Nargott
Auto-translated
Regarding the wheel, currently there is none, as the perk functionality hasn't been scripted yet. There is a template for the wheel (connections, classes) + a concept that can be read in the first posts of the thread.
Regarding the presence of efreets in the game and their place among the wizards:
1. Djinns/efreets/marids are 3 different types of elemental spirits; this is more interesting than just plain djinns.
2. Efreets are one of my favorite units in Heroes 3 that can be implemented in Heroes 5 (unlike pegasi, hydras, and rocs, for which there are still no adequate models).
3. If efreets are introduced, they will be based on the djinn model (there are no other implementations), therefore they will be an alternative. Because I consider the idea of making different units from different Factions based on the same general model unacceptable, especially among faction units. Since this would mean replacing the original model with a duplicate.
Regarding the nerfing of lords, I didn't understand exactly what is meant. Which specific unit, grade type, or hero class, and what does the nerf consist of?
At the moment, development is proceeding in 2 directions:
1) Conceptual - concerns heroes, classes, and profile/starting skills
2) Detailed - development of building, specifically for the human Castle, economy, and prices
On the first point, the old system is being revised. In that system, heroes started with 2 bases (racial + 2 bases + 1 perk). It was concluded that this is not very convenient for leveling up, as it defines it too strongly, tying one's hands, and moreover, some pairs of bases raise questions (since the idea was to utilize ALL possible 66 starting base pairs). A return to the original is planned (racial + 1 base + perk), plus a rework of class skills.
Currently, the concept under discussion is as follows:
1) Systemic criterion: each class, besides the racial one (0% chance of being picked, since it's always there from the start), has 3 primary bases (20% chance each), 3 secondary bases (10% chance each), another 5 rare bases (2% chance each), and 1 impossible base (0%)
2) Unity criterion: each race has 1 common primary base, while 2 others differ (within the primary set, but there may be duplicates among secondary ones); also, each race has a common impossible base (0%)
3) Uniqueness criterion: any 2 classes (even from different races) must differ in at least 2 profile bases (out of 6), and at least one of these differences must be in a primary base (i.e., primary triples of bases should never coincide between different classes)
4) Logic/popularity criterion: starting skills for heroes of a particular class are formed only based on the primary 20% bases (since there are only 3 heroes per class, if one of them has a rare base, it effectively becomes relatively accessible for the whole class, which contradicts the concept)
Example, 20% profiles:
Knight - leadership, attack, logistics
Paladin - leadership, defense, light
Templar - leadership, luck, darkness
Only 1 racial base is common - leadership; other bases differ, but may overlap with secondary ones (for example, a knight will have the same defense as a paladin, but within the 10% skills)
General profile skills:
Humans - leadership
Elves - luck
Wizard - education
Dwarves - defense (or engineering?)
Orcs - attack
Undead - sorcery (or defense?)
Dark Elves - darkness (or sorcery?)
Demons - logistics
Racial impossible skills:
Humans - chaos (or summoning?)
Elves - darkness
Wizard - attack
Dwarves - summoning (or logistics?)
Orcs - education
Undead - leadership
Dark Elves - light (or defense?)
Demons - defense (or light?)
On the 2nd point (town development), two different approaches are clashing:
1) Building should be a key, strategy-forming element. As a result, high variability of builds, meaning many units in the army may not exist at all (depending on the build); currently, in strong builds, 3 to 6 types of units are built (usually 4-5), and 1-4 grades (usually 2-3), all of which manage to be placed within the first 2 weeks
2) Building should be a supplement to the combat. As a result, units should not be discarded; conventionally, everything should be built, but variability comes from accenting/grades, tempo (which week they are built), and access to magic (guild level)
The problem with the second approach is that while it strives to ensure the best possible result (a full army of all unit types), it loses out in the process. If we must build all units, then we must build peasants, and if we place peasants, then only in the first week; by the second week, there will be too few of them (it's more profitable to build higher-level ones). Thus, either peasants are mandatory to build and fixed in their timing, i.e., monotonous, or peasants are already placed by default, as well as a number of low-level units. But this fundamentally implies that towns should not start from a minimum, but already be somewhat developed. But if that's the case, then what is the point of prices for the buildings that are already there by default? They are justified only if they are absent at least in neutral towns. However, if neutral towns are minimal (have no buildings at all) and starting towns are already well-developed, too great a difference arises between them, which is bad from a strategic point of view, as the importance of secondary towns recedes into the background. An alternative is pre-installed neutral towns with some buildings, so as not to fall too far behind the starting ones, but different each time (for example, in some towns peasants and swordsmen, in others - archers and swordsmen, in others - peasants and archers, etc.).
In the same RTA, 5-6 types of units are most often taken into the endgame because it is profitable to split casters and save on unnecessary troops, investing gold into leveling (additional levels) or artifacts. But if so, then why build buildings for unnecessary units that will not be bought anyway?
