|
|
ThatRedSarah
Famous Hero
Adventuring Hero
|
posted March 04, 2015 10:04 PM |
|
|
For the lazy 
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted March 04, 2015 10:09 PM |
|
|
ThatRedSarah said:
For the lazy
Very good. If you want to, we can dig into this matter a little bit deeper and calculate the mean number of favoured Magic schools and other stuff like that. 
|
|
ThatRedSarah
Famous Hero
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 04, 2015 10:24 PM |
|
|
Pawek_13 said:
Very good. If you want to, we can dig into this matter a little bit deeper and calculate the mean number of favoured Magic schools and other stuff like that.
Thanks  More thorough and detailed calculations do sound nice, but i think we need to wait for further details about the magic system in general, the spell distributions and the amount of different spells before we venture any deeper in to this topic Otherwise the effort will probably (pun ) be wasted...
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted March 04, 2015 10:47 PM |
|
|
@Stevie: The thing is, the Magic champion will benefit more from your Magic hero than the Might champ, so there is no choice really. If you take the Titans they may last less than Simurghs.
Not to mention you will most likely focus on the creatures that benefit more from Magic A/D of Elite & Core tier, which kind of sucks.
Stevie said:
Oh really. I'd say it's exactly the opposite. If you were a Magic Hero, according to the Simurgh's abilities, you would never build the Titan. Even less so when your Spellpower and Knowledge give the Titan nothing.
Face Sylanna's Fury, on a rush-swift attack, and you have lost the battle before you were able to cast a third spell - then you may regret not choosing the sturdy, powerhouse Titans 
____________
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 04, 2015 11:46 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 23:49, 04 Mar 2015.
|
Storm-Giant said:
If you take the Titans they may last less than Simurghs.
(...)
then you may regret not choosing the sturdy, powerhouse Titans
You literally managed to contradict yourself in the same reply. Or rather, you changed the viewpoint to see either the downside or the upside, depending how it suits you.
I'll repeat myself, again: If creatures would scale their power according to the hero's Attack, Defense, Spellpower and Knowledge, as opposed to only Attack and Defense which heavily favors Might heroes, then Magic Heroes would become relevant. That's all there is to it.
I do not believe that having those four primary attributes translating to creatures into Might Attack, Might Defense, Magic Attack and Magic Defense streamlines decision making, not any more that the current system does. But if that's really such a huge impediment, then keep only two dimensions on creatures and things would look like this: Attack, Spellpower  creature Attack; Defense, Knowledge creature Defense.
Easy. Tho I personally prefer 4 hero attributes to translate into 4 creature attributes, rather than 2. Much more room for variation.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 09:09 AM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 09:09, 05 Mar 2015.
|
Stevie said:
I'll repeat myself, again: If creatures would scale their power according to the hero's Attack, Defense, Spellpower and Knowledge, as opposed to only Attack and Defense which heavily favors Might heroes, then Magic Heroes would become relevant. That's all there is to it.
I consider it a pity that you think about it that way  ... you had a good idea about 'potential'. By giving Might Heroes an active toolbox rather than a passive toolbox, it solves several issues:
- It gives them an active role during combat;
- It provides more tactical decisions during combat;
- It brings Might Heroes and Magic Heroes more inline with one another;
So why did you decide to steer away from it and instead put the Magic Heroes into the corner of a passive toolbox?
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 09:35 AM |
|
Edited by kiryu133 at 09:36, 05 Mar 2015.
|
|
might-heroes are generals leading their troops to battle. them giving passive baonuses makes a lot of sense and imo this should not change. magic heroes are mages unleashing arcane destruction or whatever on their foes. they are inherently active while might heroes are inherently passive. i don't want might heroes to turn into mages just using different spells. that would be a huge step-back (and my biggest complaint about h6 skills). just make spells scale better into lategame, ok?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 10:11 AM |
|
|
I can't believe that you still debate "Might and Magic" heroes, as if that was some kind of universal rule.
No matter what kind of hero you are, you will always strive to get a couple of "active abilities", which means, you will want to ACT with the hero, no matter their stats, which makes a lot of sense, since if the heroes just stand around, they are boring and could just be a collection of artefacts or whatever.
As I said a couple of times, pre-defining hero stats so that they develop into either "might" or "magic" doesn't make sens.
What does make sense, is that heroes develop their stats accordig to their skills and abilities, and since you will always try and obtain a mix, you will get the hero you want and make.
