|
|
cliff_nest
Hired Hero
|
posted October 13, 2014 10:57 AM |
|
Edited by Elvin at 18:22, 13 Oct 2014.
|
AlexSpl said:
If there're no rounds in ATB, why do you have to introduce a standard round? You should get rid of it, if you want the ATB system to be smooth, solid, and self-sufficient.
Check out this picture it's only a demo but ATB seem to be there and each round seem to be marked by a red banner and a number 2 in this case. Still nothing is confirmed has video suggest that the debate is up to the community it seems.
[url]http://oi60.tinypic.com/f0146t.jpg[/url]
In my opinion I think H5 system was more dynamic too and offer more possibility but the number were just way off and gave place to many irritable randomness. Randomness with the initiative just help making the combat a little bit more challenging and interesting (not just the initiative but the return of magic to mage guild also).
I'm pretty sure the H5 system can be easily improved upon by playing with the frequency of unit action and making it more user friendly. Many comment have great merit and also there a whole game plus two expansion of experience on which the developer can rely. That outta count for something.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 11:09 AM |
|
|
The "turns" or "rounds" are necessary for effect duration because it makes sense to have spells last for the same time: Imagine I cast Mass Haste on a couple of units with different Initiative:
if spell effect lasts depending on # of unit actions, units are punished for having high initiative or getting Morale; also the effects would end at different times for different units.
if spell effects lasts # of rounds depending on HERO actions, then a hero with high init is punished, because their spells have lesser duration than slower heroes.
Which means, there needs to be a "standard round" defined (which was the case in HoMM 5), so that effects last the same for everyone.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 11:26 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 11:28, 13 Oct 2014.
|
@Nachoo, Thanks for appreciating.
Well, I think of the ATB display as an indicator of when and where a creature gets its turn. Of course that involves accumulated initiative into the Gouge as well as creature Initiative that adds on top of that, and those should be shown too. I can see that we could end up with cases where creatures have higher Gauges but come second to others with higher Initiative. But that's just normal, isn't it? I don't think there is a bad side to it. If anything, the player could take notice of the apparent contradiction and examine the ATB and Initiative system closer to understand it.
@JJ, Thanks.
1. Morale is something akin to the system of Heroes 6, although I'm not completely sure how it works there. Basically 100 Morale would be 100% chance for Morale to trigger. Anything up to that is the same in percentage, like 15 Morale = 15% chance. And it triggers before the attack, so you could take an informed decision. For example when your Angel's Gouge is 100 or over, its turn comes and you see the Morale trigger before you can act with it. Then after you act, you know the gauge will reset at a higher value.
In the case of waiting, you will be sent back to 50 Initiative + extra Ini but you'll still keep your Morale trigger. That means that after you've waited and then took an action, your receive the bonus from Morale for the 3rd turn. Of course this implies that you will not receive another Morale trigger in the second turn when you act. I'm not so sure about that, but it still looks balanced to me.
2. Well, all ticks run according to the Standard Initiative which is 100. In fact, everything runs according to that, including Creatures and Heroes.
Oho, I'm against hard limits myself. But I really don't see any way around that. If you have in the game more than 5 Initiative modifiers then you'll be either confronted with the case where someone has all of the or the majority and his initiative skyrockets, or you have my system and limit that which is detrimental especially for high Base Initiative creatures like the Phoenix.
Also you need to consider that limits will always exist, imposed or non-imposed. With non-imposed limits you would still be limited by the number of modifiers and the values they change. With imposed you make sure that doesn't matter after a point which you consider balanced. And I think that there's no balance if a creature can come twice as much as another. So that's my reason. If by any means that could be removed while still preserving relevant modifiers that wouldn't push initiative into the ridiculous, I'd gladly drop hard caps and go with that.
I agree that other stats like speed and whatnot have an indirect effect on how impactful Initiative is. But I think that those can be adjusted to the role you want the creature to perform. And unlike Heroes 5, the role is now more relevant since you won't have useless tier 2 zombies on Tank role, but Core zombies. The power curve between tiers is now greatly adjusted so it keeps cores worthwhile.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 12:04 PM |
bonus applied by Elvin on 14 Oct 2014. |
|
I mean, where do creatures get Morale from, if not from Leadership (which now would increase the effect of a trigger, but not the chance of a trigger)?
Anyway.
It would not be good to limit things, because that would limit the tactical options.
