MMH5.5 - Heroes of Might and Magic 5.5 — Mods: Tribes of the East, Hammers of Fate and Vanilla — Page 28

Registered: 10/24/2015

Posts: 772

#411 8/29/2017 2:02 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Nargott

What general conclusion can be drawn after reviewing the classes? The goal was not to make them unique. The goal was to tailor all useful skills to each class, which may suit it, according to its characteristics. Plus, general restrictions on magic (one school - Might, two - Balanced, three - Magic).

Excellent wording.

Nargott

There are far fewer such archetypes than 24. In essence, all the differences lie in the Might, Balanced, Magic categories, racial ones (where they exist), schools of magic, and (for combat classes) a focus on attack or defense (based on parameters). Although there are also a few unique classes (such as Wizard or Heretic).

You can also add the Dungeon Assassin class, which is the only non-Magic class that has access to Occultism.

Nargott

In no way. I believe that "melee" skills should not be weakened.
Regarding leadership for necromancers, I already wrote about it above - this skill should not exist there at all.

I think we can close this topic because after this change, we will have to improve all other Might trees to make them as competitive as Combat, and we don't want that.

Nargott

Yes, this will make Might classes more similar to the General Balanced group, but they will still have fundamental differences in characteristics. But there will be more differences between Might classes themselves.

So, if Might and Balanced will be more similar, while the heroes within the classes are a bit more different, aren't we back to the same state?

Nargott

Then why is there only 1 class with high knowledge (40% +)?

Because it is Might and Magic; you either fight or cast magic. The only way this is possible for knowledge is through the Artificer skill and as an aid to the Magic heroes late game. All other factions utilize knowledge in their secondary heroes for more resources and creature growth.
If you have a hero who only focuses on knowledge (and no Artificer), it will be a turn-off for any player because it will never be considered as a pick for a primary hero.
It is not that we want to be like that, but this is as far as we could go with it.

Nargott

Perhaps, you set the goal to create self-sufficient classes, so that the player could win back any strategy with native heroes, but the use of non-native heroes still does not cancel.

Exactly! It does not cancel it, but you get the -1 morale penalty. Necropolis is ok; however, it has been like that since Heroes 1, I think?

Regarding all class changes - When considering just primary skills, it sounds good in theory, but reading the class profiles, you talk about the army as if it is just for the Might heroes. This is what we tried to avoid when considering mechanics.
Both heroes have an army where Might has a stronger one due to passive effects from skills, while Magic has a weaker army and compensates with magic. The most important thing here is that the success of both players depends on the tactical maneuvers on the battlefield.
The lesser gap between the Might hero's army and the Mage hero's army (because of 5% -> 3%) allows the highest-tier Mage creatures to actually still do considerable damage in battle (or withstand assaults).

With this taken into mind, you can't say that Attack and defense is a combination against Might, and Attack + Knowledge is a combination against a mage. Because the mage has an army, and he will use it to the best of his ability.
This is why Frenzy feels so good on friendly creatures, as it allows a dark mage to complement his army in unusual ways. On the other hand, Frenzy on the enemy army is pure massacre wherever you cast it. It just kills the vibe of good tactical decisions.
Also, defense against mages is not given by primary skills but by perks and secondary skills like Shatters. Knowledge is a utility skill; it does not help in battle except to provide mana for spells. They can be offensive or defensive, but their effect and efficiency have nothing to do with the knowledge primary skill.

Registered: 5/9/2009

Posts: 1,592

#412 8/29/2017 2:23 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I think we can close this topic because after this change we have to improve all other Might trees to make them as competitive as Combat and we do not want that.

There is an option to slightly reduce the hero's direct attack, if that's what you want.

"dredknight"

So if Might and Balanced will be more similar while the heroes inside the classes are a bit more different, aren't we back to the same state?

No, because the differences between them are already significant, but there are no differences between the classes within each group. Ideally, at least 3 out of 9 available skills should be different. Or at least bring it up to 2 in those classes that differed in 0 or 1 skill.

Because it is Might and Magic, you either fight or cast magic. The only way this is possible for knowledge is through the Artificier skill and as an aid to the Magic heroes late game. All other factions utilize knowledge in their secondary heroes for more resources and creature growth.

If magic is expensive enough (high-level spells), there will be no problems with how knowledge will work in a prolonged game. However, I wrote about this.
Currently, it turns out that the parameter is incomplete, i.e., "economic" (Might heroes have a lot of attack or defense, Magic heroes have a lot of magic - all).

Exactly! It does not cancel it but you get the -1 moral penalty.

This is not significant as a difference. It's just -1 to morale. Especially for magic classes.

