Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
A specific case of breaking through defenses. And even then, it's only at higher levels, after all, it's a dragon.
Instead of a dragon, it could be any other stack. You can examine it yourself and see for yourself. The balance shouldn't be based on assumptions about when a player should succeed and when not – that's the player's personal problem. For every case where consistent damage is needed, I can provide a similar case where lucky (random) damage is needed. And it's not about luck or bad luck, but about the fact that, objectively, everything is balanced in the statistics. And subjectively, this may not be noticed. When luck works, people say, "That's how it should be, because it was invested in." When luck doesn't work, they say, "Luck is stupid, and you can't rely on it."
What is a level 18 Nibros? It's +3 luck, which means that every "round," about 2 stacks will deal double damage. Uncle Ossir and Aunt Haggesh can step aside. But if the comparison is made to them, then everything is fine, just don't forget to raise the other heroes with average skills, give them an extra starting perk or something.
And if you stand in defense or, even better, in a solid defense (+60% protection!!!), there will be a counterattack, and we will remain alive.
A whole +60% protection!!! I appreciated the humor. In the original, the defense option instead of an attack is only relevant in very rare cases because it means missing an entire, 100% attack. In this case, it will only work advantageously if: the enemy stack consists of 1 creature (i.e., it is not weakened when attacked) + the counterattack is not removed + it goes next on its turn + it cannot significantly affect anyone else. Four simultaneous conditions. If any of them are violated, the question of whether to defend or attack is no longer worth considering.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
A whopping +60% defense!!! I appreciate the humor. The defense option, instead of an attack, is only relevant in very rare cases, because it means missing out on an entire, 100% attack. In this case, it will only be beneficial if: the enemy stack consists of 1 creature (i.e., it is not weakened when attacked) + retaliation is not active + it will move on the next turn + it cannot significantly damage anyone else. 4 simultaneous conditions. If any of them are not met, the question of whether to defend or attack is irrelevant.
Enough off-topic talk. Create a thread, and we can argue if you want. For every example you give, I will always find a counter-example. Missing out on a 100% attack – that made me laugh... especially when the unit doesn't even reach its target. When a player "bets" on a successful attack, they don't lose units, but when they don't bet, they do. Create a thread. This thread is about heroes. An opinion was expressed about Nibros's special ability – I expressed my opinion. I summarized and made a point that nothing will change. We will discuss the rest outside of this thread. Okay? ;) Practice is always trusted much more...
When a player "scores" during an attack, they don't lose units, but when they don't "score," they do.
When a player "scores," they lose because they are slowing down and acting inefficiently, and then they complain that their opponent won only because they were lucky. However, who am I explaining this to? You'll still stick to your opinion. I've pointed out the flaws in your reasoning about luck – it's up to you to decide what to change and what not to. This concludes the discussion.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Finally. :smile03: p.s. Your assessment of the impact of the luck parameter on the entire game is somewhat exaggerated... Test not only the duel mode and not just with yourself.
I played two games as Fahim, and it seems like the chance of casting a spell is only 10%.
I'm not an expert in Heroes, but it seems to me that this is too low and not very impactful. In my opinion, every 4-5 spells should be successful.
I played two games as Fahim, and it seems like the chance of learning a spell is 10%.
I'm not an expert in Heroes, but it seems to me that this is too low and not serious. In my opinion, every 4-5 spells should be learned.
The chance is 30%. Moreover, there is a check for duplicates. That is, if the same spell appears, it will be regenerated to another one at least 10 times (I want to reduce it to 5). So, the chance will be somewhere around 28-29% for learning a new spell, and it will gradually decrease. This is done so that excluding a spell from the array will give a very imbalanced increase in spells when a lot of spells have already been learned, so the influence of retraining will be overstated, which I would like to reduce.
That's interesting; I've had it happen twice where I got 3 spells: on levels 5-6, 15-16, and 20+.
But even so, if you distribute them by level, you can approach it tactically, otherwise, you just have to rely on luck.
We could set a maximum and minimum drop rate, like with the incorporeality of ghosts (where you're guaranteed to get it on the 4th try). If it doesn't drop several times, it will definitely drop on the next try, and vice versa, thereby reducing the uncertainty, i.e., the influence of luck. ;) Thanks, I'll do that.
You can set the maximum and minimum drop rates, like the incorporeality of ghosts (where you are guaranteed to hit on the 4th attempt).