The most unbalancing thing isn't actually the comparatively high initiative of some units in HoMM 5 (and the low one of others) - it's that IN COMBINATION with something else.
Example: Emerald Dragon: Area Attack plus high Luck potential of faction plus favored Enemy plus high speed = disaster.
Blood Furies: No Retaliation plus high speed plus high damage.
Low initiative on the other hand - well, give Treants unlimited (or at least a couple) retaliation and see what happens, provided you can somehow limit opposing shooter power (cast Air Shield or something on them).
With shooters, there is a much more direct link between initiative and damage.
Imo, a somewhat modified range system for shooters would help by simply having an additional stat: Half Range/Full Range. This would be two figures that would show the shooting range for a shooter for dealing half and full damage. obviously a Range less than full BF would limit the damage potential, and the bigger the range, the lower the Initiative, which also makes sense: Readying a really strong Crossbow takes time and effort, whereas a Shortbow can be fired rather rapidly.
The same is true for things like area attack: a fast area attacker with high initiative is pretty deadly, but how deadly is a LOW-initiave area-attacker? The trouble with Hydras in HoMM 5 is, that they are big and have low speed; the former makes them clumsy: often they can't actually reach a good spot; the latter supports this. Hydras with higher speed would be A LOT more dangerous - even with their low Initiative.
Which means, that you just have to be very careful in unit-design.
I mean, there's a lot of talk about Zombies - how useless they are with their low initiative.
But come to think of it - aren't they completely foolishly designed? Imo, low initiave and low speed is fine, but it's difficult to kill them: what happens, if they are targeted by bow shooters? Certainly not much, except for those who actually put out the brains. So what they SHOULD have is some Resistance against Might Ranged attacks: 75% (imagine the Goblin Boomerangs: effect: zero).
Then they want to bite and transmit a disease. Give them a Cling ability: a unit hit by them has it's speed halved and drags the Zombies with them should they move - attacked units can't disengange.
Also, living creatures killed by them will join their ranks after 1-3 turns (randomly determined).
CORRECTION: WOUNDED (and killed) creatures will join their ranks after 1-3 turns (randomly determined).
So the thing is, a slow walker with low initiative can be ignored as a threat to deal with the more immediate threats - but once they connect, they should be an absolute pain, and that's the problem with the Zombies, not their low initiative. Not even their low damage which is also in keeping with what they are; but the failure to make them disruptive enough, once they connect.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 01:00 PM |
|
|
Interesting discussions going on here. I definitely do agree with JJ that a lot of the problems of H5 not only came from the initiative system, but overall failure to think this system in synergy with other parts of the combat system. Tanky creatures in general were simply not tanky enough - Treants being a notable exception, because they as the only tank actually had significantly higher HP than creatures of same level, which showed the extreme one needed to go to to actually make tanks worthwhile.
Multiple retaliations definitely was something that helped tanky creatures, and also something like the disease aura of the Zombie could have worked better, imagine if creatures actually took damage and/or stat penalties from attacking the Zombie, not only when the Zombie attacked them.
Returning to your system Stevie, I definitely see it having some overall merits. I do agree with JJ that the increase of initiative should not come from Leadership skill, it could have its own skill however. Leadership should increase Morale. I'm not positive I completely can understand the range of which you will allow random start value to influence the initiative - did I read correctly you wanted the random start influx of the gauge to be as much as 50 %?
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 01:08 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 13:23, 13 Oct 2014.
|
They still get Morale values from Leadership. +5/10/15 so a 15% chance bonus with Expert Leadership. If that's too low, add more to the number. But I think it's ok considering that creatures have their own Basic Morale values and that it can be further modified by spells, perks, map objects, etc.
JJ, what my system does in regards to the limits is 2 things:
1. It makes sure that there's no creature that comes twice than another at the beginning of combat.
2. It makes sure that the maximum difference between creature's initiative is stopped at 75, which equals to the gauge filling of the lowest possible Initiative.
I've made those a priority because I consider that it's balanced.
If there's any way to balance that without resorting to hard caps, I'm all in. However, considering at least 5 modifiers I cannot see that happen without going above striking twice in the time another creature strikes once. So there would have to be some changes in the numbers to attempt a modification in that way. If you could do that maybe you can show a system as balanced as mine but better as in no hard caps. You think it's possible? Or maybe you have some other system in mind with other priorities?
