|
| Thread: Beta 2 Wishlist |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · NEXT» |
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
posted September 03, 2015 08:48 PM |
|
Edited by Elvin at 20:50, 03 Sep 2015.
|
Beta 2 Wishlist
There's probably a lot more I have missed but here are some of my key concerns. Please help me complete the list or let me know if you disagree on some point 
(#) Loading times are awful and need to be improved, whether entering the game or loading a map.
(#) Spells should be possible to cancel with right click!
(#) I enjoy the random hero option but we still need a random faction option!
(#) The hero presentation in hero creation is good. A couple of suggestions: 1) Make the skill outline stand out more so that you can tell at a glance which skills you can develop to master and which to expert. 2) Show the hero's starting skills/abilities!
(#) I understand that there isn't an equal number of heroes per class?! The game could really use at least two for each of the 6 classes of your faction.
(#) Hero movement really is too little, you cannot get enough action as it is. If we increase hero movement, we could also increase explorer movement bonus which is not that good either.
(#) Heroes have a lot of starting destiny or morale! I would advise against having more than 5 in each, your value can go too high with master luck/leadership plus artifacts and/or adventure map boosters.
(#) I disapprove of the way ultimates work atm. Every class has access to 3 arbitrarily chosen skills with ultimate and half of their skills can only be leveled to expert. They have not even been divided imaginatively, with just about all dungeon magic heroes having GM dark. The skill system is guiding people's choices rather than let them make their own! What would work a lot better: 1) Give every hero master to ALL skills so as to give him more choices. Screw mastery restrictions. 2) Give GM to half of their skills! Let them have GM in all the skills that currently can be developed to master and allow the skills that can be developed to expert to reach master. The skill pizza is one of the worst decisions made for H7 but this suggestion could make it a little more interesting. Give people options, not artificial restrictions!
(#) Air skills adding air damage have a ridiculously wide range. It is not balanced, it is not fun, it doesn't even serve a good purpose other than making air seem hella random.
(#) Archery skill and storm arrows giving full range to shooters is RIDICULOUSLY powerful. Suggestion, reduce the range penalty instead.
(#) Golden tongued from diplomacy is broken. Allowing potentially massive stacks to join you for zero gold is plain imbalanced.
(#) Governor abilities are ridiculously good imo. Homeland giving what master attack cannot give or blessed ground giving you the same bonus as 3 levels in luck seems ridiculous.
(#) I really don't like the way warfare abilities are set up. Artillery should be tier 1 because what's the point if you cannot control warmachines from the start? Also the jump from 1 ballista shot to 3 ballista shots in the tier 3 ability is plain wtf! You TRIPLE your ballista power with ONE ability! So can we get an ability that gives you two shots in tier 2, move artillery to tier 1 and completely ditch the (pointless?) ability that increases warmachine hp?
(#) That tier 3 warcry ability that involves the ballista is too damn situational. First off, tier 3 abilities should always be worth getting. Secondly, not all heroes with access to it have warmachine skill, am I wrong? Third, even if they do this skill demands that you pick both to make it worthwhile. Please change it into something more useful.
(#) Economy giving +250 gold/day per level is just low. Maybe +350?
(#) Mentor was fine at 25%, 15% is too low.
(#) I wonder if we should reconsider attack giving 5% dmg bonus for each point higher than attack. In King's Bounty it is about 3.5% and it scales a lot better.
(#) Flanking is as horrible as I imagined. It does not improve tactics, it does not really affect gameplay and it also favours the attacker in close distances. Attacking first is already a serious advantage, now you can also get a bonus by attacking from the sides or from behind. Fantastic. So I have one last suggestion on this part: Let the defender turn to face the attacker for the first time he gets attacked in this turn! That way you can set up flanking by making the defender turn to face the first attacker while the second comes to attack from a flanking position. Now you just flank by yourself that is honestly a silly thing to witness.
(#) Why exactly do we need two warmachine buildings? Warmachines is focused on the ballista and that is what everyone will pick. And between unit dwellings, town hall, tavern etc there is no room for first aid tent building in week 1. Honestly, there isn't even room for it in week 2 because everything else is so much more important! Can we merge the warmachine buildings please?
(#) Town levels are one of the worst implemented features I have seen in the series. You should really reduce those pointless level requirements because they not only offer something but they get in the way of creativity and fun. For instance.. all warmachines should be available from the beginning, in dungeon ballista requires lvl 6!!! The strong tier 1 unit should be available earlier, maybe lvl 3? No sense in waiting till lvl 6. The weaker elites should be possible to build in lvl 6 if you are really good or really lucky. The strong elite should be possible to build earlier. City hall should be possible to build earlier. The player should make his own decisions, not have design desions forced upon him! So either loosen up the requirements a lot or just scrap town levels altogether because they are restrictive for gameplay as they are.
