Non-linear damage of casters

[Jolly Joker]

What an example!

Take the Gremlins off the battlefield and try again.

And a last question: why do they hava to fight AGAINST each other? What is supposed to proof anyway?

[Gaidal Cain]

That would make buffs a lot easier to cast than debuffs because the receptiveness of the own troops would - logically - be ALOT higher - and it would stack splitting STILL make beneficious: as a rule of thumb a weekly production of, say, Druids should give Endurance to a weekly production of Emeralds for AT LEAST 1 full turn, but to make it worthwhile 2 would probably be better, What does that leave for 1/8 of them for a weekly Production of Sprites? So much that it may be of use.

What did I say about using "logic" a while back? And who was it who agreed with me then?
And if you make up a completely random "rule of thumb", some random conclusions about how it would then work for another creature and from it decide that it won't work, one would think that it's the arguments fault. There is no reason why the spell should last longer when cast on a weeks worth of sprites, quite contrary (sprites are frailer and comes in fewer weeks' production, which has to be compensated for.)

But I'm not inclined to follow that line of thought because what you say is, that the caster system IN GENERAL should be different or might be better which is not the point here. I don't think you can make a serious point for changing a certain point when the underlying rational is the demand for a completely different system. What you are saying, too, is, basically, that changing the non-linearity makes sense only when you change the whole system.

Yes, I do think the whole system needs reamping. However, I do think the part in the most dire need of this is the damage, and it is what this thread is about, which is why I argue it here. If the caster damage is changed to linear but duration isn't modified, I'll see that as an improvement and continue arguing the latter.

Oh, and what had your reply been if I had said that I was OK with duration? Most likely that it would be illogical of me to think that one of them should be changed and not the other...

Take the Gremlins off the battlefield and try again.

And a last question: why do they hava to fight AGAINST each other? What is supposed to proof anyway?

I think you've misread DL's example. He was talking about 10 consequtive fights against the same number of blood furies, and how long the armies would last before needing reinforcements...

[DaemianLucifer]

What an example!

Take the Gremlins off the battlefield and try again.

And a last question: why do they hava to fight AGAINST each other? What is supposed to proof anyway?

You dont see what it proves?*sigh*!Never try to describe an elephant to a blind man.

[Jolly Joker]

I think you've misread DL's example. He was talking about 10 consequtive fights against the same number of blood furies, and how long the armies would last before needing reinforcements...

And I think it's getting more than absurd now.

[MistWeaver]

And I think it's getting more than absurd now.

Be honest at least sometimes. Example is pretty clear. It shows why non-linear damage is unlogical and makes a "just-because-it-so" rule.
Heroes is not chess and we are not discussing "horse move" here. Mechanics at Heroes should be logical when it can be so and until its not interfering gameplay.

[Jolly Joker]

If you had read the thread you'd have noticed that the "logical" point has long since been discarded with.
Reading the example I fail to see "Blood Furies". I see "Furries" and if I'm not wrong this is DL code for Gremlins.
Now if someone could tell me why on earth someone would put Gremlins onto the battlefield against Druids when he has Gargoyles I would be very thankful.
If then someone would explain to me why you have to put thnings you compare against each other (and not separately against a 3rd party, for example a buch of Zombies), I'd be even more thankful.
It all amounts to a "it shouldn't be so because you shouldn't deal more damage just because you make 2 stacks out of one".
I already suggested in the beta to simply forbid splitting again like it was in H 1, but that's of course too radical. Sure.
Whatever. Complain on. I don't care anymore.

[asandir]

Sure you do JJ

[Mytical]

Sure we complain, it is human nature to complain. Right or wrong we do it about a lot of things. However, it is our right to do so (as I said in another post which I won't go into fully here). Again, it is a thing of preferences. Sure we don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean we are wrong. And just because ubi or Nival made it a way doesn't make it right. Just because we believe it should be one way doesn't make us correct, but since it is the consumer who spends the money, the production people would be best to listen to the majority. It is pure economics. The more people they can make happy, the better their sells will do in the future. .

[Pitsu]

If then someone would explain to me why you have to put thnings you compare against each other (and not separately against a 3rd party, for example a buch of Zombies), I'd be even more thankful.

To make measuring more easier etalons were invented. For example if one wants to compare the height of two trees one compares both first with an etalon called "meter" and the tree with more "meters" is considered higher.
NWC used PEON system (peasants as etalons) to simplify balancing. Unfortunately some creature specials were disabled in these tests, leading to some irrelevant values (e.g. for spellcasters or cyclopes area damage).
As DL sample was not comparison of druids against gremils and gargs, but against any non-caster stacks it makes perfectly sense to take a third party. Exactly the reason you laughed at: direct comparison would lead to erroneus results due to gargoyles being one of the few who do not fear druids that much.

