|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 21, 2013 01:49 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
One last thing, regarding stag duchy's representative creature. I think this would serve as a nice model:
http://st.gdefon.com/wallpapers_original/wallpapers/423036_art_olen_maral_roga_les_noch_temno_derevya_xolm_lu_1680x1050_(www.GdeFon.ru).jpg
The difference between this and the sylvan unicorn would be that the unicorn is a "pure creature" while the stag isn't. I think it's enough of a difference to keep sylvan creatures not mixing with haven creatures.
I hope this is useful, some thoughts please  Thank you.
I completely forgot that the problem was about the unicorn dutchy, not the stag dutchy. 
JollyJoker said:
So the bottom line is this: in Ashan you'd have to be able to present a STORY anyway, how it happened that a creature switched or disappeared, but if you CAN come up with a story that DOES explain things, you also CAN switch or change iconic stuff.
I can understand why some people disagree with this. The unicorn is an iconic Sylvan creature. But you also have a Haven dutchy named after it. The only way you can solve this apparent problem is through convincing lore, as JJ said.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted October 21, 2013 02:06 PM |
|
|
Hello Stevie, glad to see you take an interest Lineup diversity and balance is my main concern as they are the basis of the faction. For me, lore is but a tool to spice things up and if it ends up being a liability it should be revised or we should look for a loophole that allows for more interesting results.
Part of why I remain an alternative upgrades fan is that they can customize a unit's abilities. H5 succeeded only partially as most of the alternative upgrades were highly situational or not worth using at all. But those that did matter, made the game fun and helped reinvent the faction. I don't even care if the extra upgrade is a reskin of the original, if it is viable and promotes a different gameplay then it has served its purpose. It would also be nice if heroes with unit specialties can tweak their stats/special so that it feels different from playing them with other heroes. A simple +x to att/def or hp doesn't change much as the feel is pretty much the same.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2013 02:40 PM |
|
|
There would seem to be a very easy way to "customize" creatures.
I'd say, though, that it is important to limit the active abilities - I don't think we need "special attacks" for units - passive abilities are good and haven't really been explored the way they might. I'm no friend of active creature abilities, cooldowns and "charges", because they delay the game and make creatures too important with a view on heroes. The creatures shouldn't have all these fancy attacks - the hero should be giving them, if any.
That said, I don't see a problem with small "ability trees" for at least some creatures.
So when you would build a basic creature dwelling, you'd be asked:
Archers with "Scatter Shot" (the area attack of HoMM 5) or "Maneuver" ability. If you picked "Scatter Shot", when you build the upgrade you might pick between "No Range Penalty" or "Precise Shot", while if you picked "Maneuver", you might pick between "Piercing Shot" and "Ranged Retaliation".
There might no be the same amount of ability options for all creatures and with some there might be none at all, but it would deliver a lot of different creatures without actually needing visual distinction.
In case of a quality difference, a pick of one special over another may incur slight stat differences as well.
HOWEVER - this would make something like re-training necessary, since there might actually be a lot of different types of Marksmen around.
ALSO, and that's important - having all those creature abilities is maybe NOT the way to go.
Instead think about this: Let's say you can only build a simple Archer with a Scatter Short ability, and an upgrade that comes with "No Range Penalty" (keeping the Scatter Short ability).
Now, let's say there is a skill called ARCHERY (a SKILL, not a perk).
That skill might give +10, +20 +40 % ranged damage, but now imagine the possible perks: "Ranged Retaliation"; "Maneuver"; "Precise Shot"; maybe even DOUBLE Shot as an advanced Perk needing a couple of others.
See what I mean?
So the composition here is of utmost importance, and in MY PERSONAL opinion, we should offer THE HERO a broad range of skills and perks and keep unit abilities to those that are either too specific or too powerful for a general hero perk (but keep in mind that the tiers make other perks possible; for example, the Frenzy perk of HoMM 5 (damage +1) could actually be Frenzy I (Core MAX damage +1), Frenzy II (Elite MAX damage +3) and FRENZY III (Champion MAX damage +10); or something like that).
