|
| Thread: Of Heroes and battles, skills, specialties, characters, artifacts, etc. - Idea | |
|
Svetac
Promising
Known Hero
Saintified Paladin
|
posted November 12, 2002 10:45 PM |
|
|
Of Heroes and battles, skills, specialties, characters, artifacts, etc. - Idea
This is the second thing that I want to discuss and share my view on it. Here I touch several important issues of the game, and I propose possible solutions that I’ve come with for them. Before I expose my idea again, and the way I look on the heroes in Heroes V let me do just small analisys once again. So I’ll start from the beginning (If you hate to read the history analisys please jump to the “THE IDEA” chapter below, however I encourage you to read the whole post, because there are some important things adressed in the analisys):
Heroes I - Now, this was really new experience for me as well as for many of you and many other players around the world. The whole Heroes concept of the game, generals and spellcasters that lead their armies was something unique and unexperienced before. Each hero could’ve had his army composed of 5 stacks that can hold unlimited amount of the same creature type. There were 4 hero classes with 4 skills - attack, defense, knoweledge, power. With every new level one of these skills was raised depending on the percentage chance of the hero class. So the Knight was the one that had the greatest chance to advance in Defense, Barbarian in Attack, Warlock in Spell Power, and Soceress in Knoweledge. The Attack and Defense influenced the Creatures in Combat, Knoweledge determined how much spells can you cast, and Spell Power was their, well, power 
Heroes II - New game, 6 towns, so that means 2 new hero classes. The Wizard and the Necromancer. Great aditions. But this time around the Primary and Secondary skill system is introduced. Whenever Hero levels up one of his primary (attack, defense, knoweledge, power) skills is rasied by the same system as in Heroes I, but the player has chance to choose one secondary skill each time. The secondary skills have three levels of mastery - basic, advanced and expert. And they range from combat, to adventure, to diplomacy, to spellcasting skills. Also the class of the hero influences the percentage of chance for a secondary skill to be offered. Great new concept, that works well, but some of the secondary skills are quite useless. But one great thing here is the graphics of the heroes. They really look different, and that gives them certain character. Great thing, that strenghten the RPG feeling about the heroes.
Heroes III - well, the main design decision here was “the more the merrier” and they applied that to everything. 2 more towns, 8 in total, but this time they divided the heroes for the first time clearly into Might and Magic ones. So this way, all the towns got their Might and Magic heroes. So that means 16 heroes in total. From 6 to 16. Now in my opinion that was too much. I was rather for a concept of less heroes but making them more distinctive. They tried to do this with the special skills, but to be honest, the biggest part of the specials were simply anemic and similar one to another. So this way the majority of the hero classes ended up looking in a same way. There were also new secodnary skills, like the spell school secodnaries that strenghtened the spells of particular schools, but once again they were lacking balance. So the main characteristic of the Heroes in this part is that they end up looking all alike, but in my research I must point out that there is one big factor for this. No, it’s not the hero advancement system, but the Artifacts. See in Heroes 2 we had artifacts that were really weaker than the ones in Heroes 3, and I think that that was positive. In heroes 2 the maximum skill that artifact can give you is +3, but in Heroes 3 they will give you +6 maximum, plus there are artifacts that give you +2,+3, +4 etc. too all the skillls. What this means? Well this way the mage easily compensates for his lack of Attack/ Defense, and the Barbarian easily transforms himself into great spellcaster. But this is somehting that I’ll analize in some other post. Also I must say that the graphics failed to make the heroes more distinctive one from another.