Regarding the presence of efreets in the game and their place among the wizards:
1. Djinns/efreets/marids are 3 different types of elemental spirits; this is more interesting than just plain djinns.
2. Efreets are one of my favorite units in Heroes 3 that can be implemented in Heroes 5 (unlike pegasi, hydras, and rocs, for which there are still no adequate models).
3. If efreets are introduced, they will be based on the djinn model (there are no other implementations), therefore they will be an alternative. Because I consider the idea of making different units from different Factions based on the same general model unacceptable, especially among faction units. Since this would mean replacing the original model with a duplicate.
Regarding the nerfing of lords, I didn't understand exactly what is meant. Which specific unit, grade type, or hero class, and what does the nerf consist of?
At the moment, development is proceeding in 2 directions:
1) Conceptual - concerns heroes, classes, and profile/starting skills
2) Detailed - development of building, specifically for the human Castle, economy, and prices
On the first point, the old system is being revised. In that system, heroes started with 2 bases (racial + 2 bases + 1 perk). It was concluded that this is not very convenient for leveling up, as it defines it too strongly, tying one's hands, and moreover, some pairs of bases raise questions (since the idea was to utilize ALL possible 66 starting base pairs). A return to the original is planned (racial + 1 base + perk), plus a rework of class skills.
Currently, the concept under discussion is as follows:
1) Systemic criterion: each class, besides the racial one (0% chance of being picked, since it's always there from the start), has 3 primary bases (20% chance each), 3 secondary bases (10% chance each), another 5 rare bases (2% chance each), and 1 impossible base (0%)
2) Unity criterion: each race has 1 common primary base, while 2 others differ (within the primary set, but there may be duplicates among secondary ones); also, each race has a common impossible base (0%)
3) Uniqueness criterion: any 2 classes (even from different races) must differ in at least 2 profile bases (out of 6), and at least one of these differences must be in a primary base (i.e., primary triples of bases should never coincide between different classes)
4) Logic/popularity criterion: starting skills for heroes of a particular class are formed only based on the primary 20% bases (since there are only 3 heroes per class, if one of them has a rare base, it effectively becomes relatively accessible for the whole class, which contradicts the concept)
Example, 20% profiles:
Knight - leadership, attack, logistics
Paladin - leadership, defense, light
Templar - leadership, luck, darkness
Only 1 racial base is common - leadership; other bases differ, but may overlap with secondary ones (for example, a knight will have the same defense as a paladin, but within the 10% skills)
General profile skills:
Humans - leadership
Elves - luck
Wizard - education
Dwarves - defense (or engineering?)
Orcs - attack
Undead - sorcery (or defense?)
Dark Elves - darkness (or sorcery?)
Demons - logistics
Racial impossible skills:
Humans - chaos (or summoning?)
Elves - darkness
Wizard - attack
Dwarves - summoning (or logistics?)
Orcs - education
Undead - leadership
Dark Elves - light (or defense?)
Demons - defense (or light?)
On the 2nd point (town development), two different approaches are clashing:
1) Building should be a key, strategy-forming element. As a result, high variability of builds, meaning many units in the army may not exist at all (depending on the build); currently, in strong builds, 3 to 6 types of units are built (usually 4-5), and 1-4 grades (usually 2-3), all of which manage to be placed within the first 2 weeks
2) Building should be a supplement to the combat. As a result, units should not be discarded; conventionally, everything should be built, but variability comes from accenting/grades, tempo (which week they are built), and access to magic (guild level)
The problem with the second approach is that while it strives to ensure the best possible result (a full army of all unit types), it loses out in the process. If we must build all units, then we must build peasants, and if we place peasants, then only in the first week; by the second week, there will be too few of them (it's more profitable to build higher-level ones). Thus, either peasants are mandatory to build and fixed in their timing, i.e., monotonous, or peasants are already placed by default, as well as a number of low-level units. But this fundamentally implies that towns should not start from a minimum, but already be somewhat developed. But if that's the case, then what is the point of prices for the buildings that are already there by default? They are justified only if they are absent at least in neutral towns. However, if neutral towns are minimal (have no buildings at all) and starting towns are already well-developed, too great a difference arises between them, which is bad from a strategic point of view, as the importance of secondary towns recedes into the background. An alternative is pre-installed neutral towns with some buildings, so as not to fall too far behind the starting ones, but different each time (for example, in some towns peasants and swordsmen, in others - archers and swordsmen, in others - peasants and archers, etc.).
In the same RTA, 5-6 types of units are most often taken into the endgame because it is profitable to split casters and save on unnecessary troops, investing gold into leveling (additional levels) or artifacts. But if so, then why build buildings for unnecessary units that will not be bought anyway?