Posts from Balance in HotA.

The abilities of magogs, liches, firebirds, archdevils, the order and prices of town buildings, creature costs and growth, negative luck, gameplay-altering bugfixes — all of this is already "very non-SoD". Nothing like that was done by SoD with AB or AB with Hive.

Perhaps it's worth recalling some points from RoE (the standard version that could once be bought on disc):
— In starting armies, the Tower had 50–75 gremlins.
— Gremlin rush: all heroes arrived at the tavern with troops, even after fleeing. Given the aforementioned number of gremlins in the army, this was especially effective for accumulating them.
— After a break, a hero would have 2000 movement points.
— External taverns offered different heroes than town ones; you couldn't buy own fled heroes there.
— Troops could not be left in mines.
— You couldn't revisit objects using the spacebar.
— Lizardman warrior damage was 2–3.
— Dragonflies did not cast weakness.
— In Confluxes, it was 40–60–80–100 griffins for 2–3–4–5 angels.
— Artillery did not grant control over shooting towers.
— Town moats dealt no damage.

Gameplay-altering bugfixes existed too — at least the fix regarding the ability to sacrifice enemy creatures with Sacrifice and completely clear all enemy fortifications using Cyclopes on tactics.

Now this is probably not remembered much, but RoE isn't just SoD without Conflux, neutral creatures, and collections; there were quite a few changes as well. HotA has more changes — but not so many more that one could say "nothing like that was done." Moreover, the changes are mostly pinpoint rather than mass: some specific things change, but overall, HotA has the same creatures as SoD, the same artifacts, heroes (and spells). Familiar images are broken in separate places, not absolutely everywhere.

Why is it okay to touch all the above (+ secondary skills) (since they also fundamentally change the familiar gameplay), but SoD spells cannot be touched?

The discussion was about mass changes to spell schools and levels. Based on a spell's icon, one automatically recalls its level and, even more so, its school. If the levels of most spells are changed, it will look strange, feel wrong, and cause rejection. But that doesn't mean pinpoint edits are unacceptable; that wasn't what was said.

Specifically, moving spells between levels has the following downsides:
— The game system is such that a hero's starting spell either matches their specialization or is a level 1 spell. Moving a spell from level one to another automatically triggers changes for a whole range of heroes.
— With any movement of spells between levels, the drop chances in towns will have to be redesigned — as their sum at each level must equal 100%.
— Currently, there are exactly 15 spells on levels 1–4 and exactly 10 on level 5. If too many movements between levels are made, it might also require a number of additional, essentially unnecessary movements so that the number of spells per level doesn't drift too far from these proportions.
— If there are enough trash spells in the game — is there really such a big difference as to which levels they are on? What good is it to just take and collect all the unusable trash on level 1, instead of actually trying to change the spells themselves to make them useful?

The idea that "the higher the level 'X', the stronger 'X' must be" is not universally used in Heroes; this can be seen at least with artifacts, where among identical rings with +1 hp, one is treasure and another is minor (and for +1 speed — a necklace is treasure, while a ring is major). Artifact levels mostly determine where such artifacts can be found, and only roughly define the artifact's power. The situation is similar with spells. If spells were distributed by level strictly according to their power, TP would have to be placed on level 5. But then the Spellweaver's hat would immediately grant full control, which is unlikely to affect the game positively.

This doesn't mean levels cannot be changed at all under any circumstances. Perhaps in some cases, changing a level is exactly the thing that best solves the problem. But mass changes to the levels of many spells as a solution to all magic problems seems doubtful.

In my opinion, it looks more promising in several cases to try and modify the spell effect itself (numerical parameters or mechanical peculiarities, perhaps the cost), thereby making them useful.

Gameplay in HotA is relatively new, barely a week old, what's the point of referring to it)

I am talking about SoD gameplay, significant layers of which are preserved (and should be preserved) in HotA.

I've seen several times that people think we position HotA as some fundamentally new game unrelated to the original Heroes. This is not true; HotA is positioned as an expansion to the original, and we try to make it as the developers of the original Heroes might have made it.
Briefly about the concept of HotA written here: /topic/11579/
Since the topic was not opened immediately after the section opened, perhaps not everyone noticed it.

Why not deal more closely with spell balance, especially since a mass of options were proposed?

It's clear that the current situation with spells in Heroes is not very good, and spell balance (as well as skill balance) should be addressed.
But it must be understood that online gameplay requirements are not the only criterion in these matters, and same-action options are also evaluated based on other considerations (including those that may seem insignificant to an online player but are important to us).
At the same time, the goal is not to make absolutely all spells strictly correspond to their level in terms of power. Rather, the goal is to diversify gameplay by adding utility — even if situational, but occurring in real games — to spells that were unused in the original.