Heroes IV - It’s all new. Period. - The main decision was to put the Heroes on the battlefield. In order to do that, and in order to make the heroes different one from another they decided to completely rework the skill system. Hm, when I think again, in order to make the Heroes more distinctive they could’ve done several other things, without touching the skill system. Things like - tone down the artifacts and eliminate the main unbalancing factor of the game, introduce the new spell schools in a new secondary skill system that is similar to the primary skill system of heroes IV. Also we got 11 starting hero classes, and ability for a first time in the series for heroes to change classes. There were 37 advanced classes. So in total 48 classes. And I would say again, it was good on a paper, but in practice it didn’t served very well. They should’ve been different one from another on high levels, but were they? All the Sorcerers ended up looking more or less same. Because it was hard to become grandmaster in more than one skill tree. They put specials also for the advanced classes, but those special powers were rather anemic and unoriginal, and didn’t managed to spice up the game. And with so many classes, it was hard to identify with any of them. While this was easy in the times of Heroes 2, and we were able to simlpy identify with that Knight or the Wizard we were leading, this was case no more. Also one big problem was the power of the heroes. They were either too weak or too powerful. The game itself was radically changed in order to put the heroes on the battlefield. There were potions introduced also for first time, to let them stay a little bit longer on the battlefield. And it was really hard to protect them because of the new un-functional combat grid. Many players didn’t enjoyed the fighting with the Heroes as they tought they would (including myself). Also there was no restriction on the number of heroes per party, and I think that this broke big part of the strategy of the game - the spellcasting. It took out the tension o the previous part, when you were able to cast only one spell per turn, and you haven’t room to make a mistake, because one wrong spell, and your opponent could’ve turn the tide of the battle in his favour. Now, with the ability to cast 2+ spells per turn the case is no more.
THE IDEA:
Although you will get a feeling that I’m completely against the heroes participating in battles, you must know that I’m not. What I mean is that the game suffered too much and lost it’s essence in order to put the Heroes on the battlefield. And yes, I agree that it would be better to have the Heroes at the side of the battlefield better than fighting as in Heroes IV. But I think that the participation of the Heroes in combat can work, and there is elegant solution to this problem. They didn’t have to go that far to look for the answer how to do it in H4. The answer was already there.
1. One Hero per Army
First thing I’ll propose is to go back at the concept of Heroes1,2,3 of 1 hero per army, and no army without heroes because of the spell tension in the battles and better balance this way. And since there will be one hero per army, he won’t take up army slots but will have his one and only slot. Also, it is annoying to see 1 unit-armies that roam your land and you have to chase them like mad allover the map. To sacrifice one Pikeman and open the map of the enemy is really cheap, that’s why the stakes should be bigger. That’s why the sacrifice should be hero that will scout the area but is worth 2500gp’s. Now that’s an appropriate price for sneaking in the land of your opponent. However, it should be allowed for heroes to travel alone, without company. Simply because it’s annoying always to take 1 unit, because of the silly no-armies-consisted-of-heroes-only rule from H1-3, because as you will see I’ll propose a solution for the hero’s participation in combat.
2. Heroes in Combat
The batlle should start in H1,2,3 fashion with Heroes on horses alongside the battlefield. With an option included that they can join the fray at any given time, no matter if the hero have or don’t have Combat skill. This way, the player can judge when is the best time for the hero to engage his enemies and this way help his troops in the battle. There should be exceptions when a hero will join the battle without order from the player to do so. And that is in the following two cases: First - if he travel alone, and is attacked, he is automatically on the battlefield and can be targeted. Second - if the hero has an army and is out of the battle, and all of his army is dead, he automaticaly joins the battle, because logicaly he can be reached by the enemy as there are no troops to defend him. Of course, that once the hero join the battle ha cannot get back on his horse on the side of the battlefield, all he can do is flee the battle as well as his army, or surrender. Now, this way, heroes shouldn’t be made powerful as in H4 when in battle (I’m talking of the combat heroes here). And the role of the heroes in the direct combat will be somewhere at the end of the battle when there is smaller danger for them. Also, the old hexagonal grid from Heroes 1,2,3 will do great job when one want to protect his hero. You can put your hero in one corner and make a wall around him with one creature that takes up one hexagon in front of him, and another one that takes two hexagons below him (just like we used to protect our ranged units in Heroes 1-3. This way the enemy will have to break the creature wall in order to attack the hero. But why would a spellcaster hero want to join the battle you would as now. Well head to the next point.
