|
| Thread: Future Heroes extra features |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
NimoStar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Modding the Unmoddable
|
posted January 27, 2021 04:49 PM |
|
Edited by NimoStar at 21:24, 27 Jan 2021.
|
Future Heroes extra features
Well, these features are based on a drem but they are pretty well though out (?), in fact is seems quite boring to play regular Heroes now without them, so I will list them here:
_ _ _
- Army Recruiting:
If an army has a particular type of creatures, and you own dwellings (in a town or otherwise), you should be able to recruit the contents of those dwellings directly in your army by double-clicking in your creature type. Maybe there's an extra charge for distance. Like Caravans this woudn't be possible if the way was blocked and coudn't go through the sea if you don't have a port, but otherwise would be instant.
I see this as a way of getting rid of both Heroes 3-style "hero chain" (somewhat ridiculous, why can the same creature move more with more heroes? DO heroes carry them on the shoulders?) or the Heroes IV slow forced creature-based movement. going back to castle to recruit all the time is a hassle and new streamlined games don't need it.
In this way creatures spawn exactly where you would expect or need them, with their comrades at the front.
_ _ _
- Creature experience = Upgrades
Each creature would have 4 levels: Rookie, Initiate, Veteran and Ace. They would "upgrade" their appearance in a transition. Each level would affect their stats and abilities. This would work as a combination of WoG experience and classic creature upgrades. You could buy XP for your creatures but only by transferring it from your hero, not gold. There is no "buying" upgraded creatures, they have to earn it (time gives a steady trickle of experience). Sometimes you would have to choose between using a larger merged Rookie stack or a smaller Ace stack. Joining creatures, as in WoG, would average their experience for the joint stack.
_ _ _
- Overworld-based creatures abilities
I support that having armies has a maintenance cost, but I also see that abilities such as the Peasant's tax collection in H4 and others are underused. Several creatures could provide economic bonuses to their liege. Examples:
-- Imps: Lending
Access from your marketplace or Imp. You could borrow 20 gold per Imp you own and 10 gold per Imp you have unrecruited. This gold has 20% interest, and you have to pay 10% of the total every day during the next 12 days. You can't ask the same imps more loans until you have repaid.
-- Leprechauns: Pot
Somewhat the oppossite, you could give 20 gold per recruited Leprechaun and 10 gold for each unrecruited one, and they would give you back 10% during the next 12 days.
-- Dwarves: Mining
Leave dwarves guarding your mines. Each dwarf will increase the mine output (be it gold or a special resource), up to 100% extra resources with 100 guarding dwarves.
-- Taskmaster: The Whip
If your army HP is composed by at least 10% of Taskmasters (a Dungeon unit with a whip), they can use The Whip, reducing the HP of the rest of your creatures by 10% until your next turn for a 10% movement boost that turn.
-- Wizards: Magic Research
Each Wizard creature garrisoned in a city would reduce the gold cost of building a Mage Guild by 2% and each unrecruited wizard there by 1%, up to 100% (it still costs a turn and any precious resources).
-- Unicorn: Magic Reservoire
The magic of an Unicorn permeates the world. For each Unicorn you own, at the beggining of a week you get extra world-spell point, which you can "withdraw" with a hero at any moment out of combat.
_ _ _
- Tactical disengagements:
In the Heroes series there is a great problem in my eyes, and it is that normally engagements have to end with one army completely shattered and out of position. However in real life we see that in many ancient battles, armies weren't always completely destroyed but rather were able to retreat and regroup not long after.
It would be smart to include an option of retreat that doesn't involve surrender (bribing your opponent for "safe passage") or outright making your hero flee with a single troop. This Retreat would depend on you having remaining movement, would give your opponent XP for your destroyed portion of your army and nothing of the sort to you, but would allow you to break off the engagement for that day and maybe wait for reinforcements or reorganize your stacks, artifacts, etc., or otherwise attempt to flee to a nerby fortress. This makes the logistics of terrain and combat more interesting, since it also would count who is better rested in order to "escape" if needed, and not just who "catches" the enermy army. After all an army that camped for the day ought to have some advantage over one that came running at the limit of their movement.
_ _ _
- Heroic Rise and Fall:
Normally your hero will look at the battle from the sidelines, however at any moment you may have them enter the fray. Besides your own hero's combat abilities, this gives your army a morale boost, but it come with a price: If your hero dies in combat, they die for real. No resurrections. RIP.
