|
|
AlexSpl
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted October 10, 2014 03:25 PM |
|
Edited by AlexSpl at 15:31, 10 Oct 2014.
|
The basic idea behind the classic system, as I feel it, is that a player can move all the creatures, he brings into a battle, in the immediate future, be they slow or fast.
I don't want to have a creature in my army that can move only once while another can move twice within the same period of time.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 03:30 PM |
|
|
AlexSpl said:
I don't want to have a creature in my army that can move only once while another can move twice for the same period of time.
That's fine, but with all respect, even if you don't want it, it can still be a good idea in other people's opinions.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 03:30 PM |
|
|
Here's what I think is the trouble with the ATB bar (both the one in HoMM 5 AND HoMM 6) is in a TECHNICAL sense: it only conveys the turn ORDER, but not the actual GAPS between units. I will explain that, because it's important.
What IS the ATB bar actually?
Imagine a yardstick. Let's assume there are 3 units, A with an initiative of 120, B with an initiative of 100 and C with an initiative of 80. An imaginary clock is ticking, and with every tick, each unit adds its initiative to its personal INITPOOL. A "turn" consists of 10 ticks of the clock; a unit gets it's turn, when it's INITPOOL reaches 1000. An action costs 1000 points, waiting 500, when Morale triggers, only 500 points are spent. The Battle starts with every unit having its INITPOOL filled HALF. There is also a slight randomization of values at start, let's say from between -25 to +25 points. So with randomization let's pick starting values of 580, 505 and 410, respectively.
What we see on the HoMM 5 ATB bar is this:
ABCABCABACBA
However, we have no idea what will happen when a unit gets Morale or a spell is cast, because what we do NOT know here is, how far the gaps between the acting units are - how the turns are really developing and how much initiative is actually missing (this was pretty striking in HoMM 5 because the differences were a lot bigger than in this example, and unreasonably so). The explanations above, about time ticking, can be visualized, by simply having something like a tabulator running along with the ticks and dividing lines after each 10 ticks, showing the actual gaps. So instead of the above thing you now have:
___AB__C__|_A__B____C|A___B___A_|__C_B_A___
1234567890 1234567890 1234567890 1234567890
You see 4 "turns" in which A will act 5 times, B 4 times and C 3 times - if nothing happens, that is.
It's not that difficult to see that, should C get Morale in its first turn, it will end up acting slightly before unit B, on tick 14, B following at 15 shortly after, and also, that C would get indeed a 3rd turn, before A gets its 4th, and this would be all the easier to see (and check, if it's important and tight), if both the Init Value and the current POOL would be shown (say Value at the top of the Icon, Pool at bottom).
Now, note that the ticks are linear. The battle would start, with A being on tick 1 instead of 4, but all gaps are kept:
AB__C___A_|_B____CA__|_B___A___C|_B_A______
1234567890 1234567890 1234567890 1234567890
It's A's turn; A has init 120, shown top, and is at 1060, acting, , so the value that the 2nd A from the left would show is 60 (in 8 ticks the value will reach 1020 for another turn; the value of the 3rd A from the left is currently -940, the 4th A -1940 and so on.
the first B on the left - the next to act, is at POOL 905, init Value showing a flat 100, while the first C is at 730.
After A finishes it's turn, things tick on:
B__C___A__|B____CA___|B___A___C_|B_A_______
1234567890 1234567890 1234567890 1234567890
and B get's Morale. The bar changes:
1234567890|12345B7890|1234567890|1234567890
B__C_B_A__|_____CA___|____AB__C_|__A__B____
1234567890 1234567890 1234567890 1234567890
Pool Values are 1005 for the first B (acting), 505 for the second B, and -495 for the 3rd B. The 2nd C is in the same tick, but at -490, so in turn 2 C will act before B, although only slightly.
Now, if Heroes can act with their units ONCE each turn, since the Morale trigger let it overtake A, this might be a good time to cast HASTE on B, which we assume here, will give +20 Init; since this will bring B to the same Init as B, it's clear that this will keep the advantage; it is also clear that B will then act a 3rd time BEFORE C gets its 2nd turn. However - what about overtaking C RIGHT NOW, when casting Haste? Easy to see!
Pool Values show:
1005 for the first B, 505 for the second B, with the first C being at 810; in 3 ticks C will get its turn, but B will then be at 865 only, at that point, so B will not overtake C, before C takes its turn.
Still, Player B decides to cast Haste, and this is how the bar looks AFTER B passed its turn (provided the spell lasts at least 4 turns):
C_B_A_____|B_CA____B_|_A___C_B_A|_____B_CA_
1234567890 1234567890 1234567890 1234567890
I think, this might work and be fun.
|
|
NACHOOOO
Known Hero
Pessimistically optimistic
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 03:36 PM |
|
|
AlexSpl said:
The basic idea behind the classic system, as I feel it, is that a player can move all the creatures he brings into a battle in the immediate future, be it slow or fast.
