Harmony - Troop Symmetry — Modding

Nargott

10 years ago

Auto-translated

kiko

As you yourself noted, "BB" is a very strong bonus for attack (there is no equally strong bonus for defense).
And what is your logic? Do you want to further strengthen the "attack" skill? So that "defense" has even less meaning? So that melee units of the player even more likely "kill" the enemy in one hit (i.e., without retaliation)?

My logic is to have interesting skills, not a minimal attack combined with overpowered perks. The same BB could be moved to level 3, which would seriously weaken the attack branch and compensate for increasing the base to 10/20/30%, and Retribution could be moved to Leadership. And if BB and mass acceleration are also separated into different branches, it would be ideal.

In Heroes 3, attack gave 10/20/30%, and no one complained about it being an overpowered skill.

Defense will not lose its meaning in any case, because it is not just a good skill for a warrior (due to significant bonuses), but also almost indispensable for a mage, while attack is generally not needed for a mage (sometimes it makes sense to take it only for the available BB and not upgrade it above level 1).

Another example of a minimal (useless) skill is Counterattack, which does not give any bonuses on its own (much weaker than even attack), it only allows you to train troops, but a cockroach can do that too. Counterattack at +25/50/75/100% could be competitive.

I don't know what you're talking about.
At the beginning of the game, damage is what decides the outcome of battles on the map, it is what allows you to win battles without losses, not defense... or are you not playing on "Hero" difficulty? "Defense" will not give you such a bonus for any castle.
It is "attack" that gives bonuses to Furies, Fairies, etc.
How does "defense" work? Does it prevent the enemy from dealing any damage to your troops?

I'm not interested in theory; take 2 identical situations, differing only in skills, and try to defeat neutral creatures in one case with 30% defense (without perks), and in the other case with 15% attack (without perks), and compare the losses.
Because with such arguments, you can say that even 1/2/3% attack is better than 10/20/30% defense, since there are no practical measurements that would show the real difference.

Real damage output is most often based on ranged attacks or magic (where the hero kills), so defense is needed both there and there to proportionally reduce losses, which cannot be said about attack (we are talking again about basic skills, not perks). This is especially noticeable in really strong guards, which cannot be taken without significant losses by melee units (even with 30% "attack").

I remember even when I was breaking through with orcs (through executioners), I mainly prayed that there would be enough defense and not to lose an extra executioner (every unit of damage counts), and not that I lacked some 15% damage.

In reply to SRD

kiko

10 years ago

Auto-translated

SRD

Humans clearly have the weakest attack skill;

therefore, what is really needed is to either rework "Relentless Force" or not make it an attack skill, but put it in defense (because this skill enhances command, not just direct attack), and put something else in place of the attack skill.

I agree.
And here's what I'll say: maybe I remember correctly, or maybe not... but it's worth considering what the skill wheel was like in the first version of Heroes 5.
That is, even by the names, "Fatal Misfortune," which is learned through the Banshee's Cry, this skill was only available to the undead.

I mean that "Retribution" should be returned only to humans, and the corresponding attack skill should be "Enhanced Prayer," Godric's ability. Given the knight's upgrade priorities, reducing the cost of spells from his school of magic would be very useful.
(If possible, of course, enhance Godric's skill to ~ +3 morale/luck and reduce mana cost by 2... but the value, of course, needs to be considered more carefully than I am now.)

Nargott

In Heroes 3, attack gave 10/20/30%, and no one complained about it being an overpowered skill.

:smile12:
and no one upgraded "defense" either :)
I wonder why...

Heroes 3 is a completely different game, and completely different "strategies" are important there.