_ _ _
- Isometric 3D
Not a direct gameplay enhancement, but I favor a 3D engine with di-isometric real-time rendering for clarity in world map and battle. Town screens may use perspective. This is completely possible.
_ _ _
Tell me, what do you think of these suggestions? DO you have more ways to implement them and/or improve them?
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted January 27, 2021 07:36 PM |
|
|
Chaining is very addictive once you know how to optimize, not sure many will agree on removing it, unless some solid and creative idea for replacing the concept.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted January 27, 2021 07:45 PM |
|
|
Hey NimoStar.
Quote:
- Army Recruiting:
If an army has a particular type of creatures, and you own dwellings (in a town or otherwise), you should be able to recruit the contents of those dwellings directly in your army by double-clicking in your creature type. Maybe there's an extra charge for distance. Like Caravans this woudn't be possible if the way was blocked and coudn't go through the sea if you don't have a port, but otherwise would be instant.
I'm not sure I like this insta-spawn at the army. For me, the importance of timing is actually a fact that I do enjoy somewhat on hoMM. I think that caravans sending units to heroes with a faster speed could soften the bad effects you describe. But a direct spawn...well it wouldn't feel right for me at all, I must confess. If this is in, why even have towns?
Quote:
- Creature experience = Upgrades
Each creature would have 4 levels: Rookie, Initiate, Veteran and Ace. They would "upgrade" their appearance in a transition. Each level would affect their stats and abilities. This would work as a combination of WoG experience and classic creature upgrades. You could buy XP for your creatures but only by transferring it from your hero, not gold. There is no "buying" upgraded creatures, they have to earn it (time gives a steady trickle of experience). Sometimes you would have to choose between using a larger merged Rookie stack or a smaller Ace stack. Joining creatures, as in WoG, would average their experience for the joint stack.
I never disliked upgrades on HoMM, but I would also like Unit experience as you describe it. I think an interesting way would be like in Battle for Wesnoth (or, I think, fire emblem?) where units can choose an upgrade when reaching a certain point of experience. So, for your example, if archers reach Ace status, maybe they can decide to upgrade to repeater crossbows with double shot or marksmen with armor piercing.
Quote:
- Overworld-based creatures abilities
I support that having armies has a maintenance cost, but I also see that abilities such as the Peasant's tax collection in H4 and others are underused. Several creatures could provide economic bonuses to their liege.
I agree that more overworld-abilities are needed, and some of your examples are certainly very interesting.
Quote:
- Tactical disengagements:
In the Heroes series there is a great problem in my eyes, and it is that normally engagements have to end with one army completely shattered and out of position. However in real life we see that in many ancient battles, armies weren't always completely destroyed but rather were able to retreat and regroup not long after.
It would be smart to include an option of retreat that doesn't involve surrender (bribing your opponent for "safe passage") or outright making your hero flee with a single troop. This Retreat would depend on you having remaining movement, would give your opponent XP for your destroyed portion of your army and nothing of the sort to you, but would allow you to break off the engagement for that day and maybe wait for reinforcements or reorganize your stacks, artifacts, etc., or otherwise attempt to flee to a nerby fortress. This makes the logistics of terrain and combat more interesting, since it also would count who is better rested in order to "escape" if needed, and not just who "catches" the enermy army. After all an army that camped for the day ought to have some advantage over one that came running at the limit of their movement.
I really like your points.
It also makes me think further, wouldn't it be nice to have different battle winning conditions, like holding a certain position for a given time?
Quote:
- Heroic Rise and Fall:
Normally your hero will look at the battle from the sidelines, however at any moment you may have them enter the fray. Besides your own hero's combat abilities, this gives your army a morale boost, but it come with a price: If your hero dies in combat, they die for real. No resurrections. RIP.
I am certainly not fond of NO resurrections in a world where that is actually a spell, not even counting necromancy 
On a more serious note, I think this brings up a question that is prevalent in HoMM since H4 at least: which role should the hero have. I am not certain about your idea, I think I might need more details...
|
|
NimoStar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Modding the Unmoddable
|
|
posted January 27, 2021 09:19 PM |
|
Edited by NimoStar at 21:41, 27 Jan 2021.
|
Quote:
Chaining is very addictive once you know how to optimize, not sure many will agree on removing it, unless some solid and creative idea for replacing the concept.
People that like chaining already have H3 ; ) and many copycats.