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted October 21, 2013 04:54 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
I'd say, though, that it is important to limit the active abilities - I don't think we need "special attacks" for units - passive abilities are good and haven't really been explored the way they might. I'm no friend of active creature abilities, cooldowns and "charges", because they delay the game and make creatures too important with a view on heroes. The creatures shouldn't have all these fancy attacks - the hero should be giving them, if any.
I agree a lot here.
JollyJoker said:
That said, I don't see a problem with small "ability trees" for at least some creatures.
[...]
I don't like this idea, seems way too complex, I can't see it fittin Heroes
JollyJoker said:
Instead think about this: Let's say you can only build a simple Archer with a Scatter Short ability, and an upgrade that comes with "No Range Penalty" (keeping the Scatter Short ability).
Now, let's say there is a skill called ARCHERY (a SKILL, not a perk).
That skill might give +10, +20 +40 % ranged damage, but now imagine the possible perks: "Ranged Retaliation"; "Maneuver"; "Precise Shot"; maybe even DOUBLE Shot as an advanced Perk needing a couple of others.
See what I mean?
So the composition here is of utmost importance, and in MY PERSONAL opinion, we should offer THE HERO a broad range of skills and perks and keep unit abilities to those that are either too specific or too powerful for a general hero perk (but keep in mind that the tiers make other perks possible; for example, the Frenzy perk of HoMM 5 (damage +1) could actually be Frenzy I (Core MAX damage +1), Frenzy II (Elite MAX damage +3) and FRENZY III (Champion MAX damage +10); or something like that).
Now this is something interesting. Adding passive abilities through hero Skills/perks seems much more fitting. Time to reinvent the (skill)wheel?
____________
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2013 08:10 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 20:54, 21 Oct 2013.
|
Ok, I see that is indeed necessary to expand on some points from my previous post.
When I was talking about a lineup of the player's choise I ment something like this:
Tier 1 building -> A.0, producing Skeletons (melee);
OR to -> B.0, producing Skeleton Archers (ranged);
Tier 1 upg. building A.0 to -> A.1, producing Armoured Skeletons (more defense and hp, shield others passive);
OR to -> A.2, producing Skeleton Bashers (more attack and initiative, bash passive);
Tier 1 upg. building B.0 to -> B.1, producing Skeletal Marksmen (more attack, less initiative, less range penalty, pierce armor passive);
OR to -> B.2, producing Skeletal Harpooner (more defense, entangle/cripple passive);
Tier 2 building -> C.0, producing Ghouls (melee rusher);
OR to -> D.0, producing Zombies (melee tank);
Tier 2 upg. building C.0 to -> C.1, producing Insatiable Ghouls (more attack, more initiative, less hp, devour active)
OR to -> C.2, producing Restless Ghouls (more attack and defense, enraged against living creatures passive);
Tier 2 upg. building D.0 to -> D.1, producing Festering Zombies (more attack, hp and initiative, decaying attack passive);
OR to -> D.2, producing Relentless Zombies (more defense and hp, relentless retaliation passive);
.
.
.
ETC.
(where A.x, B.x, C.x and D.x are the names of the buildings)
See the pattern? You have 2 choises from the beggining, like in H4, and 2 upgrades (for each), like in H5. Every creature has it's ups and downs when compared to its counterpart, such that the player must choose which suits his gameplay better. Note that this wasn't meant to be exhaustive in any way, rather it was more of an example.
Also, I was thinking about the mini-talent system for creatures (or ability tree, name it as you like) that it should be based on point accumulation via experience or some similar mechanism, rather than the system JJ sugested (by choosing the abilities when the respective dwelling is built). This is actually alot like the WoG creature leveling system, only that you get to choose what ability you want for your creature by spending points in the talent branch of your choise.
P.S: Thank you Elvin for your warm welcome And others for your toughts.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2013 09:42 PM |
|
|
I my opinion you waste too much time with creatures and upgrades and makeing them minimally different.
