Non-linear damage of casters

[Gaidal Cain]

So what? A few Druids in the beginning of the game will make much more of an impression with their Lightning bolt than a couple hundreds later on.

Indeed. This is one of the largest single gripes I have with the game right now.

As for army scaling: I do wish spell power to become relevant. One way would do it would be to decrease duration when there's more creatures in the stack. One could also avoid the problem with some sort of leadership attrbute that governed the amount of creatures a hero could have in his army (Knights would carry more than wizards, but since Spell Power and Knowledge would be better skills as well, it would even out).

[Elvin]

An interesting proposal.Still,it doesn't even come close to evening out and seems needlessly complicated.

[DaemianLucifer]

Druid thing(actually all casters thing)is bad.If they made all creatures power raise non lineary,except for those with special abilities,it would be ok.But having only spells from spell casters rise like this and not the rest is bad.Especially since its so overpowered in the begining(6 stacks of lone druids+master hunters and youre unstopable).

[Jolly Joker]

No it's not. It works fine - both ways. Some people may not like it, but it works fine. I'm sick of hearing this overpowered/underpowered nonsense - there's no definition per se what's overpowered and what's underpowered in which situation. Those druids pack a fine punch in the beginning. There's nothing wrong with that per se - they don't have that much initiative, mind you.
Actually it's all rather simple. There's the start phase of a game - and here you can actually do a lot of good with careful stack dividing. This isn't a new thing: it's true since Heroes 2. The Dwarves in the expansion rely heavily on it - with more than one unit actually. Phase two starts as soon as you have so many different troops that (excessive) splitting isn't an option anymore. Spellcasters and other special abilities (like the Wraiths) are balanced as is the hero compared to the amount of troops. This is the regular game.
The third phase is the phase when troops are actually growing faster than heroes in levels: the destructive casting power of troops AND heroes gets less and less compared to troop might. This means that Destructive Magic gets more and more useless while light and dark plus a very few selected summoning spells will shine. At this stage the game gets more out of whack with every passing day since the Knight gets stronger and the Warlock gets weaker.
Giving troops with a shooting attack a differently working destructive spell will make them massively overpowered later on - we had this discussion already: if the spell damage is not different from the normal attack why have one? If it is different it will do a massive amount of damage later on (imagine Pit Lords with a linear working Meteor Shower).

The real challenge for H 6 may be to solve those problems. One way might be, as suggested, to introduce a "stack effectivity penalty", reducing damage effectiveness for larger stacks which is currently in effect only for spellcasters and which has a lot of exploiting potential.

[Gaidal Cain]

Giving troops with a shooting attack a differently working destructive spell will make them massively overpowered later on - we had this discussion already: if the spell damage is not different from the normal attack why have one? If it is different it will do a massive amount of damage later on (imagine Pit Lords with a linear working Meteor Shower).

Considering all other damage types (even shooters) grow linearly, I hardly see how they aren't overpowered if casters would be. As for "no difference to shooters":
1. Shooters can't shoot when enemies are adjacent.
2. Shooters suffers from ranged and obstacle penalties.
3. Shooters can't choose which kind of shot they want to use.
4. Shooters are affected by Attack and defense stats.

Yup, totally the same thing

[Shauku]

GC you just proved the point. Because casters suffer no penalties, can use it when creatures are adjacent, and especially the part where they ignore the defence of the creature, will make the creature overpowered later on.

[Gaidal Cain]

Nope. Those features are there through the game, so if they're overpowered later, they have to be from the get-go. That suggests that some other variable (=damage) needs to be nerfed. That, or that there shouldn't be any casters with damage spells. Note that they also don't care about your heroes attack, so if that's higher than the opponents defense, that works to your disadvantage.

[Shauku]

Yeah, but I agree with JJ in this case

if the spell damage is not different from the normal attack why have one?

[Gaidal Cain]

So, if it does more damage than normal attacks it's overpowered, and if it doesn't, you don't see a point in having it?

[DaemianLucifer]

Yeah, but I agree with JJ in this case

if the spell damage is not different from the normal attack why have one?

Reread GCs post.The only thing that would be the same with linear spell progression is damage.The rest completelly differ.