Both heroes have an army where Might has a stronger one due to passive effects from skills while Magic has a weaker army and compensates with magic. The most important thing here is that the success of both players depends on the tactical maneuvers on the battlefield.

If magic is too weak, then yes, even against magic classes, defense will work well. The question is whether it should be done this way.

The point is that before, I also thought that attack + defense were rigidly connected and it was always beneficial to upgrade them together, as well as magic + knowledge. Like, one enhances the army, the other enhances the hero. But multiplayer experience convinced me otherwise.

If I take a warrior and upgrade his defense because it's cool, it generally strengthens the troops, but then a mage comes along who kills with magic - I end up at a significant disadvantage because defense becomes irrelevant.

On the other hand, a mage - it would seem - doesn't need to upgrade defense, he plays with magic, why should he strengthen his troops? But in practice, when a combatant with good attack comes against you, defense allows you to buy time in the arms race (strength versus magic). Thus, defense actually synergizes with magic just as well as attack does with a warrior.

Even in a match between a combatant and a combatant, if one focuses on defense and the other on knowledge (casting Light-Dark spells), do you think the advantage will be with the one who upgraded just Might-defense? Not at all. Defense allows you to buy time and generally exchange blows well, but only until the opponent casts full buffs and/or removes your buffs.

By the way, a very important note about Light-Dark buffs. Since you made the reduction not 0.5, but 0.1 (or 0.0), the game with buffs has significantly weakened, and it is necessary to think about strengthening their effects, while raising prices. Just so that classes with low 10-15% knowledge cannot afford too many buffs in battle, ideally 2-3 at most (if they haven't specifically upgraded knowledge). Prices need to be raised because of the fact that in the buff race, the mana consumption per round has decreased by half due to the 2 times fewer buffs, and heroes with low knowledge gain an unfair advantage, competing with those who sit on buffs with high knowledge. With the old (0.5) rate, mana can run out quite quickly, but with the 0.1 rate, it no longer does (if you don't raise prices).

Buff = casting Buffs / Debuffs

Thus, you need to think carefully about what to upgrade against an opponent. Attack - if we kill primarily with troops. Defense - if we are afraid that he will kill us primarily with troops. Magic - if we kill with magic. Knowledge - if we plan to outplay the opponent in magic in a prolonged battle (either with Light-Dark buffs, or with the support of magic).

That is, defense is not a universally useful parameter for a warrior. For a warrior, the only definitely useful parameter is attack. Defense is not tied to either a warrior or a mage - it is a parameter that is effective specifically against a warrior (as a warrior against a warrior, and a mage against a warrior). Therefore, I do not see any need for every Might class with 45% attack to have 30% defense. It may not work, in different situations 30% magic or knowledge may work better (although with magic it will no longer be a Might class).

Actually, I don't have much experience playing specifically in your modification. I analyze a lot, but I don't play as often. But there is experience playing in the original Heroes, as well as on a special tactical arena (upgrades + battles between heroes). Therefore, everything I tell you about parameters corresponds specifically to my experience and the original game. In your balance, this may not work as well, but in this case, it turns out to be a flaw in the balance, if before all 6 combinations of parameters were played (not in theory, but in practice), and now only 2 are played (Might or Magic).
Although you also have 1 good class with a focus on attack + magic (total 70%) - Assassin. I would like to see more such classes, with clearly defined key parameters, different from just Might or just Magic. That is, the interest of the Assassin is not in the fact that he is Balanced (attack + defense = 50%), but in the fact that he has (attack + magic = 70%).

Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition.
Сайт проекта - пока неактивен
Автор Асимметричных шахмат

Registered: 10/24/2015

Posts: 772

#413 8/29/2017 4:59 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Nargott

Casting = casting Buffs / Debuffs

Thanks! I was wondering what this is.

Nargott

By the way, a very important note regarding Light-Dark buffs. Since you made the cooldown not 0.5, but 0.1 (or 0.0), the gameplay based on buffs has significantly weakened; it is necessary to think about strengthening their effects, while simultaneously increasing the prices. This is precisely so that classes with low 10-15% knowledge cannot afford too many buffs in battle, ideally 2-3 at most (if they haven't specifically leveled up their knowledge). The prices need to be increased because in the buff race, the mana cost per round has decreased by half due to the buffs being cast twice as rarely, and heroes with low knowledge gain an unfair advantage, competing with those who rely on buffs with high knowledge. With the old (0.5) cooldown, mana can run out quite quickly, but with a 0.1 cooldown, it doesn't (if you don't increase prices).

