The Best And The Worst

[wimfrits]

Slow units don't have that luxury.

[ThunderTitan]

Slow units didn't work much in H5 either vs ones that where fast, just ask zombies...

Obviously they should be balanced so no unit can run laps around another unit all the time...

[Thelonious]

Let's just summarize this argument by saying that the battlefeild size is important and so is the initiative and speed of units. These three hold a very delicate balance which requires a lot of tuning. Fans would be very happy to help. If UbiHole will let them.

[ThunderTitan]

Well pretty much... i guess wimfrits does have a point that smaller bf allow them less ways to screw it up...

[wimfrits]

Slow units didn't work much in H5 either vs ones that where fast, just ask zombies...

Yes, though again the H5 bf size limited their problems to a few enemies. Like sprites and bloodfuries. And now we get a bigger bf with presumably a bigger emphasis on speed differences. So: more zombie situations. More exploits.

Well pretty much... i guess wimfrits does have a point that smaller bf allow them less ways to screw it up...

I'll go with that.
I think Thelonius has a point. Let's wait for a playable demo before continuing this.

[ThunderTitan]

Well my point was about the actual idea of whether or not a bigger BF unavoidably causes those imbalances or simply makes it harder to balance that sort of thing...

Whether or not H6 has them isn't really relevant to that.


And in H5 i recall that i could run around in circles around zombies with any unit that was fast enough to just outrun it while relying on my hero to do dmg to them zombies... in hero vs hero that was mitigated by the fact that both heroes could do that (ignoring ai incompetence), but vs neutrals it was OP...


Making a unit too slow will always be a problem imo. Balance the speeds, init etc. , no one cares if the battles are longer... they are the parts of the game the casual market you seem to want to attract Ubi probably enjoys most anyway...

[wimfrits]

Well my point was about the actual idea of whether or not a bigger BF unavoidably causes those imbalances or simply makes it harder to balance that sort of thing...

A bigger bf only has any point at all when speed difference between units are emphasized. After all, increasing bf by +4 while increasing movement of all units by +4 is pointless. So: bigger bf = more zombies.

But we seem to be moving in circles here.. Perhaps we need a smaller battlefield

[ThunderTitan]

Well my point was about the actual idea of whether or not a bigger BF unavoidably causes those imbalances or simply makes it harder to balance that sort of thing...

A bigger bf only has any point at all when speed difference between units are emphasized. After all, increasing bf by +4 while increasing movement of all units by +4 is pointless. So: bigger bf = more zombies.

Didn't i already pointed out other advantages already?!


Oh, and just adding +4 to their movement wouldn't work like you said from a mathematics point of view (guy with 12 gets 16, while guy with 5 gets 9...), but that's just me nitpicking.

[wimfrits]

Didn't i already pointed out other advantages already?!

You did. And I do see the added tactical value. Yet I also believe difference in movement is at the core of every single advantage you mentioned. And I feel that because of that, exploits will grow faster than tactical value.

Oh, and just adding +4 to their movement wouldn't work like you said from a mathematics point of view (guy with 12 gets 16, while guy with 5 gets 9...), but that's just me nitpicking.

I'm completely aware of that, but value easy examples higher than complex theories that only 5% of people understand.
But that's just me being practical

[ThunderTitan]

Wasn't one of the things i mentioned the creatures not being able to cross the BF (from left to right) in one go?! And more obstacles...

One of those needs lower movement then the BF size and the other works either way...

[wimfrits]

Wasn't one of the things i mentioned the creatures not being able to cross the BF (from left to right) in one go?!

That depends. If creature movement is altered to match the shift in size, the gap between high and low movement is increased while there still will be creatures able to cross the bf in 1 turn; but with a longer crossing for low movement units.
If not, then there will be more positioning in the first round(s) where lower movement units will be at an exploitable disadvantage.

On a side note, I don't think units crossing the bf in 1 turn is unbalanced. I think it adds to tactical play and would be sorry to see that go.

And more obstacles...

The effect of obstacles is directly linked to movement. If a unit can circumvene an obstacle in 1 turn, it has little to no added tactical value. On the other hand, lower movement units will be hampered and this effect can be exploited.

[ThunderTitan]

On a side note, I don't think units crossing the bf in 1 turn is unbalanced. I think it adds to tactical play and would be sorry to see that go.

Well truth is i too would like some creatures to be able to cross the BF in one go, just not a lot... and certainly not diagonally. And that's even easier to do with squares...