Add to that a class system a la H4 - that is, heroes develop into classes instead of starting as one, depending on their skill picks, and you are there. You just have to make sure that the extremer classes (that are heavily might or magic are worth playing and fun, although there is no necessity to balance this: in MP play there will always be better and worse options, due to the fact that there are different setups and factions an so on).
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 10:29 AM |
|
|
|
i agree with that, i'm mostly saying i dislike the idea of a might spell book. if i go pure might i'm a general. i improve my troops. I fight through my troops. no general in his/her right mind would go down and fight (i'm also against hero-attack) but i agree that magic shouldn't be closed of to might-heroes. they should be able to hybridize however much they want and the build should not be pre-determined. but a might-hero should be focused on improving friendly troops while magic heroes focus on destroying enemy troops. hybridizing as much as you can/want of course. actives should be reserved to magic is what i'm saying.
|
|
Zombi_Wizzard
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 10:35 AM |
|
|
I still think Magic attack and defence on creatures is a good solution, if only partial.
What I mean is: Some creatures would have magical attack some might attack, some mixed. Most would have both defences, and magical defence would reduce effectiveness of spells (less damage, less duration), as well as reducing magical damage. Soellpower would increase magical atack of creatures, while knowledge would increase their magical defence.
voila, magic heroes boost army passivly, problem solved 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 10:47 AM |
|
|
|
No, you just create a new one, since now might stats would be underpowered as magic stats would both boost creatures and give te means to cat spells - or you'd need to create a "might currency" for casting something or new stats for Mana.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 11:26 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 11:32, 05 Mar 2015.
|
|
ThatRedSarah
Famous Hero
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 11:32 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
No, you just create a new one, since now might stats would be underpowered as magic stats would both boost creatures and give te means to cat spells - or you'd need to create a "might currency" for casting something or new stats for Mana.
Exactly what i was thinking. If both might and magic heroes are able to increase their creature stats and in addition the magic hero is able to wreck havoc with spells the system is not balanced. And if might heroes are given more active abilities they just basically turn into "different kind of magic heroes", which would nullify the diversity in hero types.
I think the old system is the best. Might increases stats and is more passive in battles. Magic is more active, but is balanced by weaker stats. With this system you can build a strictly might or magic hero, or create some hybrid between them while being good at both but not a master in either.
This, in my opinion, brings a hole lot of tactical options and variety to hero builds depending on the map, opponent and other case-by-case circumstances.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 11:44 AM |
|
|
ThatRedSarah said:
Exactly what i was thinking. If both might and magic heroes are able to increase their creature stats and in addition the magic hero is able to wreck havoc with spells the system is not balanced. And if might heroes are given more active abilities they just basically turn into "different kind of magic heroes", which would nullify the diversity in hero types.
I think the old system is the best. Might increases stats and is more passive in battles. Magic is more active, but is balanced by weaker stats. With this system you can build a strictly might or magic hero, or create some hybrid between them while being good at both but not a master in either.
This, in my opinion, brings a hole lot of tactical options and variety to hero builds depending on the map, opponent and other case-by-case circumstances.
once again i'm 1-up'd by someone explaining my point way better than i do. 
need to get better at this explanation-biz...
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 11:47 AM |
|
|
Also, if you balance this and it works - the heroes are more or less alike. There is simply no difference anymore, except in the creatures they boost and in the spells they cast.
Doesn't GAIN or ADD anything.
Again: Pre-defining (whether in a probability-based way like in 3 and 5 or fixed like in 6) heroes's primary stats just makes no sense whatsoever.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 12:23 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 12:25, 05 Mar 2015.
|
Now this is really rich of you, JJ. You point out the problem of how Might passive is better than Magic active. Then you say that it would be good if Magic would get some passives too. Then you say how there isn't really a comparison point between them. And now you say that they are more or less the same?
Excuse me, but what do you really want in the end? Wasn't the point of it to make Magic heroes as relevant as Might ones? Care to explain how you'd do that in a better way?
JollyJoker said:
Doesn't GAIN or ADD anything.
ADD - Magic passive
GAIN - Magic hero relevance
JollyJoker said:
Again: Pre-defining (whether in a probability-based way like in 3 and 5 or fixed like in 6) heroes's primary stats just makes no sense whatsoever.
How does this solve the problem at hand? You keep saying this when it's at best a side issue. Hero development bears no relevance if heroes end up in the same positions where the Might passive is superior to Magic active.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 12:42 PM |
|
|
I really haven't got the patience to explain things over and over again.
When you make might stats and magic stats basically the same thing, only for different spells and creatures, in reality the difference between "might" and "magic" cease to be meaningful, because they play alike.