I don't want to have a creature in my army that can move only once while another can move twice for the same period of time.
We've already discussed that particular scenario, so instead let's move on. Riddle me this. Why should a big, slow, powerful, lumbering creature such as an oliphant (so sick, hope they're in stronghold) have as many turns as something that's quick and light and fast such as sylvan's pixies? I understand your preference for everything to have one turn each, but as I see it, it is to the detriment of the game. By doing this you limit how much devs are able to make creatures different from one another, how different the creatures are able to play, and this holds especially true to creatures that fill similar roles from faction to faction. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels as though H6 was over simplified.
I'm out, I'm gonna leave this to you northern hemisphere peeps to hash out tonight but I'm interested to see what is said over night. I also want to re iterate that I'm not closed minded to the idea of the H6 init system, but just from what I've read no one is able to justify it to make it more appealing to me than what can be done with the H5 system.
____________
Magic Bird, only a working
title. Phew
|
|
AlexSpl
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 03:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's fine, but with all respect, even if you don't want it, it can still be a good idea in other people's opinions.
Yes it can. But why do you want to make things more complicated than they are already?
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 03:47 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 15:55, 10 Oct 2014.
|
AlexSpl said:
I don't want to have a creature in my army that can move only once while another can move twice within the same period of time.
Let's make things clear. This is not what I want.
I want to be able to hit with a Blade Dancer (swift, agile) 4 times in 3 turns, whereas a Zombie can hit 3 times in 3 turns. That's a lot closer to what I want.
|
|
AlexSpl
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 03:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I want to be able to hit wit a Blade Dancer (swift, agile) 4 times in 3 turns, whereas a Zombie can hit 3 times in 3 turns. That's a lot closer to what I want.
This makes sense. But why don't you want a single Morale for your Blade Dancers instead?
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 04:05 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 16:09, 10 Oct 2014.
|
Because they're different mechanics. Morale provides turn frequency instantaneous but based on chance, while Initiative stacks excess and you can be totally sure that it happens every turn. Plus, it's an indication of which creature is more agile, while Morale is an indicator of which is more willed. For example a Sentinel may have more mental fortitude than an Blade Dancer, but will never be as agile as one.
@JJ
That example makes things even more confusing.
|
|
AlexSpl
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 04:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
it only conveys the turn ORDER, but not the actual GAPS between units.
In the H5 alpha you could even see those gaps, but even there the system was pretty confusing if you tried to 'calculate' consequences of your very next move.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 04:18 PM |
|
|
I don't think complicated is necessarily bad. If it makes for better gameplay - for instance, more varied creatures, better implementation of morale - I don't see a problem with complicated. Of course, complicated should still be transparent to a reasonable degree at least.
@JJ > I think your idea above is interesting, but I'm not even sure we need to spread things out that much. If there are two armies of 7 creatures each, it'll be impossible to display three turns at once. I don't see a problem with the stacking of units next to each other as done in H5, but perhaps some display of the ATB value below each creature would not be a bad idea so one can see how big the difference is. That would easily be worked into the UI.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 04:24 PM |
|
|
Easy fix for the "I don't know how much initiative my creatures have, or the gaps in between"
Show initiative gauge on the creatures portrait on the ATB.
Display gauge changes modified by spells or creature abilities.
Easy peasy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 04:27 PM |
|
|
IMO, things stand and fall with a non-confusing display of the turn order, that conveys all pertinent info.
The problem is, that you may have 14 units taking part PLUS possible summons and gated/animated units PLUS maybe the heroes, so there might be 20 different units involved.
The Bar is useless, if it shows the positions of units for what would be one turn only, so the bar would have to be more than one line wide - it would actually take up a lot of space, if done correctly, there is no way round that.
So the question would be whether that's possible and viable.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 04:30 PM |
|
|
|
AlexSpl
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 04:30 PM |
|
Edited by AlexSpl at 16:38, 10 Oct 2014.
|
Quote:
Riddle me this. Why should a big, slow, powerful, lumbering creature such as an oliphant (so sick, hope they're in stronghold) have as many turns as something that's quick and light and fast such as sylvan's pixies?
A gap in speed between them is quite enough to show the former as slow and clumsy creature, and the latter as light and fast one.
Though I think it's a good idea to separate initiative from speed, still let initiative determine a turn order within a single round only.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 05:00 PM |
|
|
If you want simplicity, go play checkers.
There is nothing but your and your opponent's tactical thinking there.
And lo! If you both play perfectly you tie. Is this not the perfection you are looking for?
The rest of us are here because were looking for complexity. A game where attaining that perfection is - at least nominally - an insurmountably hard goal we are all striving for.
