HoMM6 gameplay discusion

[Starbatron]

I like this idea much better than the experience idea. Added alot of depth to the creature selection and could allow for a greater variety in different towns. Great idea!!!

[darkpriest]

ok your system is pretty balanced solid even but i didn't like the option to choose just one creature and lose the other, heroes is also about the creatures and i was very dissapointed with heroes 4 where they had limit your choices. I say 7 tiers of creatures must remain but an upgrades within them is ok

[winterfate]

I love this system .

Pretty good, Qurqirish Dragon!

[Jolly Joker]

The idea of mixing the styles of Homm 2 and 4 and presenting individual town rosters is not new. It was in depth covered YEARS ago, when Homm 5 became a possibility, and I even think that this feature was welcomed by most - so it was a disappointment they didn't feature it in Homm 5 already.
I remember that we had made constructed a full Haven town as an example that featured a rather complex level 6 where you'd start with a basic Cavallery or a Pegasus Rider which would both be upgradable and one of them even had 2 upgrades. The building structure featured things like either or without upgrades like in H 4, a basic unit like an Archer with an either/or upgrade (Crossbowman (high damage), Longbowman(no range penalty)) , complex things as the level 6 and so on.

As I said, it was probably the biggest disappointment with H 5 that they went the linear H 3 way here even though it looked like most people would prefer a mix of 2 and 4 style here.

[OliverFA]

I am torn about the experience idea... On the one hand, it would make for some interesting strategy, but on the other hand, how many other games are out there that use this very same concept...would it make Heroes blur into the mob of other such games?

WOG not only showed that experience in an heroes game is posible, but also that it is a very good idea.

First it solved the "how to do it while keeping the stacks system" dilemma.

Second, it expanded the strategic elements including creatures in them. Suddenly we face a new strategic choice. Do I keep my high level creatures with my high level hero to build a super army or do I give them to the low level hero so he has a chance? Should I add fresh recruits and water down the stack XP level or keep a smaller high XP stack? And many more strategical choices tied to troops XP.

Third it also expands the RPG side to cover not only heroes but aldo creatures. As creatures gain levels, they are more RPG like. If developers added a CIV4 like system inwhich creatures gained skills that would be even more RPgish

And all that while still being HOMMish

[Jolly Joker]

No, I disagree.

Creature experience makes any gap in experience between players EIGHT times as much as before: Not only do creatures profit from hero attributes, skills and spells, they profit from it themselves.
A 5000 experience difference in any normal game may transfer to one more level for a hero. With creature experience it will give you an additional disadvantage for every single creature stack.

Note, that in AoW only the creatures get experience that actually do the kill. THAT would be a possibility: You might DIVIDE the gained experience between Hero and creatures. But multiplying it is very obviously wrong.

[Starbatron]

While I can agree with you about the choices it adds to the game, I still think it would result in a Lemming of Might and Magic game, following so many other games that use experience (no offense meant). I'd be much more in favor of the idea suggested above in reference to blending HoMM2 and HoMM4 creature systems. It would add strategy and remain true to HoMM. But then, perhaps this argument comes down to a matter of taste.

Good point Jolly...hadn't considered that.

[OliverFA]

No, I disagree.

Creature experience makes any gap in experience between players EIGHT times as much as before: Not only do creatures profit from hero attributes, skills and spells, they profit from it themselves.
A 5000 experience difference in any normal game may transfer to one more level for a hero. With creature experience it will give you an additional disadvantage for every single creature stack.

Note, that in AoW only the creatures get experience that actually do the kill. THAT would be a possibility: You might DIVIDE the gained experience between Hero and creatures. But multiplying it is very obviously wrong.

I don't know if you have played WOG (being such a hard core fan I suppose you did) because they solved that problem in a very elegant way. First, there is the watering down thing. As you continue adding fresh troops to the stack, the overall experience of the stack goes down. Second, only the first level unit troops gain experience as fast as the hero. Level 2 troops need twice the XP to reach each level, and level 7 troops need seven times the amount of points.

Your point, despite being a good consideration, could be easily solved by balancing and tuning. Experience just has to be balanced in a way that is a nice bonus and not an unbalancing feature. For example, in WOG one week of level 7 units can easily kill one week of level 1 units at their higher experience level, but those level 1 units are a thought match for unexperienced level 2 units.

I don't see it as multiplying experience. It is just dividing the experience between heroes and units. Not to mention that a sucessful army without hero defending a town from the garrison also benefits from the experience gained even if there is no hero.