Nargott

I'm not interested in theory; take 2 identical situations, differing only in skills, and go through the neutral creatures in one case with 30% defense (without perks), and in the other case with 15% attack (without perks), and compare the losses.
Because with such arguments, you could say that 1/2/3% attack is better than 10/20/30% defense, because there are no practical measurements that would show the real difference.

without perks :) - that's a good comparison of skills.
I'll take the Fortress, a starting army of scouts and furies, take 1% attack, and go kill 50% of the map. If I take "Tactics," then I'll kill 20% more of the map.
Losses? There are none. I go through every map without losses on neutral creatures (Necropolis, Fortress - that goes without saying. Humans, Stronghold - maybe sometimes a couple of units at the beginning of the game, when it's really important to take something at any cost).

Nargott

and move Retribution to leadership. And if you also separate Battle Balance and mass acceleration into different branches, it would be ideal.

what perks will remain in "attack"?

In reply to kiko

SRD

10 years ago

Auto-translated

Oh yes, there’s another fact to consider – in Heroes 5, they made something I really don’t like – a small map with very high movement speeds for many units. Therefore, either the map will be enlarged, or the speeds will be reduced, and in that case, no one will reach the opponent on the first turn (unless you have a speed tactic and aura, then a dragon or phoenix might make it), which means you need to consider that you won’t be able to eliminate them immediately (this was mentioned above).
And by the way, the energy rune needs to be reduced for the gnome – question: will I have to edit the exe file for this, or are there ways to bypass it?

kiko

10 years ago

Auto-translated

Nargott

The same BB could be moved to level 3.

I agree with you on this point.

SRD

Oh yes, there is another fact that needs to be taken into account – in G5 they did something I really don’t like – a small map with very high movement speeds for many units – so either the map will be enlarged or the speeds will be reduced, and in that case no one will reach the opponent on the first turn (unless you have speed tactics and aura, then a dragon or phoenix might make it), which means we need to take into account that it won't be possible to eliminate them immediately (this was mentioned above).

That would be simply wonderful.:smile54:
"Tactics" would finally acquire its true form - it could be used not only to move troops for faster attacks but also to cover and group up without taking damage from level 2 units:smile35: (furies) on the first turn. The tactic of moving around the map would become more significant, as in Heroes 3… In general, all the best things from previous parts are in G5.

And... there is such a mod called "Higher Creatures" /topic/9881/
It has bugs, but there is an idea: building a tier 7 unit requires city level 35. Perhaps requiring a city level for upgrading each unit level would fit into your mod...

In reply to kiko

Nargott

10 years ago

Auto-translated

kiko

Losses? There are none. I complete every map without losses on neutral creatures.

This indicates that you are attacking too weak neutral creatures and too late. In Multiplayer, time is of the essence; whoever acts faster wins. A heavy push with losses is inevitable. For example, is it better to lose 1 day of tempo by waiting for reinforcements, or to break through an important passage now, but lose 50 goblins? And what if an opponent rushes into the same zone to grab the most powerful artifacts? 50 goblins are nothing. You constantly have to solve such problems. Speed comes at a price.
In single-player, which is designed for efficient gameplay (speed), the same applies.

Added 6 minutes later

kiko

what perks will remain in "Offense"?

Ranged attack, tactics, speed, ballistics, series of hero attacks (devilish, stunning, weakening)
I used to think about forest fury and hirdu, but it turns out these perks only work on racial units. I will probably have to replace them with cold steel and fire fury (for +10% fire and ice damage).

Added 8 minutes later

kiko

without perks :) - a good comparison of skills.

Exactly - without perks. Because the criticism is directed at the skill itself, not at the skill + perk branch. The balance between skill and perk is being discussed, when you get everything for a perk, but nothing for a skill.

The current Offense skill is strong as a whole. In 2 levels, we get ballistics (which pays for itself) and +5% from the "buy a product for 100 and get 1 ruble in change" series. Then, in another 2 levels, we get retribution (up to +25% damage, including ranged) and again +5% in change. And finally, in another 2 levels, +30% initiative (for 8 mana and spending 50% of the hero's turn) and the same 5% in change.