First, the general idea is that Might heroes should be able to cast blessings and curses. This is how they can make their army a little stronger. The spells' effects and duration are reduced due to a lack of spellpower. Here is an example for bless and expert Light:
Might hero with 5 spellpower: +26.65% bonus initiative for 2.5 turns.
Magic hero with 50 spellpower: +41.5% for 7 turns.

Besides the obvious difference in the bonus, the low number of rounds means that every third ATB action, the Might hero will be busy casting that blessing.
This mechanic refers to our initial idea for the Might vs. Magic class.

A hero (any class) affects the battlefield in 2 main ways - passive and active.
- Passive is in the form of skills that benefit the native army or negatively affect the enemy army during the duration of the battle, where all the benefits come from skills and stats that do not reduce the ATB.
- Active is in the form of spells and abilities that improve the native army, negatively affect the enemy army, or cause direct damage. Any of those skills require hero ATB usage and can be burst or spread over a period of time.

Might classes are more prominent in passive effects, Magic classes are more prominent in active effects, and Balanced classes thrive in between.
In a battle:
- Passive effects - they just work, no need to explain.
- Active abilities - This is the interesting part that I hope may change your vision for some of the changes. For mages, it is obvious that they have a vast range of spells to cast during the whole battle. The player is overwhelmed with choices, especially when playing with 2 or 3 schools at the same time. From the Mage perspective, the battle is interesting. But from the Might perspective... Might heroes have restricted usage of spells (dark or light), and even with the schools, the range of spells in those schools can be halved for them because some of the spells require spellpower.

So, the Active part for Might heroes is not that interesting. Basically, you cast some spells for a lesser effect, and there is not much thought put into it. But with the addition of Combat, a Might player can actually choose another path. Depending on what Combat path you take, the Might hero can adjust his battlefield strategy significantly. Yes, Combat does not offer much in the way of booster skills, but it offers tactical adjustments before (preparation) and during ("Chain strikes," "retaliation," Avenger") battle.

Not once or twice can it happen that you have a good shot against a vulnerable enemy stack but have to cancel your offense with a T5, T6, or T7 unit just because the enemy hero put a "retaliation strike" on that unit, and damn, it will hit hard. This is a concept that cannot be justified by numbers and statistics.

Also, I see that you are trying too hard to make a note, and I understand that, but keep in mind that the changes you want come with a huge investment of time.
If you open the game, get a mage hero, and visit a witch hut, it will give you 2 suggestions for skill increase, for example, Occultism and Sorcery. Do you know what happens if you visit the same witch hut with a Might hero? You will not be proposed Occultism and Sorcery. It will most certainly be Combat and Leadership. All those things are done manually for every skill.

By the way, you said that Sorcery looks really strong. Sorcery is the Magic class variation of the Might class Leadership. As you can see, a hero that has Sorcery never has Leadership.

Expert Leadership gives 50% for 0.4 initiative increase. This means that the army's average initiative is increased by 20%.
Expert Sorcery, on the other hand, increases the Hero, who only acts once, by 36%.
Once again, these are numbers that cannot be measured because questions such as "is the hero as strong as 2 unit stacks? or less? or more?" have to be answered. And the answer depends on the stage of the game, the luck factor of artifacts, and so on. Final line - it cannot be determined.

Combat and Occultism are also Might and Magic counters.
Combat increases the Might hero's army's tactical advantage.
Occultism increases the Magic hero's spell effect/damage.

Occultism tree is all in numbers; Combat has barely any numbers. How do you measure that? Although unmeasurable, they are both accepted equally.

There is no universal way to equalize heroes' primary, secondary skills.
It is like measuring man and woman... it just does not work that way.

We did it the other way around. We started with how we want it to be as an idea and then started iterating propositions. The core skill system was iterated a lot of times. There were major changes in every edition up to RC8. You can check the moddb article history. I believe the mod was put online around version RC3 or RC4.

Added 19 minutes ago
P.S.

To give some information on how skills that cannot be compared with numbers are made equal. You make the skills and then try the best way to exploit them. Then you try to find the best counter (if possible). Then the effort is calculated -

Does the same amount of effort is needed to take the exploit path then to counter it?

The good thing is that we got a lot of people to test, so blind spots are reduced as much as possible. The final result is not just my decision or Magnomagus's decision but an average of all opinions, with regards to logic, of course.

Cheers

Registered: 5/9/2009

Posts: 1,592

#414 8/29/2017 6:12 PM UTC

Auto-translated

"dredknight"

First the general idea is Might heroes to be able to cast blessing and curses. This is how they can make their army a little bit stronger. The spells effects and duration are reduced due to lack of spellpower. Here is an example for bless and expert Light:
Might hero with 5 spellpower: +26.65% bonus initiative for 2.5 turns.
Magic hero with 50 spellpower: +41.5% for 7 turns.