People that like slowness have H4.
While people who want nothing of the sort have no game at all.
This is an Heroes game for 2021 and people today want immediateness, not using 90% of their game turn in passing creatures from hero to hero.
Literally you could use 18 minutes of your 20 minute turn in passing creatures. And this happens every turn.
OF four hours of gameplay, three and a half may be "hero chaining". (well, if it's multiplayer, two of those will be waiting for your opponent's "hero chaining") - This is not an idea of "fun" compatible with the modern world.
Not to mention the many "cheats" that exist for it (expert players know them). And that it doesn't make sense that a creature can suddenly move again just because it changed armies.
Quote:
I'm not sure I like this insta-spawn at the army. For me, the importance of timing is actually a fact that I do enjoy somewhat on hoMM. I think that caravans sending units to heroes with a faster speed could soften the bad effects you describe. But a direct spawn...well it wouldn't feel right for me at all, I must confess. If this is in, why even have towns?
Positioning is a valid concern. Perhaps you can only recruit at the spot every turn a certain % of the army you already have, so that heroes don't instantly amass a huge army (even if the gold cost would be inflated in that case). Say, if you have only 1 Wyvern, you can recruit only 1 in a day. Its also possible to make them appear just the next day.
As to towns, however, there is no such problem - towns still need to be defended and are where you learn spells, recharge your spell points and such, to give an example.
Also if the town was blockaded you could not resupply.
Plus, you can only recruit creatures you already have in your army. So you still need to go to the source for a new creature or if you lost all.
In H4 for example you already didn't need to go to town, as the army could go to you. In H3 you had the hero chains. So the "return to town" was never necessary. Recruiting at the town instead of at your army was merely bureaucracy.
Quote:
I never disliked upgrades on HoMM, but I would also like Unit experience as you describe it. I think an interesting way would be like in Battle for Wesnoth (or, I think, fire emblem?) where units can choose an upgrade when reaching a certain point of experience. So, for your example, if archers reach Ace status, maybe they can decide to upgrade to repeater crossbows with double shot or marksmen with armor piercing.
An interesting idea, equivalent to H5 alternate upgrades combined to my experience upgrade.
It would be nice indeed, but take notice this requires more modelling and programming, so it is more likely as a feature for an exapansion than the base game.
Quote:
I am certainly not fond of NO resurrections in a world where that is actually a spell, not even counting necromancy
In H3 there is no hero resurrections, thay simply can't die. Heroes you recruit in taverns didn't die, their armies were simply defeated. Heroes that die in campaigns and story die for real, there is no in-lore H3 easy resurrection like D&D style.
If you retreat, surrender, or disengage, your hero will still be there.
In this case your hero could only die if you put it in danger yourself. Normally it's just a commander of the army. If you make it charge for a boost, well, it's your loss.
I would like a role that is in-between H3 and H4, with hero parties being possible but them not taking an army slot or entering the fray by default. The combat bonuses to the army would not stack but the highest one would be applied. Also I think a way of making Magic more usefull is Spell Power boosting also your creatures Spell Power, and Knowledge boosting your spellcaster creatures Mana points. This way they work similarly as Attack and Defense do and they don't become so easily obsolete.
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 27, 2021 10:54 PM |
|
|
|
Moving creatures between Heroes doesn't take 18 minutes from 20/turn, HD mod does that in one click. So a few seconds nowadays.
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted January 28, 2021 04:12 PM |
|
|
|
I musst confess I never used true Chaining... Never Played competitively
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2021 04:57 PM |
|
|
NimoStar said:
- Creature experience = Upgrades
Each creature would have 4 levels: Rookie, Initiate, Veteran and Ace. They would "upgrade" their appearance in a transition. Each level would affect their stats and abilities. This would work as a combination of WoG experience and classic creature upgrades. You could buy XP for your creatures but only by transferring it from your hero, not gold. There is no "buying" upgraded creatures, they have to earn it (time gives a steady trickle of experience). Sometimes you would have to choose between using a larger merged Rookie stack or a smaller Ace stack. Joining creatures, as in WoG, would average their experience for the joint stack.
...
I support that having armies has a maintenance cost
Still a strict NO to creature experience. For one thing, taking part in battles (collecting batke experience) doesn't change a unit. It may give them an increased resistance against moral-decreasing effects; a higher initiative (if initiative is a factor); an increase in defense; an increase in attack - al things that are mirrored by level upgrades of heroes.
