|
|
Protolisk
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted October 09, 2014 03:26 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Question for those who favor the HoMM 5 system:
If there are no turns - how long do spells and effects last (buffs, debuffs)?
Most likely, a "standard turn" is the initiative for a standard Hero. So, when a spell or ability is activated for 3 turns, it'd be active for 3 turns relative to a "normal" hero's turn. So, while a creature may take more than one action per "turn", there is still a standard.
Also, a main problem with H5's system was the fact that things like Zombies and Golems and such "slow" units didn't have much of a chance. Furies could run circles around them.
A cheap fix would have been to add say 10 to every single unit's initiative. That way, the difference between Blood Fury (14) and a zombie (6), instead of being a 2.333 multiplier, meaning a Fury takes at least 2 turns before the Zombie can react, would instead be 24 and 16, being a 1.5 multiplier, or just a fury taking 3 turns for the zombies 2. Sure, the Blood Fury will still be speedy, but not so much that the zombie is rendered useless.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 03:32 PM |
|
|
Of course, the other system is the 'safer' option, as it has been proved and tested so many times in the past.
To me, both choices are good.
____________
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 03:34 PM |
|
|
|
I'm sure fixing the problems experienced with H5 is entirely possible. Keeping initiative system relevant with no huge discrepancies and influenced by spells/perks, that's what I want.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 03:50 PM |
|
|
RMZ1989 said:
JollyJoker said:
Question for those who favor the HoMM 5 system:
If there are no turns - how long do spells and effects last (buffs, debuffs)?
There were turns in H5, you can see it when you click at unit status how long something lasts but it was pretty complicated system because of initiative, ATB bar etc.
Just because system wasn't perfect in H5, it doesn't mean that they can't rework it and make it a lot better.
Yes, you have to define a "turn". If you don't want each and every unit have their own turn defined from one moment of acting to the next (which would ask the question, whether a spell should last X CASTER turns or X RECEIVER turns), you will have to define something like a standard turn, which would be the amount of space on the TAB bar that is equal to a creature with an initiative of 10.
From the HoMM 5 Game Rules:
Quote:
As a side note, creatures can be affected by spells or effects lasting for a
certain duration (Weakness, Endurance, Freeze, etc.). This duration is
expressed in "turns" in the creature information panel displaying the
active effects. These turns are calculated based on an Initiative of 10,
whatever the caster and the target. They are not the creature's turns.
For example, a Mass Endurance spell cast on Sprites (Initiative 14) and
Treants (Initiative 7), with a duration of 10 turns will last the same time
on both. But the Sprite will have 14 actions during this time, while the Treants will have only 7 (not counting waiting or any other modifying effect).
This means, though, that buffs and debuffs (their actual game value) is ALSO modified by Initiative.
This becomes clear when you consider the effect of casting a spell like Righteous Might, which gives increased attack value.
In turn it means, that all Initiative modifiers are actually MASTER MODIFIERS, since they indirectly boost everything else.
Then there is the No-Retaliation effect. In order to avoid No-Retal units to simply keep out of range until a double turn materializes, the BF must either be relatively small; OR (and that is a possibility as well), you have to give the units with low Initiatve a HIGH speed (and vice versa), which is somewhat silly when it comes as a general rule, although it makes a RTS kind of sense: the farther a unit moves the more time it needs for it.
So bottom line for ATB-bar is - and HoMM 5 actually demonstrates that - that INITIATIVE is by far the most important stat, and if you check that funny thread about highest possible Initiative in HoMM 5 (the guy coming up with 50, but having not factored in everything), it should be obvious that the system has a lot of problems and would have to be restricted in a way that would make it rather boring, actually, to work.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 04:06 PM |
|
|
|
Which brings as to the conclusion: "to hell with H5 initiative system"...
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 04:27 PM |
|
|
Well, it would probably be possible: have Initiative multiplied with 10 and keep units in a range of, say 80-120 base initiative, then let all changes of initiative buffs/debuffs take place in small-digit increments: Haste with Basic skill might give +5 Init, advanced + 10, expert +20. Or some such.
