|
| Thread: Ballancing creature spells! | |
|
jondifool
Promising
Adventuring Hero
extinct but alive!
|
posted April 09, 2002 11:20 AM |
|
|
Ballancing creature spells!
(note : Posted this in the thread "how to beat 102 seamonsters without losses", but hten I just realized that its actual a suggestion for another game balance, belonging in a patch, or in a expansion!! so therefore its here in its on thread in the right forum)
Some spells is causing effects based on the numbers of creatuers casting it or the development of a Hero . This is direct damage spells.
Others doesn't care at all how big a stack is involved in casting the spell or being target of it.
When Heroes casting spells I don't find it a trouble that they can do devasting things, thats what they are in the game for. But when you can split spellcasting stacks to create winable situations that was unwinable without , I find it something that could be better balanced.
I would have liked to see effects like confusion, quicksand, terror, slow and others alike to be somehow more difficult to cast or use if a little stack was up against a big one.
Confussion and terror, could have a % chance of success based on size of stack casting it compared to target. This could be made based on hitpoints, goldcost, some level numbers ratio or so on.
Quicksand could have a strength, that made a big stack move faster through it than a small. And made a big caster stack making a stronger quicsand!
Curses of all types , could have a chance of failing like confussion, and/or they could be lasting shorter when a small stack target a big one! Or just have a change everyround for be shrugged of!!
Effects like that could balance the game a little !!
And I would like to see that.
With regards
Jondifool
____________
The Oxe is slow, but earth have patience
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted April 09, 2002 11:32 AM |
|
|
If they did that, stronghold or necro would win every time u foo =P
____________
I am the hope of the universe... I am the answer to all living things that cry out for peace... I am protector of the innocent... I am the light in the darkness... I am truth.
|
|
jondifool
Promising
Adventuring Hero
extinct but alive!
|
|
posted April 09, 2002 03:04 PM |
|
|
Can't you imagine it in a balanced way?
Stronghold and Necro would only won if it was introduced unbalanced!! Especial it would be nice if there where less walkovers against big Neutral stacks!!
with regards
Jondifool
____________
The Oxe is slow, but earth have patience
|
|
Pure_Chaos
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Destroyer of Morons
|
|
posted April 10, 2002 07:48 AM |
|
|
|
brody
Known Hero
Pathetic Loser
|
|
posted April 11, 2002 08:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Bad Idea. Enough Said.
Just curious, why is it a bad idea? I agree that if 1 creature can do EXACTLY as much damage (spellwise) as 100 creatures, it's unbalancing. I mean, once you have these creatures (I think fairy dragons were jondifool's example) you just put 1 in every army (or 2 or 3...) and you have a lot more power than you should for a single creature...
____________
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted April 06, 2004 06:53 PM |
|
|
i agree with the starter of the thread.
my own thoughts on non-damage spells using blind as an example:
1. mana cost of blind depends on number of creatures in target stack.
more precisely, probability of spell sucess should depend on mana used for the spell and number of creatures in target stack.
for playability reasons it might not be a good idea to make spellcasting that complicated, but maybe it would be nice to allow a chance of sucessfully casting blind on a stack that is larger than you have mana.
to counter the inconvenience of setting the effort (excess or deficiency of mana cost), i would suggest that when you cast a spell, standard effort is set by default.
you can cast the spell right away or if you wish you can change the effort higher or lower.
when you don't have enough mana for the standard effort, the maximum possible effort is set by default (and the chance of sucess is presented, as always).
2. creature stack mana should depend on number of creatures in the stack.
========
so, i think there wouldn't be the trouble of half a stack being blind and the other half not.
and there might be artifacts that don't make your creatures immune but increase the effort needed to be sucessful with the spell.
any problems with this system or something that you don't like?
|
|
regnus_khan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
[ Peacekeeper of Equilibris ]
|
|
posted April 06, 2004 07:01 PM |
|
|
Gerdash:
Well 1st idea:
I agree. But then the dependence on the stack should be mediocre. For example.: 1st level, 20 units = 1-2 spell points; 4th level, 5 units = 1-2 spell points.
Also, I agree with that effort and mana dependence thing. Only changed a bit:
hard = 2x Effect = 2x mana
mediocre = 1.5x Effect = 1.5x mana
lousy = :1.5 Effect = :2 mana
miserable = :2 Effect = :3 mana
Standard is standard...
Harder you try, more you can get, but sometimes you have to sacrifice something.
2nd idea:
Well, IMO i would be confused if half stack is blind and the other is not. Bad idea, IMHO.
But if it is applied, I wouldn't mind that so badly.