Okay, let's try comparing two hypothetical classes:
1) 30/50/10/10 (pure warrior)
2) 10/50/10/30 (warrior with magic)

In the first 3 rounds, both heroes cast buffs/debuffs, but the first class has an advantage due to its physical stats (80% vs. 60%). However, after 3 rounds, the first class runs out of mana, while the second class continues to cast buffs, which can help it even out the fight or even gain an advantage. This is the interest and the strength of the 10/50/10/30 class. However, if the buffs are too cheap, it will gain an advantage too late (the pure warrior will run out of mana too late). And if they are too weak, they will not be enough to neutralize the difference in stats and the losses it suffered in the first rounds. Therefore, a proper balance of buffs is important, but if it is set up that way, the 10/50/10/30 classes will play well (knowledge will not be worse than attack for a warrior). And this is an additional variety in the Might (or Balanced) line.

As I understand it, in very long games (which MMH5.5 focuses on), the heroes' stats reach extreme values, and even with 10% knowledge, it is not uncommon to have 10 knowledge by the time of the encounter (if not, correct me). This means a total of 100 mana for buffs. With such a large amount of mana (for a combat game), I would give the following prices for spells:
1st circle) about 5 mana
2nd circle) about 10 mana
3rd circle) about 20 mana
4th circle) about 40 mana
5th circle) about 80 mana
This means that mass buffs would cost from 10 (the weakest, 1st circle) to 20 and 40 mana, which would roughly correspond to what I wrote above.

Yes Combat does not offer much of a booster skills but it offers tactical adjustments before (preparation) and during ("Chain strikes", "retaliation", Avenger") battle.

Combat does not provide any significant passive enhancements (compared to other skills that provide passive bonuses); it serves purely as a gateway to its own abilities. Similarly, troop recruitment is almost useless, but it is a gateway to +1 speed.

Let me explain why I criticize gateway skills/abilities (which don't really do anything else). In fact, the hero spends a level-up, doesn't get anything worthwhile, and waits for the next level-up, only after which it gets a good ability (and it may not be immediately useful - then it will have to wait for the next level-ups). Delayed reward is not a very pleasant mechanic, in my opinion.

The saddest thing about Combat is that it is essentially a new skill (for all races except humans), but in itself (without abilities) it does not give any "wow" effect. And it could have been balanced to be attractive, but you don't want to spend time on it.

In addition, if Combat were a strong base (base means the bare skill without abilities, not the basic level of the skill), the player would have the option to develop a skilled Combat, but refusing abilities in it. This is additional variability. There is none now, because investing 3 level-ups in +25% to situational retaliatory strikes (and nothing else) is something few people will want to do. In RTA (Random Tactical Arena), even one level-up in +20% to retaliatory strikes is not in demand (there the bonuses are +10/30/50%, which is still small).

An example of a strong, good base is Defense. The skill increases the survivability of troops in melee combat by 33% (100/75). That is, it neutralizes skilled Offense and skilled Combat combined. This is very pleasant, and you can invest 3 level-ups in it, even without investing in abilities. Or you can invest in abilities - and such a choice is pleasing.

Let's say you don't want to strengthen Combat (for whatever reason - it doesn't matter). But then just keep in mind that any ability in Combat comes at the cost of 2 level-ups, one of which is almost wasted on increasing Combat itself. And in the case of Armor Spikes, this is definitely not justified (it is obvious that +1/+1 is not worth investing 2 levels here). In fact, everything has already been said about Combat, and it is unlikely that anything new will be discovered. You will not be able to convince me that Combat is a good base; but on the other hand, I have not said anywhere that the abilities in it are not good enough (except for Armor Spikes). It can be developed, exclusively for the sake of abilities. Therefore, in my opinion, there is nothing to argue about here.

In fact, I am not insisting on changes - I am just expressing a negative attitude towards this skill (base), nothing more.

Expert Leadership gives 50% for 0.4 initiative increase. This means that army average initiative is increased by 20%.
Expert Sorcery on the other side increase the Hero, who only acts once, by 36%.
Once again those are numbers that cannot be measured because questions such as "is the hero strong as 2 unit stacks? or less? or more?" have to be answered. And the answer depends on the stage of the game the luck factor of artifacts and so on. Final line - it cannot be determined.

Expert Leadership gives +5 final morale (10/8 = 125% initiative after the first turn).
Without leadership, +2 morale (10/9.2 = 109% initiative after the first turn).
The final acceleration from expert leadership = 9.2/8 = +15% to initiative after the first turn.