[Shauku]

Simply put - the non-linear damage is a good thing, and was probably introduced because of the example of Genies in H4. They could smite any (high) level stack but Blacks on the first turn, even über-Heroes without Magic Resistance. But the case is not even the same, as Genies were nothing but casters, and now they are shooter/casters. If it is just same as its range attack but which a)bypasses the Defence, b) has no range penalty. I am not in favour of that. Who would ever shoot with them?

Like Marksmen having Precise shot all over the battlefield. No thank you.

[DaemianLucifer]

Simply put - the non-linear damage is a good thing,

Yes,when applied to all,not just caster spells.

and was probably introduced because of the example of Genies in H4. They could smite any (high) level stack but Blacks on the first turn, even über-Heroes without Magic Resistance. But the case is not even the same, as Genies were nothing but casters, and now they are shooter/casters. If it is just same as its range attack but which a)bypasses the Defence, b) has no range penalty. I am not in favour of that. Who would ever shoot with them?

Like Marksmen having Precise shot all over the battlefield. No thank you.

Look,that has nothing to do with linear progression.Imagine if marksmen had precise shot over the whole field if there were less then 10 of tham,one square short if les then 25,etc.That wouldnt mean they arent overpowered but that they arent overpowered later.Genies in HIV were overpowered in small stacks as much as in big stacks.That means they require a wholeout damage nerf,not a different damage/stack size growth.

Oh,and whats the difference between a stack of 1000 druids and a stack of 1000 hunters?Both are just shooters because druids would deal such a measly spell damage then compared to their shooting damage.

[Shauku]

Oh,and whats the difference between a stack of 1000 druids and a stack of 1000 hunters?Both are just shooters because druids would deal such a measly spell damage then compared to their shooting damage.

You see, I cannot make that as a problem. a) I will never have 1000 Druids. b) they are a caster/shooter, meaning just that. Early on, it is (almost) always more efficent to cast a spell. At middle, it depends on the enemys defence, whether it is on range and magic resistance and a lot of factors in general. In late game the shooting usually is always better, with some exception as a very high defence + deflect missiles and stuff. Your 1000 example is ridiculous, and even in that case I have no problem in using the shooting with my creature, that is a caster/shooter.

And it could be interesting to apply the non-linearity to other damage as well. But I see the casting more like a (very good) perk to a shooter, and am not having the slightest problem with it. If it was their main weapon (Genies of 4) it would be horrible not to get the damage increased linearly (if other damage did increase linearly)

Pit Lords being, yet again, an exception.

[DaemianLucifer]

You see, I cannot make that as a problem. a) I will never have 1000 Druids. b) they are a caster/shooter, meaning just that. Early on, it is (almost) always more efficent to cast a spell. At middle, it depends on the enemys defence, whether it is on range and magic resistance and a lot of factors in general. In late game the shooting usually is always better, with some exception as a very high defence + deflect missiles and stuff. Your 1000 example is ridiculous, and even in that case I have no problem in using the shooting with my creature, that is a caster/shooter.

if the spell damage is not different from the normal attack why have one?

So,let me get this straight:Using whats primarilly a caster as a shooter isnt the same as having two shooters,but having casters damage(and just its damage,the rest(ignoring attack and defense,range and adjacent melee units)remains the same as it is now)have a linear progression is the same as having two shooters?

Oh,and just because you wont have high stacks doesnt mean that the situation is imposible.

And it could be interesting to apply the non-linearity to other damage as well. But I see the casting more like a (very good) perk to a shooter, and am not having the slightest problem with it. If it was their main weapon (Genies of 4) it would be horrible not to get the damage increased linearly (if other damage did increase linearly)

Hold on,how isnt lightning/stone spikes main attack of druids?Or magic fist/fireball for mages?Or fireball/meteor shower for pit lords?They are casters first.So what if druid has only three casts of lightning before he is drained?Dwarven shooter(forgot its name)has only two shots,yet he is considered a shooter,right?Titans are considered shooters,even if they can cast call lightning unlimited times and can shoot only four times.

Ok,all of this has nothing to do with liches harm touch,so could the mods please move the last 12 posts(I think that should do it)here.