----------------------------
If we need to make spells more difficult to use, there could be a limit of how many times to cast the spell during a combat.
Hero could but his effort (give more mana) to a spell which would do more effect, but it would be castable only after regenerating it (it endures one turn, for example).
To make direct spells harder to cast, we could also apply the same thing with effort.
Also, there could be new option Spell Power/Durability which would endure the ability to cast a spell with better effect. It would have more effect with this skill plus the effort.
Eg.: if we had blind.
Spell would blind 60% creatures in the stack. It costs 6 spell points. I give 3 points more, so the effort is hard. So the effect's 90%. Then, I have 5 spell/power durability (each point gives 2%).
Effect is 100%. Creatures in the stack affected = 100%. IMHO that's interesting 
____________
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted April 07, 2004 07:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well 1st idea:
this was not 1st and 2nd suggestion, it was the same suggestion that consisted of two points applied simultaneously.
more mana is needed (with standard probability) to blind a large stack and a large stack of spellcasting creatures have more mana.
Quote:
2nd idea:
Well, IMO i would be confused if half stack is blind and the other is not. Bad idea, IMHO.
But if it is applied, I wouldn't mind that so badly.
interesting, how would you apply half-blind stack system? btw if you have any idea how to make it work, please tell us all about it. how would a half-blind stack behave (move, attack, etc)?
what followed after the '========' was not even part of the suggestion. the '========' was used as a separator between different parts of the post.
as far as i have seen in this forum, if half stack is blind, you are in trouble.
i was pointing out that either the whole stack is blind or the stack isn't blind.
as half stack isn't blind (the suggestion in my previous post), there's no trouble with having half-blinded stacks. because the half-blinded stacks don't exist. they are not needed.
i hope i have cleared up this confusing statement now.
Quote:
But then the dependence on the stack should be mediocre. For example.: 1st level, 20 units = 1-2 spell points; 4th level, 5 units = 1-2 spell points.
yes, i wasn't pretending to be suggesting a finalized solution.
maybe the mana cost should increase linearly, maybe it should be something like sqrt(number of creatures), maybe it should correspond to the few->several->pack->lots->... that is already used in the game to represent number of creatures.
maybe it should also depend on creature level of the target, so that blinding a legion of angels would be more difficult than blinding a legion of goblins.
Quote:
Also, I agree with that effort and mana dependence thing. Only changed a bit:
hard = 2x Effect = 2x mana
mediocre = 1.5x Effect = 1.5x mana
lousy = :1.5 Effect = :2 mana
miserable = :2 Effect = :3 mana
Standard is standard...
Harder you try, more you can get, but sometimes you have to sacrifice something.
how could you change anything that i didn't even write about (the formula of effect vs mana cost)? another of the great mysteries of the world..
Quote:
If we need to make spells more difficult to use,
hmm.. why should we make spells more diffivult to use?
Quote:
To make direct spells harder to cast, we could also apply the same thing with effort.
yes, i guess we could. i wonder what the result would be? ok, but in that case i wouldn't agree to double mana giving double effect.
i would suggest that, with damage spells, standard mana should give best effect vs mana cost, and double effect should be a great waste of mana.
but i think that damage spells don't need this system. we could just as well use the old system and the player wouldn't have to make an additional click to cast a damage spell. or maybe setting the effort with non-damage spells could be implemented so that the difference between casting damage and non-damage spells would not be so visibly disturbing.
|
|
Shirastro
Famous Hero
Happy happy joy joy
|
|
posted April 07, 2004 09:59 AM |
|
|
I totally disagre. If i cast a spell i want it to work. I dont want to have to pray to Yevon every time i cast a spell and hope it will work.
They already did it in HOMM3 with spells like hipnotise.........and the truth is it never worked.
____________
And now to the next post.
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted April 07, 2004 10:20 AM |
|
|
what if standard effort gives you 100% chance to blind a stack?
the main point is not about making things random, it's about different mana cost when you blind stacks with different numbers of creatures.
randomness could only be involved when you don't have (or don't wish to use) enough mana to blind the whole stack, but we still want to give you a chance to attempt a blind.
Quote:
I totally disagre.
so isn't it that you just totally disagree with a nonvital part of the suggestion or is there also something else that you dislike?
|
|
Shirastro
Famous Hero
Happy happy joy joy
|
|
posted April 07, 2004 01:26 PM |
|
|
I just want my spells to work when i use them, plain and simple. You can go and complicate things as much as you want to but dont mess around with the spells.
