|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 21, 2014 11:04 AM |
|
|
Why would a unit have BASE luck?
In my opinion, with the exception of a very few units - for example the Leprechaun or the Satyr of HoMM IV would have Luck as a natural plus, as an ability-so-to-speak (say, the Satyr might have a personal Luck value > 0, while the Leprechaun might have a passive Aura of Luck) - NO unit would have a Luck value per se.
Instead, there might be a NATURAL range of, say, -5 to +5, every action would get RANDOMLY associated with a Luck value, which in turn would transfer into a certain percentage for good and bad luck. I had no problem, if this would transfer to 2.5% good or bad Luck. I mean, it's LUCK, not science or plannable. So in this example, regular Luck range would be from -12.5% for an unlucky action to 12.5% for a lucky one
Of course, Skills, Spells and Abilities might simply change that scope. An artifact giving +2 Luck would in effect push the "Luck Range from -5 - +5 to -3 - +7 or -7.5% to +17.5% (which would mean, while a lucky action was more likely, an unlucky one was still possible.
Inferno units might simply INCREASE THE RANGE, doubling it to -10 - +10, for example.
Also, situational modifiers would be great. There could even be silly stuff, like, if there was a stack with 13 units present, Luck range would increase.
Which means, the fixed value for Luck is somewhat wrong - it should be, well, FICKLE.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 21, 2014 11:11 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:00, 21 Jan 2014.
|
|
The devils and the halflings have base luck adventage in H3, both related to their folkloric myths... (I always related the halfling bonus to, him having a slingshot rather than being a halfling, you know, the story of David and Goliath...)
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted January 21, 2014 11:41 AM |
|
Edited by Avirosb at 11:41, 21 Jan 2014.
|
I always thought the whole luck attribute regarding Halflings were a bit weird.
Their land did get invaded and scourged, but I guess they're somewhat lucky to survive? v v
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 21, 2014 11:45 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Instead, there might be a NATURAL range of, say, -5 to +5, every action would get RANDOMLY associated with a Luck value, which in turn would transfer into a certain percentage for good and bad luck. I had no problem, if this would transfer to 2.5% good or bad Luck. I mean, it's LUCK, not science or plannable. So in this example, regular Luck range would be from -12.5% for an unlucky action to 12.5% for a lucky one
Of course, Skills, Spells and Abilities might simply change that scope. An artifact giving +2 Luck would in effect push the "Luck Range from -5 - +5 to -3 - +7 or -7.5% to +17.5% (which would mean, while a lucky action was more likely, an unlucky one was still possible.
I like this, seems way more reasonable than what we had so far. I still don't get it on morale though. You want it to give a bonus on the action that triggers it (attack, defense, ability...), rather than +1 turn after an attack like in H3 or only half like in H6? Wasn't the system from H5 that gave initiative a more balanced mechanic?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 21, 2014 12:17 PM |
|
|
Yes, true. The initiative bar of HoMM 5 was ideally suited for Moral, letting your next turn come 50% faster.
The initiative bar had some other problems, though, one being the fact that PROJECTING the effect of a spell or ability affecting initiative was incalculable.
We must not forget though, that HoMM initially was a very simple game with simple rules: letting "Luck" double the damage and "Moral" double your turn was a simple enough effect, especially with the lower values then, but once the idea took hold, that this kind of doubling action was rather imbalanced, there's nothing wrong with COMPLETELY rethink the mechanisms.
Otherwise you might just as well drop it as a general game element and leave only a couple of abilities (has an X% chance to do double damage/suffer half damage and so on) and spells (gives an X% chance to every friendly creature to do double damage), instead of making it a mandatory general mechanism.
Same thing with Moral; in my opinion, Moral, is more important when it gets bad, because that should have serious consequences, while GOOD moral comes into play only, when there might be reason to have second thoughts about what's happening.
This can be exemplified with the "Undead/Living" difference. In the game, living beings actually have an advantage over undead, because Good Moral is the rule. In reality, that should be different - in reality you'd expect slow mindless, undead hordes assaulting and being easily massacred first, but then, in the face of the unrelenting assault and the fact that the undead are not fazed by their losses, moral is going down, the shell becomes the first chinks and from then on it's a steep slope to a rout.