However, battle experience cannot sprout new abilities, different gear/weapons, better armor/more HPs and so on.
It also changes the game, ESPECIALLY with maintainance cost for armies, because maximizing production isn't a factor anymore (in fact, creature growth the way we know it becomes obsolete. You just need to maximize experience now.
Games like that exist already - Disciples (2,3), Age of Wonders 3. Age of Wonders 3 offers Heroes in battle and hero and unit upgrading and also the fitting town and production system.
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted January 31, 2021 06:30 PM |
|
|
@JollyJoker:
For the "not realistic" argument against Unit Exp... HoMM was never really "realistic" was it? It was not it's aim nor strength. Not that it is not worthy to aim for that now and then in certain points...but I don't think one can argue out something because it's not realistic.
For changing the game...yes it does. That's the point. I mean, a new game should have some new mechanics, that's what this thread is about. And I do not think it would completely alter the game.
I also do not see it would get that close to AoW 3 (which is a great game, imo, btw.). I sense the idea closer to the TW games, which have RTS battles, but that has little to do with the way experience works. In HoMM it could actually make things work smoother than classical upgrades, f.e. when recruiting in field and not in town. And no upgrading at all is, for me personally, no option. That was maybe the biggest gameplay downside for me in HoMM4.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 31, 2021 08:14 PM |
|
|
|
It changes the game the wrong way. And when I say "not realistic" I mean that it doesn't make sense.
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted January 31, 2021 11:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It changes the game the wrong way.
I think it would change the game in the right direction, but that's a matter of taste, probably.
Quote:
And when I say "not realistic" I mean that it doesn't make sense.
Well, how does it make sense that 1000 dragons take the same space as 1 peasant? That is what I meant as well. I just do not think it is a weakness.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2021 09:06 AM |
|
|
It's X dragons taking the same space than one is something else than X Dragons all developing a third eye after having fought a couple of times.
The game is called HEROES - THEY are the focal point of battle-related experience gain. That is one pillar. Then you have sources of creature growth, and you strive to secure as many as possible to increase army strength. That is another.
When you add creature experience, the increasing XP based abilities clash with the pillar to secure as many sources of creature growth as possible and have as high a growth as possible.
If you want to play that, play Disciples. Or Age of Wonders. Both games feature creature XP and with both games there is no "creature growth".
Heroes Online has creature XP - but Heroes Online also has stack limits. Heroes have something akin to "command points" and cab command only so many "creature points" per stack (and only so many stacks, also something that can be increased).
Creature XP would be as big a feature demand as "Heroes in battle", and the whole game would have to be changed to incorporate that feature in a meaningful way.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted February 01, 2021 10:11 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Creature XP would be as big a feature demand as "Heroes in battle", and the whole game would have to be changed to incorporate that feature in a meaningful way.
Exactly. Yet, you are in favor of Heroes in the battlefield if I recall correctly?
So, I tend to agree with Jiriki when he says it's a matter of taste, if the implementation makes sense, both can work.
Heroes 4 campaigns are a good experience. Some WoG single maps that feature creatures XP are a good experience too. It still is about a Heroes game.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2021 04:44 PM |
|
|
I'm not.
What I said was, that H4 did a great job to accomplish that, but single units in a stack-based game is a very big stretch.
And I don't care whether you agree with Jirki that it's a matter of taste - it's not. Sure, you can make everything work, but putting a new HEROES game under the overall guideline of allowing CREATURE XP, isn't something that would cater to the strengths and characteristics of the game. Other gemes do it well and naturally so.
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted February 01, 2021 07:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Creature XP would be as big a feature demand as "Heroes in battle", and the whole game would have to be changed to incorporate that feature in a meaningful way.
I can definitely agree on that. But I am not sure such changes would be NECESSARILY bad.
BTW I am not thinking Creature XP is a MUST!!!
I just think it should not be thrown off the table totally.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2021 07:24 PM |
|
|
|
What would you expect to gain by it?
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted February 01, 2021 08:31 PM |
|
Edited by Jiriki9 at 20:32, 01 Feb 2021.
|
1. More dynamic creature management. (f.e. more relevance in splitting stacks or not).
2. Smoother integration of AM-dwellings and differently developed towns.
3. (And here we`re into tastes, definitely) Something new and interesting.