[Shauku]

No I think somehow you misunderstood. They are primarily a shooter and the casting is a (hell-of-a-good) perk. They have less normal shots because of this perk. This is just my opinion.

They are casters in the beginning, because destructive is BEST in the beginning. Same with Heroes casting destructive magic. Usually the perk lasts for the entire game, as there are SEVERAL cases when the spells are more potent. The example of thousands of Druids excluded (even though now that I think of it, they might have Confusion on them...)

I must say I didn't understand the first part of your post, as I have stated my opinion, and you are just twisting my words.

[DaemianLucifer]

No I think somehow you misunderstood. They are primarily a shooter and the casting is a (hell-of-a-good) perk. They have less normal shots because of this perk. This is just my opinion.

So you are saying that casters dont exist.All units are either shooters or melee units,and casting a spell is just a perk they have? Even further,all units are actually melee attackers,and shooting is just a perk,right?Primary function of a unit that has spells is to cast those spells,thus it is a caster first.

I must say I didn't understand the first part of your post, as I have stated my opinion, and you are just twisting my words.

I wasnt twisting your words,I wanted an explanation.Your reasoning confuses me.You say that if spell damage was linear there would be no need for casters because they would be the same as shooters(here you neglect the fact that damage is just one aspect of an attack,and there are other things to consider like range,attack,defense,retaliation,etc),and yet you see no problem with non-linear damage turning spells of casters useless in big numbers,thus making them a regular shooter like the rest.

@GC
Opening a new thread when there is one available already?And yet you complain about too many evolution polls

[Gaidal Cain]

If it is just same as its range attack but which a)bypasses the Defence, b) has no range penalty. I am not in favour of that. Who would ever shoot with them?

If the damage was so finely tuned that it would be better to use a ranged attack if they were in close range, or you knew/took a chance that you'd get a luck bonus (another difference!), I'd be using both their ranged attack and their spells. It would make them a more powerful unit than ordinary shooters, yes, but that's kind of the point of having a further ability, isn't it?

[Jolly Joker]

What's wrong with the way things are? Okay, the damage isn't linear, but no one ever said it had to be. It's just a phrase. Linear damage.
The current way does get the job done. In the beginning, with very few units, most casters make a hell of a difference. Druids are strong both ways. A single Druid will deal a level 6 unit spell damage, but casting Endurance on the Dancers is nice as well. You will have 4/8 Druids only in week 2 and those guys make a lot od difference the way they work.
The buffs and debuffs with caster units are not that linear as well AND make a lot of difference as well.
If you want things linear you have to make everything linear. With the current system that might get very complex. The one thing I don't want to see is that I have to check half an hour on whether a unit has enough capacity for an effect. HoMM is supposed to be a fast-paced game, you can play battles with a time limit per turn and everything that forces you to crunch numbers unnecessarily will lengthen the game. I mean, Homm is no fantasy combat simulator. With the current way the game works a strict comparison of caster strength against the to be casted and then making that ratio the duration of the spell would just be too confusing: you'd get something like 0.42 turns as a duration and you just wouldn't know whether that's enough for your purposes or not.

[okrane]

IMO it's not wrong the way it is now... it's just different... it doesn't bother me that it is this way, even thought I'd prefer it to be like in heroes 4. I mean, if direct attack damage scales linearly, why not magic attacks?

And this can be balanced... it's all about numbers... don't give one druid 30 lightning damage per cast but only, say, 8 this way it would be more effective to cast spells agains high level creeps and creatures of heroes with high defense, and attack small creeps... balance it's all in numbers imo... not in mecanics...

But I honestly have no problem playing the game the way it is... I can adapt...

[Shauku]

If it is just same as its range attack but which a)bypasses the Defence, b) has no range penalty. I am not in favour of that. Who would ever shoot with them?

If the damage was so finely tuned that it would be better to use a ranged attack if they were in close range, or you knew/took a chance that you'd get a luck bonus (another difference!), I'd be using both their ranged attack and their spells. It would make them a more powerful unit than ordinary shooters, yes, but that's kind of the point of having a further ability, isn't it?

You don't consider casters more powerful than normal shooters at the moment? I do.