3. Special Abilities
Well have we forgot about the special abilities. The way I suggest them to be incorporated in the hero system is this: Heroes shouldn’t start with special ability, but when they reach certain levels they will unlock special abilities. Mainly this special abilities will be available in combat, but only and only when the hero joins the battle. So this way, let’s say the Wizard that reach level 20 will unlock unique spell that is available only trough this process (cannot be learned in mage guild nor any other way) but can cast it only on the battlefield. Or a Paladin that reach level 20 can get Mass Prayer Passive Spell, and this means that when he is on the battlefield each turn the Mass Prayer Spell is automaticaly casted and he haven’t spent his spell casting ability for that turn. Also he can access some other special powers, like he can get Mass Holy Word on Level 15 (but this is active spell, meaning he has to cast it), that is alos unavailable trough any other learning method. At level 10 he can get Holy Strike, ability that grants him 200% damage when fighting undead, at level 5 double strike, and so on. Keep in mind that this is only scetch to show the idea. Maybe they can get special powers on every 3rd or 2nd level. Or maybe even every level they can get special power or improve one that has been already taken. But certain special powers will require certain level in order to be unlocked. The better the power the bigger the level. I know that this is really hard to balance. But that’s why I’ll propose extremely lower number of hero classes. (Please keep in mind that if they decide not to put the heroes in battles, doesn’t mean that special powers should be forgoten. They can work really well with Heroes that don’t participate in combat).
4. Hero Classes
Here I would go to the basics of the series in order to make the balancing problem of the heroes easier. I would go for one hero per town, but a hero that really represents that town. Like in the case of the Castle/Life town, I would go for a Paladin hero. In the same time he is a Knight and a some sort of Priest/Cleric, so he is exoctic class and more appropriate than a Knight. In the case of the Order/Tower I’ll bring back the Wizard, Dungeon/Chaos goes back for Warlock, and in the Nature the Sorceress should make a return. Now of course the I would love to see two heroes per town, but that would mean really much more balancing, and that is something that can be done in the next game (I mean the addition of more hero classes) if the formula works right. I mean, I would rather see less hero classes that are really worked out great, with distinctive and unike looks, special power and character, that can act really different in an open battle, and let us identify with them, and love them. Sometimes less is more. But now another topic opens. The skill system. What will happen if my Paladin go GM in Chaos and Life, what will he become. Well, my message from above is that they should get rid of the advanced classes as well. So a Paladin will start and end the game as Paladin. However, I wouldn’t mind if they decide to put two heroes per town developed as suggested So head to the next chapter to read my proposal of the Skill system.
5. The Skill System
This is also merge from the skill system we had so far. I think that the primary skills from Heroes 1,2,3 should be brought back. And those primary skills from Heroes IV should be turned into secondary skills. So this way we will have back the Attack, Defense, Power, Knoweledge from the previous games. If taken care of the artifacts, this skills can really vary from hero class to hero class but I’ll refer to this in the next topic. So the effects of the primary skills will be the same as before. One of the reason I’m proposing return of the old primary skills is simply that it gave certain feeling when it comes to heroes and comparing them to opponent heroes. Just from on look you could’ve see if you have to fear some of your opponents. And it was a race sometimes who will have hihger level of some skill. I think that it was essential part of the game that should be brought back.