____________
And now to the next post.
|
|
b0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted April 07, 2004 01:40 PM |
|
|
The battle is random enough. My proposal:
- spellcasting stacks always succeed in enchanting their targets. The trick is: they may be unable to enchant ALL of their targets. If so, targeted stack is split into two: enchanted, and unaffected. If you're enchanting enemy stack, the enemy player would choose adjacent hex where the enchanted stack is spawned.
Simple and elegant solution.
To be more specific, result would be dependant on: casting creatures' spell power, comparative levels of creatures, and comparative amounts.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted April 07, 2004 04:57 PM |
|
|
btw who is talking about randomness being necessary here?
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
|
EmperorSly
Known Hero
Destroyer of Liver
|
|
posted April 07, 2004 06:25 PM |
|
|
Stacksplitting -- unagreeable
It is too evil against the opponent, because the splitting effect might be even worse than spell itself.
Examples: I have this big stack and plan to put a bunch of blessings on them to make them unstoppable. After you split them, I need twice as much spellcasting to achieve the same.
Or: I have cyclops on top of tower, ready to bust your cap. You split them, and half of them fall off the tower, unable to shoot and even unable to climb back because other cyclops' are already standing there.
Or: I have this big first-striking stack. If they hit you, theres hardly anyone left to retaliate -- so casualties are low. Now your split them, and none of the split stacks can hit hard enough to avoid retaliation.
Or: I have a hero.
So no splitting of stacks with incompetent spallcasting, please.
____________
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted April 07, 2004 07:09 PM |
|
|
i also think that splitting stacks doesn't look that good.
========
after several weak spell casts, there would be little stacks all over the place. wasn't the number of stacks supposed to be limited?
what happens when all space on the battlefield is occupied with stacks and you cast one more spell?
========
emperorsly made a nice start, i'll add some more:
if area effect spell works as we are used to, then the more stacks the merrier. and cyclops probably also like to shoot multiple stacks. and if snake strike isn't removed, splitting stacks would be nice for someone with snake striked griffins.
i don't know, there might be situations when you don't want to cast some spell because you don't want to split the opponent stacks. i guess it's more likely that you don't want to cast bless on your stack because it would split it.
========
the main problem that makes me suspicious about splitting stacks is that you might want to cast bless on some stack sometimes in order to split it. this is abusive attitude imho.
maybe splitting stacks would be a better idea if you could split and rejoin them at will even without any spells being cast.
ahh.. all this micromanagement.. it could lead to not yet discussed possibilities that might be worth considering, though.
========
and about placing the blinded half of the stack in the next square:
maybe it isn't necessary to do it that way (i.e. when the spell is cast). maybe when you move the stack, the blind creatures would just be left behind.
and if you don't move the stack before the blind wears off or you cure it, the stack wouldn't have to split at all.
btw would elliminate the problem with battlefield getting full, because the stack just wouldn't split if there's nowhere to move.
then you can view splitting stacks as a way to handle the "classical" half-blind stack problem.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 08, 2004 10:31 PM |
|
|
For me, splitting stacks should be completely off discussion here. Very bad solution. Gerdash put it nicely why.
Now, about the real solution to the problem. Firstly, is there any problem? I read a rather interesting debate on Celestial Heavens, in which Djive and some other guy took part, about whether or not these “imbalances” should be corrected. And Djive claimed that it’s not necessary since they make the game more enjoyable and dependent on the skill of the player. (Sorry if I’m not very precise here) In spite of all the respect I have towards our legendary mod, I disagree about this one.
There is a problem and it should be solved.
In the first post, the starter proposed several interesting ways of how to fix this.
Gerdash developed it further, but there’re some thing I don’t want.
I don’t like the idea about effort (If I understood right, it’s adjusting the mana and determining the effect of the spell). The chance of success of the spell shouldn’t depend on the player’s choice. First, it would be too complicated. Too many clicks and calculations and luck. Second, it can be VERY annoying if a player chooses to risk (and it would be wise to risk with, let’s say 90%, in order to save as many SP as you can), and the spell fails. And we don’t want this game to drive people crazy, do we? Too much influence of luck will make heroes a poker game.
Also, I don’t think spell effect should be variable, except for damage spells. It is very complicated system to make, and often there will be a great disproportion between small and large creature stacks, which would require having a large area of varying effects. Plus, many spells cannot have multiple effects.
Now, my opinion is very similar with Gerdash’s, but without the effort part.
I think that every spell casting creature should have an exact mana, depending upon the level of that creature (or it can vary slightly between different same-level creatures. But not really the main point.) Also, each level of creatures should be awarded a coefficient, which would be multiplied with the spell cost and the number of creatures in the stack, thus determining the mana needed for the spell to succeed 100%. If the attacking spell-casting stack has less than that optimal mana, a percentage of spell failure should be given, which will help the player to choose whether to risk casting or not.