All the major strategy games have incorporated experience in their units. Civ4 has both Warlords (heroes) and units with experience. And no one says "not only the winner kills the oponent units, he also gets the experience for the units and the warlords!". Hearts of Iron II, has Generals (Heroes) and troops. Both gain experience and this does not unbalance the game. And unless I am wrong, the same can be applied to last Total War games. I mention those games because all of them feature units in stack, opposed to AoW or Disciples that don't feature units in stacks.

It could even add the quality/vs quantity thingie, in which you can actually hire troops with a few XP levels either by having special structures at your town or by paying an extra price. And what about the Knight training skill? Now it could be real training!

[OliverFA]

While I can agree with you about the choices it adds to the game, I still think it would result in a Lemming of Might and Magic game, following so many other games that use experience (no offense meant). I'd be much more in favor of the idea suggested above in reference to blending HoMM2 and HoMM4 creature systems. It would add strategy and remain true to HoMM. But then, perhaps this argument comes down to a matter of taste.

Good point Jolly...hadn't considered that.

I don't see both options as opposed ones. I like the HoMM2+HoMM4 towns line up idea, and think it should be implemented in HoMM6. I just think that creatures XP should be also implemented. Both features would complement each other and do for a more rich and entertaining game.

A mix of WOG+CIV4 system would really work. The first level for creatures would be reached at 1000 XP, the second at 3000 XP, the third at 6000 XP, etc. That could be multiplied by creature level if necessary (so the milestones for angels would be 7000XP/21000XP/42000XP...). If new creatures are added to the stack, then the total stack XP is recalculated.

When a creature reaches a new level a new skill can be learned just like heroes (that is the part borrowed from Civ4). For example, instead of making "two shots" an ability that archers have from the begining, they could learn it when they level up. Vampires could learn how to drain energy, angels could learn how to resurrect troops, etc. etc. In addition, "general" skills giving a small bonus to the creature statistics (+5% to HP/Attack/Defense/etc) could be chosen.

[Jolly Joker]

No, people, get real.
The WoG system is too massive. A LOT. In WoG you develop the hero only to get spellcasting abilities because the experienced troops are so much better than the inexperienced, so it is pointless to give the hero anything else Magic skills, Tactics and Resistance. Please keep in mind that the game is called HEROES (not creatures) of M&M.

Take AoW. There you have experience for each unit, but there are only TWO level-ups for each creature AND the heroes have NO effect on units AND only those units get experience that actually kill a unit. That is reasonable.
WoG is completely unreasonable because the creatures get much too strong all alone and by themselves. And the fact that experience is watered down when you feed them new recruits is no balancing at all. It's all about creature training there which is easy enough to do.
No, the WoG system is NOT usable, you'd have to modify it MASSIVELY.
One point would be to completely forego with the upgrades - who needs upgrades when units get experience (which leads to "upgrading" as well).

Again, while the WoG guys did brillant work, the unit experience system is plainly killing the whole game because it makes so much redundant and the game is - oposed to what you say, OliverFA - a tactical one-way street with it.

[OliverFA]

If I understand it correctly, your only complain about WOG Creatures XP system is that it us not properly balanced. I agree that creatures XP must not be so important that it takes importance from heroes, but this can be applied to any part of the game. We can argue if the implementation was good or bad, but I still do think that the concept is good. Experienced troops can make the difference if to level 12 heroes fight, or even a level 11 hero with high XP creatures can defeat a level 13 hero with normal creatures. But it will never be significant in a Level 8 vs level 16 fight. As long as XP bonus for creature are not too much it will add spice to the game.

And I still do think it is compatible with upgrade system. Upgrading a creature is giving that creature better equipment (better weapons, stronger armor, etc) and more XP is just getting more seasoned during the battle.

About naming the game Creatures of Might and Magic. Well... Better not enter in this discussion or I will ask again for it to be renamed Generals of Might and Magic. Is not very heroic to sit down below the lines as your troops fight...

[ThunderTitan]

Need i bring up Disciples again? You want XP 4 Critters go pester .dat on making D3 more complex it seems to be working.