As for the creatures and their abilities: Yes, I agree that abilities should behave differently in terms of initiative, and Pierce shot requiring more Initiative than Unaimed Shot is cool. However withing my proposal, the maximum Pierce Shot can take is still 100, so there's that limit. Another one is that you can act only on 100 regardless of how much Initiative the ability consumes, so you'd have to fill the Gauge at 100 to then use an ability of 80. It sounds good in theory, but would that be ok on the battlefield?
About retaliation. It favors the attacker as in, the defender can only defend once if the attacker happens to come twice before him. Maybe a Perk in the Defense skill to add one extra retaliation would do the trick. So defense focused armies could respond better to high initiative melee armies.
On the range, I agree with the concepts of Full Range and Half Range. It just makes sense. And creatures could have different definitions for those concepts too. Maybe even a Quarter Range would work, for Siege battlefields for example. Like an Elf archer would find its Full range at 6 tiles, its Half at 12 and its Quarter at 12+ tiles. While an Haven archer would have its Full at 5, its Half at 10 and its Quarter at 10+ tiles. Naturally you can have modifiers here too, with spells and perks and what have you. So there's a whole new world opening in front of you with a Range system like that where you could develop interesting possibilities for your ranged creatures and range combat.
alcibiades said:
did I read correctly you wanted the random start influx of the gauge to be as much as 50 %?
LoL, no. That would be ridiculous, it's 0.5 without the Luck Perk, it's 1.0 with the Perk which is 1% of the Gauge. Basically creatures would start with a random extra Initiative added to the Basic Initiative which ranges from 0.0 to 1.0. For example a Phoenix with 12.5 could start with anything in between 12.5 and 13.5 - it's for the sake of "Who Strikes First" at the beginning of the combat, where even a minor difference like that can have major implications.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 01:54 PM |
|
|
Well, I just think, that when it comes to creatures within the ATB system a lot of the creature designs in HoMM 5 make no sense whatsoever.
For example, look at Griffins. They have Unlimited Retaliation, but basic and Imperial Griffin also have an Initiative of 15, plus the Imperial has the Battle Dive ability that will make it unattackable anyway each other turn, which means Unlimited Retaliation on them is just plain nonsense/wasted.
For the Battle Griffin, things look QUITE different - Init 10 (only) high defense and the Battle Rage ability, dealing increased damage with every retaliation: that's a good one (and the unit is hard to kill indeed).
Or, since we are at Haven, take Squire and Vindicator. Squire has Large Shield (halving ranged damage) which is good, due to speed 4 only (which makes sense). It also has Bash, making them good, once they have contact, while Shield allies is fairly useful, defensively as well. Their Initiative is fairly low with 8, their biggest problem, but again, in keeping with a supposedly heavy armor. Instead they have Defense 9 which is a lot compared to the general defense level in HoMM 5 (which I think is generally too low in levels 3-5).
But now look at the Vindicator: It gets Cleave for Bash AND Shield Allies, making it an offensive unit in character with no value for allies, but the only gain is 3 attack, losing 1 defense. They keep both their low init AND their low speed. Which clearly makes no sense. I would have gone for a more severe reduction in defense (lighter armor) and or a HP loss, a lesser increase in attack (where is the increase supposed to come from?), if any at all, and added 1 init and of course 1 speed, making the unit a lot more dangerous on offense.
What I think is, that very high initiative units have their purpose. Take Skirmishers, for example. If you consider that a very big problem in creeping often is to find the means to actually neutralize shooters with a more serious damage output without taking too many losses, what you need is a unit that
a) has high init and high speed
b) to actually reach them immediately to just BLOCK them or
c) give the hero an opportunity to cast something useful
a Core high-init unit doesn't have to have a lot. Make it light, high speed, high-init, very LOW damage plus an Evade ability that grants them a chance to evade melee attacks (or reduce their damage) depending on their initiative advantage over the attacking unit (which could be decreased for every evaded attack) - and you have a unit that can act very often, but has a STRICTLY limited value, since it fulfills a fairly limited role, but that one pretty well.
(Which is where alternative upgrades come into play: a good example for a unit you later may want to train to something less fast and more solid.)
So while the system is important, unit design is as important, since it must support the system and not undermine it, like it was the case in HoMM 5. People/designers are too keen on spectacular things.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 02:38 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 14:55, 13 Oct 2014.
|
JollyJoker said:
So while the system is important, unit design is as important, since it must support the system and not undermine it, like it was the case in HoMM 5.