And still, the first priority for balance is to completely eliminate all bans in the rules. In my opinion, the presence of bans hinders the development of the online community more than the presence of unbalanced elements in gameplay, deterring single-player players from trying to play online.

And also, I don't quite understand the position of not adding checkboxes.

This is a fundamental position: we are creating a project with unified gameplay that depends on the map being played but is not configured inside the game itself (except for the choice of the map and difficulty). This is how the original Heroes were, as well as a number of other games (just as some games, conversely, have gameplay settings). We would not have started working on a project with different principles regarding this issue.

However, this doesn't mean there can be no optionality at all. Diverse game modes are achieved through the existence (and possibility of creating) various maps and templates. Ideally, we plan to expand the gameplay configuration options in templates. Even now, mandatory and forbidden roads can be configured in a template. In the future, the ability to ban artifacts and spells in a template will certainly be implemented. It may even come down to configuring object spawns, including the minimum number of objects of a certain type in a zone and their distance from roads.
Adding map generator settings (independent of the template but affecting only the created map) is also possible, although this is a less desirable method.

but the "Ideology" regarding the guild is still not clear

The complaints about rebuilding are not in terms of gameplay, but in terms of how it looks overall, primarily from the perspective of non-online players.
If we take the option from HW_Rulez: shift-clicking on the Mage Guild brings up a "Mage Guild Rebuilding" window with the ability to choose a level — how does this look from the outside? Unusual mechanics, an interface foreign to Heroes, lack of atmospheric justification, the name "rebuilding" evoking doubtful associations — it looks unattractive and seems like a crutch made for online players. This will not help attract new non-online players both to HotA and to the online community.

The other thing is that such a feature could be attempted differently, integrated so that it looks natural and harmonious in the game and doesn't cause irritation for most people, but remains roughly the same gameplay-wise. Whether this is possible — there is no general consensus in the team on this yet. There is an understanding that this is demanded by online players and that the "rebuilding" effect is difficult to fully replace with some fundamentally different mechanisms.

I'd like to add a bit about the restructuring – the need for it is partly due to the fact that in a number of scenarios, the player has too few cities, so building guilds in them doesn't give good chances for control.

Therefore, it would be desirable to consider measures that increase the number of cities available to the player.

The most natural mechanism here seems to be optimizing the road network, reducing the number of situations where one of the players occupies a key road junction and traps the opponent in a corner with two or three cities.

If the road network is more balanced, if each player has access to junctions, if there are cyclical routes, etc., then the chances of being trapped will be much lower.

Plus, in my opinion, we should abandon roadless treasures and put villages everywhere. In addition to generally speeding up the gameplay, this will also add more Guild Masters to build.

And finally, an ideological consideration – it doesn't seem normal to me that only 1 city and a lot of resources are enough to unlock all the magic. The amount of territory explored and the number of captured castles is an indicator of the quality of the game; it should be rewarded, including by increasing the number of available spells.

I'll add a bit regarding rebuilding — the need for it is partly due to the fact that in several scenarios, a player ends up with too few cities for building guilds in them to provide good chances of control.

Therefore, it is advisable to consider measures that increase the number of cities available to the player.

The most natural mechanism here seems to be the optimization of the road network, reducing the number of situations where one of the players takes a key road junction and traps the opponent in a corner with two or three cities.

If the road network is more balanced, if available junctions are accessible to every player, if there are cyclic routes, etc., then the chances of being trapped will be much lower.

Plus, imho, we should move away from roadless treasures and place villages everywhere. Besides a general acceleration of Gameplay, this would also add one-way roads for expansion.

And an ideological consideration — it doesn't seem normal to me when 1 city and a pile of resources are enough to build up all magic. The amount of developed territory and the number of captured castles is an indicator of game quality; it should be rewarded, among other things, by increasing the number of available spells.

Well, building up a guild in a castle that is under enemy fire is very debatable and more likely to be a disadvantage than an advantage. And capturing territory is already rewarded with a large number of objects.

And if you have 14 cons and 88 Dragon Utopia on your respawn, what's the point of capturing castles and building up control if there's a high probability you'll find it in the Dragon Utopia.

It seems we're talking about different things.

Here, look – what problems does guild restructuring solve:
1) You're cornered, and you need damage dealers/flying units to break out.
2) You've taken half the map, have 8 Merfolk, built 4 Growth Mines, but have no control.

Problem #1 can be solved in an alternative way – by creating additional roads so that if you're attacked on one, you can escape along another.

