Eomolch

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 7 posts - 301 through 307 (of 307 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Ideas to make (starting) race matter more #128179

    Eomolch
    Member

    First of all, thank you BBB for all the linked threads on the same topic. I must admit, while I was certainly sure this issue was already discussed a couple of times, I was a little surprised to indeed find most of what I posted above in there as well (in slight deviations).

    Of all the ideas I saw in there I liked Draxynnic’s approach to implement the racial research as choosable specializations most and as I can see, he already posted it in here again himself 🙂

    Also I partially agree with Gloweye, there doesn’t necesarily have to be a racial tier IV unit added, it would be fine to have a tier III or II added to each race, as long as it has some own character and diversity. I mean don’t get me wrong, I never said the races as they exist are badly designed or don’t differ at all. That is of course not true. They just lack some nice (active) abilities that make them more interesting in combat even if they would only be aqquired on a certain medal. E.g. halflings seem to me fine as they are. Not only because of the luck system which makes moral penalties/buffs more interesting for them but also because their units all have their flavour, be it due to a cool ability like the hillarious throw chicken ability of the gardener or due to their medal improvements (the pony rider, getting +2 damage each medal which makes him quite a beast at elite). The new naga units are another good example and I just can’t see why all the fun units shouls only be available in dwellings (in that respect .. there could be units that can only be purchased in an Inn 🙂 though that is an entirely different topic).

    On the other hand I can’t emphasize enough how much I would like to see different learnable abilities for heroes of different races. I know this would mean that you sometimes are frustrated because you can’t get a hero of the class/race combo you like best, but it would add some diversity and character to the existing heroes (I would even like to see different default starting stats/skills for different heroes in that respect, because as of right now heroes of the same class all feel the same to me).

    in reply to: How fair will the combat system be for AoW3? #13840

    Eomolch
    Member

    You are just you imagine things (or being unusual unlucky). This was brought up a few times on the forums and the developers said it was not true. I also have years of experience with AoW2 and SM, and I never noticed such a trend. Neither did the majority of gamers when this was discussed.<br>
    I think it is a matter of selective memory, some people just notice and remember bad luck a lot more than good luck…

    It’s interesting you are the only one disagreeing with me in that point (I say that because apparently you are right). You see, right after making that statement I set up a small map and ran a few tests myself because I thought I couldn’t leave such a comment without some numbers to support it. And while the results seemed to confirm my theorie at first, it turned out that in the long run there was neither a difference between AI level nor was the AI favored by the damage calculation at all. And yes, that really surprised me a lot, not so much because of melee attacks (though I always felt enemy warlords were fairly superior to mine), but because it really seemed to me that the AI hit more often with ranged attacks that were very unlikely to hit (like archers shooting at units behind the wall or hitting units with good defense stats from a far distance).

    There is randomness in the damage system. On the other hand regular attacks always hit now. Only abilities(like convert or entangle)have chance to hit, but even failed abilities have side effects on the target e.g. a failed convert will damage the targedet unit. Instead of a to hit penalty, obstacles will give damage penalty to your ranged units,

    Hm, too bad :/ Hitting through obstacles was one of the things that annoyed me most in HOMM since it is unrealistic and basicly takes away the option to shelter your weak or damaged units. I can only hope the damage penalty you mentioned will be severe enough to make some moves very uneffective (like shooting with archers at enemies behind city walls). Also does this mean friendly fire is gone or will you now always hit your own unit’s standing between you and your target?

    in reply to: How fair will the combat system be for AoW3? #13533

    Eomolch
    Member

    Here’s the thing. If you have too much randomness, then skill becomes moot. Why should I bother spending the time and money to produce a dragon, then spending the money on upkeep for said dragon, when it has a better than average chance of getting killed in one hit by a random tier 1 or 2 unit that happened to score a lucky shot?

    Here’s the other thing. For me, the randomness didn’t result in epic moments that I would always remember. It was always the opposite, in fact: it worked to destroy everything unique and interesting.

