Classes are definitely a highlight of the game, but they have a major problem – they aren't used. More precisely, only 2 are used – Speedy and Explorer. The rest appear in approximately 1 out of 50-100 games. That is, a lot of quite interesting functionality is essentially excluded from the game.
Therefore, it is suggested to simplify the collection or increase the reward for collecting extremely useful classes, such as Governor, Artificer, Warrior, etc.
For example, give +10-10 to experts for Warrior, and +50% to growth for Governor, like the Grail. And then, I assure you, everyone in every game will strive to collect them. Right now, many, including me, don't know by heart what skills do. That's how we play.
The problem here is that classes are very unpredictable in their composition. Modern Heroes is a very dynamic game; starting from the middle of the 2nd week, the game can end at any moment, so taking a random skill in the hope of getting a second one later is, in most cases, a negative move. The skill should start to bring benefits immediately after it is taken.
There isn't much difference in what you take for a secondary hero. But yes, I agree that it would be beneficial, but it's not critical.
I deliberately collected Warrior, God bless him, about 5 times in several hundred games. Terraformer - 2 times. I haven't deliberately collected anything else.
He only has 8 skills; it's time to introduce 2 more secret ones, and there is an opportunity in WoG.
That's why I came up with the idea of transferring the functionality of classes to skills; I want to bring it back into the game, diversify the gameplay, and improve the skills that are not used now.
This can be achieved without removing classes altogether. It is enough to simply discuss how to improve them.
If we go down the path of strengthening the classes themselves, this will only increase the variance without fundamentally changing the situation. And it will add a lot of cases like "I took a skill, but I didn't get a Scout." All this does not quite correspond to the concept of a competitive game.
There is already enough of that. Games are not won without risk. The more we simplify everything, removing morale, adding experience (I would reduce it from 50% to 33%, by the way), the more we risk losing old players and not gaining new ones. All changes should be made for the sake of balance, and not for the sake of the changes themselves.
Regarding 25% - this feature was originally invented for fixes, where mages overwhelmingly dominate, and it was necessary to somehow strengthen the warriors. In a random game, warriors do not need to be strengthened; rather, they even need to be weakened. This bonus led to the fact that 95% of games start with specialists in monsters, and they continue to play with them until the end. Even in SoD, there are more cases of switching to another hero than in Heroes. Something similar is what I would like to see in Heroes - so that specialists in monsters are taken at the start because of the army, and then whoever gets what skills, excessive powerful abilities only reduce the diversity of the gameplay.
I completely agree with this.
The same, by the way, applies to armorers - overpowered abilities that are not so noticeable because they start as specialists in monsters. After removing 25%, armorers will get a second wind. And they are not at all on par with offensive heroes. If I see that the opponent has dug up Tazar, I am sad. If I see that he has dug up Craig, I don't care.
Calculate, for example, at level 20, they are actually on par: 100*1.6-30%=112, i.e., Craig is stronger in a direct battle, but in battles with monsters, defense is more noticeable due to fewer losses.
And the fact that you don't keep Craig or Gundula as a hero is your problem :)
Added 1 minute ago
For starters, although this contradicts my statement about changes... Is it possible to introduce a 10th Castle into the game? The question is more for the developers.