Moral would seem to be influenced a lot by what would be happening on the BF, with direct consequences for combat efficiency. For example, if you were fighting with a Magic hero against a Might hero, hitting an inferior unit with a superior troop type and getting meager result due to a big attack-Defense difference, should be immediately bad for the moral of the magic-led troops ("WTF, a dozen Black Dragons hit the Cyclopses and kill ONE MEAGRE MONSTER??? Uh oh ...")
I admit, though, that this is a rather complex thing.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted January 21, 2014 12:22 PM |
|
|
The thing is Stevie, a Tier 7 Emerald Dragon with 14 initiative triggering morale might be imbalanced as it would go very quickly again (before another unit as even had it's turn).
For JJ's comment about luck, it might lead to imbalance as well.
What's important is not just the trigger, but the effect.
I like the trigger from H5 (1 - 5, giving 10% to 50% chance) with the H6 effect (additional 50% damage). The double damage from H5 made it imbalanced.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted January 21, 2014 12:49 PM |
|
|
Theoretically, JJ luck & morale system sounds fun and very interesting, but I'm really concerned about the complexity of that system. I mean, I'd love to see that implemented and how it goes, but for Heroes 7 I'd stick to the old system (with little modifications).
But for the long run it's a good discussion, so don't stop it either 
____________
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted January 23, 2014 06:51 AM |
|
|
For H7:
Let's have the 9 factions.
Let's have an H5 game with H3 battleground mechanics (every unit has a turn, etc.)
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2014 09:14 AM |
|
|
DoubleDeck said:
For H7:
Let's have the 9 factions.
Let's have an H5 game with H3 battleground mechanics (every unit has a turn, etc.)
That's a very modest wishlist  Mine would be a lot bigger, and JJ's would probably need a day to put down in words Should I even mention Elvin?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2014 10:08 AM |
|
|
With me it's more a question of what I do NOT want: another HoMM 3 Clone with a chessboard battlefield and a ton of unreflected and half-assed workings that are kept from one game to the next just because no one thinks about them.
I will give an example of what I mean.
HoMM VI gave us the creature pool and the town conversion tool. On the surface not that bad an idea. Provided you decided to try this, the first question is: what happens, when a town or dwelling is changing hands (and is converted or not)? Answer: NOTHING - at least not before the next week begins. The losing player loses part of his creature pool for the upcoming weeks, but as long as he has a town he keeps all creatures currently in the pool.
The second natural question is - isn't the reinforcement/troop logistics aspect of the game a tad too simple with this solution?
And if you think about it - once you decided to go for creature pool and conversion, you'd HAVE TO think about WEEKLY GROWTH mechanism as well, because with those two NEW game aspects, weekly growth is suddenly not a good mechanic anymore.
At this point you MIGHT entertain the idea, that doubling the amount of dwellings that increase creature production, because dwelling upgrades add to production, while at the same time allowing monetary upgrades (City Hall and stuff) any which way you want them, isn't so thrilling with WEEKLY GROWTH either.
So one MIGHT have taken a closer look to the alternative of DAILY GROWTH - and suddenly things become a lot more interesting:
1) With daily growth the creature pool is just right, since it simplifies the otherwise (look at HoMM 4) tedious management of reinforcements: while you still can hire your troops everywhere, there is no specific day when there is an advantage or something.
2) If a player loses a town or dwelling, the change is immediate - no waiting for day 1.
3) Building in town gets more interesting since it DOES make a difference now on which day you build - the safe method of building money stuff first, then dwellings, and everything is fine provided you get things done until day 7 of the week doesn't work anymore.
At THAT point, you might have realized that with the reduced resources (and no "spare" dwellings (those that do not need "critical" resources)) it SHOULD make a difference whether you managed to build something on day 10 or on day 13.
So, IMO, if they had given the matter enough thought at the point they decided on these things, they SHOULD have come to the conclusion that it may pay to at least TEST the daily growth mechanism instead of the weekly growth.
I would bet that HoMM VI would work WORLDS better with Daily instead of Weekly growth - and it's not the question of whether you like weekly more or daily more (as it's not the question of whether you like creature pool and town conversion and so on) - it's just that you cannot just change SOMEthing and leave the rest the way it is, expecting them to work fine.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 23, 2014 10:27 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 10:28, 23 Jan 2014.
|
Told ya. And he's not even started yet  
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 23, 2014 10:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
With me it's more a question of what I do NOT want: another HoMM 3 Clone with a chessboard battlefield
Ehm, exactly which game do you consider a HoMM 3 Clone? People usually complain in the opposite direction, that the games are not in the spirit of H3. I would certainly like the adventure map to be 2D for example, the playability is better that way.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted January 23, 2014 10:59 AM |
|
|
DoubleDeck said:
For H7:
Let's have the 9 factions.