    Did you know that a lot of this so called “randomness” in AoW:SM actually depended on the AI strength? The higher the AI was set the more “unlucky” you got.* In fact on Emperor you basicly NEVER won a 1on1 when the AI had the same unit that you had. So it was rather a balancing issue that you had to consider in tactical combat vs the AI.

    I personally think that the random aspect of the damage calculation made the combat a lot more tensed which is a great thing vs the AI but maybe not that good in multiplayer (but then again, if you want an equal game without any advantages granted by lucky events you can still play chess). That said the missing chance in melee combat was obviously too high and it would have probably made much more sense if the armor value rather reduced the (random) base damage instead of making the attacker completely miss the target. In ranged combat the system was fine (in fact I really hope they still calculate the hit chance based on distance, height and obstacles; anything else would feel like a step backwards) as long as the attacked unit was still relatively far away. The hit rate just didn’t increase enough when the enemy unit got closer (how can you miss a Kharag standing directly in front of you other than due to trembling fear??).

    So all in all I hope the random part of the damage calculation is still part of the combat system (maybe in a lesser extend but that it can still make a big difference) and especially I would hate to see units and spells ALWAYS hit (not sure if there is any information on that yet?) since it is not only highly unrealistic (where are my block/parry/evade stats?- even worse in ranged combat with obstacles!) but also ruins the tension of the fights which I could imagine to become boring vs the AI relatively quick in that case (again, in multiplayer it may be a different thing).

    * I don’t have some specific proof like lines of the games source code to support that theory but it is based on many years of experience.

    in reply to: Scroll / Tome artifacts #13531

    Eomolch
    Member

    Don’t worry, you’ll be able to craft incredibly intricate stories with the editor. Entire campaigns. Since we’re doing that now and you’ll get the same editor we use. :)

    That, Sir, is the best news since the announcement of AoW III! If you tell me now that we will also be able to use custom hero portraits I will rest my case and declare Triumph Studios oficially awesome 😉 (I know Knight9910 already did that though)

    in reply to: new vids on youtube this am #12564

    Eomolch
    Member

    Great video, really liked most of what I could see. The only thing I already miss are 2d artwork hero portraits :/

    Other than that I’m wondering how the magical sphere system works now. Seems like they mixed talents/sphere selection, so will there be leaders without any spells or are the basic spells of each sphere granted as researchable to every player per default? Also does this mean you can actually research a talent like “Fire Adept” to unlock research of spells of the corresponding sphere (or will there be any talent research tree at all)?

    As far as “Adept” vs. “Master” goes, I think it’s a little bit like the 6 points you could spend on magic spheres in AOWSM. So if you choose “Adept” you can probably research basic fire spells and you can research advanced fire spells if you additionaly choose “Master” (and there is probably a 3rd talent for ultimate spells).

    in reply to: Opinions on only mounted heroes #12308

    Eomolch
    Member

    Don’t take me wrong. I’m fine with mounted heroes as they are (in aowsm I didn’t even care if my hero would swallow whole a catapult, on the contrary those where the best moments of the game hehe). I just think a mounted/unmounted hero system with different traitlines for mounted/unmounted combat would make the game even more awesome than it’s already most likely going to be 😉 I agree however that “creature” heroes would be a bit over the top, since they would need completely different skelletons and hence animations than humanoid heroes.

    in reply to: Opinions on only mounted heroes #12271

    Eomolch
    Member

    If it’s really just about the artifact slot one might as well make all heroes unmounted per default and give them the option to toggle mounted when the first mount is aqquired. There could be abilities that can only be used mounted (e.g. charge) or unmounted (e.g. climb walls) and even the option to unmount in combat which then would turn the mount into a unit on it’s own (which if it dies is ofc lost). This system could allow many possibilities regarding tactics and different playstyles. I don’t say it would be easy to balance though (and of course it requires two different animation sets for all heroes!).

Viewing 7 posts - 301 through 307 (of 307 total)