Or just having a good time with epic lucky strikes and the most disastrous bad morales 
Stevie said:
Easy fix for the "I don't know how much initiative my creatures have, or the gaps in between"
Show initiative gauge on the creatures portrait on the ATB.
Display gauge changes modified by spells or creature abilities.
Easy peasy.
Exactly this. Showing the amount of initiative already gathered would easily solve this issue.
JJ's solution would require the bar to conform to standard set of time units, which would limit the resolution of the bar unnecessarily.
The former idea does limit information too(mainly the exact timing of each turn), but it takes less space and has better accuracy than the latter.
The problem lies in confusing stupider[less math orientated players because a unit having a higher amount of initiative might act later than one with a lower amount of initiative. This is easily recognisable from their positions on the bar though.
Still, in modern game design that's a no-no. Games can't take effort to navigate, they have to be fluid. Instead of the amount of initiative they have, they could instead show how long it takes for them to act. This would solve the issue completely. Instead of initiative we should be showing the laziness ^^
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2014 05:14 PM |
|
|
Not possible.
The aim of all this information is to give an impression about what ACTIONS would change - that's what's everything is all about.
|
|
NACHOOOO
Known Hero
Pessimistically optimistic
|
|
posted October 11, 2014 03:08 AM |
|
Edited by NACHOOOO at 03:09, 11 Oct 2014.
|
JollyJoker said:
Not possible.
The aim of all this information is to give an impression about what ACTIONS would change - that's what's everything is all about.
That was a great post before JJ. One of the things that you mentioned in there that I really like is that when good morale triggers it costs less of the creatures initiative allowing it to attack again sooner. This imo is a far better system than the half turn that was gained when good morale triggered in H6.
It's great for gameplay and it's great for the creatures too. Example is the Minotaur. It's a creature that generally has fairly poor initiative, however it has naturally high morale. Using the system that you demonstrated before, a Minotaur would get less turns than others, but due to it's good morale it would have a good chance for it's attacks to cost less initiative along the way allowing for more turns than it's initiative would indicate. That sounds awesome to me.
You were able to slide the ATB in H5 further than what was just displayed. I think that if you were to combine that with an initiative indicator as suggested by Stevie on a creatures portrait that system would work well. As far as showing the "gaps" however I think that would be a UI nightmare. For spells that affect initiative, if I was to hover my cursor over a creature before casting the spell I would also like to see where on the ATB they would go. I love that things would be dynamic, but I also want all the information I can have to make the best decision possible.
As for the hero, I'm not really sure. I kinda agree that once a heroes initiative hit the required amount you could wait and choose when to cast or attack, however what would happen to their initiative while you were waiting? Would it continue to accumulate? Would you be able to save up double the amount and then cast one spell after the other? I think it could still work but it may need some kind of a max initiative value that could be stored such as 150%.
In that scenario you could have an initiative indicator on the heroes potrait in say the bottom right of the screen. The potrait itself would be grey until initiative hits the required amount, and then would come to colour indicating the the hero is able to use a spell or attack during one of their creatures turns. However the initiative indicator wouldn't actually be full, and more could be collected, but only 50% more. This way you have some freedom for when you can cast your spells/attacks, but you can't abuse the system either.
This really isn't that confusing. Especially once it was in the game and you could actually see it all happening in front of you. The atb would show you all the info that you need.
Fellas I think that we've just done Ubi's job for them. This system sounds sick
____________
Magic Bird, only a working
title. Phew
|
|
AlexSpl
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2014 04:59 AM |
|
Edited by AlexSpl at 05:01, 11 Oct 2014.
|
Quote:
This system sounds sick
Perhaps. But I wouldn't call it player-friendly. It makes things much more complicated, and for what benefits? Just in order that some fast units could hit slowpokes twice or even thrice before they will be able to realize what the hell is going on? Slow units are already weak, weak by definition, so why do you want to make them useless?
|
|
NACHOOOO
Known Hero
Pessimistically optimistic
|
|
posted October 11, 2014 05:40 AM |
|
|
AlexSpl said:
Quote:
This system sounds sick
Perhaps. But I wouldn't call it player-friendly. It makes things much more complicated, and for what benefits? Just in order that some fast units could hit slowpokes twice or even thrice before they will be able to realize what the hell is going on? Slow units are already weak, weak by definition, so why do you want to make them useless?
Dude I swear you are just going around in circles. From what you've said it really sounds like you haven't comprehended anything that we've said.
____________
Magic Bird, only a working
title. Phew
|
|
AlexSpl
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2014 05:40 AM |
|
Edited by AlexSpl at 05:41, 11 Oct 2014.
|
|
Also, think about retaliation. How often units are supposed to retaliate with ATB? Once in a standard round (10 ticks)? How do you know if a unit retaliated yet or not?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