The Primary skills of Heroes IV will be called secondary skills, and the secondary skills of Heroes IV will be now Sub-Skills. So this means that Life Magic will become Secondary skill (with the same effect from Heroes IV, the higher the Life Magic level, the more Life spells your hero can learn), and the Ressurection will become Sub-Skill of the Life Magic skill. Another set of skills will be the special powers, and their method of getting is described above in the 3rd chapter - Special Abilities. Those will be skills that are unique for each class. So this is how I envision the Secodary Skills of Heroes V and their Sub Skills. Each Secondary Skill will have two sub skills, and each of them will have five levels of expertise like in heroes IV. So there is Life secondary skill with two sub skills: Ressurecion, that has the same effect as in Heroes IV, and Spirituality that lowers the cost for the Life spells. You can notice that the effect of the spirituality is other than that in H4 and there is no Healing sub-skill but with the re-introducing of the primary skill system again, these skill are going to be reduntdant. This goes as well for the other spell schools - Order as a secondary skill have Charm as a sub skill with the same effect from H4, and Wizardry that lowers the cost of the Order spells, the Chaos secondary skill have Sorcery as a sub skill that raises the spell power of the chaos based spell by 20% and some I-can’t-think-the-name-now sub skill that lowers the mana cost for the Chaos based spells. Scouting as a secondary skill will have the Pathfinding and Seamenship or Stealth as a sub skills. Combat as a sub skill will merge the Melle into self, and will get the Archery and Magic Resistance as a sub skills. Nobility will get Diplomacy and Estates as Sub Skills. Tactics as a secondary skill will have the same effect as in Heroes III, as well as it’s sub skills Offense and Defense. And I think that another non-magical secondary skill should be introduced that will have the Leadership and Luck (both with the same effect from Heroes 3) as it’s sub skills. Maybe it can be called Divinity or something. Also this way the score between the magic and non-magical skill will be even. To emphasize furthermore, when hero reach GM level in one of the Secondary skills he should be awarded in some way. Let’s say the Paladin got GM in Life Magic, and the GM Life Magic unlocks the Guardian Angel spell that cannot be learned any other way. If a hero reach GM in Chaos Magic he will unlock the Armageddon spell that cannot be learned any other way. GM in combat will grant the ability to the hero to carry second weapon artifact in the left hand instead of shield. So this way the hard work to get some skill to the GM level will be payed off. And this special powers will be Skill based not class based as the ones I proposed before(This skill system can work as well in a system where heroes don’t fight. I mean if NWC decide not to let heroes fight, than the awards for reaching GM level in some skill can be something different than what is suggested above, in order to fit the system).
6. Artifacts and their impact on Heroes
As I said before, the main problem in Heroes 3 that all heroes ended up looking the same way is caused by the unbalanced artifacts. A +6 power or +3 to power and +3 to knoweledge artifact can easily turn Barbarian into Magician. How can be this prevented. First the artifacts should be really balanced, +5 should be their maximum and I’ll explain why later. The Artifacts should have requirements in order to be equiped. So let’s say there is a Sword that grants the wielder +3 attack, if hero wants to equip it he must have his combat skill to Expert (3rd) level, if there is an axe that grants +5 attack, than the combat skill of the hero must be GM in order to meet requirement to equipe this artifact. If say artifact is Cape of Knoweledge +4, the hero must have any of the secondary magic skill developed up to level 4. There will be special artifacts that are dependant upon certain secondary skills or sub skills also. Say, the Staff of Chaos will be available only to heroes that has taken Chaos Magic as one their secondary skills, Staff of Ressurection only to the Life Magic Heroes with Ressurection Sube Skill. Or if hero want to equip the Circlet of Nobility that grants +1 6th level creature per week, hero must have his Nobility skill up to GM, Ancient Bow of the Elves will require certain level of the Archery Sub Skill, and Flag of Surrendering will require certain level of the Diplomacy Sub Skill, and so on, and so on. So this will mean that trough artifacts Might heroes will mainly strenghten their Attack and Defense skills, while Magic heroes will strenghten their Magic skills, and Mix Heroes will fit somewhere in between. Also heroes that specialize in one of the secondary skills and their sub skills will have access to artifacts that are dependant upon certain skills within their class that will strenghten them more in those powers and make them far different from calss to class. I think that this way the heroes will be forced to look more distinctive one from another, which can be only good thing (Again, no matter wether Heroes particiapte in combat or not, NWC must have in mind the rest of the things said about artifacts).