[Jolly Joker]

If I understand it correctly, your only complain about WOG Creatures XP system is that it us not properly balanced. I agree that creatures XP must not be so important that it takes importance from heroes, but this can be applied to any part of the game. We can argue if the implementation was good or bad, but I still do think that the concept is good. Experienced troops can make the difference if to level 12 heroes fight, or even a level 11 hero with high XP creatures can defeat a level 13 hero with normal creatures. But it will never be significant in a Level 8 vs level 16 fight. As long as XP bonus for creature are not too much it will add spice to the game.

And I still do think it is compatible with upgrade system. Upgrading a creature is giving that creature better equipment (better weapons, stronger armor, etc) and more XP is just getting more seasoned during the battle.

About naming the game Creatures of Might and Magic. Well... Better not enter in this discussion or I will ask again for it to be renamed Generals of Might and Magic. Is not very heroic to sit down below the lines as your troops fight...

I think it's a bit more than a balance problem. Since not everyone knows what we are talling about, here is a WoG example for Vampire Lords. The initial Vamp Lord stats in H 3 are:
Attack: 10
Def: 10
Health: 40
Damage: 5-8
Speed: 9
Special: No Retal, Life Drain.

After going through 10 ranks of gaining experience your VLs wil look like this:
Attack: 18
Def: 18
Health: 60
Damage: 9-13
Speed: 11
Special: No Retal, Life Drain, 50% Defense Reduction, 20% chance to Hypnotize target stack.

I mean, those are MONSTERS. Note that with the damage reduction special they'll have a positive attack/defense difference against every neutral stack. If you pin 8 of those against 2 neutral Archangels, the Archangels start doing 160 damage, killing 2. The retaliation of the 6 remaining VLs will do an average of 75 damage reviving 1 (reducing the damage suffered to 85. The attack of the now 7 VLs does another 88 damage reducing the damage to ZERO.
So a weekly production of those will beat a weekly production of untrained Archangels EASILY.
That's not a balance problem anymore that simply kills the game.

In a game like heroes creature experience if implemented at all should make a lot of difference - maybe an additional point of maximum damage for low level creatures and one experience level and a 10% plus in health for higher level ones, plus another attack/defense based one, maybe, maybe even an additional special ability for an upgrade, but clearly that would be it.

[Kristo]

I've seen the WOG system too. It's nuts. That's precisely why I suggested that creature experience be used for promotions and that's it. None of this Vampire Lords + 10 levels = +8/+8, +20 HP, +2 new abilities stuff. I meant that the *only* way to go from Vampires to Vampire Lords would be through battles. To reiterate, every creature gets 1 XP for every battle it's involved in, no matter what you fight. Once the stack average reaches a certain threshold, the stack is promoted. You cannot buy upgraded creatures at home. The goal is to extend the usefulness of the non-upgrades, and make the upgrades that much more valuable. You have to make tactical decisions to protect the experienced base troops, and find a way to use the extra power of the promoted troops without getting them all killed.

Need i bring up Disciples again? You want XP 4 Critters go pester .dat on making D3 more complex it seems to be working.

The Disciples system requires you to unlock the upgrades by building extra structures at home. That doesn't make sense in a Heroes game because all towns can have creature generators, not just the main one. And for the record, my inspiration for this comes from Battle for Wesnoth, not Disciples.

[Jolly Joker]

The point is still the multiplying of experience. If you kill a stack for 500 experience than it doesn't make any sense to award the hero 500 XP plus every stack 500 XP as well (and not just because stack splitting would become a real experience multiplier). You'd still have to find a way to divide the 500 xp onto the participants of the battle, so that the sum of the awarded xp would be 500 all in all.

[Campaigner]

Don't like the WoG system since it makes "more things" that necessarily isn't for the better.

But in AoW the way XP work isn't that good since Warrior heroes will lvl up quicker and quicker while magicheroes will be happy if they gain a lvl in an entire game! If XP would be divided to all units participating in the battle it would be better.

Just saying that the AoW way doesn't work so good.

[OliverFA]

The point is still the multiplying of experience. If you kill a stack for 500 experience than it doesn't make any sense to award the hero 500 XP plus every stack 500 XP as well (and not just because stack splitting would become a real experience multiplier). You'd still have to find a way to divide the 500 xp onto the participants of the battle, so that the sum of the awarded xp would be 500 all in all.

That is not the way it works in WoG. If you have a stack of 10 Vampires and another stack of 10 Vampires, each one with 500XP and combine them, the resulting one will still ahve 500XP. Like wise, if one stack has 500 XP and the other has 1000XP the resulting one will have 750XP. As the resulting stack always have the average between both stacks, considering the number of creatures in each stack

[OliverFA]

I think it's a bit more than a balance problem. Since not everyone knows what we are talling about, here is a WoG example for Vampire Lords. The initial Vamp Lord stats in H 3 are:
Attack: 10
Def: 10
Health: 40
Damage: 5-8
Speed: 9
Special: No Retal, Life Drain.