[DaemianLucifer]

If you had read the thread you'd have noticed that the "logical" point has long since been discarded with.
Reading the example I fail to see "Blood Furies". I see "Furries" and if I'm not wrong this is DL code for Gremlins.
Now if someone could tell me why on earth someone would put Gremlins onto the battlefield against Druids when he has Gargoyles I would be very thankful.
If then someone would explain to me why you have to put thnings you compare against each other (and not separately against a 3rd party, for example a buch of Zombies), I'd be even more thankful.
It all amounts to a "it shouldn't be so because you shouldn't deal more damage just because you make 2 stacks out of one".
I already suggested in the beta to simply forbid splitting again like it was in H 1, but that's of course too radical. Sure.
Whatever. Complain on. I don't care anymore.

Honestly JJ,playing dumb doesnt suit you.I said you have to fight a bunch of neutral furries,and you know very well that I did mean blood furries,not gremlins.Your enemy has to fight the same neutral stacks as well.Thats what my example does,compares splitting gargs and splitting druids against neutral stacks.You have sunk really low if you use such a cheasy thing as playing dumb when someone beats you with logical arguments.

[Jolly Joker]

Ah, okay.
Umm, why do you get 6 Druids, but only 3 Gargoyles?

[Pitsu]

I said you have to fight a bunch of neutral furries,and you know very well that I did mean blood furries,not gremlins.

On the other hand "neutral furries" may indeed associate with furry coated gremlins. Spelling error, but fury and furry both have a meaning.

[DaemianLucifer]

Thats not the point at all.Honestly JJ,why dont you just admit defeat and move on instead of using such cheap tricks?

[Corelanis]

He may have lost the battle but he won the war, nival wont change a thing.

[DaemianLucifer]

No,not really.Its just one game.Who knows what will happen with HVI.I can wait a long time

[Jolly Joker]

Defeat? You gotta be kidding. This is no war. It's just twisting words around. People don't like things and desperately try to find "arguments" to bolster and back up their likes and dislikes in order to "proof" their view is "right".
It isn't. It's their view, and they are entitled to it, but they don't have more on their side as their personal preferences.
Why don't you move on and make your own game?

[Mytical]

Hmm money for one. Unless of course you want to foot the bill for it JJ. Could I make a better game? With as much personel, capitol, and such that Ubi/Nival has, almost guaranteed. Can it with the funds and such I have now, not in a million years. So your post above shows just your frustration. Why tell those who disagree to go off somewhere else, you could just as easily ignore the posts. Just because I don't agree with you, I will never tell you to "Go brownnose some more with Ubi/Nival" (which of course would be akin to sticking my tongue out and calling you a doodie head which is what a child would do). 1st because I don't think you are brown-nosing. You believe what you say, nobody would argue that passionately otherwise (well except maybe me, but I can do devils advocate for any argument, even if I strongly and firmly believe the opposite). 2nd, because you are entitled to your opinon. Shoot I was trying to stay out of this...sorry. Will zip my lip and go play in campfire.

[Corelanis]

Just as your twisting DLs words around and we dont need to desperatly look either its right there for all to see. You also dont have anything more on your side than personal preference either. And there is a war, its a war where are weapons are words. Is "Why dont you move on and make your own game?" your new catch phrase for ending an arguement as ive seen you use it a few times iirc. Now back to the topic there is some merrit to how it is now, as I see it its harder to cast spell when with lots of other people, so i can see some logic in the system. I will admit that it does make some sense when I think of it that way. I do think that the slower increase in sp with larger stacks is a bit to extreme though. I think that a spell should be stronger than a normal attack ranged or not simply because it is a spell that needs mana to cast and is limited by the stacks small mana pool.

[Jolly Joker]

Mytical, we both some always with the same point.
Mine is very simple. Every one is entitled to his opinion as long as they make it clear it's just that: an opinion.
The problem start when people start trying to find points to make an absolute truth out of what is an opinion.
In short: I respect that people don't like this aspect and would like to see it removed, but I don't respect when they are trying to pull out all kinds of stuff out of their heads to proof that it's wrong the way it is, that Nival is a bunch of idiots to do it this way, that everyone should see it, that it's obvious, logical and so on... you get the drift.

[DaemianLucifer]

Why don't you move on and make your own game?

I did.It was quite simple,but enjoyable.A game of yamb.But I didnt sell it,I just gave it to my friends for free.So to you.

You believe what you say, nobody would argue that passionately otherwise

You mean like he believes dracogedon is too powerfull?