(#) Some building requirements are just pointless. Medusa requires mage guild 2. Strider requires marketplace -> black market -> cthonian deposit. Sylvan champions require mage guild 4. What the hell? These are just some examples, please tone down inflexible requirements that get in the way of building your town. A might hero has no reason to build more than mage guild 1. Nobody has a reason to build 3 other buildings for striders, which is not even the player's choice!
(#) Trackers actually reduce 100% of enemy defense, what the hell! They are epic champion killers and they shoot everything down effortlessly if you accumulate some. Even 30% armour reduction would be fine, it was more than enough for the H5 arcane archers.
(#) Chance-based abilities should not be tied to luck! This is a really bad idea as you make MANY of the game's FEW abilities exclusive to heroes with destiny. Units with chance-based abilities can't activate their abilities as neutrals either, which sucks. So please make it like H5, an x% chance to trigger that is increased or reduced by the relative stack strength of the attacker and the defender. Big stacks should have a bonus to their chance-based abilities when attacking weaker stacks and vice versa.
(#) I read that bad luck is 25% of minimum damage while good luck +50% of maximum damage?? That's.. rather extreme?
(#) Rare resources look similar to each other and don't have any striking colours or qualities about them to make them stand out. This is a common complaint. If you can't change much about them at least make the colours more distinct and vibrant? And if H8 sees the light of day please scrap them altogether, they are totally forgettable. The old resources were clearly identifiable and had easy names to remember, not that-red-thing or that-blue-thing. All that wordplay with shadow, steel and dragon is just pretentious.
(#) Hero specials are another of H7 greatest disappointments. By now you must have realized that almost nobody is enthusiastic about them and many hate them. So can we PLEASE make them level up with your hero at least and make them all useful? Very few heroes are actually worth picking as it is. Also ditch growth specialists altogether in favour of passive unit bonuses? Many mapmakers enjoy maps with many towns. In those maps +1 elite in your main town is plain worthless while a passive bonus will always be useful. That is a pointless restriction for mapmakers that will either have to include less towns or have most of the game's heroes be worthless in their maps.
(#) Game colours are so dull and washed out.. The game feels like it has lost its magic for a lot of people. Maybe an option for more vibrant colours could be added?
(#) Rescale some unit models. Black dragons should look bigger, deers smaller.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
posted September 03, 2015 09:01 PM |
|
|
Elvin said:
(#) Economy giving +250 gold/day per level is just low. Maybe +350?
In H4 the economy bonus was dependant of hero level. Hint: it was better that way 
Elvin said:
(#) Rescale some unit models. Black dragons should look bigger, deers smaller.
I don't feel sorry to burst your bubble. They won't. The end.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted September 03, 2015 10:33 PM |
|
|
I made a post in the blog, any support welcome
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 03, 2015 10:53 PM |
|
|
I've said it before, but I'll happily repeat it again:
* Diplomacy skill + option to disengage combat = broken. Golden Tongue just makes it a farce like you say, but even without that ability, the fact that you can at any time check without risk whether a stack should want to join you is a joke in itself.
But yeah, I think you nailed pretty much every single point apart from that.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
PROJ
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2015 10:59 PM |
|
Edited by PROJ at 23:01, 03 Sep 2015.
|
In making a map, can't you just set any neutrals so that diplomacy doesn't work on them? How is this a serious problem?
i also don't get the hate on flanking. Nobody has playtested this nearly enough to make a decision on it yet and all the criticism i see about it is extremely vague and not helpful
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 03, 2015 11:04 PM |
|
|
PROJ said:
In making a map, can't you just set any neutrals so that diplomacy doesn't work on them? How is this a serious problem?
i also don't get the hate on flanking. Nobody has playtested this nearly enough to make a decision on it yet and all the criticism i see about it is extremely vague and not helpful
1) A skill's balance should not depend on the map-maker.
2) Having a feature that renders the skill completely useless does not make it balanced.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
odium
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2015 11:15 PM |
|
Edited by odium at 23:16, 03 Sep 2015.
|
|
I think the concern about flanking is not in the idea itself but in the current implementation. At the moment it's very easy to flank, so the tactical depth is just on paper.
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted September 03, 2015 11:30 PM |
|
|
odium said:
I think the concern about flanking is not in the idea itself but in the current implementation. At the moment it's very easy to flank, so the tactical depth is just on paper.
It shouldn't apply to all creatures. Instead, it can be just released as a creature ability.