Yes. There should be fine tuning on all levels, between all relationships with the Initiative system. That's why approached the subjects of Skills and Modifiers too, to cover as much of that as that as possible. Naturally I can't talk about specific creature abilities unless I want to bathe in a sea of speculation which would probably not outline what's important any more than it already has been. And that is that the ATB system is a much more fulfilling Initiative system than the simpler Turn system if implemented correctly and in a balanced way. If this idea is conveyed, then I consider my job done. 
Pretty great discussion. 
|
|
AlexSpl
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 05:58 PM |
|
Edited by AlexSpl at 18:16, 13 Oct 2014.
|
Quote:
Check out this picture it's only a demo but ATB seem to be there and each round seem to be marked by a red banner and a number 2 in this case. Still nothing is confirmed has video suggest that the debate is up to the community it seems.
For now it reminds me the good old classic round-based system, though you can't be sure 100%.
Guys what if we think of not just a fixed 'standard' round, but rather take for that purpose a time frame somehow based upon initiatives of all the creatures currently present on the battlefield? For example, we may take into account an average initiative. We don't need a global 'standard' round, let's stick with a local one.
|
|
Karanshade
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 09:31 AM |
|
|
I am definitely for a reworked h5 like initiative system. The flaws are well identified (too sparse numbers leading to creatures attacking too much/too few) in this thread. As well as the advantage (decoupling move/initiative leading to more variety in creature play style). I made the fights in HOMM especially the big siege far more fun. (And we could abuse it for early creeping , I m looking at you blade sisters taking on hundreds of golems)
They are quite some nice suggestion about tweaking, the post (THIS ) which tried to summarize the ideas and lay some rules was a good idea , I m all for a collaborative post improving on this base.
(Or we could just make a ubivote for every tweak lol)
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 09:42 AM |
|
|
Balance should never ever be the subject of voting 
____________
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 14, 2014 09:42 AM |
|
|
AlexSpl said:
Quote:
Check out this picture it's only a demo but ATB seem to be there and each round seem to be marked by a red banner and a number 2 in this case. Still nothing is confirmed has video suggest that the debate is up to the community it seems.
For now it reminds me the good old classic round-based system, though you can't be sure 100%.
Guys what if we think of not just a fixed 'standard' round, but rather take for that purpose a time frame somehow based upon initiatives of all the creatures currently present on the battlefield? For example, we may take into account an average initiative. We don't need a global 'standard' round, let's stick with a local one.
What would that gain?
The "rounds" are just used to define effect duration. It's basically a standard time unit, creatures moving more or less often in one such unit, but effects lasting a certain number of that time unit. Nothing wrong with that.
|
|
NACHOOOO
Known Hero
Pessimistically optimistic
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 01:34 PM |
|
|
Poll Results:
32 votes (64%)
H5 Initiative System
13 votes (26%)
H6 Initiative System
5 votes (10%)
Neither
5 votes for neither but no alternate ideas posted. If you're one of the neither voters you guys should put up your ideas.
____________
Magic Bird, only a working
title. Phew
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 02:01 PM |
|
|
Maybe the first and easiest step for improving the ini-system of H5 would do have no Hero or Artifacts making it even worse.
I enjoyed H5 (not the random start) but a "tweak of all combining impacts" would be good. Don't forget how much "luck and morale" impacted this aspect. And my grumbles really came when I was behind in all three...plus the enemy had artifacts to boot and...then...here comes mass slow.  No fun standing-still and being slaughtered.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 03:48 PM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 16:36, 14 Oct 2014.
|
The thing that Heroes5 did wrong, imho, was to hide the timeline and only show the accumulated creature order. It's like a conveyor belt, where the empty spaces between the boxes has been cut out, while those empty spaces weren't of equal size. This lead to some rather peculiar interference patterns, that can't be explained without knowledge of those empty spaces. Essentially, information is lost when those empty spaces are cut out.
Basically, what the ATB tries to achieve is a battle without turns. A battle that flows naturally, with each unit acting according to its own initiative. This starts to approach realtime combat, except that the total movement for each "time unit" is condensed into a single move action while the rest of the battle field stands still. So, it's approaching analogous movement while still being digital.
The traditional turn boundaries held a rather firm grip on the flow and reduced the interference patterns of each creatures' personal timeline, as each only appeared once between the turn boundaries. The developers have been struggling with the concept of morale through the various titles, as it has always been somewhat at odds with the turn boundaries. They tried a full turn, they tried a half turn, they tried to artificially remove the concept of turns but in the end only did so half-baked in Heroes5.