Downsides that I would expect:
1. Increased complexity (if that's a downside).
2. Powerplay-Micromanaging.
3. Reduced importance of Tiers.
I am not sure Creature Growth contradicts with Creature XP, it could be combined I think. For example, you might be able to reduce Population growth for the benefit of better trained creatures manually.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2021 10:43 PM |
|
|
Jiriki9 said:
1. More dynamic creature management. (f.e. more relevance in splitting stacks or not).
Why would splitting stacks or not would be different with creature XP? Splitting stacks is, first and foremost, an exploit, don't forget that. (If you COULDN'T split stacks, you'd have more use for joins/out-of-town-buys/summons, to get more units onto the bf...) I know, it's something to discuss, but I don't think that stack-splitting is absolutely necessary. Most of the time it's micro management.
Compare this with single-unit games and battles.
Quote:
2. Smoother integration of AM-dwellings and differently developed towns.
Where is the connection?
Quote:
I am not sure Creature Growth contradicts with Creature XP, it could be combined I think. For example, you might be able to reduce Population growth for the benefit of better trained creatures manually.
That amounts to simply having more upgrades than one.
While upgrades ARE interesting, they also aren't really needed. In fact, I think H4's picking of alternate creatures offers more variety than the upgrade thing (which is, why the alternative upgrades were so universally liked in H5 - they combine the two features).
Having XP-based "upgrades" would just lose the focus.
Think about this: too many passive abilities (with both creatures and heroes) make active abilities all the more uninteresting (and by proxy, they need to be all the more impressive to be worth it).
The interesting thing are the active abilities, because you have to decide either which one to use or whether to use the one of a creature (if available) or simply attack.
If creatures start a battle already with a whole box of passive ability entries, the actual fight will be chaotic and obscure.
The solution isn't to improve creatures with all kinds of fancy XP upgrades
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted February 02, 2021 01:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why would splitting stacks or not would be different with creature XP? Splitting stacks is, first and foremost, an exploit, don't forget that. (If you COULDN'T split stacks, you'd have more use for joins/out-of-town-buys/summons, to get more units onto the bf...) I know, it's something to discuss, but I don't think that stack-splitting is absolutely necessary. Most of the time it's micro management.
Compare this with single-unit games and battles.
What I meant was that splitting stacks - or rather: using different stacks of the same unit - could become a more tactical decision. Maybe splitting isn't even the point. But when merging armies you might decide wether it is better to merge the units of same type or to keep them seperated (f.e. if one has more experience). At the same, time, btw, exploits like retaliation-stealing should, imo, be avoided anyway.
Quote:
Where is the connection?
If I have a full-grown, upgraded army, and come to an AM-building or town with non-upgraded building, I cannot recruit there (at least in many parts of the series). This would be a way around. It is certainly not the only way around, of course!
Quote:
That amounts to simply having more upgrades than one.
?how so?
Quote:
While upgrades ARE interesting, they also aren't really needed. In fact, I think H4's picking of alternate creatures offers more variety than the upgrade thing (which is, why the alternative upgrades were so universally liked in H5 - they combine the two features).
The missing upgrades in H4 were actually something that I disliked most about the game. (And it's not like I totally dislike H4!) The alternate units were interesting, certainly, but I always felt variety was reduced without the upgrades.
Quote:
Having XP-based "upgrades" would just lose the focus.
Hmm, I am not sure about that.
Quote:
Think about this: too many passive abilities (with both creatures and heroes) make active abilities all the more uninteresting (and by proxy, they need to be all the more impressive to be worth it).
The interesting thing are the active abilities, because you have to decide either which one to use or whether to use the one of a creature (if available) or simply attack.
If creatures start a battle already with a whole box of passive ability entries, the actual fight will be chaotic and obscure.
The solution isn't to improve creatures with all kinds of fancy XP upgrades
Can you prove or elaborate that or give examples? I do not think many passive abilities must make active ones less interesting... also I am not sure why creature-XP would need to increase the number of passive abilities in comparison to active ones...what is important, imo, is that the creatures are different enough that in tactical decisions I have to consider which creatures are involved in the situation, and not just which general type (like tank, ranged, melee-damage-dealer, etc.)
what it does, though, is make the game more complex, which of course brings some dangers with it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2021 04:26 PM |
|
|
Jiriki9 said:
Quote:
...