7. Potions and Scrolls
I say, throw them out. These are only balance breaking items, that tend to fill the inventory of the hero. And I want to keep my inventory clean
8. The look of the Heroes, Gender and Race
I will look at this problem from very rational point of view. Maybe many of you will disagree with that I’m proposing here, but I think it’s a reasonable proposal, and you’ll see why. Here it is: to streamline the design of the heroes based on their gender and race Why? There are several reasons. Can you imagine how much time it took the artists to make two versions of each hero? Count it, 11 hero classes in H4, each with two versions makes 22 heroes to draw and animate! Is this necessary? No. Please consider the fact that the NWC’s team is really cut down to a small number and in order to give us great and polished game some rational decisions must be made.. Here is what I understand by being rational in this case. Can you imagin female Wizard or Warlock? No. Wizards should newer accept females in their ranks, that’s why we have Sorceresses. And the Warlock is male witch. So what do I propose for H5. As I said before I think (rationaly thinking) that there should be one hero per town, but it should be really developed. When it comes to his look on the battlefield and the animation I think also that is bettter if the artist spend more time at perfecting one hero model with great animation quality, than split his time and make two models of medium animation quality. What does that mean. Hero classes should be really defined by gender and race. As I said there should be one Wizard male model. Man with long silver hair, and long silver beard. And that’s it. The background of the Wizards is that they don’t accept females in their ranks. On the other side, I’d welcome the return of the Sorceress in the game in the Nature town. And the Sorceresses are only female spellcasters - this means only one model for them. The Warlocks should also be only males from the reason I stated above. Paladins should also be male only. It can be covered by their codex and on the other side schovinism that is part of a medieval human society. Maybe there should be small percent of females within the Paladin ranks, but to compensate the things, in their background will be stated that they have great deeds behind them. But in terms of look they can use the male model, because we are talking here about fully armoured human. And in such armour females tend to look same as males. Nercomancers should be mixed, but only one model used again. If they use the model of the Necromancer from H2, skeleton in a dark robe, than this model can fit male as well as female Necromancers. As for the Barbarian, I think that it should use only one model, and there should be only male barbarians. But if we look at the barbarian heroes in H3 and H4, we’ll notice that most of them are Orcs, so why don’t streamline this class and make the hero Orc in terms of looks. Also to create a believable illusion of hero classes, they should think about the hero portraits. If they make Human Wizard with silver hair and beard, than they should throw out all the genie wizards from the portratis, or Halflings, or Gremlins, or Dwarves. It’s kinda silly to look at your genie hero on the portrait and see him as a human on the battlefield. I know, you’ll say that they haven’t time to draw another genie model only for those 5 genies in the Wizard hero ranks. But I’ll ask you than why putting genie heroes at all? That’s what I’m talking about here - rationalism. If they make all the Wizards human males on their portraits, than the illusion will be complete. I will newer have to look at the human hero on the battlefield and pretend that he is genie. I also wonder why they made human hero version of the Lord in H4, when the majority of the Lords are Dwarves. In that case, make the background of the Lords that they are Dwarven Lords that joined the Order town for a certain cause, make the model of the Lord hero - Dwarf, and make all the Lord hero portratis and backgrounds - Dwarves (throw out the humans and the halflings as lord heroes). First it will add depth to the game this way, and from the backgrounds of the Hero classes can rise new conflicts. Let’s say that female spellcasters wanted to join the Wizards ranks but they were outcast by those ignorant-schovinistic-male-spellcasters. And than the female spellcasters formed their own order of Sorceresses. And now are in constand hatred and war from time to time with the Wizards. And if we consider that the Dwarves are now in the Order town, the Elves in the Nature town, Dwarves hate Elves, and on the pentagram Order and Nature are opposite factions we have a conflict that will make the background of the races even deeper, and can add much stuff to the story. Also on the uniquiness note, I would like to say that it will be really cool if different hero classes ride on different animals. Paladins can ride Pegasus, Sorceresses can ride Unicorns, Barbarians can ride Wolves, Dwarven Lords - boars, Necromancers - Nightmares, Wizards - white horse, Warlocks - horse again I suppose, etc. In conclusion, the production of the game in terms of graphic design and animation will faster, and that’s something that NWC with his team need. It is both, rational and reasonable. Also it will create for us believable environmet. Something that we see as it is, and something that don’t require from us to pretend that we see something different. If I want to pretend and imagin, I’ll play pen-and-paper RPG. But in a computer game with rich graphics I want my illusion to be complete, and I don’t want to pretend. Pretending breaks the Illusion in CPU games. As a contribution of my proposal I’ll point out the desing of the heroes in Warcraft III. They used mainly one hero model for all the heroes (except for the special campaign heroes). So all the Paladins there are male, Blademasters, Keepers of the Grove, Demonhunters, Death Knight and where it is needed they have put female characters as the Night Elven Huntress. Now, this is reasonable and rational thinking. And as such, this method of Hero design I think should find it’s way to Heroes V.
What if they decide to put the Heroes out of battles?