Problem #2 can be solved in an alternative way – by increasing the chance of finding control. I've already listed ideas for new objects that grant spells. You can also go the route of increasing the chances of control in the guild; these percentages can be adjusted. And new control spells for Fire-Water also increase the chances of finding something.

Also, don't forget that guild restructuring not only solves problems but also creates them. For example, resource trading becomes less profitable; in many scenarios, it's more advantageous not to do a full trade and rush headlong into the unknown, but to slow down a bit, finish off the territory, and start building a guild in the 2nd week, postponing territorial expansion for a few days.

I remember watching a bo3 series in the final of the Favorites tournament, Javdet vs GoD on the Wargaming mirror, and both players played like that – they didn't force the issue but built and restructured their towers. It looked a bit boring. In Heroes, there's already a significant bias towards grinding; 95% of the game time is spent in battles with neutrals. I don't see the point in reinforcing this trend. It's much more exciting to have an aggressively attacking game instead, with attempts to rush the opponent or grab some tasty territories before them.

Perhaps what I'm about to say will seem like heresy, cause rejection and confusion in inexperienced minds, but why do all heroes have a catapult from the start by default? In the good old King's Bounty, as far as I remember, to kill a villain in a castle, you first had to buy a catapult in some town. What if we brought back the old traditions, removed it from heroes by default, and made it an object that can be purchased? This would strengthen the weak ballistics skill (if you can only have a catapult if you have the skill), and also add some balance, as castle walls would give a greater advantage to the defending player. To further enhance ballistics, you could add some banks to the map with a good reward, where you have to fight a garrison and preferably a ranged army – this would make ballistics a very useful skill at the start, when there are many such objects around, and the reward in them would give a good advantage in development during the first week.

By the way, why haven't the heroes been participating in battles themselves yet? How long must we endure this?!

The variety of game modes is achieved through the availability (and the possibility of creating) different maps and templates.

And here's some more heresy - why is the maximum number of heroes on a map limited to 8? Where did this number even come from? I think this number should be set in the map/template settings. There would be interesting game modes, for example, with a maximum of three heroes on an M-map, or 16 on an XL+U map.

Perhaps what I'm about to say will seem like heresy, cause rejection and confusion in immature minds, but why does every hero have a catapult from the start by default? In the good old King's Bounty, as far as I remember, to kill a villain in a castle, you first had to buy a catapult in some town. What if we brought back the old traditions, removed it from heroes by default, and made it an object that can be purchased? This would strengthen the weak ballistics skill (if you can only have a catapult if you have the skill), and at the same time, it would add some balance, as castle walls would give the defending player a greater advantage. To further enhance ballistics, you could add some banks to the map with a good reward, where you have to fight a garrison and preferably an archer army - this would make ballistics a very useful skill at the start, when there are many such objects around, and the reward in them would give a good advantage in development during the first week.

The idea of making the purchase of a catapult mandatory is, in my opinion, not a good one, but the idea of banks with walls was proposed, and it didn't cause any particular objections. However, no one has yet gotten around to the specifics of the guard and the reward.

...but why the hell do all heroes have a catapult from the start by default? In the good old King's Bounty...

So, given the presence of flying units, why can't heroes fly? I took a gargoyle and went to clear the map, while also getting a tower buff!

No, I agree that the idea seems absurd at first glance. But I have a question: if a catapult is always available to all heroes during a castle siege, why is there a separate slot for it in the exchange window between heroes? Perhaps the developers initially didn't want to give it to all heroes by default and wanted to allow the possibility of transferring the catapult between heroes? When I was just starting to play Heroes, I was a bit confused by the fact that all artifacts and war machines could be removed/transferred, but the catapult couldn't. It seemed unnatural, but I got used to it. By the way, if they remove the catapult, they could add a hero who specializes in ballistics and brings it with him from the start. P.S. Damn, it just occurred to me that war machines can't be removed! Another question - why not?)))

However, it might be possible to implement something similar in a different way, integrating it so that it looks natural and harmonious in the game and doesn't cause irritation for most players, while still providing roughly the same gameplay experience. Whether this is possible is something the team hasn't reached a consensus on yet. There is an understanding that this is in demand in online play and that the effect of "restructuring" is difficult to fully replace with fundamentally different mechanics.

I believe that if we simply add a checkbox, as has been done elsewhere, the ideological stance won't be compromised. If you want to play for fun, go ahead. If you want a more competitive experience, enable the restructuring option.
Undoubtedly, in the current direction that HotA is taking, the competitive aspect is clearly highlighted, which could take Heroes to a new level, including in terms of spectacle. Much of this has become possible thanks to Overhaul.
Wicc, you seem to be going in the wrong direction again, sir. By adding more forks, villages, and roads, we will get even more diamonds and mini-nests. Again, perhaps due to a long absence of practice, restructuring seems like some kind of easy fix.