The difference between Gerdash’s view and mine, is that the player has no role whatsoever in determining how many SP he will use when casting the spell. If however, the attacking spell-casting creature has more SP than the optimal number for 100% success of the spell, after the casting of the spell, the creature has more SP left, allowing him to cast another spell the next round.
Also, a system should be devised, which would determine the number of rounds the spell lasts. IMO, the best way to this is to have a scale based on the level and number of attacking spell-casting creatures. It won’t be connected to the targeted stack of creatures in any way, unlike the chance for success of the spell.
E.g. You have 20 genies and the opponent has 30 Pikemen and 20 Champions. With each genie having 10 SP, you have a total of 200 SP. Let’s say you want to cast blind (10 SP-basic cost). The 30 Pikemen (pikeman as 3rd-level creature has a coefficient of 0.5) require 30 (no. of crits) x 0.5 (coef.) x 10 (basic SP)=150 SP in order to be 100% blinded. The 20 Champions (Champion as 6-level creature has a coefficient of 2) require 20 x 2 x 10 = 400. Now, you have a choice: cast 100% Blind on Pikemen and have 50 SP for the next round, or have a 50% chance at blinding the Champs and spend all SP. In both cases, the spell would last (Genie is level four. Level fours have 1 round per 10 creatures ratio) for 2 rounds. (Please note that the numbers given are far from appropriate. I’m just trying to set the idea.)
As for damaging spells, I think it’s a known concept already. The damaging spell has a cost that is constant and is deducted from each creature’s SP pool, while the damage it does depends on the number of creatures casting it.
E.g. You have 20 genies, each with 10 SP. They cast a Magic Arrow (with cost of 2). Now, each of the genies has 8 SP left, or a total of 20x8=160 SP. The damage that the M. Arrow did is 20 x basic damage (say, 10 health)=200 health.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted April 13, 2004 03:53 PM |
|
|
true, maybe nonlinear dependence of mana cost on size of the stack isn't necessary if spell cost depends on level of target creatures.
so, non-damage spell cost could be
number of creatures * level coefficient
if the level coefficient is set in the right way reflecting proportions of numbers of creatures in different level stacks.
e.g. what are the approximate proportions of lev1 creatures vs lev3 creatures at some moment in the game (or throughout the game).
the level coefficient should reflect growth of creatures and their durability.
maybe also the fact that lower level creatures are available earlier, so this might balance out the durability.
maybe creature strength should also be counted. you get more benefit for blinding stronger (higher level) creatures, so i guess it should be balanced with higher mana cost.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted May 06, 2005 06:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, about the real solution to the problem. Firstly, is there any problem? I read a rather interesting debate on Celestial Heavens, in which Djive and some other guy took part, about whether or not these “imbalances” should be corrected. And Djive claimed that it’s not necessary since they make the game more enjoyable and dependent on the skill of the player. (Sorry if I’m not very precise here) In spite of all the respect I have towards our legendary mod, I disagree about this one.
There is a problem and it should be solved.
There is most certainly ways to improve spellcasting creature system, but I'm very much against making the system too complex. The rules for spellcasting is simple in H4 and that is one very good thing with the system. Before I'm going to be happy with another system it first has to prove that it is much better, because it is almost certainly going to be more complex.
Rather than splitting the mana available to creatures I think it would be better to for instance give creatures a Spellpower rating. Weaker spellcasters could have say 0.05 Spellpower per creatures, whereas powerful creatures could have 1 Spellpower per creature. A creature stack cast spells with it's current spellpower. (Always rounded down, so if you have too few creatures in the stack then no spell.)
The Spellpower rating is the same as for Hero casting, though I think you should need perhaps 3 or 5 Spellpower for extending duration with 1 round, rather than just 1 Spellpower as was the case in Heroes 3. (This probably means there will be secondary skills for increasing Spellpower so Mages can up their Spellpower and thus the duration of their spells. Barbarians will probably have to live with their spells expiring quite quickly.)
I don't think the targeted stack should matter at all. The only thing which should matter on that end is Magic resistance, which might cause the spell to fail or have reduced effect.
Moderator's note:This topic has been closed, as it refers to an older version of the game. To discuss Heroes 3, please go to Library Of Enlightenment, to discuss Heroes 4, please go to War Room Of Axeoth, to discuss Heroes 5, go to Temple Of Ashan.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
| |
|
|