Expert Sorcery gives 10/6.4 = +56% to the hero's initiative after the first turn. That's the whole difference: 15% versus 56% (and not 20 versus 36).
In the original: 10/7 = +43% to the hero's initiative after the first turn.

10/20/30% Sorcery is practically indispensable for Magic heroes, while Might heroes can easily do without Leadership (developing other abilities).

Personally, I would prefer passive bonuses to sorcery, such as +1/+2/+3 to spellpower (with a 10% step instead of 12%), rather than wildly increasing initiative after the first turn. And even better, instead of strengthening an already powerful skill (key for Magic classes), strengthen the spells.

Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition.
Сайт проекта - пока неактивен
Автор Асимметричных шахмат

Registered: 10/24/2015

Posts: 772

#415 8/29/2017 6:57 PM UTC

Auto-translated

The leadership math is correct. But I have never done it before, so I really don't have a clue how much a hero's ATB is worth in respect to unit ATB.

Let me explain why I criticize mediocre skills/perks (which don't really do anything special). In fact, the hero spends a level-up, doesn't get anything worthwhile, waits for the next level-up, and only then gets a good skill (and even then, it might not be the right one – so you have to wait for the next level-ups). Delayed reward is not a very pleasant mechanic, in my opinion. Furthermore, if Combat were a strong base (base means the raw skill, without any perks), the player would have the option to develop a skilled Combat, but forgo the perks in it. This would add extra variety. Currently, there isn't any, because few people will want to invest 3 level-ups into +20% to situational counterattacks (and nothing else).

Nargott, you want to buff lesser skills/perks and leave the strong ones as they are. You create an overall imbalance between the skill trees. Also, the logic you use is invalid. By saying "let's take Combat and for some reason not go with further perk upgrades," you imply that the player would not take any more skills from that tree, even though it will be superior to other secondary skill branches. This statement is not possible in practice because anyone who plays Heroes in PvP plays for the victory. Anyone who plays for the victory tries to make their best run. Also, I already said that I cannot accept criticism based on personal interests and not on an objective approach. I like your vigorous debating, but it seems you are only making decisions on our core model based on what you see as numbers and not on actual game experience based on the mod. It is really nice to debate here, and I try to answer all people's questions, but I really start to get tired of finding a way to deliver all that is done in a single package. If you think our model is biased, go find a player you think is equally good and try a few games against each other. Get a race and a hero, try to find an easy win strategy against your opponent. If it succeeds, tell him how you did it, and play a second game with him knowing that you are going to use it. If he defends well, you try a third game with the same faction and same hero. Try to find a hole in his counter, etc. Take the data and come and challenge me with it. Show me some replays. Even a game like chess, where both players have the same type of pieces and the field is symmetric, utilizes different strategies on both ends (black and white) only because white moves first. Cheers

Registered: 5/9/2009

Posts: 1,592

#416 8/30/2017 6:49 AM UTC

Auto-translated

"dredknight"

Also the logic you use is invalid. By saying "lets take combat and for some reason do not go with further perk upgrades" you impose that the player would not take any more skills from that tree even though it will be superior to other secondary skill branches. This statement not possible in practice because anyone who play heroes in PvP play for the victory. Anyone who play for victory tries to make his best run.

The logic is perfectly sound; you are misunderstanding it. I am saying that:
1) A good base + good skills is better than
2) A zero (very weak) base + even stronger skills that compensate for its weakness
Even if the first option equals the second (with all skills taken in both branches), the first option offers more diverse gameplay and is therefore much more interesting. I often level up skills without maxing out their individual perks, or not leveling them up at all. It is normal practice to level up what is needed, and not everything at once. If I like the base of the Wizard skill, I will level up Wizard. But if I don't need the perks in it, I won't level them up. And if the game forces me to level them up to be effective, I will be annoyed by this forced choice ("take the perks - or don't level up the base at all!").

Get a race and a hero try to find an easy win strategy against your opponent.

In this case, the criticism was not that it is imbalanced in terms of the result, but that it is not interesting from the player's point of view. These are two different things. If you are specifically interested in the imbalance, I immediately said: the "Wizard" skill is imbalanced. For one simple reason: not all players like long games; the stronger the player, the faster they win. This must be taken into account: the game may end in the first month, even on a large map, and you are not taking this into account (weakening Might heroes at the expense of stats and long, massive spell casts, and strengthening Magic heroes at the expense of Wizardry).
Or am I missing something, and are there any changes that fundamentally prevent the opponent from arriving on week 3 or 4 (as in the original game) with a level 20+ hero and expertly upgraded Wizardry and SP at 20-30?

