|
| Thread: Dispelling Effects |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 22, 2015 04:06 PM |
|
|
@PROJ,
Once again, I fully disagree with you as you seem to think that controlled randomness (as opposed to full randomness) is anti-strategy and / or unsuitable for long games, which is in fact the real fallacy here. You also seem to forget that the game in its basic formula is riddled with "output randomness" - from resource quantities on the map, to the damage your creatures do in battle, to luck and morale as you yourself admitted, to even spells like Cyclone that randomly reposition your creatures - yet the game is not intrinsically broken or non-fun because of that, but quite on the contrary actually. Another mistake is assuming that "output randomness" does not change your strategy and while that is conceivably true, it is almost never true if you want to play optimally. You see, the concept of randomness is very much consequential to a game's notion of replayability, which needless to say is crucial for its longevity. It spells for adaptation, continuously strategizing your next actions while the outcome of your previous decisions unfolds, rather than a linear experience. I know that randomness does not appeal to everyone, but to go on and say that a game lacks depth because of it cannot be more further from the truth.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted July 22, 2015 04:28 PM |
|
|
HoM&M wouldn't be HoM&M without randomness. Period.
Fully agree with the above post.
|
|
PROJ
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2015 04:34 PM |
|
|
the whole point is that input randomness is what creates good replayability. Good input randomness can make sure two games never play the same without causing the needless frustration that output randomness brings. If luck and morale could be implemented higher up on the input randomness scale and away from the output randomness side, it would make the game better for it. For example, knowing which creatures would get morale or luck at the start of a turn would create a lot of unique situations but you'd at the same time be able to calculate and plan for them accordingly. The depth is kept, but much of the frustrating variability is lost
It's not that output randomness is necessarily bad, but it's bad as a mechanic in homm because it causes very big swings in outcomes after you've played a game for multiple hours. Random resources collection in the overworld is balanced out by the sheer number of objects on the map and the amount of time you spend collecting them (law of averages).
|
|
Sleeping_Sun
Promising
Famous Hero
Townscreen Architect
|
|
posted July 22, 2015 04:47 PM |
|
|
PROJ said:
It's not that output randomness is necessarily bad, but it's bad as a mechanic in homm because it causes very big swings in outcomes after you've played a game for multiple hours.
Could you please provide few examples of these big swings that you are talking about?
|
|
jhb
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2015 05:05 PM |
|
|
@PROJ
good explanation, I understand your point better now.
I agree with you to some extent, I also think excess of the output randomness, as you defined, is potentially bad for gameplay. But I don't think it should be avoided at all costs.
PROJ said:
but it's bad as a mechanic in homm because it causes very big swings in outcomes after you've played a game for multiple hours.
If it is really causing very big swings wouldn't it be a balance problem? maybe an excess of it? Instead of the simply fact of using some output randomness.
|
|
PROJ
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2015 05:17 PM |
|
|
Sleeping_Sun said:
PROJ said:
It's not that output randomness is necessarily bad, but it's bad as a mechanic in homm because it causes very big swings in outcomes after you've played a game for multiple hours.
Could you please provide few examples of these big swings that you are talking about?
In the game that's not released yet? I think it's conceivable to imagine that missing a 3x3 dispel on a stack of buffed creatures could definitely change the outcome of a game right there.
for homm v here's an example:
https://youtu.be/DQfPhpOOzes?list=PL27BB0D76220E0A0C&t=188
|
|
PROJ
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2015 05:20 PM |
|
|
jhb said:
@PROJ
good explanation, I understand your point better now.
I agree with you to some extent, I also think excess of the output randomness, as you defined, is potentially bad for gameplay. But I don't think it should be avoided at all costs.
PROJ said:
but it's bad as a mechanic in homm because it causes very big swings in outcomes after you've played a game for multiple hours.
If it is really causing very big swings wouldn't it be a balance problem? maybe an excess of it? Instead of the simply fact of using some output randomness.
Yeah i generally have little problem with moderate output randomness bc it usually doesn't swing the outcome wildly enough to matter, but I think dispel is potentially one of those circumstances where missing a dispel could totally screw you over.
For example, most creatures have damage ranges which are generally not that big an issue to me. Honestly, I find morale and luck also to be within acceptable bounds of randomness too, and I realize they are legacy mechanics so I'm not going to put up a huge fight about them. However, I still think they could be improved.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2015 05:24 PM |
|
|
My opinion is and has been for a long time, that Dispel should only mess with spell duration. (Spell duration is underrated and way too low since H6).
Dispel would reduce the spell duration by (Mastery level + X + Power/Y) turns, X and Y being a matter of balance.