But actually the aim was to more or less keep a tight structure in order to avoid units acting double and triple before the slower units do.
But if THAT is the aim, why not just keep the simple system, each unit acts once per turn, Initiative defining order, with simple figures and simple additions. I mean, if units have Initiative values between, say, 10 and 50 and a Haste spell gives +10 or +20 or some such, you can easily figure out what will change, especially when the "Initiave bar" shows the actual Initiative of the units.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 04:58 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 18:03, 09 Oct 2014.
|
I think an easy fix could be this:
Rules:
I. One turn equals to 10 Initiative.
II. Maximum hero/creature initiative is 20. Meaning 2 actions in 1 turn.
III. Minimum hero/creature initiative is 5. Meaning 0.5 actions in 1 turn.
IV. Hero/Creatures' base initiative ranges between 10 and 15.
What you achieve:
- You set the boundaries. The maximum differences achievable in initiative equals in turns:
- 0.5 unbuffed;
- 1 buffed;
- 1 debuffed;
- 1.5 buffed/debuffed.
- You can work within those boundaries and set the initiatives of the units accordingly.
- You can set spells/perks that affect initiative to work according to:
- the standard 10 initiative equating one turn;
- hero/creature's basic initiative (preferred).
- Over time buffs and debuffs work according to the 10 initiative standard.
Think this is pretty easy and efficient. In the first phase of the game creatures and heroes will work with 10 - 15 initiative, meaning a difference of 0.5 which is not that significant. In the later stages tho the difference will increase and become a decisive factor. The limits make it so there is no point when that becomes ridiculous. Creatures will be able to come twice in one turn maximum and once at two turns minimum. That's a considerable improvement from Heroes 5 I'd say. 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 05:49 PM |
|
|
Makes no sense to discuss this with people who miss a basic knowledge in math, so that they can grasp the ramifications of their suggestions.
So a simple question might actually serve better.
What would be the advantage of a system like that over a simple one-action-per-turn? In which way would it be better?
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 06:09 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 18:24, 09 Oct 2014.
|
Excess initiative accumulates to give you extra actions per turn.
Initiatives translates into actions frequency and not only first move.
Divide 15 initiative into 2 different turns, when 10 initiative makes one turn, genius.
|
|
LucPatenaude
Famous Hero
Owning all 7 Heroes games
|
posted October 09, 2014 06:10 PM |
|
|
Very easy to answer, JJ.
JollyJoker said:
Makes no sense to discuss this with people who miss a basic knowledge in math, so that they can grasp the ramifications of their suggestions.
So a simple question might actually serve better.
What would be the advantage of a system like that over a simple one-action-per-turn? In which way would it be better?
This is a Computer extremely complex game that is not as simplified and locked down to one single battle. Such as Chess. At Chess, both players have their turn after the first one has made his/hers.
Your approach implies doing the same for MMHeroes 7 but, all units of your side moves then the other player's side moves all of its units.
This will never happen. Reason: Defeats completely the purpose of the initiative of the units. Plus, undermines the current situation of the height in which the morale of such units are in, at that specific battle. Morale will decide if the initiative is true or false. Moreover, Morale will give power of will to rather be willing to move and attack or, not.
How would it be implemented better than an ATB bar? Just use the level of morale the troops are in + how fast the unit can move on the battlefield. Therefore, the secondary skill of Leadership would, now, be put to good use and, the spell of Haste being brought back as a very useful means to rather mass 'move your damned butts' to all of your troops or to a single unit's serious lack of physical prowess at moving itself on any possible battlefield(speeds of 3 and 4, mainly).
Have a nice day, buddy.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 10:01 PM |
|
|
And I was gonna make a poll on this one Will add it to the feature showdown as I find it a very important vote. As for my opinion..
I prefer the atb bar to be honest. It was unique, exciting and made battles far more interesting. There were five problems however:
One, unit initiative values were too diverse. A difference between 10 and 14 was a whooping 40%, there were even units who could move twice or thrice as fast as others even if that was not a common occurence. The differences should be smaller and for that the scale of H6 initiative would work better.