For really, flanking would be actually surprise attack from behind. And moving behind the creature to deal extra damage is not the way to do it.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2015 12:36 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 01:49, 04 Sep 2015.
|
PROJ said:
In making a map, can't you just set any neutrals so that diplomacy doesn't work on them? How is this a serious problem?
i also don't get the hate on flanking. Nobody has playtested this nearly enough to make a decision on it yet and all the criticism i see about it is extremely vague and not helpful
1) Ever heard of something called RMG? Plus, in what world do you deliver bad design at the excuse of community fixing (map makers in this case)?
2) Implying:
- unsound flanking features needs heavy playtesting. It doesn't;
- no one ever playtested it enough (not even collectively?), even though the system is child's play to comprehend in several minutes. First off, you wouldn't know that. Second off, there are NO overarching implications that this system brings, so that it would need a considerable amount of time + insight to collect all the feedback;
- criticism being vague and useless. Bollocks;
The idea behind flanking was to create a positional advantage conversing into straight up damage. What it achieves is replicating a linear pattern that is anything unlike positional strategy. The thing is, with the current combat sizes and creature speed values, there are very little occasions when you would rather NOT land a flank / full flank, because the other creatures would either be undefended, so there's no risk, or be in the range of an allied creature's move radius, so you would get hit in return anyway no matter where you'd end up facing. So basically, hitting a flank / full flank whenever you can is pretty much a no-brainer at this point.
My two main problems with the system are unflexibility in the requirements of obtaining a flank and it being a general mechanic for all creatures. I would definitely think that answering these two issues would remove the patterning and make for a more unique and rewarding gameplay experience overall.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
cleglaw
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2015 02:49 AM |
|
|
|
Hunters11
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted September 04, 2015 03:13 AM |
|
|
|
PROJ
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2015 03:56 AM |
|
|
alcibiades said:
PROJ said:
In making a map, can't you just set any neutrals so that diplomacy doesn't work on them? How is this a serious problem?
i also don't get the hate on flanking. Nobody has playtested this nearly enough to make a decision on it yet and all the criticism i see about it is extremely vague and not helpful
1) A skill's balance should not depend on the map-maker.
2) Having a feature that renders the skill completely useless does not make it balanced.
1) Uhh why not? Very successful, deep games have been heavily balanced by community maps before. The precedent is there. These include a number of competitive fps games and of course strategy games like brood war.
2) What on earth are you talking about?
|
|
PROJ
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2015 04:03 AM |
|
|
Stevie said:
PROJ said:
In making a map, can't you just set any neutrals so that diplomacy doesn't work on them? How is this a serious problem?
i also don't get the hate on flanking. Nobody has playtested this nearly enough to make a decision on it yet and all the criticism i see about it is extremely vague and not helpful
1) Ever heard of something called RMG? Plus, in what world do you deliver bad design at the excuse of community fixing (map makers in this case)?
the skill is still in there for single player. They can use it if they want, who cares? For multiplayer, you simply don't allow it to occur. Simple. It's not bad design, it's just something that needs to be adjusted to compensate for the difference between sp and mp.
Quote:
2) Implying:
- unsound flanking features needs heavy playtesting. It doesn't;
- no one ever playtested it enough (not even collectively?), even though the system is child's play to comprehend in several minutes. First off, you wouldn't know that. Second off, there are NO overarching implications that this system brings, so that it would need a considerable amount of time + insight to collect all the feedback;
- criticism being vague and useless. Bollocks;
The idea behind flanking was to create a positional advantage conversing into straight up damage. What it achieves is replicating a linear pattern that is anything unlike positional strategy. The thing is, with the current combat sizes and creature speed values, there are very little occasions when you would rather NOT land a flank / full flank, because the other creatures would either be undefended, so there's no risk, or be in the range of an allied creature's move radius, so you would get hit in return anyway no matter where you'd end up facing. So basically, hitting a flank / full flank whenever you can is pretty much a no-brainer at this point.
My two main problems with the system are unflexibility in the requirements of obtaining a flank and it being a general mechanic for all creatures. I would definitely think that answering these two issues would remove the patterning and make for a more unique and rewarding gameplay experience overall.
give me hard evidence (aka examples) or you're full of snow. I guarantee you don't have even a fraction of the hours to assess the actual impact of flanking in terms of positional advantages. I don't even know what the snow you're going on about for most of this post. "The thing is, with the current combat sizes and creature speed values, there are very little occasions when you would rather NOT land a flank / full flank." Yeah, no snow if all other things are equal you'd want to land a flank. The point is setting that up where the creatures you want performing flanks are doing it and simultaneously protecting your own creatures from flanks is not that simple.
What a bunch of snow, you guys don't have anywhere near enough evidence to back up this nonsense.
|
|
keldaur
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2015 04:42 AM |
|
|
Add the AI in there. I disagree with plenty of what you wrote, but not gonna beat the bush, just add the goddamn AI to the list.