Not exactly. Ghosts have a 50% chance to miss. After two misses in a row, the third attack will always hit, and vice versa, after two hits in a row, the third attack will always miss. That is, 1 out of 3 times you are guaranteed to miss and guaranteed to hit.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Not exactly. Ghosts have a 50% chance to miss, and after two misses in a row, the third attack will always hit, and vice versa, after two hits in a row, the third attack will always miss. That is, 1 out of 3 times you are guaranteed to miss and guaranteed to hit.
It's not entirely important, although it's probably correct. The main thing is the principle. It's important. Ghosts are just an example to understand the essence.
It's not entirely important, although it's probably true. The main thing is the principle. It's important. Ghosts are just an example to understand the essence.
For some, auto-hit on 3 and auto-hit on 4 are different. In one case, stability is higher, and in the other, it's lower. Therefore, when implementing a system that emphasizes stability, the first option is better, especially since the ghost mechanic is familiar to many.
Added 5 minutes later Although the chance is 30%, not 50%, so the situation is different. Then I suggest this: after 6 misses in a row, the seventh hit is guaranteed, and after any hit, the next shot is guaranteed to miss. This is balanced and almost doesn't change the 30% chance. Plus, it's the most stable of the possible options.
Added 3 minutes later Simple calculation: 6 misses in a row have a probability of about 12% (0.7^6). In this case, the probability of the 7th hit increases from 30 to 100%, i.e., +70% in 12% of cases. On the other hand, the chance of a regular hit is 30%, after which the chance of hitting on the next attempt decreases from 30 to 0, i.e., -30%. In total, +0.7x0.12 - 0.3x0.3, which is approximately zero.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Some may disagree, but there is a difference between auto-hit on 3 and auto-hit on 4. In one case, stability is higher, and in the other, it is lower. Therefore, when implementing a system with an emphasis on stability, the first option is better, especially since the mechanics of ghosts are familiar to many.
I mean that there is no difference for Fahim, because he is not involved here! I was only showing the principle, not specific numbers. Where is the facepalm emoticon... oh yes... :) Nargott
Although the chance is 30%, not 50%, so the situation is different. Then I suggest this: after 6 misses in a row, the seventh hit is automatic, and after a hit, the next one is an automatic miss. This is balanced and almost doesn't change the 30% chance. Plus, this is the most stable of the possible options.
It is quite possible. But the level of the spell depends on every 5th level, that is, with each 5th level, there is an opportunity to learn a spell one level higher. For convenience, I wanted to tie it to 5. But 30% is more suitable for 6, and 20% would be suitable for 5. Nargott
Simple calculation: 6 auto-misses in a row have a probability of about 12% (0.7^6), in this case, the probability of the 7th hit increases from 30 to 100%, i.e., +70% in 12% of cases. On the other hand, the chance of a simple hit is 30%, after which the chance of hitting on the next attempt decreases from 30 to 0, i.e., by 30%. In total -30% in 30% of cases. In the end, it's about zero.
We forget that the number of spells decreases, and the chance of learning the desired spell will be higher. But it looks good, although why auto-miss?
Let's forget about the fact that the number of spells decreases, and the chance of learning the desired spell will be higher. But this looks good, right? Why auto-miss?
Auto-miss is needed; otherwise, there will be a bias in favor of hits, more than 30%. We limit misses, but not hits? That's not right.
I need the most accurate and complete information about the special ability to suggest the right stabilization option.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Auto-aim is needed; otherwise, there will be a bias in favor of hits, exceeding 30%. We limit misses, but not hits? That's not right.
I need the most accurate and complete information about the special ability to suggest the right stabilization option.
Okay :) Everything is already described...
The chance of a spell appearing is 30%. Moreover, there is a check for duplicates. That is, if a duplicate appears, it is regenerated to another one 10 times, with a probability of 100%. If it doesn't appear, then it won't appear. So, in theory, the chance of appearance is slightly less than 30%.
There is a 30% chance of a spell appearing. Moreover, there is a check for duplicates. That is, if the same spell appears, it is regenerated 10 times with a 100% probability. If it doesn't appear, then it won't appear. So, in theory, the chance of it appearing is slightly less than 30%.
If that's the case, then my option still stands. Because the chance of a tenfold repetition of the existing spell is too small. Although I would add a safeguard of 100 or 1000 regenerations, depending on performance, just to minimize the absurd case where, after 6 misses, there is NO automatic success due to repetitions. Since such a situation is perceived as a bug (if the player knows about the automatic success after 6 misses), its chance should be minimized.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
