alternative upgrade level?

[Apocalypse]

Ideally magic should be able to beat might with magic, for example by rapidly casting mass spells.

why rapidly? Why not only by casting mass spells? They are much stronger than the original spell anyway, and I think one ability is good only for the mass effect (can you imagine how many times you would have to cast without the mass effect? that effect is already too powerful to be worth for only one ability, and it can be cast twice as faster?!?)

Also, the fact that a might class can get its hands on the 'fast' casting is just extremely imbalanced, because that will provide full magic powers while still being a might class... so it's practically a might and magic class

[Jolly Joker]

No, wrong. Compare it with the creatures: A weak creature with high initiave will act often but without much effect. A strong creature with lower init will act less often but with great effect. The problem arises only if both creatures are equally strong.
So the problem is the fact that the Knight can cast the same magic equally strong than the magic heroes.
It doesn't matter basically how often or fast a knight can cast if he can cast one hell of a spell. He shouldn't simply be able to cast it as strong. Compare it with creatures: all can develop very powerful creatures, but the Knights will be more powerful due to the attack and defense effect. So all should be able to develop strong magic - but the magic heroes should cast it stronger.

[Apocalypse]

Yes, that's right. But you should also add: "All the spells should be cast with the same speed", especially when we're talking about the mass spells, which are VERY strong (unlike slow creatures, which are much stronger than the fast creatures except the initiative - i.e., tanks receive extra HP)

So, your statement about faster casting of mass spells would be true IF the spells were weaker than the others... but mass spells are VERY powerful and no way weaker than the others!

Also, it made me think... can you compare a mass effect + faster casting with +4 spellpower like the summoning abilities?

[King Imp]

Also, it made me think... can you compare a mass effect + faster casting with +4 spellpower like the summoning abilities?

If I'm understanding you correctly, then I'd say yes.

Just take a Haven hero, give him Sorcery and Dark Magic, then take Master of Curses under Dark Magic which then leads to Fallen Knight. All Dark Magic spells, including mass ones, will have +5 Spellpower. Of course you run into the problem of the lack of mana for a Knight, but it can be done.

[Apocalypse]

I'm not sure I understand you
What I was trying to say is that the light/dark magic abilities are way too strong compared with +4 spellpower (what the summoning abilities do)


and btw: Fallen Knight reduces the morale of your troops by 1

[Jolly Joker]

I posted this on the official board:

Light and Dark magic have basically the same impact no matter the stage of the game with the exception that they gets stronger the more (different) stacks are on the battlefield. Once a hero uses all 7 slots the effect of a mass spell (or of the high level) D&L spells is always the same in relation to what is on the board.
While it's true that the bonus effect is bigger for 1000 Paladins then for 10, the effect in relation to what you are facing will be equal in general.
This is completely different for destructive magic; the effect of destructive magic depends solely on the HERO not on the troops. Since Dungeon is the only hero without access to either dark or light the Warlock is the main example for this. Here the impact gets stronger as long as the hero gains faster levels than the troops multiply. I'd say the main impact phase starts in week 3 (where a Warlock will dominate) and will last maybe up to week 8 at the most getting relatively weaker all the time. After that impact drops because creatures get more numerous and important and light and dark spells will translate into more damage than can be done with a destructive spell.
Summoning Magic is a mix of both: Phantom Image - a very potent spell - is more like Light/dark while Summon Phoenix and Summon Elementals is more like Destructive. As a sidenote I think that Summoning magic suffers under its really weak abilities in comparison to the other schools. The abilities for Summoning should give something more then additional spell power: Magic Fist could easily have mass effect as well as Wasp Swarm, for example.

All this has the effect that it makes so-called abuses for Dungeon possible: hit and runs are mainly due to the fact that the hero has the highest damage potential for Dungeon and creatures buy the hero only the time to hit. Since things are like they are I think those abuses are perfectly legal under the rules of how light and dark are and have to be considered the other side of the coin.
It means also that Dungeon has to try and win any map within the first two months with whatever tactics because Haven - as the direct counterpart - will become comparatively stronger after that while Dungeon will become weaker.

I don't think mass spells are overpowered THEREFORE.

