Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession 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.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
A flea circus à la HoMM VII. As a result, nothing is visible, especially which unit is selected at the moment. Imagine how "convenient" it will be to play on a 9-inch tablet, for example.
Well, to each their own; I, for example, like the idea of simply adding more obstacles to the arenas, as I suggested!
A flea circus à la HoMM VII. As a result, nothing is visible, especially which unit is selected at the moment. Imagine how "convenient" it will be to play on a 9-inch tablet, for example.
No, it's not like in G7 - do you have a problem with the size of the field when sieging a city? (the field size is just right)
Added after 54 seconds And yes, obstacles are an issue:smile20:
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
Added 2 minutes later If you want, I can add more obstacles to the old arenas... someday... I've had that idea for a long time, and it might even be useful to someone...
I used to think that increasing the map size would have a good effect. But I was wrong. As a result, small units became even smaller, both visually and technically.
Then I used arenas of 14x14.
The standard map turned out to be better.
Reducing the speed only prolongs the game, and in essence, you'll have to rework a lot of things, as the tactics of the factions will change.
It's strange to say, but Nival managed to create a good balance where the game is both fast-paced and interesting.
Added after 47 seconds WizardNazyr
Well, it depends on who you ask, but I, for example, like the idea of simply adding more obstacles to the arenas!
The obstacles are configured so that the minimum number that appears is always 0.
But you can configure it so that if they do appear, there will be more of them.
The most ideal option right now seems to be this:
When fighting neutrals, the map is small (-2 in length).
When heroes fight, the map is large (normal).
If the map is reduced when fighting neutrals, then reducing the speed will also be acceptable.
Added 1 minute ago WizardNazyr
What do you mean?
If the map should be empty, it will be empty here too. If the map has obstacles, then yes, they can be increased (both in quantity and size).
Damn... Can anyone tell me something about splitting the energy rune?
In general, I think that with a decrease in speed or an increase in the arena size, tactics like "shoot-and-defend" and "magic-attack-and-defend" will win – that is, ranged units will have an advantage in this situation. Therefore, you could slightly reduce the damage of ranged units and the power and cost of direct damage spells.
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
Generally, I think that with a decrease in speed or an increase in the arena size, "shoot-and-defend" and "magic-attack-and-defend" tactics will win – meaning ranged units will have an advantage. In that case, you could slightly reduce the damage of ranged units and the power and cost of direct damage spells.
That would be nice, but how are you going to balance all of this?
Of course, during testing and discussion – how else would it be?
Added 15 minutes later WizardNazyr
Yes... I think in this case, it's not worth increasing the cost of spells (otherwise, Necromancers will have to either change their build or they will quickly become ineffective), but the effectiveness of spells can be reduced.
And I wasn't talking about increasing the price of spells – read more carefully; it says there – reduce the damage of ranged attacks and the power and price of direct damage spells – that is, since we are reducing the power, we should also reduce the price – this is logical, and once again – only direct damage... or even more specifically – only chaos magic (we won't touch the damage in other schools – it's not that great anyway, and it has its own properties).
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
I wasn't even talking about increasing the cost of spells - read more carefully.
Oh yes... My apologies!
only Chaos magic (we won't touch the damage in other schools - it's not that big anyway, and it has its own properties)
But by reducing speed/increasing the battlefield size/adding obstacles, we give the caster more time to buff and debuff their own and enemy troops accordingly.
Added 1 minute ago So, I think the effectiveness of buffs and debuffs should be slightly reduced.
Here, we can increase the price, but let's not change the effect. By the way, here's another thing: in almost all parts of the game, there were spells to enhance and weaken archers, but here we see spells that weaken archers in both light and dark factions – that's unfair. I suggest: 1. Change "Scatter" – it should simply remove the counterattack ability for both melee and ranged units and not reduce their ranged damage (i.e., the effect on ranged units should be the same as on melee units). 2. Lower "Evasion" to the second level and raise "Stone Skin" to the third level, and recalculate their effectiveness.
Added 50 minutes later By the way, the latest version of the creature table is now on the first page, so you don't have to search for it and read every message.
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
Reducing movement speed only prolongs the game, and essentially, you'll have to rework a lot of things because it will change the races' tactics. It's strange to say, but Nival managed to create a balance where the game progresses at a decent pace and is still interesting to play.
I disagree; it depends on whether the player values maneuverability or not. For example, some people like that they can throw almost their entire army at the enemy in one turn and defeat them. This creates more dynamic gameplay, but less tactical depth.
However, simply reducing the top movement speeds isn't enough, because after that, the problem of uniform movement speeds arises, as in Heroes 6 or 7.
Therefore, a small reduction in infantry movement speeds, around 20-30% (but across the entire range, including actively using a speed of 3), would be appropriate. With the exception of flying units, whose mobility should be distinctly high (as in previous installments), but with reduced damage or survivability. In this case, maximum movement speed diversity can be achieved, flying units can have a distinct role, and the problem of "half the army attacking in one turn" can be solved.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
I disagree; it depends on whether the player values maneuverability. Some people, for example, like that they can throw almost their entire army into the attack on the first turn and win. This makes the game more dynamic, but less tactical.
However, simply reducing the top speeds is not enough, because after that, the problem of uniform speeds arises, as in Heroes 6 or Heroes 7.
Therefore, a small reduction in infantry speeds, around 20-30%, would be appropriate (but across the entire range, including actively using a speed of 3). With the exception of flying units, whose mobility should be distinctly high (as in previous installments), but with reduced damage or survivability. In this case, maximum speed diversity can be achieved, flying units can have a distinct class role, and the problem of "half the army attacking on the first turn" can be solved.
It slows down the game; there's no need to argue about it – it's obvious. And, of course, if you add even more conditions, you can balance it back to how it was, as Nargott did in this case.
Added 18 minutes later SRD
In general, I think that reducing speed or increasing the arena size will benefit tactical "shoot-and-defend" and "magic-and-defend" strategies – that is, ranged units will win in this case. Then you could slightly reduce the damage of ranged units and the power and cost of direct damage spells.
You could try increasing the range and reducing the number of shots.
It definitely creates a bottleneck; there's no arguing that – it's obvious.
Of course, there's no point in arguing: chess rules also create a bottleneck compared to playing "Chapayev."
Added 1 minute later Dyrman
You could try increasing the range and reducing the number of shots.
It won't work: the shot limit is a very insignificant factor unless it's reduced drastically (below 4). But then there's the cart. It's much more logical to reduce the damage, especially for direct-fire weapons.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
I disagree; it depends on whether the player values maneuvers or not.
In my humble opinion, with two independent classes (1. archers + mages; 2. melee fighters) and the first class requiring a constant choice between attack and movement, it's not really possible to talk about any special maneuvers in any case.
WizardNazyr