Unfortunately, I don't like your modification enough to play it in its current state. The fact is that most of the individual changes are excellent, and the game deserves praise, respect, and high ratings in any case. But there is the word "balance," and in my case, this is the stumbling block (the most important detail). Balance implies not only how it plays (who has a better chance of winning), but also how it looks. Therefore, the balance can be "equal" and still be bad, uninteresting at the same time.

The fact that you use 24 hero classes is very good, and actually inspiring. The skill tree also looks great visually, a big plus to the people who drew it. However, all of this is undermined by the fact that the number of unique classes is much lower (which is important to me personally). Also, I don't understand why 4 combinations of parameters were removed from 6, in favor of only Might (attack + defense), only Magic (wizardry + knowledge), and something mixed (without strong parameters). Plus, in all this cool skill tree, some skills just make you want to throw them out, because they give an absurdly small bonus. All of this combined creates a barrier that prevents you from enjoying the game.

In summary. 90% of the changes are excellent. The potential of the modification is huge. The work done is solid. The attitude towards the mod is positive. But the attitude towards the balance of individual things is negative, unfortunately. Many players do not delve as deeply as I do, or do not pay attention to some things. My skill is to find flaws and ways to eliminate them, and other players can simply praise the mod.
I will hope that some of the key points from our discussion have been passed on to the developers and will ultimately be beneficial.

I will follow future changes with interest. Good luck!

Added 1 hour 0 minutes ago
I'm tired of lengthy discussions, I'll just list the skills that I have complaints about (and then you decide whether to change them or not):

Potential overpowered skills in terms of meeting on weeks 3-4 with level 15-20+:

Empowered Spells + Mark of the Sorcerer
Flaming Arrows
Sorcery

Unattractive skills:

Armor Spikes
Preparation
Offensive Formation
Defensive Formation
Erratic Mana
Critical Hit
Resistance
Protection (in the wrong skill)
Gatemaster
Chilling Bones
Agonizing Strike

Unattractive skills (excluding individual perks):

Combat
Offense (starting with Advanced)
Enlightenment (double weakening, both in terms of parameter quality (3.33%) and in their quantity)

Added 9 hours 48 minutes ago
Also, I'll throw in some ideas for parameter distribution so that each class has enough differences from others, at least in terms of parameters:
(this is an answer to the question of how many ways you can distribute parameters between 24 classes)

1) Might: At + Df from 65% and above

50/30 + 10/10
30/50 + 10/10
40/25 + 10/25
25/40 + 10/25
40/25 + 25/10
25/40 + 25/10

2) Mixed: At + Df from 40 to 60%

50/10 + 30/10
10/50 + 30/10
50/10 + 10/30
10/50 + 10/30

40/10 + 25/25 (conditionally, you can put it in Magic, since both wizardry and knowledge are not lower than 25%)
10/40 + 25/25 (conditionally in Magic)
25/25 + 40/10 (conditionally in Might)
25/25 + 10/40 (conditionally in Might)

30/10 + 50/10
10/30 + 50/10
30/10 + 10/50
10/30 + 10/50

3) Magic: At + Df up to 35%

10/10 + 50/30
10/10 + 30/50
25/10 + 40/25
25/10 + 25/40
10/25 + 40/25
10/25 + 25/40

With proper balance, each of these classes will have a distinct playstyle (believe my experience, or don't - as you wish).

Role of parameters:
Attack - to kill the enemy with an army
Defense - to survive enemy attacks (prolonging the battle)
Wizardry - to kill the enemy with magic
Knowledge - to use a large number of spells in battle:
10% knowledge - use spells of levels 1-2 throughout the battle (or a small number of spells of level 3)
25-30% knowledge - use spells of levels 2-3 throughout the battle (or a small number of spells of level 4)
40% knowledge - use spells of levels 3-4 throughout the battle (or a small number of spells of level 5)
50% knowledge - use spells of levels 4-5 throughout the battle

(I specifically wrote out knowledge so that it is clear how it should play specifically for combat, and not economic heroes, i.e. what the prices for spells should be)

Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition.
Сайт проекта - пока неактивен
Автор Асимметричных шахмат

Registered: 10/24/2015

Posts: 772

#417 8/30/2017 7:33 AM UTC

I will do tell @Magnomagus to take a look but I do not promise anything.

I have an idea to start posting videos with some strategy overview some time in the future so we will definitely have what more to discuss.

Cheers

In reply to Nargott

Registered: 6/11/2017

Posts: 62

#418 8/30/2017 7:34 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Could someone create a patch for this mod that would make the hero flags on the global map correspond to the player's color? Even a simple revert would do, even if all three classes in each faction have the same model. I asked this question on the main mod thread in the community, and the developer said it was possible, but no one is working on it. And I don't know how to mod Heroes 5, only Heroes 3, and even then, just a little. These multicolored flags are terribly distracting from the game. It's a bit of a fly in the ointment, which is this mod.