Two, the spells, luck and morale greatly amplified the already considerable impact of the initiative. Luck up to 50% chance for double damage, morale up to 50% chance for +50% atb, haste and slow at 40%.. Just crazy. I should note however that testing with tweaked values(luck at 50% damage, morale at 30% atb and haste/slow at 20%) gave far more balanced games.
Three, the starting atb value ranging between 0-25% was plain silly. I support a little randomness when facing units of the same or similar initiative but it should be at 5% or so. A 8 init marksman should not be possible to play before a 10 init hunter, no matter how rare that is.
Four, playing first or second could decide the game depending on the magic you used. A light user playing right before a dark user was a recipe for disaster. Similarly, a dark user playing right before a light one was a horrible disadvantage. That might have worked better if each spell had a different casting time so that you could plan your atb positioning better. Also the spell design plays a huge role, especially if there are hard counters. Like haste overwriting slow, taking you from +40% to -40%. That's 80% initiative reduction!
Five, there was no reliable way to tell where your hero would end up after casting a spell so you had to make an educated guess and improvise. That should be easy to fix however. If hovering the cursor over an initiative-affecting spell showed the updated atb positions, then everything would be clear.
All of the above issues can be remedied so one cannot argue that dynamic initiative is inherently imbalanced or otherwise inferior to standard turns.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 10:28 PM |
|
|
I'm not sure how H6 did it, but This would be my solution:
1) Turn based - every creature gets 1 move each turn
2) Initiative determines who goes first
3) Speed determines how far a unit can move
In H3 speed was too important, and in H5 initiative was broken. When you divide speed and initiative into two different stats, but keep the turn concept, you avoid both problems. You can even have interesting combinations like a medium range walker with high initiative, without being too hard to balance.
Another issue is when the hero should be able to act. In H3 your hero could act whenever one of your creatures acted, which meant having the creature with the highest speed was very important. In H5, heroes had their own initiative. On the one hand, this made the heroes act independent of their creatures, giving another aspect to the hero build. But on the other hand it took away a layer of strategy in battle, because it was rarely a good idea to wait with your hero.
My solution to the hero's turn would be:
4) Heroes do not have initiative
5) Defending hero has the ability to act first every turn
6) Attacking hero has the ability to act second evey turn
7) If any hero waits at the beginning of the turn, they can act whenever one of their creatures can act
This way the first move is dependent on who is the attacker, which I think is fair. After both heroes have had the chance to act, it's basically the way it was in H3. Of course you could have high-level perks or artifacts with the "first move" ability in battle, to add to the hero build element as well. I think this solves the majority of problems in the previous games.
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 10:52 PM |
|
|
Brukernavn said:
I'm not sure how H6 did it, but This would be my solution:
1) Turn based - every creature gets 1 move each turn
2) Initiative determines who goes first
3) Speed determines how far a unit can move
In H3 speed was too important, and in H5 initiative was broken. When you divide speed and initiative into two different stats, but keep the turn concept, you avoid both problems. You can even have interesting combinations like a medium range walker with high initiative, without being too hard to balance.
Another issue is when the hero should be able to act. In H3 your hero could act whenever one of your creatures acted, which meant having the creature with the highest speed was very important. In H5, heroes had their own initiative. On the one hand, this made the heroes act independent of their creatures, giving another aspect to the hero build. But on the other hand it took away a layer of strategy in battle, because it was rarely a good idea to wait with your hero.
My solution to the hero's turn would be:
4) Heroes do not have initiative
5) Defending hero has the ability to act first every turn
6) Attacking hero has the ability to act second evey turn
7) If any hero waits at the beginning of the turn, they can act whenever one of their creatures can act
This way the first move is dependent on who is the attacker, which I think is fair. After both heroes have had the chance to act, it's basically the way it was in H3. Of course you could have high-level perks or artifacts with the "first move" ability in battle, to add to the hero build element as well. I think this solves the majority of problems in the previous games.
Basically, what you have written, is how it all worked in Heroes VI.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 10:56 PM |
|
|
H4 also differentiated Initiative/Speed. An obvious step
As I said, that'd be the safest choice, and it's what I expected.