After going through 10 ranks of gaining experience your VLs wil look like this:
Attack: 18
Def: 18
Health: 60
Damage: 9-13
Speed: 11
Special: No Retal, Life Drain, 50% Defense Reduction, 20% chance to Hypnotize target stack.

I mean, those are MONSTERS. Note that with the damage reduction special they'll have a positive attack/defense difference against every neutral stack. If you pin 8 of those against 2 neutral Archangels, the Archangels start doing 160 damage, killing 2. The retaliation of the 6 remaining VLs will do an average of 75 damage reviving 1 (reducing the damage suffered to 85. The attack of the now 7 VLs does another 88 damage reducing the damage to ZERO.
So a weekly production of those will beat a weekly production of untrained Archangels EASILY.
That's not a balance problem anymore that simply kills the game.

In a game like heroes creature experience if implemented at all should make a lot of difference - maybe an additional point of maximum damage for low level creatures and one experience level and a 10% plus in health for higher level ones, plus another attack/defense based one, maybe, maybe even an additional special ability for an upgrade, but clearly that would be it.

Again, what you are telling me is that the way the idea was implemented in WOG is exagerated. I have no problem agreeing with you in this. But the fact that it was wrongly implemented once, does not mean that the idea is not a good one. Is like Heroes in Battle and Heroes 4. Yes, it was poorly done, but it yet was the best feature in Heroes 4.

Call it unbalanced or any way other way you wish it to be. You say that if creatures get too high bonuses due to experience it affects negatively the game. I agree with that. But I say that if creatures get small to moderate bonuses due to experience, it spices up the game and opens a completely new field of possibilities.

In any case, Heroes 6 badly needs a new feature and to evolve a bit. I cannot be another Heroes 3 again. In fact, the reason why Heroes 5 got old so soon is that when you get used to the new 3D and all those things you realize that is very few more than just another Heroes 3. Or as some people like to call it, Heroes 3-3D. The only remarkable innovation (and very good one) is the heroes skill tree. But nothing else. Heroes 6 must follow the CIV way. Keep and improve good things that work, scrap old things that are unfun (visiting sawnmills and dwellings every week!!!) and thrown in some new things. Creatures XP and heroes in battle could easily be those new things.

[OliverFA]

I've seen the WOG system too. It's nuts. That's precisely why I suggested that creature experience be used for promotions and that's it. None of this Vampire Lords + 10 levels = +8/+8, +20 HP, +2 new abilities stuff. I meant that the *only* way to go from Vampires to Vampire Lords would be through battles. To reiterate, every creature gets 1 XP for every battle it's involved in, no matter what you fight. Once the stack average reaches a certain threshold, the stack is promoted. You cannot buy upgraded creatures at home. The goal is to extend the usefulness of the non-upgrades, and make the upgrades that much more valuable. You have to make tactical decisions to protect the experienced base troops, and find a way to use the extra power of the promoted troops without getting them all killed.

That is a different system from what it is used in WOG and Hearts of Iron II, but it could work :-) I just see a very big issue with it. You are limiting town development by scrapping the upgraded dwellings. Or maybe you could still have upgraded dwellings to provide you with creatures that already have the first XP promotion, but have to gain the rest of promotions in battle.

[Kristo]

That is a different system from what it is used in WOG and Hearts of Iron II, but it could work :-) I just see a very big issue with it. You are limiting town development by scrapping the upgraded dwellings. Or maybe you could still have upgraded dwellings to provide you with creatures that already have the first XP promotion, but have to gain the rest of promotions in battle.

I'll agree with that. No upgraded dwellings effectively cuts up to 7 (to use the Heroes 3 and 5 number) buildings from the build tree. What if we offset it by adding secondary dwellings here and there that improved the growth rate? It's a little hand-wavy, but it might work to prolong the build process. For example, let's say a balanced Warlock town produced 2 Dragons per week. The base Dragon dwelling would produce 1; to get the second one you need the upgraded Dragon dwelling. They'd cost like the upgraded dwellings do now, but all they'd do is add growth. That puts you behind the power curve until you can afford the upgraded buildings. Make sense?