In reply to Nargott

kiko

10 years ago

Auto-translated

Nargott

This indicates that you are attacking too weak neutral creatures and doing so too late. In multiplayer, time is of the essence; whoever acts first wins – a heavy push with losses is inevitable. For example, is it better to lose 1 day of tempo by waiting for reinforcements, or to break through an important passage now, but lose 50 goblins? And what if an opponent rushes into the same zone to try and loot the most powerful artifacts? What are 50 goblins – nothing. You have to constantly solve such problems. Speed comes at a price.
In single-player, which is designed for efficient gameplay (speed), the same picture emerges.

I don't know. It's probably hard to understand just by talking about it.
The initial striking force consists of archers or units that can retaliate. 5 slots are separated into one and lured/covered.
Yes, upgraded fairies, cerberuses – these are losses. But not 50. 1-5 units. For the Elves, this is a "hunter" slot = invisibility + magic + finish off any troops without losses.

Nargott

10 years ago

Auto-translated

Let's consider the difference between attack and defense using the following example: - We are playing as a Warrior (attack is generally preferred over defense, all other things being equal). - Medium difficulty combat. Here's how it roughly looks: First stage of combat: We maneuver, shoot, cast spells, attack with the hero, deal small amounts of retaliatory damage, and focus our attacks. Second stage of combat: We have dealt maximum damage, killed about 50% of the neutral units, and suffered minimal losses (small amounts of damage). Finally, the remaining units have a chance to attack us. This is where we calculate our losses. a) With +30% attack, only 35% would remain instead of 50%. b) With -30% defense, the remaining 50% would deal damage equivalent to 35%. Third stage of combat: We finish off the remaining units (compared to the second stage, there are almost no losses). So, in the critical stage, the benefit of +30% attack turned out to be equal to -30% defense. Now, let's remember the initial conditions: - Warrior; attack is not as important as defense for a Mage or Archer. - Medium difficulty combat. Let's delve into this in more detail. The biggest losses occur in the most difficult battles, where you can sometimes lose half of your army. Such battles will be prolonged, and it will not be possible to destroy 50% of the neutral units before receiving the first serious attack. And if there are fewer initial losses against the neutral units, the attack loses its advantage. On the other hand, there are also easy battles where there are no losses. But where the losses are already small, the absolute impact of attack and defense on them is also small. In combat, medium and difficult scenarios are critical; this is where skills really come into play. Furthermore, we made the assumption that in the first stage of combat, we deal damage, and not the neutral units. But this is not always true in the case of fast-moving enemies, who start dealing their own damage much earlier than slower units. So, after a series of assumptions in favor of attack, we only obtained equality between 30% attack and 30% defense. In general, defense is stronger (because 1/0.7 = 1.43 > 1.3). And what about 15% attack?

Added 17 minutes ago

kiko

Initial striking power - Archers or units with "No Retaliation."

Attack bonuses do not apply to Archers. "No Retaliation" units are unlikely to be the main striking force; their perk hardly plays a role if you can use single-unit attackers to deal with retaliatory damage. Perhaps only against slow units do "No Retaliation" units fully reveal their potential, taking on the role of "Archers." Finally, Furies are a unique case. The combination of high speed, "No Retaliation," and retaliation against melee units is essentially similar to ranged attacks, and even more so against slow units. That is, these "Archers" actually benefit from the attack bonus.

In reply to Nargott

kiko

10 years ago

Auto-translated

Nargott

Second stage of the battle. We inflicted maximum damage, killed about 50% of the neutral troops, and suffered almost no losses (single units). Finally, the remaining enemies get a chance to attack us.