____________
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 11:24 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 23:26, 09 Oct 2014.
|
Pretty much what Elvin said. I disagree only with the fact that some units moved too many times before lets say Zombies or Hydras. It truly gave units personality, and uniqueness. And least but not last it was so much fun! ^^ I absolutely hated the fact that in H6 all the creatures were suddenly equal in strenght  For all I care Maniacs, Orcs, Sharks etc were the exact same unit 
I do however agree that Luck/Morale were silly, as were Haste/Slow.
And the randomized atb bar was just infuriating.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted October 09, 2014 11:29 PM |
|
|
Minion said:
Pretty much what Elvin said. I disagree only with the fact that some units moved too many times before lets say Zombies or Hydras. It truly gave units personality, and uniqueness.
The problem here is the same than "purple Dungeon" : They overdid it, the difference between slow and fast units was excessive.
I agree with Elvin & you on the rest though.
____________
|
|
AlexSpl
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 12:34 AM |
|
Edited by AlexSpl at 00:38, 10 Oct 2014.
|
|
No one should be allowed to attack twice in a row. This is the issue with H5's ATB. White begins and wins. Battle is turn-based, that means whoever attacks first, does it with the full stack's strength, while the defender retaliates with its survived troops only (if there are any survivors at all). ATB makes things even worse.
|
|
NACHOOOO
Known Hero
Pessimistically optimistic
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 01:06 AM |
|
|
AlexSpl said:
No one should be allowed to attack twice in a row. This is the issue with H5's ATB. White begins and wins. Battle is turn-based, that means whoever attacks first, does it with the full stack's strength, while the defender retaliates with its survived troops only (if there are any survivors at all). ATB makes things even worse.
That's a game mechanic issue more than it is an initiative one. The only way you could really fix that is if attack and retaliation damage happened simultaneously
____________
Magic Bird, only a working
title. Phew
|
|
AlexSpl
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 01:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The only way you could really fix that is if attack and retaliation damage happened simultaneously
The idea is sound, once it even was implemented in HoMM IV. If a player could see both damages and losses for both sides before he actually attacks, that would be a pretty fair system.
|
|
NACHOOOO
Known Hero
Pessimistically optimistic
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 06:19 AM |
|
|
I definitely agree that the difference in initiative of some creatures in H5 was ridiculous and it made having certain creatures like the Necros zombie feel almost pointless. However on the flip side to that I agree with Minion that in 6 a lot of the creatures felt the same from faction to faction.
This could be a problem again in H7 because it seems to me they're sticking to a formula of having a tank, damage doer and ranged unit in each factions core and elite ranks. That's not a hard and fast rule of course, we haven't seen all the factions yet, but that does seem to be the base formula.
If the initiative values were increased so spells that affected initiative affected them to a lesser percentage as some have already suggested then I think that could be a realistic fix. For creatures, as an example a core tank type, you could tweak initiative allowing for another factor to give them a slightly different play style from their counterparts.
Haven's Sentinels could be defensive stalwarts but with more initiative than Academies Golems. Balance this out by giving Golems more health and it gives the two different tanks some individuality that you would not be able do to the same degree under the H6 initiative model.
Something that hasn't been mentioned was that creatures like the Wanizame in H6 essentially didn't have a wait function. The creature with the highest initiative (example Kirin) would go first, and if you waited with them they would go dead last in that turn. The creatures with the lowest initiative (example Wanizame) would get their turn last as you would expect, but using the wait command would just give you their turn again. I didn't like this either way. One of the advantages of the wait function in H5 was that you could use it on your higher initiative creatures and they would only slide down the atb moderately. This gave you the option to not put that creature out in the middle of the battlespace at the start of combat, but they didn't then wait for everything else to have a go. The worst possible thing you can do to a glass cannon type is leave it exposed to have the stacks numbers decimated.
I understand some people are worried that using the H5 model could lead to disastrous results, but I think that it's better that we wish for an improved model of that for great gameplay. Plus the development team has the benefit of seeing what went wrong and what went right with the system in H5. Otherwise we're just playing it safe and accepting something that we know is ok.
____________
Magic Bird, only a working
title. Phew
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