And running around the BF with a unit to not get killed by another unit while using spells and abilities to kill the enemy unit also adds to tactical play... the problem is that most of the time it's an OP tactic... and that's why it's seen as an exploit...

If creature movement is altered to match the shift in size, the gap between high and low movement is increased while there still will be creatures able to cross the bf in 1 turn; but with a longer crossing for low movement units.

Creature movements needs to be rebalanced anyway imo. Straight up translating them to more squares/hexes is rather pointless...

And the only thing a smaller BF does is not allow for that much of a difference, which is good, but not really something that can't be done in a bigger BF.

If not, then there will be more positioning in the first round(s) where lower movement units will be at an exploitable disadvantage.

If the difference in movement is large... but the idea is that it shouldn't be.

[wimfrits]

And running around the BF with a unit to not get killed by another unit while using spells and abilities to kill the enemy unit also adds to tactical play... the problem is that most of the time it's an OP tactic... and that's why it's seen as an exploit...

Removing the invulnerable infinite attacking hero would help a lot to solve that. But I'm afraid that won't happen.

Creature movements needs to be rebalanced anyway imo. Straight up translating them to more squares/hexes is rather pointless...

And the only thing a smaller BF does is not allow for that much of a difference, which is good, but not really something that can't be done in a bigger BF.
...

If the difference in movement is large... but the idea is that it shouldn't be.

How? How would you balance that?
How do you picture a larger bf and a small difference in movement speed together?

Really, especially looking at the example H4 gave us (which btw still had more tactical value than all other HoMM games combined), the best way to shift the focus from exploits to tactics is a tight bf.

[ThunderTitan]

Removing the invulnerable infinite attacking hero would help a lot to solve that. But I'm afraid that won't happen.

Well that's at least balanced by the fact that both players have a hero that can do that...

And against the AI it hardly as big a problem as the AI being stupid anyway...

How? How would you balance that?
How do you picture a larger bf and a small difference in movement speed together?

Well what are the advantages of a smaller BF?! Units can't get 2x or more movement then any other unit etc... translate that to a bigger BF and you get the same thing... might not be perfect, but it would be the same as in the smaller BF...

But if you want to make it better you could expand on my previous idea and make diagonal movement cost more then moving in a straight line (also makes squares worth something more then 2x2 creatures), limiting the extra movement one unit has against another as long as that unit isn't straight ahead. Make archer units never have way more movement then the slowest unit. Don't make the low level units have the lowest movement because each hit reduces it strength way to fast...

Problem is that without actually testing it in-game it's hard to know if any ideas will actually work...

Really, especially looking at the example H4 gave us (which btw still had more tactical value than all other HoMM games combined), the best way to shift the focus from exploits to tactics is a tight bf.

You sure that wasn't just the simultaneous retal taking away the uber advantage of attacking? Or even the differences in how movement worked (the smaller hexes made for more precise allocation of movement)...

And was H4's BF actually that much smaller?! The lack of a hex grid makes that kinda hard to determine.

[Qurqirish Dragon]

But if you want to make it better you could expand on my previous idea and make diagonal movement cost more then moving in a straight line

Is this known about (for H6?) In Heroes 5, "diagonal" moves did cost more- turn on the movement highlighting and you will see the circle shaped movement areas. I haven't heard about any change in H6 for this (was there something in one of the videos to indicate this?

[wimfrits]

Well that's at least balanced by the fact that both players have a hero that can do that...

And against the AI it hardly as big a problem as the AI being stupid anyway...

Exploits in PvP play are usually small and easily counterable so there's no point in discussing the PvP part.

It appears we're talking about 2 different subjects here..

Well what are the advantages of a smaller BF?! Units can't get 2x or more movement then any other unit etc... translate that to a bigger BF and you get the same thing... might not be perfect, but it would be the same as in the smaller BF...

You mean the (unmathematical) +4 bf / +4 movement to all? Or a percentual increase to all units movement? The first seems pointless. The second increases the gap between slow and fast.
However, even the first already increases the gap due to the larger bf in terms of effective movement.

I can go on but I can't see a working solution.

Make archer units never have way more movement then the slowest unit. Don't make the low level units have the lowest movement because each hit reduces it strength way to fast...

Problem is that without actually testing it in-game it's hard to know if any ideas will actually work...

