Posts from Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition - Tactical Edition. Auto-translated

Barbarian luck is a completely different perk in this case. Because it doesn't work above 5% (a bug).

So, it doesn't even work above 5% (even when changing the setting)? Good thing I discarded this perk.

Not much effort was put into it. All of this can be implemented in a week (for all factions).

In the game itself? Will you accept an order from me for my wheel? I'm willing to pay for such efficient work - at least, it will take a lot of time to figure it out. I could never do it that quickly myself.

Added 1 minute ago

Choosing from competing perks is much better than choosing from just any.

Is this a jab at my scheme? Can you be more specific? I'm ready to discuss any branches and perks.

How is it that it doesn't even work above 5% (even when changing the setting)? Good thing I discarded this perk.
In the game itself? Will you accept an order from me for my wheel? I'm willing to pay for such efficient work. I could never do it that quickly myself.

I'll consider it next year. This year, I'm still feeling a bit overwhelmed by NHF, even just thinking about it. (I already missed the release of one version).

Barbarian Luck always reduces damage by 5%, although it should be from 5% to 25% (depending on the amount of luck), and Reflection reduces damage from spells by 14%, not 15%.

Although I read somewhere that it doesn't always reduce it by 5%, but only when the luck is positive.

Perhaps, in your binary scheme, what bothers me the most is the idea of overloaded perks, where too much weight is placed on certain basic perks (4+ perks). This means that a particular perk must be taken as a mandatory stepping stone, rather than for its useful properties. I also had similar drawbacks. For example, in the luck branch, both the magic and warrior branches initially stemmed from the soldier perk, resulting in as many as 4 perks originating from the soldier. As a result, I decided that no more than 2-3 child perks should be created. Moreover, even 3 child perks are visually jarring (I only have such an exceptional situation in the Haven branch (Wrath-Seal+Twilight and Teleport) and with some ultimate abilities).

Is this a criticism of my build? Could you be more specific? I am ready to discuss any branches and perks.

This is a criticism of any build.

Specifically, in yours:
The Devilish Strike branch in attack. Weakness competes with Stun, and you can upgrade both (different types, but in the same line).

And why isn't Fallen placed after Pain Lord (who relies more on magic)?

Readiness and Solid Defense. Here, Readiness depends on Solid Defense, as one enhances the other. And Readiness requires level 3.
etc.

Added 2 minutes ago

Perhaps, in your binary build, what bothers me most is the idea of overloaded perks, where too much weight is placed on certain basic perks (4+ perks). This means that this perk must be taken as a mandatory one, not because of its useful properties.

Therefore, the branches should be as logical as possible, so that the basic perk enhances the subsequent ones.

Added 2 minutes ago
By the way, Barbarian Luck was conceived by me as an increase in attack for each unit of luck by 1, so Elven follows it.

Added 1 minute ago
Unfortunately, the reality is that it is difficult to strive for the ideal.)

This is a criticism of any skill tree.
Specifically, in your case:
The Devil's Strike branch in the attack skills. Weakness competes with Stun, and you can upgrade both (different types, but from the same line).

What's wrong with being able to upgrade both? I believe that a choice is always better than a linear progression (it offers more options), except in cases where one perk is clearly superior to the other or directly builds upon the previous one. You are not obligated to upgrade both options; you can choose either one.

And why isn't Fallen placed after Lord of Pain (which is more dependent on spell power)?

Because this is WGE, not the original game. Curse (with a duration of Spell Power/4) also depends heavily on spell power. And Weakness (Spell Power/2) also requires some. These are not debuffs with a duration of Spell Power/1, where spell power is almost not required.

Readiness and Solid Defense. Here, Readiness depends on Solid Defense, as one enhances the other. And Readiness deserves a level 3 upgrade.

I disagree. Readiness is not needed for mages whose task is simply to survive in defense, not to fight back. Furthermore, I doubt that Readiness deserves a level 3 upgrade – Solid Defense looks more appealing (on average, it provides 5+ extra defense, which, by the standards of the original game, is 10+, and it retains the bonus when waiting). I suspect that Solid Defense might even need to be nerfed.
The choice for Readiness allows you to upgrade either Solid Defense without Readiness, or Readiness without Solid Defense. This is already 2 options against one. And I would like to see this perk (Readiness) being chosen more often than usual. And usually, it is never taken (because the power of the perk does not match the level and secondary requirements).

