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.
Then, the human race and their main ability need to be rethought.
This needs to be done anyway, because the preparation part is great, but the counterattack part is useless and looks like a pathetic addition (it would be better if they had units with readiness, or if griffins with infinite retaliation were a defensive unit, not an attacking one...).
4. No source code needed 5. Really, no source code needed, just hex code.
The creatures, while relatively balanced in the player's army, become inadequate and overpowered as neutral units, causing significant losses regardless of the chosen tactics.
For the water elementals, they implemented a workaround in the form of a 70% damage reduction from spells. Yes, it's not the best solution, but radically changing the game's mechanics by limiting the range of attacks doesn't seem very appealing. I think the 4th point, with proper implementation, should fix the situation. And the 7th point, too. Is it worth focusing on this problem from all angles? It's possible to overdo it and the result could be even worse than it is now.
2. Remove counterattacks. In theory, you could introduce this change now by giving everyone counterattack, but that's not ideal either – a small number of units with counterattack wouldn't hurt. Why? It immediately eliminates annoying tactics like focusing, and improves the dynamics. Well, in theory, of course, but such a theory is worth testing. Moreover, this type of game modification is reversible – if you don't like it, you can give all creatures the "counterattack" skill and everything will be exactly as it was.
Interesting idea, I never thought about it. With this approach (total lack of counterattack), the ability to counterattack can be obtained by leveling up the Readiness perk.
4. By the way, it would also be good to modify the formula for calculating damage from creature spells. Ideally, give them different spells that don't match the hero's magic. The a-la hero magic formula doesn't work well for them.
Ideally, remove logarithmic magic from casters and replace it with linear magic.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
dredknight
Hello everyone!
I read the last few pages with great interest. Most of the new stuff you want are great!
There is just one thing I want to mention regarding archers. In my opinion the issue with archer strength lies in 2 things: - No range penalty perk - 5% damage bonus per attack point.
Those points regard high tier units with a lot of attack (titans and matriarchs) and Crossbowman.
Evaluating the first problem - No range penalty is just too strong for any type of unit. So eventually it was dropped by all shooters except the Arcane Archer. The second problem - it is more of a problem with the whole battle mechanics in general. 5% damage per attack point is way too much in the long run. At late game it makes battles finish 2-3 rounds because of the heavy damage unit causes.
If you use the proposed nerf from a couple of posts ago, archers will become irrelevant in comparison to the other units. Have in mind that tower has 3 archer units which will greatly alter their strength.
When approaching changes that regard balanced battle system: 1. Fight pace at weeks 2-4 should be the same as a fight at week 20... week 40.. etc... 2. Units/upgrades should not lose their tactical weight throughout the game stages (week 2-4, week 10-20 etc..).
Now about the unit magic power... This should be changed totally.
When it comes to destruction spells - I think a damage spell should do X damage + Y% of the total stack health.
For example: Expert Lighting - 20*Spellpower + F(0.002*Spellpower*TOTAL_STACK_HP)
Mage with 60 Spellpower will do 1200 damage + 12% out of TOTAL_STACK_HP.
This is just example formula and numbers can be changed but you get my point. This way destruction magic will remain viable even at week 10 with 5 native castles per player.
Also I would like to see creature spellpower formula stronger at higher count. Though I like the way it works.
Ment
Auto-translated
They did implement a workaround for water elementals in the form of a 70% damage reduction from spells. Yes, it's not the best solution, but drastically changing the game's mechanics by limiting the attack range doesn't seem quite right. I think the 4th point, if implemented correctly, should fix the situation. And the 7th point as well. Is it worth focusing on this problem from all angles? You could overdo it and make things even worse than they are now.
Well, maybe, I can't say for sure. But here's what needs to be noted: 1. Some archers are also a problem, not just casters. No one wants to run into blue elf archers. 2. The unit shouldn't be an overpowered neutral enemy, but it should still be useful in the hero's army, including in the final battle against another player. To achieve this, a weak unit needs high damage. You can make all archer and caster units balanced (average damage and average survivability) or focus on survivability, but then we lose an entire potential class of creatures. This won't diversify the tactics. 3. There will be more point in maneuvering, which is a plus in itself. In any case, such global changes imply a complete overhaul of the game balance, of course. But I believe it can be balanced in such a way that the tactical possibilities are actually improved, at least some examples of this exist.
No range penalty perk
Oh, maybe. But I should say that in HoMMV it's not so big problem because there is not so many shooters with no range penalty. Have you tryed HoMMVII? ) If yes, you know the example of another situation here.
If you use the proposed nerf from a couple of posts ago, archers will become irrelevant in comparison to the other units. Have in mind that tower has 3 archer units which will greatly alter their strength.
I don't think so because the ability to move in the same turn with the attack compensates it! Of course, it will be harder to use shooters, but they will get ability to easily occupy advantageous positions on the combat field. Also it can be balanced by stats (damages, vitality and so on, as well as a distance of the attack!).
Oh, maybe. But I should say that in HoMMV it's not so big problem because there is not so many shooters with no range penalty. Have you tryed HoMMVII? ) If yes, you know the example of another situation here.
Actually I did not play it but I understand what you mean.Ment
I don't think so because the ability to move in the same turn with the attack compensates it! Of course, it will be harder to use shooters, but they will get ability to easily occupy advantageous positions on the combat field. Also it can be balanced by stats (damages, vitality and so on, as well as a distance of the attack!).
Do you mean that archers (just as other units) will be able to move and shoot in the same turn?
Ment
Do you mean that archers (just as other units) will be able to move and shoot in the same turn?
If he's quick. He's German and is currently working on a huge project based on Heroes 5. As I understand it, it's an online world with provinces. You enter a province and fight for control of it, just like on a regular map from Heroes 5. He says he's afraid to share his sources because if it comes out, his project will be at risk. But I'm still trying to persuade him).
Glistagon, what's the situation with the German guy? Did you manage to convince him?
Interesting news from Quantomas. He is working on patch 3.2, which will be based on his AI. He wants to attract the attention of Ubi and, in doing so, secure the right to distribute the source code. As a way to increase game sales.
Regarding sharing the source code, he is avoiding a direct answer. I can't even fully understand what he thinks about it. As an option, someone who is fluent in English could join the discussion. Just do it together so that the guy isn't too shocked. I can share the correspondence.
Ment
Auto-translated
Sounds inspiring!
I might try to join if there aren't more people interested.
I have a good command of English. Keep me in mind, but I still need to familiarize myself with the details of the issue to understand if it's worth the effort.
I have a good command of English. Keep me in mind, but I still need to familiarize myself with the essence of the issue to understand if the game is worth it.
There are only 4 pages in this topic. This is the whole point.
That's all true. The patch was mentioned a long time ago, but now he's actively working on it. Interestingly, he started working on it after our conversation.
Ment