Registered: 2/18/2017

Posts: 476

#419 8/30/2017 8:34 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Contact NHF and get a model with a flag for the class there, and I might explain how to change it. I'll add that Nargot doesn't like long games and is unlikely to ever play with 5.5. I often take a counterattack skill for the "Reinforce," "Martial Arts," and possibly "Stunning Blow"/"Vigilance" skills. I want to try taking "Reinforce" and "Retribution." In the third/fourth week, a mentor appears, and as soon as the hero's attacks become weak, I reset the skill. Cerberuses with a speed of 7 are now completely unnecessary.

У меча предназначения два острия, одно из них ты.

Заинтересованный занимается написанием прохождений
Прохождения]
НЕКРОМАНТ

2,3,4,5
Заинтересованный планирует создать серию мультиплеерных карт "Фантазия безумного картострителей".
Миссия 1 - Фктиф-Зобар готова на 11,5%

Registered: 10/24/2015

Posts: 772

#420 8/30/2017 8:39 AM UTC

Auto-translated

I saw the post and have added it to the task list, but I can't say when it will be done (even though it's probably not difficult) because I don't know how to do it right now. This means I need to spend more time figuring it out. We have limited time, and it's preferable to spend it on more critical issues or tasks that bring innovation. :)

Also, the flags relate to the design team, and we lack people to do 3D modeling and design.

If anyone is interested, we will gladly welcome them!

Added 3 minutes later
Interested, thanks for the combat feedback.

Interested

Cerberuses with a speed of 7 are now completely unnecessary.

The original upgrades were very similar. The one with fire breath was preferred, so we decided to make the second one a little slower and a little tougher (more defense and HP) so it can be an alternative for Mages who want more endurance in their army.

Registered: 2/18/2017

Posts: 476

#421 8/30/2017 8:40 AM UTC

Auto-translated

It's really interesting to play with 4 armies and 8 powerful heroes!

У меча предназначения два острия, одно из них ты.

Заинтересованный занимается написанием прохождений
Прохождения]
НЕКРОМАНТ

2,3,4,5
Заинтересованный планирует создать серию мультиплеерных карт "Фантазия безумного картострителей".
Миссия 1 - Фктиф-Зобар готова на 11,5%

Registered: 10/24/2015

Posts: 772

#422 8/30/2017 9:28 AM UTC

Glad to hear that ^_^.

Registered: 5/9/2009

Posts: 1,592

#423 8/30/2017 10:18 AM UTC

Auto-translated

"Interested"

I will add that Nargot doesn't like long games and is unlikely to ever play with 5.5.

If the balance is tailored for normal timeframes as well (the first month of the game), I don't see a problem with this.
You need players who play efficiently and quickly to find holes in the balance, even if the mod supports long games.

Regarding spells. I won't go into long explanations, just ideas.
Orientation towards a prolonged game (2-3 months or more), therefore, higher-tier spells should be expensive.
While mana is scarce, one can play with low-level ones.

Buff/Debuff Durations:
Current formula 1.5/2/2/2 + 0.1*SP
Proposed: 1 + 0.2*SP

Purpose: to increase dependence on SP.
Mana regeneration speed: x2 (2 for each unit of Knowledge), to raise the value of Knowledge and compensate for expensive spells when clearing neutrals.

LIGHT

1) Divine Strength: 50/65/80/100% (5 mana) - ok
(mass effect on all troops)

1) Haste: 10/15/20/25% + 0.33*SP (6 mana)
Proposal: 10/15/20/25% (5 mana)
Why: dependence on SP is not needed here; this is an analogue of Divine Strength, but it boosts damage via initiative.
(mass effect on all troops)

2) Endurance: 4/4/6/8 + 0.1/0.15/0.15/0.15*SP (6 mana)
Proposal: (SP + 20) * 0.2/0.3/0.4/0.5 (10 mana) or the same 4/6/8/10 + 0.2/0.3/0.4/0.5 * SP
(mass version of the spell - 4x4)

2) Deflect Missile: 40/45/50/55% +0.5*SP (7 mana, level 3)
Proposal: 40/50/60/70% (10 mana, level 2)
(mass version of the spell - 4x4)

3) Cleansing: 40/50/70/90% + 0.1*SP (10 mana, level 2)
Proposal: 40/60/80/100% (20 mana, level 3)
Why: the chance should not be tied to both SP and level, as it complicates calculations for the player.
(mass version of the spell - 4x4)