Let's take a somewhat more "important" unit - The Vampire. What do we want to see here? Right: A Life Drain ability and No Enemy Retaliation. And basically that's it. In my mind we don't even need an upgrade here - simply a Vampire that comes with these two abilities. Because, do we really want to pick between a Vampire the enemy CAN retaliate against, but who has a different (PASSIVE, mind you) ability? Or slap an active ability on? What would that gain? It would just make the hero unemployed.
Of course, if had to pick between Vampires and Liches - that would be a tough one, since the creatures are completely different, and THAT is what makes sense - not six marginally different types of Vampire.
On the other hand I do think that it makes no sense to have a fancy unit ability like the Vampire's Life Drain as a spell whether it's called Life Drain or Vampirism, because it allows to make EVERY creature a Vampire, and that's just not right.
Then there is WoG. Based on HoMM 3, unit XP may be a good thing, since it's optional, but generally, unit XP is counter-productive, since it pits two game goals against each other. I mean, you do a lot of the fighting and XP gaining in order to max your production and get the means to build and buy ever more creatures, but if you put them into your army, the quality sinks due to unit XP goes down. Such a thing makes sense only with a troop limit for each slot - but if you HAD a troop limit, you'd have to give the troops to other heroes, and there just isn't enough XP on a map for a lot of heroes - also, I think there would be a bore factor and when you would do the exact same thing a couple of times on each map.
The bottom line is, that I think a conservative approch with creatures works best. Generally one or two options/alternatives are pretty useful to allow generally different setups, but it should NOT be the creatures that are decisive, but getting the right combination of primary and secondary skills, perks and spells. There are so many ways and options to get more skills and perks ...
I mean, imagine you you'd have one Elite pick and one Champion pick.
Let's imagine the HoMM 6 Dungeon with the Hydras as Champion alternative and the HoMM 5 Witches as alternative for the Scorpicores. Now imagine perks that give advantages for Flier/Shooter/Melee Walkers. Say, a passive Air Magic perk that gives +X speed and +Y init for fliers, but also a perk that gives +x Init to shooters plus a slight debuff effect.
If you go for Witches and Hydras the Flyer perk is useless - you need the shooter perk.
Conversely - if you haven't decided about those and have a chance to pick one, that pick may decide you WHAT to build, which means, the skill is here in trying to keep options open so that you may field the best possible combination.
However, if you may have a chance to build for all units the sturdy variant, you can forego defense and see to it that your hero learns attack and speed skills and spells, while if you build offensive variants you will go for defense and HP sskills and spells.
Bottom line is, the ARMY shouldn't be all that customizable, but only so SLIGHTLY - you also do NOT want abilities on them that allow "playing second hero".
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2013 10:59 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 23:12, 21 Oct 2013.
|
Quote:
I my opinion you waste too much time with creatures and upgrades and makeing them minimally different.
Hardly. I don't think a change in the role of a creature has a minimum impact on the gameplay. On the contrary, opting for a role that best suits your strategies could prove to be game-saving. And even if they were just tiny differences it's exactly those that count on the long run.
And I don't understand why're you so focused on the Hero. I was considering heroes' skills and perks the whole time. That's why I think that the idea of improving the creatures a bit is not a ridiculous one, because in no way it makes the role of the hero less important. It actually makes it more important! You get to choose the best synergy between the hero and your troops. If you have archery, then you'll go with more ranged creatures, the skeleton archers. If you want them to shoot hard and alot, then upg. it to Marksmen, if you want a more tactical gameplay, then pick the Harpooner. It's that simple and that efficient. I do not see the Hero loosing his role in the process.
The only thing I'm concerned about is that this might make the game very easy to play, so as Elvin said, balancing it should come first.
Quote:
Then there is WoG. Based on HoMM 3, unit XP may be a good thing, since it's optional, but generally, unit XP is counter-productive, since it pits two game goals against each other. I mean, you do a lot of the fighting and XP gaining in order to max your production and get the means to build and buy ever more creatures, but if you put them into your army, the quality sinks due to unit XP goes down. Such a thing makes sense only with a troop limit for each slot - but if you HAD a troop limit, you'd have to give the troops to other heroes, and there just isn't enough XP on a map for a lot of heroes - also, I think there would be a bore factor and when you would do the exact same thing a couple of times on each map.