I'm going to ignore the turn setups of previous games and just focus on an ATB without turn boundaries. Note that this doesn't mean I agree with an ATB to begin with! 
Basically, like I said, an ATB without turn boundaries is essentially a conveyor belt, where each box being transported on it represents an action by one of the participants. An ATB like this is simply the sum of conveyor belts for each individual creature or hero, combined, which creates the interference and thereby the followup order of the creatures and heroes on the battlefield.
JJ's idea is somewhat reminiscent of this; it is actually a timeline (conveyor belt) that moves forward. The empty spaces between the boxes are boring, uninteresting, as nothing happens. After all, by definition, any action is a box on the conveyor belt , so the game shouldn't bore the players with those empty steps and simply "look ahead" for the next box on any conveyor belt and present that one.
However, in order to understand the order in which the boxes on the conveyor belt arrive at the drop off point, information about their distance is essential - in essence, the time it takes for them to arrive there. So some form of "time left" to get there has to be indicated on the ATB for each of those "boxes".
Now taking a look at an individual conveyor belt, a single creature or hero has multiple boxes on the roll. With the concept of discrete steps, each box comes at a certain number of steps. If we take a creature that has 80 timesteps between its boxes, then when a box arrives at the drop off point, the next box is still 80 timesteps away, the one after that still 160, etc ... but these are only a prognose. After all, actions and spells can affect them, causing them to be delayed, sped up or removed altogether.
If we let go of that concept of prognose, then we have a bit more freedom: each action can then get its own timestep value. A special ability may require more time than a normal attack, one spell may have a lesser timestep value than another spell cast by a hero. It makes it harder to predict the future, since the position of the next box is as of yet undetermined. And that not only counts for that creature or hero, but for all of the creatures or heroes on the overall conveyor belt, so that's a serious drawback as predictability of creature order has always been a strong point in the Heroes games. At the same time, there's a strong advantage: this means the conveyor belt also gets a lot simpler, as each creature and hero only has one actual box on the belt, moving towards the drop off point.
The way to tackle the prognosis point is by taking it off the actual conveyor belt and making it a separate window (normally hidden, can be opened during the battle). That way, you should have a tool where each of the actions you're about to take can show you what that will mean for the selected creature(s) or hero(es) with respect to the ATB, for each of the selected actions those creatures or heroes have. With the various timestep values for each action of the creature(s) you're evaluating, it becomes too cumbersome to try and plunge it into the ATB itself.
Edit: Thinking some more about it, you can still combine it on the ATB. The way to do it is a "prognosis-light", where each action shows the prognosis for an action on mouse-over. For the actual unit at the drop off point, it will show where the next box is going to appear (perhaps partially translucent?). For non-targeted spells or abilities, the effect on affected stacks is shown on the ATB with a mouse-over as well. For targeted abilities or spells, the effect on the ATB will be shown on mouse-over of those targets, before the ability or spell is actually used. The reason I call this "prognosis-light" is that it only works with the next box on the conveyor belt for the affected stacks, not any that come after it. End of edit.
Since Heroes have so many options available to them (all their spells are options!), I'd say it would be wise to restrict spells (and for that matters, all non-spell activated abilities they have as well) to three timestep classes: fast, medium and slow, when it comes down to the timestep it takes before the hero can take his next action.
And as for spell durations: each spell simply lasts a certain amount of timesteps. Once that moment passes on the conveyor belt, the spell fades. The number of timesteps can of course be influenced by spells and abilities, but is no longer connected to the hero or the affected target, once it has been cast.
The main question is: is such a setup, including the prognosis window, too complex for a game such as this or not? Personally, I'd say it is. While I am very charmed by the conveyor belt concept, I still favor the Heroes6 approach with hard turn boundaries.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 09:55 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 23:23, 14 Oct 2014.
|
The majority of what you said has been said before. I don't think we have a problem with ATB in theory, but in numbers and values. What I tried to do a page back is construct a system that applies the theory and sets some values to what represents a turn, creatures' initiative, heroes' initiative, skills and their values, modifiers changing initiative, etc.
This was the problem with the ATB system in Heroes 5. They did not consider the implications of the values they chose. When constructing my system I've made action frequency balance the top of my priority list, and that involved considering a number of aspects, like:
1. Set values considering the picture at its widest, so you make sure you won't ever get unbalanced numbers regardless of circumstances.