Well, if that’s the case and they think that the balance of the game is better that way, I’ll agree with the decision. Because after all the designer know what is the best way for the things to be done. But I think that no matter if heroes are off the battlefield, all the things suggested here can be and should be apllied to the game and can work really well no matter wether heroes will or won’t particpate in the fightings. The hero classes, the skill system, the bounuses from the skill and the special skills with that change that the powers they give (when you get to GM in some secondary skill or special skill powers) will be something that can work with heroes off the battlefield.
So this way, the game will be taken retro to some point with some new additions that will be new for us, the players. I hope that something of this will find it’s way into the game. I tried to think in the most simple way, while keeping all the good things from the series. I know that in some points I got carried away and sound like I’m the one who is designing the game, but please forgive me for that. It’s only that I really enjoyed the little “pretending” game
Well it was really Heroic deed if you managed to read all this down. Thank you for being patient and reading trough all this stuff. I hope that I made a clear picture of my vision. If I failed to do that, I just waisted several days on writing this down. Anyway I hope that this will have at least minor impact on the Heroes V design process. Any feedback will be appreciated.
Thank you.
____________
--- Paladin of the Macedon ---
|
|
whenpimpsatt...
Tavern Dweller
Drinker of Immortality potions
|
posted November 13, 2002 12:32 AM |
|
|
Blah, i didnt have time to read all that, but in my opinion the only things wrong with heroes 4 are the bugs and the unbalanced aspects of the game ( gm necromancy, spellcasting monsters ( genies ), and perhaps the fact that the barbarian stronghold is so weak ).
Other then that heroes4 was a brilliant change. And this is from someone who played many toh heroes3 games. I got bored of heroes 3 about a year ago, because quite frankly it was the same thing everytime. It was all about who could chain heroes the best.
Heroes 4 just needs some more patches thats all. Hopefully heroes 5 will only build on the greatness of Heroes 4.
____________
|
|
shaowei
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2002 01:55 PM |
|
|
Whenpimpsattack:
My strong opinion is that Heroes games are about strategy, but also about atmosphere.
Frankly, can you say without lying to yourself, that Heroes 4 have not lost atmosphere?
The lanscape is much more like a toy table than they were in HOMM2 and HOMM3.
The castles are all generic.
Some creatures are very poorly animated (look at the way pikemen walk). Other creatures came out of the blue sky ( sea monsters, venom spawns) and are hard to relate to as a part of the Heroes universe.
I still haven't understood - how is it with music in different castles? Is it generic for all or different? I am reluctant to launch HOMM4 to check that
Heroes are now another unit, killed and resurrested upon wish, even multiple times with immortality potions. That kills the atmosphere.
Heroes 4 have lost some tactics.
You can now gather all the resources around your castle day one without sacrificing a movement point with your hero. The creatures can do that... Before, you would have made choices.
There is very limited decision making on the battlefield due to no hexa-grid and no battle log. Back to ice age.
The combat is funny with creatures retaliating at the same time. They should at least retaliate after the attacker made the action, because now the animation is pointless as you get to see neither the attack nor the retaliation properly. I won't argue about simultaneous retaliation, but I am against it, and I don't think it added good things to this game.
Svetac:
While I like your idea of having a choice for the hero to enter the battle at his will, I don't think it suits the current situation. Too many choices for the artificial opponent, and NWC want to improve the AI. They should probably either go back to heroes off the battlefield, or heroes on the battlefield. Not both.
Your suggestion is for multiplayer, I guess.
____________
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 13, 2002 03:38 PM |
|
|
H4 has lost themes and atmosphere and that needs to be addressed for H5. Most important here is the town screens.
Creature animation: all versions have good and bad animations and what is good and bad varies between players. Play H4 for a year and you won't notice the Pikemen any more (unless you want to make of point of noticing it.) There is quite a lot of creatures that are not good in H3, but after some time you get used to them anyway. Of course, if you give up too early you will remember all the faults.
Some new creatures is something of a pre-requisite for a new game, so I couldn't disagree with you more on the point that it was wrong to add them.
Heroes are still unique in many ways. The fact that you can ressurrect tombstone heroes makes them different than creatures which you can't ressurrect after the battle has ended. Removing the immortality potion or making it last only until end of combat would prohibit abuse of the potion.
