Non-linear damage of casters

[DaemianLucifer]

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.

Simple:Two stacks of n casters do more damage than one stack of 2n casters.Thats whats wrong.Again,it wouldnt be bad if it worked for all units like this.But this way it seems just like they had anice idea and implemented only half of ot,meaning sloppy.

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.

Why would you do number crunches?You have a processor that does millions of things every second and you have to crunch numbers manually,why?Look at the initiative now:it works with numbers between 0,00 and 1,00 and there are numerous procentual changes via spells and abilities.Is it complicated?No.Its all in the presentation.Again,look at homeworld.It has so many equations in it,yet it runs pretty smoothly and is quite easy to learn.

And if its supposed to be a fast paced game,why then all the stack splitting and externals gathering?If you are playing against someone as good as you,youll simply have to do these things to win.

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

At the moment,yes.But if,for example,a unit would do 4-8 damage with its ranged attack and 9 with its spell,and it had an attack of lets say 10,youd have to really consider wheter to cast a spell or attack normaly a creature with defense of 2.Again,its not the mechanics that determine this but sheer numbers.

[Shauku]

And Fireball of the Archmages? Meteor shower for Pit Lords? To me your suggestion is more like giving no range penalty for them, it is essentially the same thing. But in addition, this one doesn't take defence into account.

[DaemianLucifer]

Fireball of the archmages should be useless when cast on a single stack,meaning it should deal less damage then their attack.But considering their attack,maybe it should do the same,and the difference would only be in the layout of the enemy units.Again,its all in the numbers,not the mechanics.I mean,look how silly pixies wasp swarm is.If you divide them into seven stacks you can do 280 damage,while if you merge them all togheter you do only ~90.

[Jolly Joker]

The number-crunching problem is not the fact that you see the 0.42 turns a spell lasts, the problem is that you don't see whether that is long anough for your purposes (i.e. will the spell still be effective when it's the opponent's Deagons turn?). While this could be solved, it won't in this game, that much is for sure.

Second. That splitting produces better results than having them all in one stack is a common effect: when you split your Gargoyles in three stacks to cover your Gremlins the effect is that your Gargoyles cover 3 times as many squares as they do unsplitted. Simple buff/debuff casters will produce better results splitted as well. So what's wrong with destructive casters enjoying the same advantage. Another example for favorable splitting is the one-peasant retaliation stealer. In effect you divide a stack of x creatures into two stacks with 1 and x-1 creatures let the one attack first and then come after with the x-1 stack. This will produce better results in many cases than going unsplitted.

The main thing here is that there is nothing wrong with it, mainly because you can split as many stacks as you want, but in the end you have to leave something at home when you want to split caster (or other) stacks. Remember, this is not MS Fantasy Combat Simulator 3.2 or something.

[Shauku]

Yep, but if you divide them into seven stacks your entire army will have a very low hp, making it extremely vulnerable! That's the trick.

And I don't know where you got that 280 Damage for Sprites (not Pixies) Wasp Swarm in the first place. 350 Sprites divided into 7 stacks, where there is 50 in each, would do 280 Damage.
However in the same example if you did ~90 damage with a single stack of Sprites you need some 900 Sprites...

[DaemianLucifer]

The number-crunching problem is not the fact that you see the 0.42 turns a spell lasts, the problem is that you don't see whether that is long anough for your purposes (i.e. will the spell still be effective when it's the opponent's Deagons turn?). While this could be solved, it won't in this game, that much is for sure.

And how do you know now if that ice ring will delay those units enough for you to strike them without fear?

Second. That splitting produces better results than having them all in one stack is a common effect: when you split your Gargoyles in three stacks to cover your Gremlins the effect is that your Gargoyles cover 3 times as many squares as they do unsplitted. Simple buff/debuff casters will produce better results splitted as well. So what's wrong with destructive casters enjoying the same advantage. Another example for favorable splitting is the one-peasant retaliation stealer. In effect you divide a stack of x creatures into two stacks with 1 and x-1 creatures let the one attack first and then come after with the x-1 stack. This will produce better results in many cases than going unsplitted.

Did I ever said that these are good?Nope,I suggested even a few ways of changing this.As for splitting your troops to cover more ground,you risk being hit by a nasty AoE spell.