[King Imp]

and btw: Fallen Knight reduces the morale of your troops by 1

True, but if your hero has Expert Leadership or has hit a bunch of morale boosters, then this -1 really won't matter much.

[Jolly Joker]

Yes, that's right. But you should also add: "All the spells should be cast with the same speed", especially when we're talking about the mass spells, which are VERY strong (unlike slow creatures, which are much stronger than the fast creatures except the initiative - i.e., tanks receive extra HP)

So, your statement about faster casting of mass spells would be true IF the spells were weaker than the others... but mass spells are VERY powerful and no way weaker than the others!

Also, it made me think... can you compare a mass effect + faster casting with +4 spellpower like the summoning abilities?

It depends. A mass spell is comparatively weak in the beginning (although the relative effect will always be the same as soon as you have 7 stacks on both sides. However, Mass Endurance just won't cut it, some empowered Meteor Shower simply kills 3 stacks after that. Nor will it do you much good if the opponent summons a Phoenix with 1000 HPs. The later it gets and the more troops you can put into an army the better get mass spells: if said empowered Meteor Shower scratches your stacks only it's clear it's clear that the mass spells are much better.

However, there's another point to consider: clearly an MP game (the only one that counts in terms of balance and so on because in SP you can construct the maps any way you like) is to be limited in terms of playing time, number of towns and so on because the game grows out of proportion once you leave a certain point behind you. 10 weeks for an MP game is PLENTY. After that it will become unbalanced one way or another anyway.
The same is true for heroes. Duel heroes are level 15 for a reason. I think that in an MP game heroes shouldn't have more than level 20 and the artifacts should be limited as well because the point here is that you simply shouldn't be able to get anything you want and anything you like but have to pick carefully. Getting a working mass spell is not that easy under this condition, but using up only 50% initiative when you cast it will certainly help you against the Destructive casters.

So I think that those light and dark spells will become overpowered eventually, but they will be overpowered anyway the longer the game is.

I agree that the Summoning abilities could (and should) be better.

[okrane]

I tend to agree with JJ here. A knight is not a good spellcaster despite the mass spells.
Maybe if you let him really develop he could get strong, but as he is weak early on a good rush can nullify his magic abilities.
Furthermore if you take a wizard into account, by the time the knight devellops his magic potential, by getting knowledge/sp boosts, artifacts, levels, a wizard will gain the required resources to build his miniartifacts and will compensate thus the lack of attack and defense skill...
So I think this is ok

[RommeL_666]

Show me a heroes of might and magic game that is balanced.

This is the best answer to all of our questions...

[Apocalypse]

10 weeks for an MP game is PLENTY

A MP game doesn't have to be a tournament (1v1) game. You can play with 4 players and it will last longer.


Also, if all you say is true, then why the original light/dark spells use up full initiative even though they are dependant on the stack? It makes no sense what you said that the 50% initiative has something to do with the light/dark effect (that they are dependant on the stack power - unlike destructive) because the original spells don't have 50% faster casting.

but using up only 50% initiative when you cast it will certainly help you against the Destructive casters.

What makes you think that with level 15 a destructive caster will develop very strong spells and the light/dark ones will find it difficult to obtain mass spells?

Also, even in a tournament game on some tournament maps you get around level 20, if not more sometimes.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

I tend to agree with JJ here. A knight is not a good spellcaster despite the mass spells.
Maybe if you let him really develop he could get strong, but as he is weak early on a good rush can nullify his magic abilities.
Furthermore if you take a wizard into account, by the time the knight devellops his magic potential, by getting knowledge/sp boosts, artifacts, levels, a wizard will gain the required resources to build his miniartifacts and will compensate thus the lack of attack and defense skill...
So I think this is ok

The knight does not have to be good at casting all spells to be imbalanced, just mass spells, which does not take long to get good at. He does not need spell power and not much mana really. He can cast the mass spells just as effectively as a magic heroe while at the same time giving his troops a big boost in attack and defense.

The might heroe should win the game long before a wizard can build his overexpensive artifacts. The wizard will have fewer and weaker troops than the knight. He must be able to cast spells faster and with greater effect than the knight (he doesn't have attack and defense to help his troops, only spells) or he stands no chance.