What I meant was that splitting stacks - or rather: using different stacks of the same unit - could become a more tactical decision. Maybe splitting isn't even the point. But when merging armies you might decide wether it is better to merge the units of same type or to keep them seperated (f.e. if one has more experience). At the same, time, btw, exploits like retaliation-stealing should, imo, be avoided anyway.
So what you mean is that it wouldn't be a matter of course anymore to reinforce your Hero(es) with your freshly grown creatures. Yes, but that's exactly the problem. We are back at non-aligning goals; on one hand you want to maximize creature production - but the other it might pay if you don't? Makes no sense to me.
If you have in mind that you can equip more than one heroes then - yes, but you can do that with stack limits/command points as well.
Quote:
Quote:
Where is the connection?
If I have a full-grown, upgraded army, and come to an AM-building or town with non-upgraded building, I cannot recruit there (at least in many parts of the series). This would be a way around. It is certainly not the only way around, of course!
Yes, you can make that happen in a lot less complicated way.
Quote:
Quote:
That amounts to simply having more upgrades than one.
?how so?
It doesn't matter whether you call a building a "training center" or a "creature upgrade", the effect is the same - you can recruit different versions of a creature, the basic one and one or more upgrades.
Quote:
While upgrades ARE interesting, they also aren't really needed. In fact, I think H4's picking of alternate creatures offers more variety than the upgrade thing (which is, why the alternative upgrades were so universally liked in H5 - they combine the two features).
The missing upgrades in H4 were actually something that I disliked most about the game. (And it's not like I totally dislike H4!) The alternate units were interesting, certainly, but I always felt variety was reduced without the upgrades.
Upgrades have to offer something more than just better stats, otherwise they are redundant.
Example: Stone Gargoyle and Obsidian Gargoyle. Clearly a redundant upgrade. You'd either want to have just one Gargoyle, say, speed 8, attack 6, defense 7, cost 150 Gold. Or you want a more meaningful special, say: Blunting Hide: Melee Attackers and retaliators lose -1 attack each time they hit the Gargoyle (not that it would be meaningful, but still, I'm full of goodwill).
The missing upgrades in H4 in combination with less buildable troops made the game seem meagre creature-wise, but the building choices were quite meaningful. Repeat, that's why H5 was so good with offering the best of both worlds.
Quote:
Quote:
Having XP-based "upgrades" would just lose the focus.
Hmm, I am not sure about that.
Look, less is more. What you want is creature "specials" that are unique. The simplest setup would be, basic creature NO specials, upgrade ONE special. Since alternative upgrades are cool, another one for the alternative. With 8 towns and 7 creatures each, we are at 112 unique special abilities - and that is without spells, hero perks, racial stuff and so on. XP upgrades would either mean a lot of meaningless stat upgrades or an inflation of unique abilities, which is a waste.
Quote:
Quote:
Think about this: too many passive abilities (with both creatures and heroes) make active abilities all the more uninteresting (and by proxy, they need to be all the more impressive to be worth it).
The interesting thing are the active abilities, because you have to decide either which one to use or whether to use the one of a creature (if available) or simply attack.
If creatures start a battle already with a whole box of passive ability entries, the actual fight will be chaotic and obscure.
The solution isn't to improve creatures with all kinds of fancy XP upgrades
Can you prove or elaborate that or give examples? I do not think many passive abilities must make active ones less interesting... also I am not sure why creature-XP would need to increase the number of passive abilities in comparison to active ones...what is important, imo, is that the creatures are different enough that in tactical decisions I have to consider which creatures are involved in the situation, and not just which general type (like tank, ranged, melee-damage-dealer, etc.)
what it does, though, is make the game more complex, which of course brings some dangers with it.
The difference between active and passive abilities hasn't to do with boring/interesting. The more passive stuff is on a creature
a)the better the creatures are already when they enter battle. (This is bad because it makes active abilities less important - if your creatures already have passive skills that reduce damage, a further damage reducing spell isprobably redundant; it also makes differences between creatures seem smaller.
b) the more complex the interactions between abilities become (making bugs difficult to spot, although the probability for bugs being there is high) and the more difficult it gets for the players to actually grasp what is happening and what effect active abilities will have, once cast. If there are too many (status) effects on creatures it gets confusing and either things take much longer, or players don't really know what's going on.
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted February 02, 2021 04:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Look, less is more.
I think that's taste again. 
I will answer more soon, but not today, works keeping me busy...
|
| |
|
|