I agree. You could easily fix this problem by establishing an experience pool for each type of creature (this should be for upgrades only), rather than having xp per number of creatures. Say.. for Skeletal Marksman 10.000 experience for 1 talent point to spend in the talent tree. Creature has to be in the army to receive exp, this is applied for all creatures in other armies as well as for future recruited creatures. Simple
Quote:
Bottom line is, the ARMY shouldn't be all that customizable, but only so SLIGHTLY - you also do NOT want abilities on them that allow "playing second hero".
Actually when it comes to battles the Hero becomes secondary, while the army becomes primary. You fight a battle with your army, while the hero acts like a bonus provider for the troops + some spells. I agree with the active abilities though, there shouldn't bee too much of them.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2013 11:39 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
Actually when it comes to battles the Hero becomes secondary, while the army becomes primary. You fight a battle with your army, while the hero acts like a bonus provider for the troops + some spells. I agree with the active abilities though, there shouldn't bee too much of them.
I think, that when you invest too much into creatures then the hero becomes secondary - otherwise it's the hero who wins and loses, because of the bonusses and spells that make all the difference.
You see that when you look at HoMM 6 vanilla: For the 3 factions having creatures with resurrection abilities in the beginning, the hero is a lot freer to pick something. With the other 2 the hero's hands a re a lot more tied. That's because the Sisters and Priestesses and the Racial/Spirits do all the work, while the hero bangs away with the default attack - creatures have fancy abilities, hero can act like a creature - end result: CREATURES of Might & Magic.
However, that's NOT it. If it's the creatures than I think AoW does a better job, and there you build armies.
With HoMM, though, the actual troops do not matter - they are just tools, that the hero must learn to wield efficiently. That's when factions came into play - you get different SETS of tools with each one, but THAT in turn makes sense only, if all the factions are significantly different, which isn't the case, if creatures get too customizable.
I mean, the purpose of the game isn't to always build the same hero and customize the creatures to fit to the hero.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 22, 2013 12:18 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 00:43, 22 Oct 2013.
|
I want to polish my tools
Quote:
That's because the Sisters and Priestesses and the Racial/Spirits do all the work, while the hero bangs away with the default attack - creatures have fancy abilities, hero can act like a creature
In this respect, I don't like how H6 turned out myself. But as I said, the ideas that I'm proposing resemble more the WoG creature level system.
Quote:
- end result: CREATURES of Might & Magic.
Well, when you're in combat it actually is Creatures of Might & Magic. The same way as it is Towns of Might & Magic when you build towns, or Exploration of Might & Magic when you explore, etc. These are aspects of the game that make it what it is and all are equally important, so I really don't get why you're so fixated on the Hero so much. This is not a RPG, it's a TBS.
Quote:
I mean, the purpose of the game isn't to always build the same hero and customize the creatures to fit to the hero.
Indeed, the purpose of the game is to be stuck with a single lineup for each faction. How is it "the same" when I'm trying to give the player a choise when it comes to his lineup? If having 4 upgrades for each Tier gets labeled as "the same" then what about 1 single upgrade? Is that better? Come on.. One of the points of having more variability when it comes to creatures is exactly that: to avoid repetability! How can that be "the same" it simply escapes me..
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted October 22, 2013 07:54 AM |
|
|
@Stevie: your lineup does sound cool with having like 6 different options for a Tier 1 creature in a faction...would add to the dynamics and replayability, most of all eleviate boring gameplay sometimes...
The thing is with any heroes game is balancing. The most important aspect I would say. Balancing between the factions. With such a diveristy, balancing would be more difficult...not sure, just my opinion...
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2013 08:39 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
I my opinion you waste too much time with creatures and upgrades and makeing them minimally different.
Agreed.