Let's have an H5 game with H3 battleground mechanics (every unit has a turn, etc.)
6 starting factions are enough, imo. Less is unacceptable, but more isn't needed, imo.
A few factions must be left for expansions. Not to mention making 9 factios would probably mean less resources for other part of the game, like Simultaneous Turns...and that's something that should come in first place.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2014 11:20 AM |
|
|
"In the spirit" is something else than a "Clone".
VISUALS are pretty secondary here. Sure, 2D would solve one hell of a lot of problems, since it would free a lot of resources for the really important things when it comes to CONTENT and GAMEPLAY, but that's not an option: it's not about pleasing the old farts that played Tetris as well, it's about WINNING NEW FANS, and that's kids. And kids nowadays want nice graphics, so 3D is something like a must, when you want to sell.
So - you could make HoMM 3 exactly the way it was, just in 3D, and it WOULD be a clone, but seemingly not in the spirit.
When I say "Clone", I mean, that HoMM 2, HoMM 3 and HoMM 4 ALL were significantly different from each other.
HoMM 5 final product was pretty good as a crossroads game, but 6 didn't improve on what wasn't working in 5 (like the editor) on one hand and failed to implement the new things in a satisfactory way. So when I say "Clone", I mean, that both 5 and 6 are STILL based on a lot of HoMM 3 Core Mechanisms THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED due to the other changes in game.
Here's another example: Initially in HoMM 6 the Fortifications would work as we know it from HoMM 3 and 5, No. 2 and 3 each adding 50% growth. Only problem was in early beta testing - CORES WERE DOMINATING. So I suggested a switch to HoMM 2 additional growth meachanics, adding FLAT numbers, which they did.
However, when the game had shipped, things were still not working the way they should (for a ton of reasons, actually), but only when I did a Bang-for-the-buck analysis of dwelling costs versus creature power gain (using their own creature power values), it became clear that
a) outside Core creature dwellings gave too many creatures and
b) Core upgrade dwellings would gain you WAY more bang for the buck than going for Elite or Champion dwellings.
Consequentially, dwelling prices DRASTICALLY changed with the last patches (costs for basically EVERYTHING were decreased, except for Core dwelling costs).
What I want to say is, that the next HoMM game should be developed COMPLETELY new, FROM THE FOUNDATION - that doesn't have to result in drastic changes all over the place, but it might lead to overall ADJUSTMENTS. Because EVERY mechanic should be questioned (that's why I gave the daily growth example). It's not happenstance that NWC staff started out making HoMM 4 with "let's get Heroes on the battlefield" - the end result being a COMPLETELY different game from HoMM 3, simply because it was necessary to do it. Think about it. They changed for example the way damage was modified, not adding/subtracting, but DIVIDING values, skills adding percentages and so on. They basically left no stone unturned. And while certainly not everything was a winner, they managed to make a completely different game, and basically just because they changed ONE, albeit important thing.
That's the spirit I wish for.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted January 23, 2014 12:07 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
Told ya. And he's not even started yet
LOL
@Storm-giant: I mean as a final product to have 9 factions.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 23, 2014 04:06 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:10, 23 Jan 2014.
|
@jj
I get what you mean, when they designed the first automobiles, they always left the front open, since that was the tradition and habit of the old chariot designs, so that the driver could whip the horses or hold them back. Yet, that was not just unneccesary but sometimes even a flaw in an automobile design... I basically agree to this innovative approach when it comes to inner mechanisms and damage calculation etc etc. However, in a HoMM sequel, I wouldnt want a completely different thing, why name it a sequel then? Remember, the reason H5 returned to H3-like mechanics is because H4 was a failure for most of us, even if we respected it as an adequate game when we imagined it as an independent product, we couldnt stop comparing it to 3 and the winner was obvious for many. So, what I'd want actually is more of a clone for at least once, a game that has 2D adventure map, the battlefield is better as it is in h5 and alternative upgrades was also a good idea, but other than that make it as close to h3 as possible with the possibilities of today's graphic details and ram of computers. Many more (hundreds of them but not overpowered ones) artifacts, much bigger maps, smarter AI, maybe more fractions, definitely more neutrals, more terrains with special advantages and disadvantages... Basically, in spirit, something between or combining HotA, VCMI and Era 2 (you should be in control of your options) but grander and with a proffesional budget.