The main thing here is that there is nothing wrong with it, mainly because you can split as many stacks as you want, but in the end you have to leave something at home when you want to split caster (or other) stacks. Remember, this is not MS Fantasy Combat Simulator 3.2 or something.

Actually there is plenty wrong with it.Stealing retal of 100 dragons with a single peasant is a pure exploit of the system.Killing that titan with single stacked druids that you wouldnt be able to do with them bunched into one stack is a pure exploit of the system.Even further,the computer doesnt know how to use them,so the already weak AI is even weaker.

And I don't know where you got that 280 Damage for Sprites (not Pixies) Wasp Swarm in the first place. 350 Sprites divided into 7 stacks, where there is 50 in each, would do 280 Damage.
However in the same example if you did ~90 damage with a single stack of Sprites you need some 900 Sprites...

I actually did a random guess,but if what you say is true,than its even worse.900 sprites do meselly 90 damage? Yet even against a buffed emerald they can do at least 200 in melee.

[Shauku]

Actually there is plenty wrong with it.Stealing retal of 100 dragons with a single peasant is a pure exploit of the system.

So...you left your 100 Archangels out of the combat to get room for that single peasant As a serious note, stealing the retal has been the case in every Heroes, especially in 4, where it was even more important. But I am eager to hear how it should have been done in every Heroes game.

[DaemianLucifer]

So...you left your 100 Archangels out of the combat to get room for that single peasant As a serious note, stealing the retal has been the case in every Heroes, especially in 4, where it was even more important. But I am eager to hear how it should have been done in every Heroes game.

Yes,it was in every heroes,but that doesnt mean that it is good.It can be countered in many ways,and still retain the stack structure of the combat.Combat speed is one solution.Partial retal can also be used.Damage treshold as well.

[Shauku]

Actually the idea of speed wasn't that bad...If it could be worked upon it could be good in Heroes 6 for example.

Anyways you say currently its an exploit of the system, but I see it as a choise. You can hold space for a single creature, but using it effectively against a human is not that easy. Splitting casters not only takes room from other creatures, but it makes you vulnerable to AoE spells as well. etc.

[DaemianLucifer]

Thats like saying that day one exploit is the thing of choice.Besides,you dont have to use it directly on the human opponent.Just use it against neutrals to cover the map quicker,and thus you get an advantage.

[Shauku]

Thats like saying that day one exploit is the thing of choice.Besides,you dont have to use it directly on the human opponent.Just use it against neutrals to cover the map quicker,and thus you get an advantage.

Or that is like saying I have no problem with how it works, but it could be done differently and still work

[DaemianLucifer]

If its not(uterlly and completelly)broken,then dont fix it isnt really a good strategy for improvment.

[Jolly Joker]

Well, DL, that's where you are wrong. It's no exploit of the system, it IS the system.

We had this discussion already in one way or another, but it all comes down to stack-based combat in the end. Once you accept the fact that you may cram a couple thousand Dragons into the same space used for a peasant it simply doesn't make any sense anymore to argue with things like it's silly that one peasant can steal the retaliation of said Dragons. Because you can steal GROUND with small stacks and there is no way around that. Stealing ground is considered tactics. If so, than stealing retaliation is tactics as well and not exploit.

Of course that doesn't mean you have to accept and like every effect this produces. And you can go ahead and try to find solutions you like more. But I don't think you can say the way it works is "wrong". Moreover, "realism" is no point and no worth in itself, not in a game in general and certainly not in a fantasy, stack-based tbs strategy game. The only important thing is whether the game works as a game or not, and here, in this case, things work fine, I think.

That doesn't mean, of course, it would be impossible to find something that would work finer. However, there is no real pressure to find a "solution" because there is no real problem, imo.

[DaemianLucifer]

We had this discussion already in one way or another, but it all comes down to stack-based combat in the end. Once you accept the fact that you may cram a couple thousand Dragons into the same space used for a peasant it simply doesn't make any sense anymore to argue with things like it's silly that one peasant can steal the retaliation of said Dragons. Because you can steal GROUND with small stacks and there is no way around that. Stealing ground is considered tactics. If so, than stealing retaliation is tactics as well and not exploit.