The first is good (but usually already present). The second would horribly increase exploiting tactics and probably allow me to roll over the map in the first week. So I'm not too fond of that.

You sure that wasn't just the simultaneous retal taking away the uber advantage of attacking? Or even the differences in how movement worked (the smaller hexes made for more precise allocation of movement)...

And was H4's BF actually that much smaller?! The lack of a hex grid makes that kinda hard to determine.

Now I'm confused. Did I accidently write it down the other way around?
H4's bf is by far the largest in the series so far.
In H4 tactical depth is several orders of magnitude greater than all other HoMM games combined. Simultaneous retal is a big factor. LoS for archers is another.

However, in H5 80% of battles was won with a selection of, say 500 tactical options. 20% was won by using exploits. In H4 50% of battles was won with a selection of 100.000 tactical options. 50% was won by using exploits.

Hence my reference to H4 as an example why I fear bf size to be linked to the use of exploits

[ThunderTitan]

Exploits in PvP play are usually small and easily counterable so there's no point in discussing the PvP part.

It appears we're talking about 2 different subjects here..

Well against the AI you can just choose not to use exploits... you'll win anyway if you know how to play because the AI always sucks...

So imo exploits matter less there... but that's not to say that limiting them there too isn't a good thing.

You mean the (unmathematical) +4 bf / +4 movement to all? Or a percentual increase to all units movement? The first seems pointless. The second increases the gap between slow and fast.
However, even the first already increases the gap due to the larger bf in terms of effective movement.


I can go on but I can't see a working solution.

No, i meant doing it in such a way that the actual difference remains instead of the difference in %. Use some more complex math to make a formula to see what the actual difference in movement there is on the smaller H5 BF and then apply that to a larger BF... why else are there math professors anyway?

And actually the first one (+4 to all) lessens the difference between the lowest and highest movement units (of course depending on how high the numbers are), because 4+4 vs 8+4 makes the difference go from 2x to 1.5x.

The first is good (but usually already present). The second would horribly increase exploiting tactics and probably allow me to roll over the map in the first week. So I'm not too fond of that.

Just because they don't have the lowest movement doesn't mean they need to have enough to be able to get to the enemy in one turn... giving it to something like the Treant (high level high defense high hp unit) instead of the zombie makes more sense if you want to make lower level units still be useful at the end as anything besides retal stealer.

Now I'm confused. Did I accidently write it down the other way around?
H4's bf is by far the largest in the series so far.
In H4 tactical depth is several orders of magnitude greater than all other HoMM games combined. Simultaneous retal is a big factor. LoS for archers is another.

However, in H5 80% of battles was won with a selection of, say 500 tactical options. 20% was won by using exploits. In H4 50% of battles was won with a selection of 100.000 tactical options. 50% was won by using exploits.

Hence my reference to H4 as an example why I fear bf size to be linked to the use of exploits

Well you said that H4 had more tactical value then all other HoMM games and then said that a tight BF shifts focus more on tactics... see how i could be confused?!

And are you sure the exploits in H4 where all because of the bf size and not the fact that heroes on the bf weren't even close to balanced?!

Or even the fact that so much more tactical options mean there would be more room for exploits?!

Of course i for one prefer more tactical options even if it means more exploits... balance has ruined fun in way to many games already.

[wimfrits]

Well against the AI you can just choose not to use exploits... you'll win anyway if you know how to play because the AI always sucks...

There's always a choice, I agree with that. If you want to play as efficient as possible though and have the choice to win on day2 with exploits or day20 without, well..

And actually the first one (+4 to all) lessens the difference between the lowest and highest movement units (of course depending on how high the numbers are), because 4+4 vs 8+4 makes the difference go from 2x to 1.5x.

No, because it's about the actual difference in effective movement. If it stays the same or increases when bf increases in size, then the effective movement of the faster units increases more than that of the slower unit.

Perhaps to clarify things a bit: put both units on any spot on the H5 bf. Count all tiles the unit can reach from that position.
Now do the same on a larger bf.
You'll see that the faster unit suddenly gets a higher count so has more effective movement.

So the only way to keep a H5 style balance in movement is to *decrease* movement of all units. And that would be kind of odd don't you think?
So again, I don't see an increase in bf without increasing the movement gap.

Just because they don't have the lowest movement doesn't mean they need to have enough to be able to get to the enemy in one turn... giving it to something like the Treant (high level high defense high hp unit) instead of the zombie makes more sense if you want to make lower level units still be useful at the end as anything besides retal stealer.