Why Cleansing is higher than Deflect Missile:
- universal spell
- key (indispensable) spell against Darkness, allowing heroes with low SP to neutralize expensive and powerful spells of heroes with high SP
- allows removing several spells from a target/targets simultaneously

3) Righteous Might: 4/4/6/8 + 0.1/0.15/0.15/0.15*SP (6 mana)
Proposal: (SP + 20) * 0.2/0.3/0.4/0.5 (20 mana) or the same 4/6/8/10 + 0.2/0.3/0.4/0.5 * SP
(mass version of the spell - 4x4)
Why it is more expensive than Endurance:
- the spell is of a higher level (i.e., even the original game developers understood it is stronger)
- the single-target version boosts the active rather than the passive target
- the single-target version boosts shooters very well
- key spell for heroes who kill with troops

4) Regeneration: 30/40/50/60% + 7/8/9/10*SP, duration 2+0.1*SP (8 mana, level 3)
Proposal: 0% + 25*SP, duration 1/2/3/4 rounds (40 mana, level 4)

4) Magical Immunity: 2/3/4/5 (16 mana)
Proposal: can target both allies and enemies (40 mana)

4) Teleportation (10 mana)
Proposal: 40 mana

5) Word of Light: (SP+10) * 8/10/12/14 (16 mana, level 4)
Proposal: 10/15/20/30 * SP (80 mana, level 5)
Note: similar spells should be very expensive so they are not cast every turn.

5) Resurrection: 90/120/150/180 + 20/25/30/40*SP, HP reduction by 16%-0.2*SP (20 mana)
Proposal: 0 + 30/45/60/90 * SP, without HP reduction (80 mana)

5) Divine Vengeance: (SP + 10/20/30/40) * 1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4 * F (18 mana)
Proposal: 0 + 60/90/120/180 * F (80 mana)
Note: similar spells should be very expensive so they are not cast every turn.

General Note №1: skillful dampening of Light should work well for the entire level 5 (since that is its target area)!
General Note №2: Each circle has spells that are weakly dependent on (or independent of) SP (for roles of heroes with low SP but high Knowledge).
General Note №3: Endurance and Righteous Might are excellent spells for an army if there is a lot of SP (together they convert SP to attack and defense at a 1:1 rate).
General Note №4: heroes with 10% Knowledge (including classic Might) will not be able to actively use level 4-5 spells due to the prohibitive cost.

I won't detail other schools, as the time might be wasted.
Either you like this concept (using the Light school as an example), or you don't.

Added after 43 minutes

"dredknight"

The original upgrades were very similar. The one with firebreath was preferred so we decided to make the second one a little slower and little tougher (more defense and HP) so it can be an alternative for Mages who want more endurance in their army.

Reducing the speed of the dogs is an unsuccessful change, and for good reason it concerns many players.
Speed is a parameter that should only be touched as a last resort, because it fundamentally affects the nature of a unit.

Dogs need speed to block shooters in a single turn during a push. If you want to diverge the upgrades, it's better to take away the retaliation attack (for the sake of increased damage). This would open options to absorb retaliatory strikes with other troops, as well as absorb retaliatory strikes with summoned dogs.
Increasing the HP of the dogs does not correlate with the role they play on the battlefield.

Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition.
Сайт проекта - пока неактивен
Автор Асимметричных шахмат

In reply to Заинтересованный

Registered: 6/11/2017

Posts: 62

#424 8/30/2017 10:34 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Interested

Contact NHF, get a model with a flag for the class there, and I might explain how to change it.

No, I'll wait until someone else does it. By the way, the issue isn't limited to just the flags. For example, a succubus hero is almost invisible in the Dungeon.

Registered: 10/30/2009

Posts: 41,374

#425 8/30/2017 11:30 AM UTC

The original upgrades were very similar. The one with firebreath was preferred so we decided to make the second one a little slower and little tougher (more defense and HP) so it can be an alternative for Mages who want more endurance in their army.

Why had you decided change the idea of not-firebreath-upgrade rather than firebreath-upgrade?
The first upgrade of hounds had a good feature: they were fast enough to cross the battlefield in one turn without any special perks from hero ("tactics", for example). The second upgrade was slower, so it does require buff from hero perks. But second-upgrade hounds were much stronger with their abilities.
As I understand, in your mod the speed of the first upgrade is not so big now. Maybe, it's better to do in other way? You can make from the second upgrade even slower guy, but even stronger. And -- the fast first upgrade, that is useful in destroying neutral armies (especially shooters).

К А
Стикеры GBF в Telegram

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from MMH5.5 - Heroes of Might and Magic 5.5 Auto-translated