Quote:
Then there is WoG. Based on HoMM 3, unit XP may be a good thing, since it's optional, but generally, unit XP is counter-productive, since it pits two game goals against each other. I mean, you do a lot of the fighting and XP gaining in order to max your production and get the means to build and buy ever more creatures, but if you put them into your army, the quality sinks due to unit XP goes down.
That's only counter-productive if you intend to just build a huge army, otherwise it's a choice, keep your experienced troops as an elite cadge, or dilute the bonus you've built up by significantly enlarging your army.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2013 09:58 AM |
|
|
MattII said:
Quote:
Then there is WoG. Based on HoMM 3, unit XP may be a good thing, since it's optional, but generally, unit XP is counter-productive, since it pits two game goals against each other. I mean, you do a lot of the fighting and XP gaining in order to max your production and get the means to build and buy ever more creatures, but if you put them into your army, the quality sinks due to unit XP goes down.
That's only counter-productive if you intend to just build a huge army, otherwise it's a choice, keep your experienced troops as an elite cadge, or dilute the bonus you've built up by significantly enlarging your army.
Wait, wait.
It would NOT be counter-productive, if there was a way to somehow a) steer production numbers and b) use the so saved money for other things.
However - as it is, you a) MUST build a specific dwelling to get the creature at all, but the output is fixed and automatic.
On the other hand you get creature XP automatically with all fights.
It would be different, if you could BUY them basically as more upgrades, because money is limited, and what you could do was limited by the amount of money you made.
The creature upgrades only mean that your army gets better without the necessity to restock - but that's been the main goal anyway: maximizing the money you can put into building up -> minimizing the amount of money to put into creature-buying.
Another bad thing is, that things are now interchangeable, since there are 3 different factors:
a) Hero with Commander
b) Troop quality
c) Troop quantity
a) and b) is superior to a) and c), which sucks, because it means your untrained troops are worth squat: you don't want to use them with your main, and they don't help you much defend against a high-quality attacker. They are reduced to "replacements".
The bottom line is a fairly easy one: WoG triples the importance of collecting XP: not only will it help your hero, it will also make your creatures better AND your commander. More XP than opponent therefore means not only a better hero, but also either better or more troops and a better commander, which seems somewhat unfair.
There is another imbalance - attacking more difficult targets may result in higher losses, but also in higher XP gain; losses, hoever, can now easily replaced, since troop strength doesn't depend only on numbers but also on quality, and 50 troops with quality X may be better or just as well than 70 with quality Y.
THIS in turn makes all movement-related bonuses even more decisive than before.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted October 23, 2013 10:02 AM |
|
|
Personally I dislike creature XP system for a Heroes game. As it was tried in WoG...you stop buying creatures because you want to level up the ones in your army? Not to mention that leaves the player with more resources than he should, so resource management is less important than ever
____________
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2013 10:25 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 10:27, 23 Oct 2013.
|
I already answered these problems in one of my posts above:
Stevie said:
Quote:
Then there is WoG. Based on HoMM 3, unit XP may be a good thing, since it's optional, but generally, unit XP is counter-productive, since it pits two game goals against each other. I mean, you do a lot of the fighting and XP gaining in order to max your production and get the means to build and buy ever more creatures, but if you put them into your army, the quality sinks due to unit XP goes down. Such a thing makes sense only with a troop limit for each slot - but if you HAD a troop limit, you'd have to give the troops to other heroes, and there just isn't enough XP on a map for a lot of heroes - also, I think there would be a bore factor and when you would do the exact same thing a couple of times on each map.
I agree. You could easily fix this problem by establishing an experience pool for each type of creature (this should be for upgrades only), rather than having xp per number of creatures. Say.. for Skeletal Marksman 10.000 experience for 1 talent point to spend in the talent tree. Creature has to be in the army to receive exp, this is applied for all creatures in other armies as well as for future recruited creatures. Simple
You should also understand that my whole idea has one main point: the player can improve his creature's quality.
I don't care how that gets done, be it via my point based talent system or anything else, be it through experience gain.. I don't really care as long as it's balanced, worth it and accessible to each player.