Noticed something else: You can take both a tent and a rapid-fire weapon at the same time. Again, there's no alternative. According to my scheme, you'll have to choose.

Added 2 minutes later

I disagree. Mages don't need readiness; their task is simply to survive in defense, not to fight back.

Well, then let the mages not take it; it's after a defensive structure anyway. Strange excuse.

Also noticed:
You can take both a tent and a rapid-fire weapon at the same time. Again, there's no alternative. According to my scheme, you'll have to choose.

How is that so? Are you sure you read the descriptions? There are plenty of alternatives.

Even if the Plague shows weak competition (with a tent charge of 6 and the fact that due to the small amount of meat, the relative power of the tent is 2-3 times higher than in the original).
There's also Military Craft (+3 initiative). The ballista will have a base initiative of 9 (for the enchanted ballista).

Accordingly, Military Craft gives +33% initiative to the ballista and +30% initiative to the tent. Against +50% damage to the ballista (triple shot instead of double).

There is also the Artillery branch. -10/20% loss of enemy units even before the battle. Or level 3 firearms (for WGE, ignoring 50% defense +50 damage on top, this is comparable to a triple shot in power).

This is already 2 options against one. And I would like to see this perk (readiness) being used more often than usual. But usually, it is never taken.

I will repeat once again:
The variability from competing perks is much stronger than the variability of "anything goes." Because this forces you to think more carefully about how you develop your character.
You take one, and you lose the other.
And with your approach, it turns out: you take one, but you'll think about the second one later.
This is a very simple choice. The game is not just about different combinations.
In this case, the combinations will only win in single-player, but the mod is for multiplayer ;)

Otherwise: When we thoughtfully choose a branch, we already lose the 3rd-level perks in the second one. This is the sacrifice of our choice.
At level 3, the choice of perks is also not easy: by taking one, we lose the other.
The strength in this case lies in the player's choice, not in the game's design.

Added 5 minutes later
There is no alternative; you can either upgrade the tent or the ballista. Rune machines will enhance both.

There's no alternative; you need to upgrade either the tent or the ballista. Rune machines will enhance both.

The variability from competing perks is much stronger than the variability of "anything goes." Because it forces you to think more carefully about how you develop your character.
You choose one, and you lose the other.
And with you, it turns out: you choose one, but you'll think about the second one later.
This is a very simple choice. The game is not just about different combinations.
In this case, the combinations will only win in single-player, but the mod is for multiplayer ;)

Okay, now I understand your idea. For me, this kind of choice usually starts more often from level 2 than from level 1. For example, I took Evasion – formally, I didn't lose anything. But as soon as I took Resilience or Readiness, I lost the ability to upgrade Fire Resistance or Stone Skin. This allows me to take Evasion when Evasion is really needed, and not just to develop some rigid branch or give up on others.
In my opinion, the factor of variability is stronger than your argument. That is, 10 options are better than 2-4 linear ones, the choice of which is rigidly defined already at the first pick.

In fact, choosing a perk at level 1 already has a significant impact. The fact that you take Evasion suggests that the next picks may offer Resilience or Readiness, which reduces the chances of taking other perks at levels 2-3 if they were planned. Under these conditions, it is better not to take Evasion without a real need (and prefer basic perks with access to 1 perk at level 2 or even dead-end perks without access). A consequence of your approach is also that there are no basic perks with zero access (dead-end) - it is impossible to take a "safe" perk at level 1 that does not spoil the probabilities of upgrading other perks at levels 2-3.

The binary scheme is very inconvenient in design, as it forces you to introduce too many restrictions that did not exist in the ternary one. I admit that your specific scheme turned out to be a very successful implementation under such limited conditions.

Added 13 minutes ago

There is no alternative, upgrade a tent or a ballista. Rune Machines will enhance both.

Why shouldn't the player have the right to combine?
He can upgrade medicine + ballistics in different ways, artillery + ballistics, artillery + medicine. This choice (combinations) is much wider than just choosing 1 out of 3.
That is, with a choice of 2 out of 3, formally there are only 3 directions in both cases. But with a binary scheme, there is no internal variability. In my scheme, I can upgrade medicine + ballistics in 3 different ways: with plague, with crafting, and with rapid fire. And by the way, there is also a 4th direction, which is to upgrade all 3 (medicine, ballistics, and artillery). And that will also work well.