Of course this makes sense only when duration is not a constant in the game.
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted July 22, 2015 05:36 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
My opinion is and has been for a long time, that Dispel should only mess with spell duration. (Spell duration is underrated and way too low since H6).
Dispel would reduce the spell duration by (Mastery level + X + Power/Y) turns, X and Y being a matter of balance.
Of course this makes sense only when duration is not a constant in the game.
But then it wouldn't be called dispel.
|
|
Sleeping_Sun
Promising
Famous Hero
Townscreen Architect
|
|
posted July 22, 2015 05:42 PM |
|
|
PROJ said:
In the game that's not released yet?
No, I meant from the previous games.
As for the H5 example. I do not think that there is any issue with mirror ability and the way it random targets a unit. Yes, it is random, and that's the charm of it. If you want in advance to know what is going to happen and to whom, then you are looking for total omniscience, which removes the element of surprise and the unknown from the game. I personally wouldn't want to play a game that looks like I am actually watching a replay of something... Such surprises of randomness is what is keeping you to develop different strategies as the battle flows. In the opposite case, when you know when moral is going to strike, for example, would make the game too much predictable, I believe.
That is why I like more when the number of enemies is not shown, when there is text involved to indicate the number of creatures on adventure map. When the exact number is shown to know if you can take care of that stack or not, but when you do not know the exact number, then you have to calculate, and gamble whether to attack or not.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted July 22, 2015 06:00 PM |
|
|
|
H5 ghosts/phantoms were a bit too random though...
|
|
jhb
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2015 06:11 PM |
|
|
EnergyZ said:
JollyJoker said:
My opinion is and has been for a long time, that Dispel should only mess with spell duration. (Spell duration is underrated and way too low since H6).
Dispel would reduce the spell duration by (Mastery level + X + Power/Y) turns, X and Y being a matter of balance.
Of course this makes sense only when duration is not a constant in the game.
But then it wouldn't be called dispel.
Maybe an opportunity to kick out Dispel and add Dampen Magic. 
PROJ said:
Yeah i generally have little problem with moderate output randomness bc it usually doesn't swing the outcome wildly enough to matter, but I think dispel is potentially one of those circumstances where missing a dispel could totally screw you over.
I understand, especially since hero action became so valuable (considering the last game - h6).
PROJ said:
Personally I would like the opportunity to be able to cast more spells per round to begin with. Like if I cast a particularly weak spell maybe I could cast a second spell at the end of the round, or be able to cast a second one at half spellpower or something. It would need to be more fleshed out and I doubt it would be put in, but I think it would potentially make the battles more dynamic than just being able to use 1 spell/ability per round of combat.
Agree with this, we could use some kind of Action Points system for heroes, maybe adding Initiative as a primary stat that would define how much a hero can act per turn. But yes, for heroes 7 initial release, there is no time. Still a good feature to think for the future.
H5 had a trial with this idea. Overall, magic heroes could act a bit more (via sorcery, mass spells) than might heroes, but the latter had stronger creatures (more attack, def).
If I remember right, one problem with that scheme of h5 was high initiative creatures ended up acting too much.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted July 22, 2015 06:39 PM |
|
|
PROJ said:
It's not that output randomness is necessarily bad, but it's bad as a mechanic in homm because it causes very big swings in outcomes after you've played a game for multiple hours. Random resources collection in the overworld is balanced out by the sheer number of objects on the map and the amount of time you spend collecting them (law of averages).
Your last sentence contradicts the former, actually. Over the course of multiple hours, you - and your opponent as well! - act through multiple battles. You will have good fortune at times, bad fortune at others. In the long run, though, it averages out.
A good player will be able to better mitigate strokes of bad luck and (ab)use the momentum of strokes of good luck than a lesser player. If a game boils down to one single battle at the very end, a culmination of all events that preceded it and one, single event throws victory to either one of the two sides, I'd say it's been a very balanced game, actually.
Or taking it to a reallife counterpart, did you really think that all battles fought in human history didn't have outcome randomness? There's a saying, "one second can decide a fight, one fight can decide a battle, one battle can decide a war and one war can decide the fate of a country at large".
From the way you post, you want to be very much in control over every little detail. You don't mind the initial board setup, but once it's there, you want to know and control every variable, every statistic, every detail. Heroes just doesn't work that way; unexpected things spice things up and challenge you to cope with it. It's not chess, which is just a single game each time. It's a simulation of a war raging across a country side, with Lady Luck swinging between sides indiscriminantly. It's the side that makes most use of what hand they're dealt that will be more successful.
|
| |
|
|
