to play just to find one what i would like to play with the "optional" bonusses. Hence why i find this a terrible idea and hope that any and all that make optional suggestions realise this.
@elvin
There is another option just like there was in H4
in one of the campaigns you had to leave you army behind to cross it.
The easy solution for H6 would be A gate or passage or whatever before a boss. allowing only XXX Tier 1 XX tier 2 and X Tier 3 Creatures for example.
|
|
G0b1in
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2012 06:07 PM |
|
Edited by G0b1in at 18:21, 24 Mar 2012.
|
Quote:
You are wrong tho these all have to do with Town conversion and are in no way related to a creature cap.
And you are right these all DO have to do with Town conversation. Creature cap is only a "brake" so to say, a possible solution to this. So yeah they are related.
Quote:
Unless you want a creature cap that a hero can have with him at the same time wich would be a terrible idea. and would re enlist supply chains of heroes.
I don't understand what you mean. I'm not proper englishman 
Quote:
If we make
- Town conversion
- Shared creature pool
- Creature cap
optional then.
i would have to disregard atleast 80% of all games
So you mean 80% of ppl would chose creature cap in multiplayer, if settings allowed? Wow that's ... optimism
Quote:
A gate or passage or whatever before a boss. allowing only XXX Tier 1 XX tier 2 and X Tier 3 Creatures for example.
Isn't this a creature cap ?
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 07, 2012 09:55 PM |
|
|
|
Not in favour of hard caps, but maybe a soft cap, where exceeding it would reduce the bonuses conferred by hero skills might work.
|
|
castiel_789
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 21, 2013 01:13 AM |
|
|
I will simply try to give more insight
The level cap is one way but you could also affect neutral and would be the easiest way and the the more rewarding for all player soft or hardcore.
Now i don't want to change the topic of this thread but. Here my reasoning.
Neutral don't offer challenge and are easy to defeat for simple reason. Growth factor are taking into consideration but not diversity. You find most of the time your
Many have already stated this on the forum but what i would add is simply more layer sprinkled with priority. You already know core, elite & champion exist for faction you may just do the same for neutral. Or if you prefer level 1 - 2 - 3 and add 4 - 5 (this forum unconsciously made me believe to stop thinking like a poor man -- funny what you can read).
Also to avoid a vicious effect you give priority to higher level around building, artifact, etc.
also neutral composed army will benefit from higher level. Keep also in mind that the level of neutral don't change much if you don't give them nasty ability
ex: 1) easier to fight Marksman - Marksman - Praetorian - Praetorian
than 2) Medusa - Nightmare - Gargantuan - Mantis ->(They were just like clown always waiting for me in my sleep)
3) Enchanter - Sharpshooter - Rust Dragon - Azure Dragon
Also they have also introduced a bridge solution. The new boss fight lower the number of your army drastically before starting. Could also be applied to certain fight (ruins, grave etc)
With all due respect to your idea i wish to enlarge the point of view on the matter. Also I like the innovation and creativity you're bringing to the table
|
|
natalka
Supreme Hero
Bad-mannered
|
|
posted March 22, 2013 03:19 PM |
|
Edited by natalka at 15:42, 22 Mar 2013.
|
It all started because there are no decent custom maps and campaigns are super easy. All your arguments are for bad map design.
What is this 3 months bla bla ... I guess it is for the campaigns - nobody plays custom maps for 3 months lol. As for custom maps everything can be balanced like many towns so no need of creature cap there. What is the point I don't get it ... Pls tell me!
|
| |
|
|