The main problem is that you would want to FORCE a very specific primary stat distribution onto half of the heroes and a very specific different one to the other half with only slight differences in-between, and expect this to end balanced, no matter the skills picked.
If the primary skill development follows your skill and ability picks, you'll get the hero you want, and it's up to you to find the best combo. You can also introduce class-bonusses to make up for builds that may lack in some departments, that is, you can balance this way better, since the primary and secondary skills are not independent from each other anymore: If you want to heap passive might stats onto your hero you simply CAN'T pick magic skills, because picking them will give you MAGIC stats. See that?
STILL, that's not solving the problem of having magic skills that don't stack. It solves only that you can BALANCE IT - you still need the proper skills and abilities.
|
|
Zombi_Wizzard
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 12:56 PM |
|
|
well in that case ... what's the problem? it works like it should then. It's just a matter of tweeking numbers and moving spells around diferent schools, and there you go.
might hero has half of skill three available, magic hero the other half ... you could choose mix once you level up and end up with hybrid
|
|
ThatRedSarah
Famous Hero
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 12:56 PM |
|
|
Actually i think there is no need to even try to make the factions, heroes and the whole game equally balanced all the way through the game. To be honest i even think the system should be purposely unbalanced across the games timeline. In a way the advantage shifts back and forth from player to another during different phases of the timeline.
In the graph below i have (very quickly and without putting any real thought to the curves) demonstrated the "relative peak performance curves" as a function of time.
What can be seen from the graphs is how different factions behave at different times in the game. Stronghold (H3) running around with Behemoth in week one and Castle (H3) crushing your troops in the end game if you leave them alone for too long. Also with hero types, the might heroes tend to rule in the long games and magic heroes have the advantage of effective spells in the quick/mid games. And when you add the heroes special abilities to the basic might/magic type you end up with even more different curves (in example H3 Shakti with bonuses to troglodytes will achieve his relative peak performance sooner than say Gunnar with logistics, but the longer the game becomes the more powerful Gunnar gets).
Now when choosing your faction, magic/might hero and hero specialty you end having tons of different combined "relative peak performance curves". With these comes the information of when to attack and when to wait at home. Even better if you have an idea of your opponents strategy so you can compare the relative strengths at different times and try to find the sweet spot of your high performance and your opponents weaker performance.
By making factions, heroes stats and spells/warcries develop in an overall balanced rhythm throughout the whole game (linear progression) just makes things very boring in my opinion. Games like these need this orderly unbalance that shifts the momentum around during the game. With this the real strategy skills of the player come forward and we can separate the noobs from the pros .
This balanced linear progression that many people and many games support nowadays is, in my opinion, poison for the variety of tactical options and therefore replay value of the game itself. It’s a slippery slope that seems great at first glance, but will only end in great disappointments and boring gameplay in the long run.
(after reading through the finished post i am pretty sure this rambling does not have much to do with the current topic, but what ever )
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2015 01:21 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 13:23, 05 Mar 2015.
|
@JJ,
Well then, let me lay it out for you - in your system, there will NEVER be a point where your hero couldn't get ANY skill build that he wanted, even if that meant having 5 Might skills and 1 Magic. No matter how you think about it, you will still be able to take Light with Haven Might hero, even if that would be in the early beginning, then max out on Might skills like Attack, Defense, Leadership, etc. And if you CAN'T do that, as you imply, then your entire system is bullsnow from A to Z. So either way, it fails. It doesn't solve anything, it's just another route to the same outcome, pre-defined or not.
Then, if attributes follow as you say, the ONLY thing that you would accomplish is Magic going for a Might build as much as possible, because that would mean they'd get more Attack and Defense which are IMMEDIATELY USEFUL PASSIVES for their creatures. Because if they went for a Magic build, they'd get POTENTIALLY USEFUL ACTIVES that require the currency of one turn to cast. So it would NOT make Magic heroes relevant, it would only provide an ever bigger incentive to go for one Magic school to cast a spell each turn then go Might exclusively because passives are that much better, irrespective of Might or Magic hero classes.
As an example in your system, a Haven Might Hero with Light, Attack, Defense, and Logistics would wreck any Magic hero with say Light, Earth, Fire and Prime Magic. I hope you do recognize the example, and how you've made no progress in the attempt to provide an alternative.
Pre-defined or not, if the outcome is the same where Might passives are heavily favored compared to Magic actives, then it doesn't really matter how you get there.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
| |
|
|
This MEGA THREAD is pages long: 