Let's consider only engineering as an example.
I will list my options (all of them are effective):


1) Ballistics + Rapid Fire, Military Medicine (strong ballista + healing)
2) Ballistics + Rapid Fire, Artillery (strong ballista + artillery barrage, if there is no tent or damage is more important than healing)
3) Military Medicine + Military Crafting, Ballistics (strong healing + ballista)
4) Military Medicine + Military Crafting, Artillery (strong healing + artillery barrage, if there is no ballista or weak stats)
5) Military Medicine + Plague Tent, Ballistics (healing/barrage + ballista, flexibility: the ability to switch between the strongest barrage without healing and barrage with healing)
6) Military Medicine + Plague Tent, Artillery (healing/barrage + artillery barrage, the ability to provide both healing and barrage in the absence of a ballista or weak stats)
7) Military Medicine + Military Crafting + Plague Tent (strongest healing or good barrage)
8) Artillery + Sulfur Cloud + Ballistics (strong artillery barrage + ballista, if damage is needed, but the stats for the ballista are not top-notch)
9) Artillery + Sulfur Cloud + Military Medicine (strong artillery barrage + healing, if there is no ballista or the stats do not allow you to play)
10) Artillery + Sulfur Cloud + Fire Arrows (strong artillery barrage + strong unguided ballista, less dependent on stats)
11) Ballistics + Artillery + Military Medicine (versatility, if there is enough healing, and the ballista is not good enough to develop to rapid fire)

Options according to your scheme:


1) Rune Machines + Rapid Fire + Ballista
2) Rune Machines + Rapid Fire + Tent
3) Rune Machines + Tent + Plague Tent
4) Rune Machines + Tent + Machine Devotion
5) Rune Machines + Rapid Fire + Machine Devotion
6) Machine Devotion + Catapult + Rune Machines
7) Machine Devotion + Catapult + Sulfur Cloud

How many of them will work effectively?

It's not about efficiency, as you imply. You can give everything at once, and it will be super efficient. The player can combine strong options instead of having to choose between them. Right now, for example, having rapid fire and a tent next to each other is too much.

Right now, for example, having both rapid fire and a tent is too much.

To make this particular combination work better than others, you need to have both a ballista and a tent simultaneously, and also need that healing when dealing damage, as well as have sufficiently high stats for the ballista (which is why rapid fire was chosen instead of crafting or plague tent, and why ballistics were chosen instead of artillery).
P.S. I specifically renamed the basic perks to avoid confusion with the machines themselves.

You still haven't answered the question of how many and which of your options will work effectively.
Machine Loyalty is a very weak and unappealing perk (since it has become a general perk, there will likely be no golems in the army). You invest in it instead of much stronger perks from the machinery tree. Furthermore, it is a basic and situational perk: it requires leadership to be effective. Will there be any additional bonuses? Will you have any bonuses for the dead catapult branch?
Because right now, I only see 2-3 build options according to your scheme: the entire catapult branch is dead, and the choice is only between a triple ballista and a double ballista + tent (plague tent is unappealing in the original - if you don't enhance the tent, since the ballista deals more damage and without sacrificing healing). Moreover, in all of them, there is a forced increase in initiative for machines (rune machines). That is, it is simply impossible to see a machinist without this perk. If the ballista or tent is strong, it will always have high initiative. Monotony.

Finally, your scheme has a drawback in the form of firearms. In combination with rapid fire, this is too powerful a perk. And since chaos is not guaranteed for the machinist, problems arise. Either the ballista shoots normally without firearms, and then the build with firearms is overpowered. Or the ballista shoots normally only with firearms, but then the build without it is pointless. There is too much difference between a ballista with and without firearms. Furthermore, firearms without machinery and a ballista perform much worse. Finally, let's say the hero has invested in chaos, but he has neither machinery nor a ballista. Why would he bother with perks like firearms and exorcism? He probably doesn't need it in most cases. Perhaps, so that he would refuse even the mana burst, which opens such a strange fork.

And another drawback of your scheme (and we are only discussing machines). This is ranged attack. It is a level 3 perk and competes with retribution. If you haven't weakened it, then retribution is a bomb perk that gives +10-25% damage to all troops (and not just ranged units). Therefore, ranged attack should be at least 50%. And then there is again a huge difference, a ballista with ranged attack and a ballista without. And what if it also has firearms at the same time? And if you add education to this + the dependence of the ballista on stats (which will be different for different races), then it turns out that the effectiveness of the ballista strongly depends on a large number of factors (race, education, machinery + rapid fire, firearms, ranged attack), which either add up to an overpowered build, or add up to a normal build, but are weak in other scenarios. Ah yes, there is also luck? Has it been reduced to +50% damage, as in WGE? Then we get another powerful factor.