2. How many and how few times a creature should act compared to the standard turn.
3. How many and how few times a creature should act compared to other creatures.
4. Number of modifiers and their values.
5. Skills changing behavior of initiative-related mechanics like Morale for example.
I'm not even sure if that list is exhaustive but I think I got the main points. Thing is, I am almost certain that these aspects were not considered in Heroes V. It's almost as if numbers were thrown at random. The small numbers transferred into gigantic differences in frequency. Imagine a Phoenix fully buffed could end up with over 50 Initiative. Compared to the Standard Initiative which was 10, that's 5 times more, meaning 5 actions in one turn. Compared to a creature with 5 initiative, that's 10 times more, 10 actions before 1 action of that creature. That was insane.
And that's only the problem of numbers. Another problem was on the visual level. Namely the ATB bar itself. The lack of information was showing. You'd only get an idea of where your creatures were compared to the others when you looked at the ATB, but never what that meant in numbers. The idea of Initiative Gauge solves this kind of problems, a simple placement of numeric values and a intuitive visual display on the portraits of each creature on the ATB is more than enough to get all the info you need. But then, there's even another problem, the number of portraits. Add to that that we want to see how the ATB changes in case we add a modifier to the system like Haste/Slow spells and the problem's even messier.
Since I'm at it, let me analyze it in detail and see what solutions we can come up with.
The biggest problem by far here is that there is the risk of portrait overpopulation of the ATB. This will undoubtedly happen when big armies clash. So how do we keep the ATB relevant when there are 7 creatures + 3 warmachines x 2 heroes = 20 or even more portraits to be shown?
We have these options for number of portraits:
- show an established number of portraits.
Advantages: No risk of overpopulation.
Disadvantages: Player won't be able to see the other creatures beyond the set number.
- show at least one portrait per unit.
Advantage: Player will be able to see all the creatures.
Disadvantages: Overpopulation of portraits on the ATB. (in the case where there's a creature moving once and all the other 19 moving double than it, you'll have 40 portraits on the ATB)
- show all the portraits of the creatures that get an action before the completion of a Standard Turn which is 100.
Advantage: Player will be able to see part of the creatures or even all of them.
Disadvantages: Overpopulation of portraits on the ATB. (if all creatures get 100 initiative before the Standard turn comes to an end, you'll have again some 40 portraits on the ATB)
Now, we have these type of ATB bar formats:
- fixed ATB bar. Where the bar is a fixed frame.
- dynamic ATB bar. Where the bar is a dynamic frame that you can scroll to see more creatures.
So from those parameters you'd have 6 options. To see which one is better for the player we need to consider what is essential for him to know when he looks at the ATB. He needs to see the order of actions and also as many actions as possible. The former is not a problem, but the latter is, because it requires a lot of portraits. With only a fixed amount of portraits the player's bound to have a shortage of information in some situations, and that's not good. A fixed ATB bar would've worked with a fixed amount of portraits, but in other circumstances the dynamic one is better.
So we're left with only 2 options now. Either a dynamic bar that shows you one portrait per creature, or a dynamic bar that shows you the portraits that come faster than the standard turn expires. I have to say that out of those two, the latter seems more balanced and intuitive to me.
Naturally there should be a minimum of portraits so that you don't end with 2 only portraits to show in case there are only 2 creatures in the battle.
Now, we must consider what happens when you introduce modifiers in the middle of the combat, like spells and abilities. Well, you got these cases.
- modifier applies to only one creature;
- modifier applies to multiple creatures.
And then you need to consider the format by which you highlight those changes for the player to see.
- show changes on the same ATB bar;
- show changes in another place;
When you think about it, modifying just one creature would work just fine on the same ATB bar, but what happens when you cast a spell affecting multiple creatures? Creatures could as well be at the opposite ends of the bar. So we need a substitute, one that makes it easy to compare the changes that occur. And I see two options for it:
- either a Potential bar appearing above the ATB bar when hovering the mouse click over the spell/ability;
- or the ATB bar has a built in expansion button which lets you see all the portraits on the bar.
I favor the latter honestly. When you affect multiple creatures, you just open it and see what changes when you hover the mouse over the modifier.