Thats where you are wrong.A single peasant covers as much ground as hundred dragons only because the grid tiles are so big.If they were much smaller it would be a completelly different story.Besides,retal stealing has nothing to do with stack combat.

Of course that doesn't mean you have to accept and like every effect this produces. And you can go ahead and try to find solutions you like more. But I don't think you can say the way it works is "wrong". Moreover, "realism" is no point and no worth in itself, not in a game in general and certainly not in a fantasy, stack-based tbs strategy game. The only important thing is whether the game works as a game or not, and here, in this case, things work fine, I think.

Again,the fact that it is a game,a fantasy and a TBS have nothing to do with it not being realistic.I wont repeat why.Stacks on the other hand are just a model of combat,and they work,that is true,but they could work even better,and still remain stacks.

That doesn't mean, of course, it would be impossible to find something that would work finer. However, there is no real pressure to find a "solution" because there is no real problem, imo.

Thats what I said before:Fixing only when its broken is not a good way to improvement.

[Jolly Joker]

We had this discussion already in one way or another, but it all comes down to stack-based combat in the end. Once you accept the fact that you may cram a couple thousand Dragons into the same space used for a peasant it simply doesn't make any sense anymore to argue with things like it's silly that one peasant can steal the retaliation of said Dragons. Because you can steal GROUND with small stacks and there is no way around that. Stealing ground is considered tactics. If so, than stealing retaliation is tactics as well and not exploit.

Thats where you are wrong.A single peasant covers as much ground as hundred dragons only because the grid tiles are so big.If they were much smaller it would be a completelly different story.Besides,retal stealing has nothing to do with stack combat.

Of course that doesn't mean you have to accept and like every effect this produces. And you can go ahead and try to find solutions you like more. But I don't think you can say the way it works is "wrong". Moreover, "realism" is no point and no worth in itself, not in a game in general and certainly not in a fantasy, stack-based tbs strategy game. The only important thing is whether the game works as a game or not, and here, in this case, things work fine, I think.

Again,the fact that it is a game,a fantasy and a TBS have nothing to do with it not being realistic.I wont repeat why.Stacks on the other hand are just a model of combat,and they work,that is true,but they could work even better,and still remain stacks.

That doesn't mean, of course, it would be impossible to find something that would work finer. However, there is no real pressure to find a "solution" because there is no real problem, imo.

Thats what I said before:Fixing only when its broken is not a good way to improvement.

You know, DL; you cannot argue with "IF". If the grid tiles were much smaller it would be a different game. And you'd still had warps with small flying creatures like sprites and big non flying ones like Magma Dragons. You'd still be able to steal ground.

Retal stealing has everything to do with stack-based combat, because the stack is treated as a unit in terms of certain things like ground it covers, attacks it has and retaliations it has. That means that the number of units a stack contains is important only for damage and HP calculation in this environment.

The realism is completely irrelevant not because of fantasy and tbs, it's irrelevant because it is a) a game and b) not a simulation. "Realism" for this kind of game is simply no goal and has no relevance whatsoever. Heroes don't die, for example, not even in Heroes IV. Not realistic? No, simply irrelevant. Who cares about realism? (If you do, don't play games.)

Lastly, "fixing" is what you say. I don't have anything against improvement. Making a rule that would stop "retaliation stealing" is no improvement per se. It would have to work as well, be fun and not too complicated.

[Gaidal Cain]

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

Not when they get up to 100:s.
And with regards to non-linearity: I can accept some small amount of it, but the casters are too much. Druids, for example, are in fact two different units that are interpolated between when it comes to numbers: one is the 1-druid, insane damage spellcaster (there is currently no unit capable doing as much damage when alone as a single caster). The other end is when the numbers go up in the hundreds, when it's a shooter that can cast endurance and so some small, but guaranteed damage to incorporeal units (look at that, another difference between how shooters and casters work...).

This makes them a balancing nightmare. When making a map, if you place a lownumber random stack, there's one heck of a difference in the damage you'll take if it's 2 druids or 2 monks- and the later is one level higher.