I'm not a "pro," but that's not how it works.
First of all, you know that the AI has its own behavior patterns, right?
For example, a "Cerberus" will run to the maximum range to inflict damage, but it "fears archers." Its target priority is archers. So, if you place archers in the corner on the "first line" of your formation and place "single units" in the second row, not completely shielding the archers (there's access to them from the side), the Cerberus unit, located diagonally from the archers, will try to bypass the row of "single units" in hopes of reaching the archers on the second turn, not considering that they might be protected. Plus, you can sacrifice one "single unit" on the first turn to distract the Cerberus, which will give the archers a full-power shot. Plus, the terrain. Plus, plus... there are various action options during the battle.
If the enemy's speed is 4-5, the "single units" don't just go to die; they maneuver. They find a place to hide and then run behind the enemy, causing him to move back, meaning he loses two turns... Sometimes, retreating one square is enough, and the opponent also loses more than one turn (again, the AI considers the threat of a direct attack, and there are situations where it moves one step, losing the opportunity to inflict damage).

It doesn't happen that melee units of levels 1-6 can defeat more than 4 of your level 1 units (except for units with area-of-effect attacks). Mages and druids, yes, that's a problem. But defense against them won't save you; tactics might.

Nargott

The "attack" bonuses do not apply to archers.

As long as there are perks for "attack," they exist. When/if they are reworked, it will be a completely different conversation.
Giving 30% to "attack" without changing the perks is not my idea. But I'm not the mod author

In reply to kiko

Nargott

10 years ago

Auto-translated

kiko

First of all, do you know that each creature has its own behavior pattern?

Any experienced player knows this. It allows you to inflict maximum damage before the neutral creature can properly attack. But this maximum is far from being 100% ("lossless"), if the player plays at a certain pace and buys time (days, turns) at the cost of losses, by attacking stronger guards as early as possible. Strong guards also mean that the neutrals are divided into 3-5 groups, which complicates attempts to move them around the map.

What troops do you usually defeat without losses on a given day? And if, instead of them, you attack those who are twice as strong on the same day? Or twice as strong again? And so on. Will you still come out without losses?

In general, if your strategy consists only of easy battles with neutrals (without losses), without using tanks, without focusing on ranged units or magic, then defense is not really needed. But in this case, you should not talk about whether the attack is sufficient, but about the fact that the defense is so weak (it's funny, right) that it is equal to a 5% skill.

For comparison, another attacking skill is much stronger - luck, which statistically gives up to +10/20/30% to any damage (not only ranged). And how do you compare attack to that? )
So, if you want to deal a lot of damage, increase either the base luck or the attack perks, but not the base attack, which is only an intermediate link to the perks, and is not even close to luck.

Giving 30% to "attack" without changing the perks is not my idea.

We've already talked about the perks: BB on level 3, incompatible with speed, retribution in leadership.

That is, my position is this: if the situation is not satisfactory, change the basic factor (skill) and adjust the consequences (perks) to it, and do not be afraid to change the factor just because the current consequences are incompatible with this change (imbalanced).

In reply to Nargott

kiko

10 years ago

Auto-translated

Nargott

But this maximum is by no means 100% ("lossless") if the player plays at a fast pace and buys time by taking losses, attacking stronger guards as early as possible.

We've already talked about the perks: BB on level 3, incompatible with acceleration, and Retribution moved to Leadership.

I'll be playing Heroes, but not as Necropolis or Castle, and maybe I'll remember to give you an example of a suitable battle with a specific force ratio and the result (that's all I can say :) ).
And now, a question:
Why should the game balance be calculated based on the player's desires? If he attacks and gets beaten, that's his decision, and only his decision.
The balance of the amount of damage from the "attack" skill is calculated not only by the ratio of this skill to "defense," but also to the types of damage in the game, etc. And the simplest thing: the balance of a magical character against a warrior character is also taken into account when calculating "attack." And if the developers decided that the physical damage from the skill of, for example, a warrior character should be +15%, and the physical defense of a mage with the skill should be +30%, so that there is a balance between physical and magical damage and other capabilities of both armies, then changing "attack" requires calculating all the balance conditions of the game for the skill.

P.S. Regarding the perks - moving Retribution to Leadership, in my opinion, will only strengthen "attack," as it will free up slots, and they are still empty in Leadership anyway :)
As for acceleration, I don't know. Light magic - where would we be without it? :)
But BB in the 3rd slot - that's a good one. This will weaken the early-game troops (which is interesting) and then add significance to troops of ~level 1-5 in the later stages of the game.