Now, are there any objections to this?
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2013 10:41 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
The bottom line is a fairly easy one: WoG triples the importance of collecting XP: not only will it help your hero, it will also make your creatures better AND your commander. More XP than opponent therefore means not only a better hero, but also either better or more troops and a better commander, which seems somewhat unfair.
Since we're not discussing the commander, I don't know why you brought that up. As for quantity vs quality, I agree it's not an easy thing to program, but there's another dilemma there, accepting enough new creatures to bulk out your forces so that you can survive running into a magic hero, because while better attack and defence is good when you go against another might hero, it means squat if you go against a magic hero, because all magic cares about it Hp. In fact, against a magic hero, you'd probably be better having loads of green troops than a few experienced ones, because even though your units have, say 50% more Hp than green units, twice as many green units able to take twice as much damage, whereas your elit units are only able to take 50% more damage.
Quote:
There is another imbalance - attacking more difficult targets may result in higher losses, but also in higher XP gain; losses, hoever, can now easily replaced, since troop strength doesn't depend only on numbers but also on quality, and 50 troops with quality X may be better or just as well than 70 with quality Y.
Well that's great for field battles, but I'm willing to bet that those 70 green troops have more Hp, which is actually kind of important, not only when facing a magic hero, but also in a siege situation.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2013 11:11 AM |
|
|
I would agree with you for HoMM 2, since we had the same damage spell values with vastly lower HP production, but in HoMM 3?
Anyway. I wouldn't say that WoG isn't fun, especially when you been at it for 15 years now, but generally unit XP for HoMM is, in my eyes a dead end feature.
If you compare this with AoW, you'll see immediately that in THAT game MORE than two XP-upgrade-levels for units would not only be no problem, but quite probably pretty cool. That's because the game is set up completely different, since not only there is troop upkeep, but also no stacks, but single units (in III this will change to the Panzer General principle, a change in detail, but not in principle), that you have to produce at the expense of not being able to do anything else in your town.
I think, that a feature like that would be great for a Stronghold Racial - but that's it. Other than that, all unit-upgrades MUST come from buildings, because otherwise the economy makes no sense anymore.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted October 23, 2013 12:46 PM |
|
|
|
Agree with JJ - all unit-upgrades must not only come from buildings but also from buildings linked to town growth too. Troop numbers shuold still remain important in Heroes.
|
|
Sandro400
Promising
Supreme Hero
Shadow of Death
|
|
posted October 23, 2013 01:10 PM |
|
|
I think the idea with 6 different creatures in a tier is a great one theoretically, although it's really hard to implement, imo. Let's have a constant number of factions, say, 6 - yes, we'll have illusional unit diversity, and maybe it can become a real divercity, but you need to really make all alt-grades interesting and pleasing, that's difficult to do. With the flow of time there may be found an "optimal" build everyone will play with. JJ idea about having Liches OR Vampires is really good and I like it, partially it's implemented in MMHO.
P.S.: Just look at DoC. There's a really little amount of heroes with different playable decks (Dhamiria slowpoke\Arbiter Lock or Ariana creature/Mill (later is almost gone from the meta)). Most of the cards even don't have much play, 'cos some of them are great, some of them aren't.
|
|
Locksley
Promising
Famous Hero
Wielding a six-string
|
|
posted October 23, 2013 01:56 PM |
|
Edited by Locksley at 14:03, 23 Oct 2013.
|
I like what I see here but since the discussion has grown too epic I can’t comment everything I’d like to right now. War-overlord’s work is very interesting and I will return with more comments another time, probably when Elvin adds more faction cards. Many good ideas from Stevie and Vexon too, maybe some things take focus from the “advanced chess” at the game’s core, but I think most of the new ideas can have a function in one form or another.
Duchies’ unique units
Since each of the Haven duchies is based on a European region one could add extra creatures based on that region’s historical warfare, folk tales and/or heraldry. It’s like in Age of Kings where all civilizations have the same units + 1-2 unique units. It doesn’t have to be a unique creature from a duchy specific building; it could also be a unique upgrade.