How to build a super-machinist. Take Daleb, invest in firearms (6 levels), rapid fire (6 levels), ranged attack (6 levels), luck (3-6 levels and/or artifacts), education (3 levels). You get x2 damage for firearms, x3 for rapid fire, x1.5 for ranged attack, x1.5 for education, x1.5 for race (75% attack + knowledge vs. 50%) and a couple more for specialization (we won't calculate). You get a x20 modifier to ballista damage in the best case. If you add luck, then up to x30 or more (depending on the elf). Compare this to ordinary machinists who just invest in rapid fire (x3 modifier). Theoretically, of course, you can balance it so that, for example, starting from x10, the ballista will simply destroy any full stack in one volley, and then large upgrades will not be needed. But this will only partially solve the problem (the gap between 3 and 10 is still large).

What about the ballista in WGE. Ranged attack is only +30% (not that much). Firearms are in the machinery tree, and their bonuses are actually increased (and therefore they are effective separately), while they are not compatible with multi-shot (no overpowered build). Thus, firearms as a factor for a super-ballista is excluded (rapid fire is more powerful with high stats and ranged attack). The hero's race, education, and stats still significantly affect the strength of the ballista, but the balance can be adjusted for strong builds (because weak builds from the machinery tree will rather invest in artillery + firearms and be happy with just a good ballista, investing only 2 levels - 4 others in artillery).

And in your scheme: What to do with heroes who require basic perks like ballista (machinists) or tent (Kaspar)? What to do with other heroes whose specializations imply basic perks (like curse, beam, fireball, etc.)? Give them other basic perks at the start, so that they are then forced to invest in their own? I also considered the binary scheme from these positions and realized that it is not suitable for these criteria either.

I wrote that.
Conversely:
Heroes have more skill points - one.
I'll repeat it again: the base should have perks that affect all subsequent ones - two.
And they don't need an overpowered ballista - three. This is, on the contrary, a plus.
etc.
We can argue about this endlessly.

Please, write briefly. It's not enjoyable to read everything.
Any scheme can be refuted by another.
Here, the attempt is only to defend the advantages, which are noticeably weaker than the disadvantages.

We are considering the perk scheme. Each perk can be reworked. Therefore, there is no need to consider this.
The logic of the scheme is important. I wrote what ideal should be strived for, and whether it is achieved or not is another question.

Added 7 minutes later
I'll add that it's better to have 2 powerful, mutually exclusive perks to choose from, rather than 4 ordinary ones.
Of course, the perks of the 3rd level should be balanced.

The Human faction's resurrection ability was pleasing - it was assumed to be like this in NHF before.

I personally prefer the Nargott's Wheel, but completely discarding perks... well, let's say the Ash's Favor and Fortune's Path perks are indeed a bit much, but the rest... And here's another thing – I once suggested linking a number of spells to skills, removing them from free access, and that idea was promptly rejected (in the symmetry thread), but now I see, for example, vampirism, regeneration, earthquake, and something else attached to skills... and now, pay attention to the question: what prompted the reconsideration of this aspect?

Added after 8 minutes

The Human skill for resurrection is a welcome addition – it was always supposed to be like this in NHF.

And indeed – finally, because what they had before was clearly nonsense and didn't even come close to being a skill:smile54:

Nargott has a single-target ability; for multi-target, it's not that great, just like my example.
However, if you create the perfect build, the ability will be the strongest, even for multi-target.

Giving a perk for a spell reduces the value of the castle and introduces randomness. In my opinion, this is more of a drawback than an advantage.
Nargott will probably say that this is amazing, a new build, and an opportunity for some classes to have a different progression. But behind this apparent plus, the principle of the "card-based" hero system will be broken again. It adds an RPG element and degrades the strategy on the map in these elements. You can play against the computer this way, but playing against a human with such a build... it's better to play an RTS than this (

Added 23 minutes later
If there were no limitations within the existing game, we could really show that the 2-2-4 build is better than the 3-3-2 build.

Regarding the Order Skills, there was once an idea that they were parallel to the attack speed. But that option didn't work out well. I don't remember why. Also, the idea that was instead of Ashih's patronage