And here's an ideological consideration: I don't think it's normal for only 1 city and a lot of resources to be enough to develop all the magic. The amount of territory controlled and the number of captured castles are indicators of the quality of the game; they should be rewarded, including by increasing the number of available spells.

It will be very rare to find the necessary amount of resources in a small area, so expanding territory and capturing castles are mutually complementary things.

I believe that if we just make a checkbox, as was done everywhere else, the ideological position will not suffer. If you want to play for fun — please do. If you want more of a competitive element — check the box for rebuilding.

As already noted above, checkboxes are an extremely undesirable way to solve problems.

Wicc, you've been carried off course again, sir. By making more junctions, villages, and roads, we will get even more Diamonds and Mini-Nosts.
Again, apparently due to a long lack of practice, rebuilding seems like some kind of easy way out

Due to a long absence of gaming practice, the point of view has definitely shifted. It was shifted especially strongly by long experience as a spectator.

For example, it turned out that the most spectacular templates (among non-mirrored ones) are Jebus Cross and Diamond; others lag far behind. Even though I never liked Jebus Cross, considering it a flawed template, so there is no question of bias here.

And, for instance, Mini-Nosta and all XL maps are boring. Although playing XL maps is perhaps the most interesting part.

Similarly with mirrored ones — mt-Diamond is total nya, although for the player it's sometimes ololo. While the more solid h3dm1 is a bit dull; there's reason to watch only if there's a mutual stream. Whereas mt-Diamond is quite watchable even from one side.

Cases where you can find the necessary amount of resources in a small space will be very rare, therefore territory exploration and resource gathering are complementary things

In terms of "chances for control/territory size," resources clearly win over utopias; to get a utopia with control, one often has to run very far, and without any guarantee of success, whereas the necessary res can be systematically collected on a much smaller area.

I spent the whole night thinking about Vika's previous post: on one hand, the restructuring significantly reduces variance, but on the other hand, it really does diminish the spectacle and the game only starts when players gain full control. But still, I would prefer less spectacle to running around the entire map, fighting for all the scrolls, and getting frustrated because there is no control in two Dragon Utopias and three Hives, and nothing else on the map. And the opponent got a Hive and a Dragon Utopia in the first round.

I spent the whole night thinking about Vika's previous post: on one hand, restructuring significantly reduces variance, but on the other hand, the spectacle truly disappears and the game only begins once players achieve full control. But still, I would prefer less spectacle over running all across the map, fighting for every scroll, and agonizing over the fact that there is no control in 2 GMs and 3 Dragon Utopias, while there's nothing else on the map. And the opponent was given КВ КЗ in the 1st Dragon Utopia.

This is one of the problems with competitive gaming: the interests of the player and the interests of the spectator do not always align. Often, players benefit from a sluggish, prolonged slog, while spectators find wild attacks, cascades of feints, and sharp plot twists more interesting, etc.

Furthermore, players often fear asymmetric layouts, preferring to have an advantage that may be smaller but is more stable. Spectators, conversely, are more interested in tense asymmetric layouts with "play for 3 results" — like "queen vs 2 rooks" or "2 bishops vs 2 knights," etc. Applied to Heroes, these are, for example, layouts of "control vs wealth" or "mage vs warrior" or "shooters vs melee units," etc.

So—in the current state of esports in general and Heroes in particular, the interests of the spectator are so marginalized that it is quite acceptable to consciously marginalize the interests of the players if it benefits the spectacle.

For example, most players find it more interesting to play with a long timer, thinking about their move during the opponent's turn, etc. Spectators, however, prefer non-stop action, even if accompanied by many blunders or even gross errors.

Therefore, in the future, it will be necessary to reduce the standard timer values on all templates. Not necessarily down to blitz mode (8+4+1), although experience shows that even Jeb is quite playable here, but at least down to rapid (12+6+1).

It is also desirable to avoid templates with long stretches between forks; the typical distance between forks should be no more than one day's march for a low-level unit, which makes the game more energetic.

It is also desirable to avoid templates with off-road treasure zones, because you can easily gain +1 week of wealth there. Also, the size of the zones should not be too large so as not to encourage long slogs in the off-road areas. An exemplary clearing of a treasure zone is: take the village, spread out with low-level units, collect everything interesting in a day or two, and leave.

Thus, the optimization of templates for HotA will continue in accordance with the criteria specified in this discussion.

I hope you understand that you are in the minority.