Greyhound – This duchy is inspired by France which had much focus knights -> Unique second upgrade to mounted warriors (1:lancer 2:cavalier 3: paladin)
Unicorn – With a capital named Yorwick they’re rather English -> Archers are upgraded to Longbowmen (no range penalty), as an alternative to crossbowmen
Wolf – They’re a bit German -> Swordsmen second upgrade “Teutonic knights” (in AoE style)? More interesting: Zealots from the holy city of Flammschrein, making Wolf a slightly more magical duchy?
Stag/Falcon – Somewhat Irish/Scottish character names, and falcons and stags are animals related to hunting -> Unique spearman upgrade (def. formation and throwing spears?) Wikipedia on Gaelic warfare: "Irish warfare was for centuries centred around the Ceithearn (pronounced "Kern"), light skirmishing infantry who harried the enemy with missiles before charging."
Bull – Mobile cavalry inspired by condottieri companies? Heavy infantry guarding Nelsham’s Scar? Leonardo da Vincis tank?
Griffin Empire – unique upgrade to griffins (Imperial griffins)
Raven dynasty (ruling the Griffin dynasty’s homeland) -> Griffins have higher weekly growth, cost less and have higher morale.
Necropolis style
I think the story have room for both a “Babylonian-Egyptian-Book of the Dead thing” and a “Frankensteinish-neogothic aesthetic”, as War-overlord put it. Perhaps not early on, when Necropolis is a Wizard sub faction, but later the cult could spread and take different forms.
From the Heroes 5 introduction to Necropolis:
"Country/Kingdom: None (they are a secret society hidden within Academy and Haven)“
In the old core of Heresh there would still be H6 style Necropolises but closer to and within the Empire, especially in remote places the Necromancers would’ve had taken over and corrupted abandoned castles.
War-overlord said:
And with that, slightly disconnected segue, we come to the second point. The whole deathcult thing. Look, I get it. It's not that bad and thing to make Necromancers be. A cult who worships death, because they fear it (death) so much that they'd rather spend an etenrity in unlife. And I get that you want them to come across as: "Oooooh. Look at us, we don't have no emotions no more. Feeling things is for suckers."-yadayadayada. Fine. But then do it well. Make them uppity, snappy and hypocritical about it. Have them feel feelings, so they can deny them. Because they way they are written now, they come across as depressed. Which is exactly what you do not want them to be. Because if they were depressed, they would have welcomed the relief of death.
That would’ve been great and it have a lot of potential to humorous writing.
Stronghold
The Sahaar Stronghold looks very promising.
The proposed faction ability based on the connection to the Ancestors too.
War-overlord said:
The problem here is that Stronghold encompasses a lot of creatures, more than can fit into the 7 slot maximum. Stronghold suffers from an overabundance of cool creatures. It's perhaps not one of my stronger gripes, but I am sure that everyone can think of more than 7 they would like to see in Stronghold. And only one Orc is not an option. And it still leaves creatures by the wayside if it were.
Many of you had the idea that lot of cool creatures -> alternative upgrades.
There could be an Orc warrior at core level, and only if you’ve built it’s dwelling you can make the choice between “hyena rider” and “vulture rider” at elite level.
Sometimes I think that less symmetrical factions would be a fresh way to renew the game. Some alternative units like in H4, alternative upgrades like in H5 and a mix of upgradeable and non-upgradable units like in H2. Elvin said:
Stronghold's magic protection had a most impressive evolution from H5 to H6. Orcs used to be most vulnerable to crowd control which was partially solved by giving them high initiative/mobility units, an initiative-boosting rage and abilities like war fury(immunity to mind spells and morale reduction from the moment you deal damage). For the first time it felt like the orcs had an inherent resistance to enemy spells. Ubi found the way to make them playable against strong magic, without giving them a dispel! Even unfettered only shook off movement, initiative, morale and damage debuffs. And that is how I like it, having ways to endure or weaken magic instead of direct counters. Hopefully the trend will continue.