However, there's another point to consider: clearly an MP game (the only one that counts in terms of balance and so on because in SP you can construct the maps any way you like)

Balance matters regardless of if you are talking about multiplayer or singleplayer. I would be willing to be that the majority of players are single player gamers. And some folks only play multiplayer coop with their spouse or friends for instance. It is no fun if one of those can sweep through the map with no problem because of imbalance while the other player struggles because his faction is too weak.

Also ideally a mapmaker should not have to jump through all kinds of loops to balance his map whether we speak of single player or multiplayer.

If you balance the factions for multiplayer they will be balanced for singleplayer/cooperative play as well.


GOW

[Mirez]

amen to that

[okrane]

The knight does not have to be good at casting all spells to be imbalanced, just mass spells, which does not take long to get good at. He does not need spell power and not much mana really. He can cast the mass spells just as effectively as a magic heroe while at the same time giving his troops a big boost in attack and defense.

The might heroe should win the game long before a wizard can build his overexpensive artifacts. The wizard will have fewer and weaker troops than the knight. He must be able to cast spells faster and with greater effect than the knight (he doesn't have attack and defense to help his troops, only spells) or he stands no chance.

The knigth generally will have a very low knowledge and spell power in order for this to work. Personally in my SP games I find myself with the knigth having only the benediction ability and no spells until week 3 or so... Because with 2spell power and 2 knowledge you cannot really cast spells.

Now take a lvl 15 knight, the average level for a multiplayer final battle. He will have spell power and knowledge of what? 3 or 4. How many mass spells can he cast with this. Ok, he casts mass haste and maybe mass righteous might. Nothing stops the wizard into casting the oposite spells, or counterspell, or the same spells so the things get relatively the same.

Furthermore, with a little luck you can rush the knight in week 3-4 when he is even lower level and cast a pheonix, or some meteor showers on him. No matter what he casts his troops will die too fast to make a difference.

[Apocalypse]

Average level 15? I thought it's around 20

Furthermore, with a little luck you can rush the knight in week 3-4 when he is even lower level and cast a pheonix, or some meteor showers on him. No matter what he casts his troops will die too fast to make a difference.

Of course, rushes (not everybody likes to rush this game, you know)

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

The knight does not have to be good at casting all spells to be imbalanced, just mass spells, which does not take long to get good at. He does not need spell power and not much mana really. He can cast the mass spells just as effectively as a magic heroe while at the same time giving his troops a big boost in attack and defense.

The might heroe should win the game long before a wizard can build his overexpensive artifacts. The wizard will have fewer and weaker troops than the knight. He must be able to cast spells faster and with greater effect than the knight (he doesn't have attack and defense to help his troops, only spells) or he stands no chance.

Now take a lvl 15 knight, the average level for a multiplayer final battle. He will have spell power and knowledge of what? 3 or 4. How many mass spells can he cast with this. Ok, he casts mass haste and maybe mass righteous might. Nothing stops the wizard into casting the oposite spells, or counterspell, or the same spells so the things get relatively the same.

Furthermore, with a little luck you can rush the knight in week 3-4 when he is even lower level and cast a pheonix, or some meteor showers on him. No matter what he casts his troops will die too fast to make a difference.

The knight doesn't need much spell power or knowledge to make mass spells work. He doesn't need to cast "many" mass spells, nor should he be able too. He is supposed to be a might hereo. His superior troops (in number and quality) will make short work of the wizard's under the current mass spell rules.

You mention counter spell. That costs full initiative and can be countered by having your cleric cast a spell. Then the knight has 2 mass spells before the wizard has even cast a single spell.

Besides, as mentioned the wizard has few troops due to having to skip dwellings for the MMR rush. He also may not get good spells in his guild. MMR is a hit a miss strategy though it is the only strategy that gives the wizard a prayer and it can only be done on specific maps that are resource rich and give the wizard alternative places to recharge mana early.

The knight is supposed to be a knight. Knights are might, not magic. Knights should not be great at both might and magic and they currently are by using mass spells. Completely unbalanced.

