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.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition - Tactical Edition.
Is it possible to modify a perk – for example, instead of completely removing the "Ashes' Favor" and "Lucky Charm" perks, could they be transformed into something more appealing?
... 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...
You don't need an overpowered ballista – three of them is enough. This is actually a plus. etc. You can argue about this endlessly. Please, write concisely. I don't want to read everything.
I see that you don't want to – you're not reading carefully; otherwise, you would already understand what I'm writing about – you wouldn't have to repeat it. In short: in your scheme, the ballista is either useless or overpowered because it can be greatly enhanced by perks from other skills, especially ranged attacks and fire arrows. Up to 10 times (in addition to what is already boosted in the machinery). Plus, you can read the last paragraph of that post; it raises questions about the binary scheme, and it would be interesting to hear your answers.
The logic of the scheme itself is important. I wrote about the ideal that should be strived for, but whether it is achieved or not is another question.
Okay, but it's difficult to discuss abstract logic if there are specific examples. If you have a better version of your wheel, I'm ready to discuss it and compare it based on any skill (comparing everything would take too long).
Added 3 minutes ago Dyrman
Once again, there should be perks on the base that affect all subsequent ones – two.
The key word here is "should." Who should they be for? So far, there is no argument as to why this is better than other options. I understand that in your scheme, this may already be the case (although in many respects, the enhancement is contrived), but why should other schemes be based on this criterion? Any scheme has its pros and cons; I have revealed the cons of your (binary) scheme, as well as pointed out some of the pros (simplicity of leveling). Reveal other pros.
Added 1 minute ago SRD
And can a perk be changed – that is, can you not permanently discard, for example, the protection of Askh and luck on the road, but turn them into something more delicious?
I think it's possible, but I left such empty perks as a reserve. To have aces up my sleeve when I start implementing the wheel. For example, if a good idea appears, I will take an empty perk and use it.
Added 3 minutes ago SRD
And here's another thing – I once suggested linking a number of spells to skills, removing them from free access, and this idea was successfully banned (in the symmetry thread), but now I see, for example, vampirism, regeneration, earthquake, and something else attached to skills... and now, attention, the question: what prompted the revision of this point?
Nothing prompted it; this concept has been in the WGE for a very long time. Here, not just any spells are added, but exactly those that are not given in the guild. Grief, vampirism, regen, revenge, frostbite, wall of fire, earthquake, and elementals cannot be obtained in the guild (formally, they are in the level 6 mod). There are also some other spells that are in the guild, but are added for perks. These are classic mass stone skin, mass haste, as well as teleport and heavenly shield. I haven't added any other spells to reduce the role of the guild. Except perhaps for random ones, such as for wisdom, or logical enhancements of perks like scholar.
Remind me of that post where I criticized your approach; perhaps there were completely different reasons, I don't remember the nuances. Most likely, this concerned exactly those spells that are already in the guild (and in the original, they all are).
Added 3 minutes ago Dyrman
Nargott has a single-player wheel; it's not very good for multiplayer, just like my example.
I will not refute this statement because it is not based on anything, and because there is no direct (not theoretical) refutation – that's two.
When I start implementing the planned on the map, then I will actively play on it, respectively, many things may change (where I was wrong), but the focus will always be on multiplayer – I won't play and test with the computer. I can say for sure that I have multiplayer experience in leveling in RTA, and I even took second place in one tournament, so I have a practical understanding of what should be in the wheel and what should not be – from the point of view of multiplayer and the interest of leveling. However, not when playing on the map.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Dyrman
Auto-translated
If that makes it easier, I'll explain it differently, in a completely different way.
1) The most important aspect of the 2-2-4 build is the pursuit of the 3rd-level perk (it should be noticeably stronger than the previous ones).
2) But even with that, you can develop mixed builds for different situations.
I answered the questions from the last paragraph of your message (specifically regarding hero-engineers and others – read carefully!).
Added 9 minutes later Nargott
When I start implementing the planned features on the map, I will actively play on it, and many things may change accordingly (where I was wrong), but the focus will always be on Multiplayer – I won't be playing and testing against the computer.
In the end, for example, the WGE duels turned out the way I originally suggested, even though it was initially rejected.
The speeds ultimately remained at the level I proposed (a slight reduction and leaving the flying units untouched), instead of the level that was intended.
Oh well.
And the systems are different because I'm comparing them to the original, while you're comparing them to your mod. And that's already incorrect.
1) The most important aspect of the 2-2-4 build is pursuing the 3rd tier perk (it should be noticeably stronger than the previous ones).
I understand that this is the main advantage, and Dyrman
2) But even with that, you can still develop mixed systems for different situations.
it was simply added as a safeguard.