So what I conclude: Even at the risk of overpopulating the bar with portraits, more information is always better than less for the player. Scrolling through portraits would be better than having them all squeezed into one fixed bar to the point you won't see the initiative values or distinguish the creatures from one another. When modifiers apply, the changes should be highlighted and visible for comparison, so you take an informed decision rather than a leap of faith.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted October 14, 2014 10:36 PM |
|
|
Like JJ I am against artificial limits except maybe for luck and morale values. I've always thought that extreme situations must be taken into account when assigning the values so that even then, they cannot get out of hand.
Speaking of numbers, morale should be equal to luck. So if max luck has 50% chance to deal +50% damage, then max morale should have 50% chance to bump your next action by +50%. There are more factors of course but this is the general idea.
I don't like the idea of heroes starting at 125 initiative when the creature average initiative is below that. That would allow spellcasters to nuke or control enemy damage dealers before they act. I am in favour of hero initiative manipulation though, it was an exciting aspect of the system in H5 and it can only be improved. Counterspell for instance would be a lot more useful if it delayed enemy hero initiative.
And like JJ said, initiative boosters work better as fixed values. Simpler and easier to understand too.
Good post JJ
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 12:48 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 01:28, 15 Oct 2014.
|
I'm all in favor of a system without hard caps.
Morale/Luck values should be similar, yes.
Fair point here. Heroes shouldn't come first but somewhere in between or close to last. The range allows that.
And I only used numbers precisely because of that. Percentages are too vague.
Two question for all of you:
1. What do you consider to be a a balanced number of actions that the highest possible initiative creature (all buffs in existence included) should have compared to the Standard turn? What about the lowest initiative creature (all debuffs in existence included) compared to the Standard turn?
2. What do you consider to be a balanced number of actions that the highest possible initiative creature (all buffs in existence included) should have compared to the lowest possible initiative creature (all debuffs in existence included)?
Note that comparing creature vs creature number of actions is not the same as comparing creature vs Standard turn number of actions.
|
|
cliff_nest
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 04:45 AM |
|
|
While I like the H5 system I was thinking about alternative. The display problem is a downer and would love to see what H5 ini opposition think.
I was thinking something like this. U still have turn and creature have one go per round in the ATB. In case of morale u get extra turn. But in between turn creature initiative duke it out to alter their action at the next turn. Evidently no slow creature can speed ahead of normal or fast creature.
In term of initiative a 8 could not speed ahead 10 or 12. Only a 1... 8 or 9 with lesser chance on the 9.
This would just change the hero going first if based on a stack (Starting hero could loose is priority in the turn if one of is stack loose a initiative check against opponent stack. Or u can still place hero turn according to is own initiative (In this case all hero would have have a go according to initiative)
This way action are dissected round by round of the combat and fully displayable. A creature winning a initiative check could be shown by a burning glow windows in the ATB
Still I would love to see a more interesting display solution to the H5 system while thinking.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 08:23 AM |
|
|
Stevie said:
I'm all in favor of a system without hard caps.
Morale/Luck values should be similar, yes.
Fair point here. Heroes shouldn't come first but somewhere in between or close to last. The range allows that.
And I only used numbers precisely because of that. Percentages are too vague.
Two question for all of you:
1. What do you consider to be a a balanced number of actions that the highest possible initiative creature (all buffs in existence included) should have compared to the Standard turn? What about the lowest initiative creature (all debuffs in existence included) compared to the Standard turn?
2. What do you consider to be a balanced number of actions that the highest possible initiative creature (all buffs in existence included) should have compared to the lowest possible initiative creature (all debuffs in existence included)?
Note that comparing creature vs creature number of actions is not the same as comparing creature vs Standard turn number of actions.
Stevie, imo, there are two big problems; one of it you described in your post above this one - the display. That problem has to be solved, otherwise it's a no-go. (Imo, the fact that, what, 11 pages were needed to cycle through the available skills in HoMM 6, SHOULD have made that a no-go as well, even if it had been the best system in the world; ease of info display is important.)
About the question, what the limits should be.
I think, that there shouldn't be such a big difference in the basic initiative values. If standard value was 100, then probably 90-120 was enough FOR STARTERS. However, such a system would make it interesting to have actions with different init costs, and also small passive boosts.
Now, think of the old spell Blind. This would put a stack out of action for a number of turns, as long as they would suffer no damage.
And now think about a comparative spell - Sleepwalking - that would HALVE unit initiative for X turns (or until attacked).
It wouldn't be wrong to decrease a unit's initiave so massively, except Blind would be wrong as well.
So the difference can of course become very big FOR ONE UNIT.
But not for all - you can make sure of that by keeping the Mass effects small.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