____________
|
|
The_Green_drag
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2015 05:10 AM |
|
|
I'd like some pre-made buildings for my town on most maps. Especially if they're keeping town levels. Starting with nothing built all the time just sucks.
And I don't like how big the arc is on the dragon's breath attack and that the dragons doesn't use it on retaliation.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 04, 2015 07:55 AM |
|
|
PROJ said:
alcibiades said:
PROJ said:
In making a map, can't you just set any neutrals so that diplomacy doesn't work on them? How is this a serious problem?
i also don't get the hate on flanking. Nobody has playtested this nearly enough to make a decision on it yet and all the criticism i see about it is extremely vague and not helpful
1) A skill's balance should not depend on the map-maker.
2) Having a feature that renders the skill completely useless does not make it balanced.
1) Uhh why not? Very successful, deep games have been heavily balanced by community maps before. The precedent is there. These include a number of competitive fps games and of course strategy games like brood war.
2) What on earth are you talking about?
What you talk about is balancing by having the mad designer make the skill useless. First off, if we accept that from the developers, we might as well say we don't care what they do about balancing at all. Secondly, not all map makers will be aware of that, plus random maps like Stevie mentions. Thirdly, it's not just a matter of making the skill balanced, if you remove the skill, you effectively remove one of only 10 skills from many classes' skill wheel, potentially evne one of only 3 GM skills. So while what you suggests might prevent disaster along the same lines as "Necropolis is banned" does it for H3 games, that's not really a solution to the problem.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted September 04, 2015 08:59 AM |
|
Edited by Elvin at 15:35, 04 Sep 2015.
|
Flanking is not an example of bad balance, it is just ridiculous and doesn't really enrich the gameplay. Why?
Imagine two assassins. First assassin walks behind the second. Flanking attack! Second assassin walks behind the first one. Flanking attack!
Wtf is this snow! First off, in close distances it favours the attacker when attacking first is a strong advantage. Sure, it also favours the defender if an opponent charges them head on but the former case is more prevalent throughout most of the battle. Plus charging straight into eneemy lines is stupid unless you are in an overpowering position to go for it.
Secondly, this is idiotic. If you had an opponent in front of you would you sit on your hands as he circles around to attack you from behind? Maybe if you were blind, paralyzed or daydreaming.
Third, it greatly favours flyers that generally have good movement and do not have to walk around the target. They can attack from behind almost always.
And the painfully obvious reason.. It's just too easy. No planning required, just attack from the sides or from the back. This is the fast food equivalent of cooking..
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted September 04, 2015 09:19 AM |
|
|
They simply need to add a mechanic to balance it out: if an enemy unit is both adjacent to and is facing the unit that's moving, open the unit in question to an attack of opportunity. Maybe tie it in with retaliation to also work as attacks of opportunity, so attacks of opportunity are only possible when the unit could still retaliate otherwise. Heck, there's a wonderful opportunity here for special creature abilities here (more than 1 attack of opportunity, attack of opportunity disconnected from retaliation, immunity to attacks of opportunity, etc ...).
Something they also need to include is a means to direct the facing of your unit. Changing the facing of a unit should only be possible if it didn't attack, of course. Right now you can end up in awkward situations where a unit has its back exposed and you can't do anything about it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2015 09:31 AM |
|
|
Flanking is bullcrap without any additional rules, because the way it's implemented the defender plays no role.
You could just have an ability that says: If a unit uses all of its movement points it gets a 37.2% damage bonus.
Makes no sense whatsoever.
Flanking needs:
a) the ability to plot the exact path of a unit;
b) doesn't work against units with units on defend, with units having retaliation left and are not engaged with another unit
c) if a unit adjacent to an enemy unit that has retaliation left or not acted that round, moves it will be opportunity-hit by that unit(s) with flanking bonus.
Also: IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE GETGO!!!
Bit late now to get a fit because of it.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted September 04, 2015 09:43 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Flanking is bullcrap without any additional rules, because the way it's implemented the defender plays no role.
You could just have an ability that says: If a unit uses all of its movement points it gets a 37.2% damage bonus.
Makes no sense whatsoever.
Flanking needs:
a) the ability to plot the exact path of a unit;
b) doesn't work against units with units on defend, with units having retaliation left and are not engaged with another unit
c) if a unit adjacent to an enemy unit that has retaliation left or not acted that round, moves it will be opportunity-hit by that unit(s) with flanking bonus.
Also: IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE GETGO!!!
Bit late now to get a fit because of it.
There really is no excuse 
____________
It is with a heavy heart that I must announce that the cis are at it again.
|
| |
|
|