The knight's attack and defense always benefit his creatures. He does not have to take a turn to make his attack work or a turn to make his defense work. The wizard cannot benefit his creatures unless he takes a trun to cast a spell. The knight can also cast spells.

Therefore, the wizard must be able to cast spells more often and more powerfully that the knight can or he will not stand a chance. Doesn't that make sense?

Mass spells should cost full initiative and work with sorcery. That would help the wizard to cast spells more often than the knight and would make mass spells less godly than they currently are.

GOW

[Apocalypse]

I agree completely with GOW here

[Jolly Joker]

No, it's completely past the point.
Magic is superior to might because magic can completely neutralize might given some turns (while might can neutralize magic only with complete magic immunity). Therefore everyone MUST have SOME magic at least - and if the Knight wasn't able to cast any mass spells at all he would be more or less helplessly looking how his troops are mass-slowed, blinded, frenzied, meteor-showered, puppet-mastered and so on.
All heroes therefore have BOTH might and magic with the Knight having 75% might and 25% magic and the Wizard having it the other way round.
If the Knight wasn't able to cast mass spells at all he'd still be helplessly watching how the opponent would magically blast him. It's only a question of how STRONG the spells are.

As an example, if a high level Knight has magic stats of 3 4 and a Wizard has 8 12 and you'd have the same "damage" (spell effect) comparison as you have for might, the following would happen if both opponents cast Mass Haste under Expert Light: The knight would cast it with -5 power and -8 Knowledge. Mass Haste gives, what?, +50% Init and costs 8 points, so if you apply the same formula as for combat damage, this would reduce the 50% to 40% and the spell cost would go up 40% to 11 or 12 while the Wizard would cast it for a plus of 62.5% instead of 50 and a cost of 6.
Note the difference: 40% init against 62.5% for 11 and 6 points respectively. This looks a lot different then, suddenly.

THAT is the problem, nothing else.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

No, it's completely past the point.
Magic is superior to might because magic can completely neutralize might given some turns (while might can neutralize magic only with complete magic immunity). Therefore everyone MUST have SOME magic at least - and if the Knight wasn't able to cast any mass spells at all he would be more or less helplessly looking how his troops are mass-slowed, blinded, frenzied, meteor-showered, puppet-mastered and so on.
All heroes therefore have BOTH might and magic with the Knight having 75% might and 25% magic and the Wizard having it the other way round.
If the Knight wasn't able to cast mass spells at all he'd still be helplessly watching how the opponent would magically blast him. It's only a question of how STRONG the spells are.

Currently, might is far superior to magic.

The wizard will not survive "some turns." The knight's troops blessed with his attack and defense that need no turns to activate will make short work of the wizard's fewer and less powerful troops. The knight goes along gleefully casting his splls as fast and as effectively as the wizard while he also benefits his troops with his might abilities. It is no contest.

The knight's attack and defense always benefit his creatures. He does not have to take a turn to make his attack work or a turn to make his defense work. The wizard cannot benefit his creatures unless he takes a trun to cast a spell. The knight can also cast spells.

I never said the knight should not be able to cast spells at all. What I said was that the wizard must be able to cast spells more often and more powerfully that the knight can or he will not stand a chance. Doesn't that make sense?

Mass spells should cost full initiative and work with sorcery. That would help the wizard to cast spells more often than the knight and would make mass spells less godly than they currently are.

Until changes are made, might will rule the day.

GOW

[Jolly Joker]

Underlining and bold lettering doesn't help.
The one and only problem is the fact that the might stats of heroes ARE compared in order to determine and modify the damage of creatures while magic stats are NOT compared to determine and modify effect and cost of spells. Whether is cost 50% or 100% initiative doesn't matter (of course, if stats WOULD be compared) using up only 50% init for a mass spell would be a big advantage for magic heroes).
That is, a Knight can cast as many mass spells as fast as he can - if the effect is reduced due to fighting a magic hero (the magic hero can cast as fast, but his castings will have a better effect AND he can cast much more and much longer).
As it is it doesn't really matter whether it costs 50% init or 100 to cast a mass spell because the effect of a mass spell for the Knight is as high as the effect for a magic hero.