As for the first point. What does the pursuit of the 3rd perk entail? Usually, advanced perks are easier to obtain than basic ones (but basic ones also appear easily). Therefore, there is no particular difficulty in acquiring a 3rd tier perk.
Added 1 minute later Dyrman
In the end, for some reason, for example, the WGE duels turned out the way I initially suggested, even though it was strongly rejected.
But in a different form than you described.
The speeds ultimately remained at the level that was suggested (a slight reduction and leaving flying units untouched), instead of the level that was implied.
No, the reduction for infantry is large and significant (-25%), and there is also a reduction for flying units, but it is smaller.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
These are very different things: the need to simply increase speeds because "high-speed units are necessary," and increasing speeds only for flying units while reducing their physical stats. So, yes, this is one of the solutions, and it ultimately worked well, but that doesn't mean that any other solution to increase speeds (for example, returning to the original) would be good.
The process was as follows: I first played a lot of battles, feeling the concept of the mod with slow units, and only then did I gain a clear understanding of who and in what proportion the speeds should be increased so as not to break the refined gameplay.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Remind me of that post where I criticized your approach; perhaps there were completely different reasons, I don't remember the nuances. Most likely, it concerned those spells that are already in the guild (and in the original, they all exist).
I was just writing about vampirism, and also about raising the dead – in my opinion, it's purely a Necropolis thing – it just doesn't seem right for, for example, a forest elf to take someone and turn them into undead, but now I'm going to implement this by distributing different races with suppression of one or another magic (specifically, Forest Elves, for example, will be able to upgrade light, summon, and chaos, but instead of dark magic, I'll replace it with suppression of darkness because it's not appropriate).
... 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 was just writing about vampirism, and also about raising the dead – in my opinion, this is purely a Necropolis thing. For example, it doesn't seem right for a Sylvan elf to take someone and turn them into undead, but now I'm going to implement this by distributing different races with suppression of one or another magic (specifically, Sylvan elves will be able to upgrade light, summoning, and chaos, but I'll replace dark magic with suppression of darkness for them because it's not appropriate).
Actually, raising the dead (or reanimating in the mod) doesn't turn anyone into undead. It provides a temporary extension of life. The unit's properties, stats, and morale do not change. It can perfectly fit into an elf's strategy in combination with regeneration (while, for example, Necromancers don't have it). Reanimation partially restores the killed stack, and regeneration revives the remaining units permanently.
But we've already strayed from the topic; everyone can have their own opinion.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
What about vampirism? That's definitely a Necropolis spell.
Added 1 minute ago And here's another point: don't you think that runes are extremely overpowered?
Especially, I'd like to mention the energy rune and the battle rage rune.
... 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...
What about vampirism? That's definitely not an undead spell.
Added 1 minute ago And here's another point: don't you think runes are extremely overpowered? I especially want to highlight the energy rune and the battle rage rune.
Well, why would it be an undead spell? Just based on the name? If anything, it's more of an anti-undead spell (considering things like mind control and plague, which necromancers love). Vampirism isn't just about resurrection; it's also a good analogue for exorcism (removal) in the darkness. And that's exactly what undead don't need, because they're already immune to what vampirism provides. But dark elves, demons, or humans can benefit greatly from it. And as an analogue for exorcism, it's much more important for the first two races. And I think I've already written about this.
So, I'm not discouraging it, I'm just explaining why I can't accept such suggestions in my mod. Subjectively, they might be logical, but objectively, they impoverish the gameplay. After all, we're talking about banning such spells for heroes who are not undead, right? Although even this ban can be circumvented by hiring a necromancer for a living army and calmly using "undead" goodies (even in larger quantities with vampirism).
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
SRD
Auto-translated
Don't you think that runes are extremely overpowered?
I would especially like to note the energy rune and the battle rage rune.
... 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...
And here's another point: don't you think that runes are extremely overpowered? I'd especially like to mention the energy rune and the battle rage rune.
Yes, runes are quite powerful. But only if there are enough resources. However, compared to other runes, the dragon rune causes much more concern in the mod, as doubling the stats can give a huge bonus. I would call this rune the ultimate one – it will definitely need to be made more expensive (it would be better to remove it if possible).
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Yes, the runes are quite powerful. But only if there are enough resources. However, compared to other runes, the dragon rune causes much more concern in the mod, as doubling the stats can provide a huge bonus. I would call this rune the ultimate one – it will definitely need to be made more expensive (it would be better to remove it if possible).
Can it be nerfed? For example, let the energy rune increase speed not by 100%, but by 2-3 units...
... 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...
What price increase for the rune are you suggesting?
... 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...
SRD