In reply to kiko

Nargott

10 years ago

Auto-translated

kiko

why should the game balance be calculated based on the player's desires?

Because there's Heroes 6, where the balance ignored the player's desires in favor of 2-level perks, which were "balanced."

Besides, in addition to the group of players who play without losses, there is a larger group of players who play with losses (because they play worse), as well as a smaller group of "pros" who play with losses (because they compete for speed and take risks with strong guards). For both the second and third groups, defense is much more enjoyable as a base.

And if the developers thought...

The developers didn't think very well. The balance, in terms of numbers, is not well done. This is clearly seen in the alt-upgrades (there are very rough imbalances) and indirectly in how they calculated the Power of units (ignoring speed and most abilities, not to mention other nuances). In games where they really work on the balance, they release many patches with adjustments to the characteristics. But this is not the case with Heroes 5.

This is how the balance was built. Offense has too many cool perks, everyone wants offense. Okay, let's reduce the base offense, it's easier and faster. That is, we don't analyze the reasons, we treat the symptoms.

And here is the result of this approach. No one will pump up the base offense more than is required for the perks, thus the effective variability of pumping up the offense is significantly reduced, compared, for example, to defense. Defense can be pumped up without perks at all. They can be pumped up partially with perks. They can be pumped up for the perks (like offense). There are many more options.
Or another situation. The player wants a cool perk, let's say, Retribution. For this, he pumps up the offense by +5. But he doesn't have time to take Retribution, and the opponent attacks. Since the level-up was wasted, the opponent gets a noticeable advantage, just because he was lucky.

Okay, summarizing:
- a decent base for offense is 10/20/30%
- if we want balance, we should bring Battle Balance to level 3 (by the way, we can also leave Retribution as a level 3 perk in this case)
- if we bring Battle Balance to level 3, and leave the base at 5/10/15, then we significantly weaken the offense complex (the question is: is it necessary), to the point that it may not be taken at all

In reply to Nargott

SRD

10 years ago

Auto-translated

in short:
1) attack +10/20/30%
2) Bloodbath at level 3
3) Retribution at level 3, or at level 2, but with a leadership requirement
4) Mass Haste should be scrapped and burned with blue flames - want an effective light skill? - then level up light and righteous fury. Because it's not fair to cheat races with dark magic in a city guild - by applying mass slow from dark magic and mass haste from light, we get a very interesting effect - the effect of beating up babies - so go ahead and level up both schools of magic for this, it's all fair - why don't we have mass slow in defense then (by the way, mass stone skin should also be removed from defense)
In general, magic should go with magic, and swords with swords, and magic shouldn't be in purely combat attack and defense skills (a very large period and a hole in the paper from a pen that hit it hard).

WizardNazyr

10 years ago

Auto-translated

Oh yes, there's another fact to consider – in Heroes of Might and Magic V, they did something I don't like at all – a small map with very high movement speeds for many units.

Well, you can increase the map size; look at Heroes of Might and Magic III½. In one screenshot, the map is 10x18, or maybe not... but it's definitely larger than the standard size, and you can add MORE obstacles.

Added 3 minutes later
Apologies, it's 14x14

In reply to WizardNazyr

SRD

10 years ago

Auto-translated

Well, if you do it like that, you don't necessarily need to reduce the speed, but what should be done with the overpowered energy rune – I heard that to change the rune's effect, you need to modify the executable file (it would be better to either have a fixed speed increase – for example, +3, or +50%).

farfromrefuge

10 years ago

Auto-translated

A flea circus à la HoMM VII. As a result, nothing is visible, especially which unit is currently selected. Imagine how "convenient" it will be to play on a 9-inch tablet, for example.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Harmony - Troop Symmetry

Statistics

Library

Users Online 9 users 1274 guests

Today's Visitors 32