Movement is probably the most important odds breaker in the game. Just look at treants. High level high defense high hp, and utterly USELESS if you want to play efficiently.

Well you said that H4 had more tactical value then all other HoMM games and then said that a tight BF shifts focus more on tactics... see how i could be confused?!

And are you sure the exploits in H4 where all because of the bf size and not the fact that heroes on the bf weren't even close to balanced?!

Or even the fact that so much more tactical options mean there would be more room for exploits?!

Of course i for one prefer more tactical options even if it means more exploits... balance has ruined fun in way to many games already.

I see. H4 had more tactical value but in practice exploits dominated a great part of the gameplay.

H4's main exploit increasing factor: bf size. H4 main tactical increasing factor'(not counting multiple heroes on the bf for that will never happen again anyway): simultaneous retal.
And like I said earlier, heroes on the bf did hardly influence exploits
If H6 has simultaneous retal and LoS for archers in a H5 bf size, you get the best of 2 worlds.

[ThunderTitan]

There's always a choice, I agree with that. If you want to play as efficient as possible though and have the choice to win on day2 with exploits or day20 without, well.

Yay for steroids then...

Perhaps to clarify things a bit: put both units on any spot on the H5 bf. Count all tiles the unit can reach from that position.
Now do the same on a larger bf.
You'll see that the faster unit suddenly gets a higher count so has more effective movement.

How about if we count all the tiles it can't reach?! Guess which gets more too? Does that mean it has less effective movement too?

So the only way to keep a H5 style balance in movement is to *decrease* movement of all units. And that would be kind of odd don't you think?
So again, I don't see an increase in bf without increasing the movement gap.

That's kinda what i've been saying i want to see... units not being able to move around the whole BF if they're in the middle no matter how high they are in the movement hierarchy.

Movement is probably the most important odds breaker in the game. Just look at treants. High level high defense high hp, and utterly USELESS if you want to play efficiently.

Hmmm... i for one remember Treants being useful for protecting other units... unfortunately that was never something the Heroes games did well. I hope that in H6 they actually do make Haven work with something like that.

H4's main exploit increasing factor: bf size. H4 main tactical increasing factor'(not counting multiple heroes on the bf for that will never happen again anyway): simultaneous retal.

Frankly i can't even tell if the H4 bf was larger then H3's... always felt more claustrophobic to me, but that might just be the odd angle you saw it from...

What it did obviously had was smaller tiles and thus different movement, as in H3 you had to give them one extra unit length (a hex) to improve movement while in H4 you could have given them any fraction you wanted...


BTW, H3 had a bigger BF then H5... who where the exploits in H3 compared to H5?!

And like I said earlier, heroes on the bf did hardly influence exploits

C'mon... don't make me look for specific hero exploits for H4...

If H6 has simultaneous retal and LoS for archers in a H5 bf size, you get the best of 2 worlds.

Yeah, no point in attacking first and no room to maneuver...

[wimfrits]

How about if we count all the tiles it can't reach?! Guess which gets more too? Does that mean it has less effective movement too?

I fail to see your point. Same speed + bigger bf = higher effective movement for faster units.

That's kinda what i've been saying i want to see... units not being able to move around the whole BF if they're in the middle no matter how high they are in the movement hierarchy.

Decreasing movement while increasing bf leads to longer battles. More tactical? Perhaps. Could work. I doubt a general decrease of the movement gap will be in though.

Hmmm... i for one remember Treants being useful for protecting other units... unfortunately that was never something the Heroes games did well. I hope that in H6 they actually do make Haven work with something like that.

Well, spending a small amount of gold for high speed odd breakers or a large amount of gold for a protective strategy spending even more gold for units the protectors need to protect..? Well.. that's just not very efficient.
In a decisive battle against a key opponent? Sure! But in the other 99% of the map? No way.

BTW, H3 had a bigger BF then H5... who where the exploits in H3 compared to H5?!

H3 didn't have the invulnerable hero so less exploits. Too much focus on ranged though.

C'mon... don't make me look for specific hero exploits for H4...

Well look. There are some but all peanuts compared to the rest.

If H6 has simultaneous retal and LoS for archers in a H5 bf size, you get the best of 2 worlds.

Yeah, no point in attacking first and no room to maneuver...

Exactly. Deciding the best time to close and no hit and run cycles.