Yes.Elvin said:
Apart from the barbarians we also have shamans and Ubi willing, it would be great to have some unique skills/abilities tied to them. Rituals, totems, ancestor worship, Father Sky and Mother Earth..
I think that is an interesting approach that added much to the game even in Heroes VI. Though the Aztek Orcs in H6 could have had more focus on sacrifices than it had (which was none). The Orcs in other parts of the Ashan are inspired by other cultures where sacrifice was less common. It would make sense that different peoples have varying expertise in different aspects of their common “Orc magic.”
|
|
War-overlord
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Presidente of Isla del Tropico
|
|
posted October 23, 2013 05:08 PM |
|
|
Regarding the current discussion about creature variety. I have little to add, but I will do so anyway for the sake that my opinions might spark more debate or provide more insights.
In regards to Stevie's idea of having two choices within a tier(asuming we get 7 tiers back, of which I am not an advocate) and alternative upgrades for each of those choices, I have to agree with JJ & Matt. Whereas the idea of having 7 tiers of 6 creatures each for each faction results in great variety, is sound in concept. It isn't so in practice. Having 42 creatures in one faction is spreading oneself very thin as most upgrades are indeed only marginally different in role compared to their basic form. I believe Matt will concur with me on this, as we have tried such a thing 6 or 7 years ago in an Altar Competition to design a then possible heroes6. At least I believe it was Matt and someone else who left the board during the competition. After we had finished one faction and starting on another, we were already recycling a handfull of ideas because battlefield rolls are limited. We never made more than 2 factions before the competition was called off.
In regards to creature experience I can do little more than mimic arguments already given. Creature experience being diluted by adding more of them, results in a very difficult cost-benefit analysis. One which I am not keen to make as the arguments for both are solid and no more solid than the other given that one knows not what to expect.
In general I like to remark that balance is a b1tch, no matter what you do. And as much as one needs to take it in consideration, one needs not to limit itself by it too much. Because it will be exceptionally difficult for a small ammount of units and it will also be exceptionally difficult for a lagre ammount of units.
In response to the subject Locksley brought up, the various distinct subfactions of each main faction, I have since come up with a basic idea of how to deal with that. This idea is by all means not perfect and not worked out for every faction. But it incorporates my idea of loosening the 7 creature max and the idea of sub-factions floating about.
The basics of it is this. Each faction has a basis of 2 Core creatures and 2 Elites.(Keeping the 3 tier structure) Every creature producable in towns has an upgrade. Now every faction has a set number of subfactions, I say 3 would/should/could be feasible. One must build a certain building to be able to choose among the subfactions. Each subfaction will add the ability to build the dwellings of 1 core, 1 elite and 1 champion. Also alligning oneself with one of the subfactions would change the skins of the basic units. Such a subfaction-alliance would be cancelable, with a resource and/or time penalty and would result in the removal of the dwellings of said subfaction.
Now obviously it is easier to picture such things with an example. And for sake of the example, let us disregard what such creatures would upgrade into or what their exact role is on the battlefield. And since I like them so much and it was the example of a faction that had too many creatures let us take Stronghold. (also forgive me for my lack of knowledge of lore introduced in DoC and my mangling of it)
The basis of Stronghold would consist of the Core Creatures of Goblins and Orc Warriors and the Elites of Orc Shamans and Centaurs.
Then there would be 3 subfactions. Them being, Pao Island Orcs, Sahaar Orcs and Ranaar Orcs.
The Pao Island Orcs would add the Core Harpies, the Elite Orc Jaguar Warriors and the Champion Cyclops.
The Sahaar Orcs would add the Core Gnolls, the Elite Orc Spellsmashers and the Champion Vulture Riders.
The Ranaar Orcs would add the Core Dire Hyenas, the Elite Orc Aurochs Cavalry and the Champion Wyverns.
I think such a thing could be feasible and it would increase the possible ammount of creatures (diregarding upgrades) from 7 to 13. Which is nearly double.
____________
Vote El Presidente! Or Else!
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