There are other things were splitting also helps, to some extent due to the stack system. That does not mean it's OK to include more sillyness of the kind, especially when there isn't point in it (for retals, there is at least the argument that the current way is the least complicated. For shooters, they've decided to go about it in a more complicated way than redily suggests itself).

That means that the number of units a stack contains is important only for damage and HP calculation in this environment.

And? There's nothing that says that one cannot adjust the system while following that system. One could have some system where retals regenerate depending on how much damage the stack does when retaling. A system like that could also mean that a big and slow unit like the hydra could have their retaliation regenerate quickly, which would make for more diverse and interesting units. The big setback would be that it'd require some more interface a la the ATB bar, but I consider that a secondary question.

[DaemianLucifer]

You know, DL; you cannot argue with "IF". If the grid tiles were much smaller it would be a different game. And you'd still had warps with small flying creatures like sprites and big non flying ones like Magma Dragons. You'd still be able to steal ground.

Um,HIV had smaller tiles.Sure,you stole ground,but it was much harder to block a dragon with a bunch of pixies.

Retal stealing has everything to do with stack-based combat, because the stack is treated as a unit in terms of certain things like ground it covers, attacks it has and retaliations it has. That means that the number of units a stack contains is important only for damage and HP calculation in this environment.

I already mentioned partial retal and damage treshold as posible solutions for keeping the stacks and having it separated from retal stealing.

The realism is completely irrelevant not because of fantasy and tbs, it's irrelevant because it is a) a game and b) not a simulation. "Realism" for this kind of game is simply no goal and has no relevance whatsoever. Heroes don't die, for example, not even in Heroes IV. Not realistic? No, simply irrelevant. Who cares about realism? (If you do, don't play games.)

Again,I said the stacks are a simulation,not a whole game.But thats again a philosophical debate and Im not going back into it with you.

Lastly, "fixing" is what you say. I don't have anything against improvement. Making a rule that would stop "retaliation stealing" is no improvement per se. It would have to work as well, be fun and not too complicated.

Partial reatal is very simply to implement:Only the number of creatures that are needed to kill the entire stack with minimum damage done will retaliate.If that isnt possible,the whole stack retaliates.Plus it can be easily marked with a coloured mark above the unit.

Damage treshold is also easy to implement:A unit wont retaliate if the attacker cant do a predefined damage.

[PhoenixReborn]

It seems to me that Nival made lightning much weaker in the beginning game. It only passes eldritch arrow when you get your spellpower up and your destructive power up...I think that was Nival's way of trying to make druids less strong in the beginning.

Can anyone confirm that they changed the way lightning works in a later patch, maybe 1.3?

[Jolly Joker]

DL, partial retaliation is completely silly (sorry, but actually it's more than silly):
First, you'd have to keep track. A stack is sttacked. Okay, let's say you'll need half of the rest of the attacked stack to make a certain kill (incorporealness and other specials?), bad luck considered. That leaves you half of the stack eligible for another retaliation. The stack gets attacked a second time and half of the stack is killed. How many units are ligible for retaliation a) in principal (if a really large stack attacked): 1) All survining units; 2) half of the surviving units; 3) None of the surviving units; 4) a random number of them between 0 and 100%; and b) in case a smaller stack attacks that can be killed with part of the remaining units (and how much retaliation would THAT leave).
Now the more important question is: would that still be fun? I don't think so.

However, even if you could solve those problems, what about attacking? You have so many movement points and you have an attack. If you attack an adjacent stack that requires only part of the damage your stack can inflict you could go ahead and argue that the stack as movement and attack power left and should get another attack.

Now we are busily marching towards the wargame rules of play, and believe me, I've played them a long, long time, and I'm happy to have a simple game like heroes.

[ThunderTitan]

Now we are busily marching towards the wargame rules of play, and believe me, I've played them a long, long time, and I'm happy to have a simple game like heroes.

Weren't you the one that was saying how it's actualy so complex that the AI has troubles keeping up? And what's so hard if the PC keeps track of all that?

But i wouldn't like them implementing DL's ideea. Let's just say that attacking from the left distracts the stack from the stack coming from the right.

Or maybe if they could have them with sim retal the first time, after retal for the 2nd and 3rd time and no retal from there. That might make stealing retal less worth while.