I totally disagree that the youngsters will always be expecting 3D. A little reaction can burst at first maybe but afterwards it is playability that always wins, just look at many simple but million selling tablet games for iPad. People are fed up with awesome looking games which give you cold feet in week two. If you made Tetris for the first time today, it would still sell. Besides, the game itself would be cheaper to produce.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted January 23, 2014 08:29 PM |
|
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted January 23, 2014 09:54 PM |
|
|
DoubleDeck said:
@Storm-giant: I mean as a final product to have 9 factions.
In that case, yes. 8 would still be a fair number, 9 ideal
DoubleDeck said:
Anybody seen this new game: Runemaster.
Looks similar to Heroes only RPG:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctn_X6UYKwc
Without game footage, it's hard to say if it's like Heroes or not. At most you can say that it looks similar, but that's next to nothing
____________
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2014 10:48 PM |
|
|
Clean and nice graphics... me doesn't like. Where's the mystery, the suspense? Imo, that pic at 0:45 with the foggy landscape is the best part in all that video.
Does it look like heroes? Sadly, it does a bit, too nice and shiny graphics spoil all my fun  That's why I like Disciples more than Heroes, that rugged gothic atmosphere that gives me chills... osum.
Still, there is hope. The style they adopted for the DoC cards seems promising.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 24, 2014 12:03 PM |
|
|
artu said:
@jj
I get what you mean, when they designed the first automobiles, they always left the front open, since that was the tradition and habit of the old chariot designs, so that the driver could whip the horses or hold them back. Yet, that was not just unneccesary but sometimes even a flaw in an automobile design... I basically agree to this innovative approach when it comes to inner mechanisms and damage calculation etc etc. However, in a HoMM sequel, I wouldnt want a completely different thing, why name it a sequel then? Remember, the reason H5 returned to H3-like mechanics is because H4 was a failure for most of us, even if we respected it as an adequate game when we imagined it as an independent product, we couldnt stop comparing it to 3 and the winner was obvious for many.
I completely disagree with that because it's looking at things from a wrong angle. The REAL question is this: How come that HoMM 3 is considered the pinnacle of the series, even though it has WAY more flaws than HoMM 4?
The answer should be, that HoMM 3 made a lot of things right when it comes to the WEIGHT of game elements against each others: for example, the relation of the importance of army (7 different creatures with upgrades) in relation to hero influence (value of attack/defense points with a view on damage, troop NUMBERS, and so on), even the amount of sucky skills in relation to the amount of useful things and in combination with the random picking mechanism. The only flaw in HoMM 4 is basically an imbalance with towns, especially with Necro, everything else is more or less fine.
Now, with a view on HoMM IV, if you reduce and condense the difference, then you may come to the conclusion, that the main problem with HoMM IV is NOT the fact that Heroes are taking a more direct role on the BF, but the fact that Heroes REPLACE TROOPS. In HoMM 3 we have 1 Hero plus 7 army slots; in HoMM 4 we have 7 army slots, but no army structure - in fact, in theory as well as in practice - the 7 slots may have any look, from 7 different creature stacks to 7 Heroes. (I suppose, Heroes 3 with Heroes being able to fight as part of a STACK, adding something to the stack would not alienate people, on the contrary).
That said, it makes no sense to take HoMM 3, point to something, say, Magic or skills, say, that was sub-optimal,let's make that better, and do the game again: for that we have WOG, which does everything you'd want with that game.
A HoMM VII MUST NECESSARILY be something WOG can't deliver - otherwise why get it?
Because HoMM 3 is so flawed, but STILL a charm, you'd need a new design that is NOT using the HoMM 3 "engine" (I use that word with a different meaning than the usual in the genre, I mean the abstract engine, "the workings") under the hood.
Quote:
I totally disagree that the youngsters will always be expecting 3D. A little reaction can burst at first maybe but afterwards it is playability that always wins, just look at many simple but million selling tablet games for iPad. People are fed up with awesome looking games which give you cold feet in week two. If you made Tetris for the first time today, it would still sell. Besides, the game itself would be cheaper to produce.
There is no way round 3D, since we had two games with it. The trick is to have 3d AND a great game, and that should be possible.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