Heroes 4 has a lot more tactics and strategy in combat than H3 had. Sure some things are gone but a lot more has been added.
Resource gathering should be prohibited by requiring each army to have at least one Hero. This is to dissuade micromangement.
You do have squares on the battlefield and you do have a grid. These things were included in the first patch. If you're counting squares or hexagons doesn't matter, but it does matter a bit that the squares are a lot smaller than the hexagons were. A battle log is something they can add for heroes 5.
The animation is not pointless, in fact it's almost always correct. If you take consideration to all the exemptions you will realize that almost every action is animated the correct way. It's actually fairly rare that retaliation is simultaneous. It's usuallly circumvented by one thing or the other. First strike, no retaliation, retaliation already used, spell cast, area attack. Many combats are over without one simultaneous retaliation.
While there is a certain point in giving all creatures "first strike when attacking", this is not the only way to solve the retaliation.
|
|
shaowei
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2002 08:55 AM |
|
|
Sorry for bringing up this topic here, I was just trying to make the point that not all is fine and dandy with HOMM4.
Quote:
Creature animation: all versions have good and bad animations and what is good and bad varies between players.
True, I think that long years of playing HOMM3 have closed my eyes to some faults. Although that doesn't right the wrong of drawing the gryphon the way they did for HOMM4
Quote:
Some new creatures is something of a pre-requisite for a new game, so I couldn't disagree with you more on the point that it was wrong to add them.
They do have to "refresh" the game in every installment. Maybe the point to argue is the "mythology" of the creatures. There are numerous mythological creatures that didn't make it into the game; instead they took some weird (although fantastic) creatures like giant mantis or waspwort. What's wrong with manticore and wyvern?
About retaliation, true, there are other ways. I agree that is just a tactical feature one has to get used to.
Now back to the topic:
Quote:
You do have squares on the battlefield and you do have a grid. These things were included in the first patch. If you're counting squares or hexagons doesn't matter, but it does matter a bit that the squares are a lot smaller than the hexagons were. A battle log is something they can add for heroes 5.
Ok, then perhaps they can accomodate for that (by making larger squares/hexes) since heroes are now on the battlefield. Defense with level-up is good, but I want my tactical decisions to influence the battle as well (protect hero with troops etc).
My point is: give me a possibility to put my hero in the corner and have two "two-hexers" fully cover from melee attacks (and let me do it with a tactics/positioning skill before the combat, as well as precast an "air-shield"). So that the only activity of a hero-in-combat does not become "drinking immortality potions" or "casting heal on myself so that those medusae don't kill me on the next turn".
__________________________________________________________
This would be my suggestion for a skill (which was "tactics" in HOMM3). It should act as the mentioned skill, with various levels giving more way to move. The hero with superior "tactics" skill should be given the option to "wait" for the opponent to dislocate his forces. Then the superior "tactician" gets the option to react to the chess moves of his opponent. If both heroes have the same "tactics" skill level, the superiority should be decided by certain personal qualities (not sure what would be fitting more - haste, movement, or knowledge/intellingence).
This doesn't solve the "frail hero in the beginning" issue (as a hero might not have "tactics" by then), so that should be compensated with a bit higher starting defense.
____________
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 14, 2002 12:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You can't guide the "growth" of your heroes into what you desire as u could do it in H3 or H2.
Well, this is not all that difficult to fix. Less skills in each skill groups and more skill groups and removing the reliance of combat would fix this. (And then make starting heros in each class different and give them 5-6 starting skills, and problem solved.)
On the combats:
Are you serious? Do you really mean you don't win a combat with 10 angels against 4 mantises or 3 sea monsters? My inclination would be that I'd slaughter the enemy like a bug and with negligble losses.
Leprechauns are very good to summon. First they give Luck (which is a quite good spell), and then they act as a stack which you can sacrifice to take away a retaliation.) Luck reduces damage taken by 33% and it works both on melee damage as well as some direct damage spells.
|
|
UncleJR
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2002 06:04 PM |
|
|
HOMM V
Yes, there are some things I'd love to see carried over into HOMM V.
Flagging the water wheels, mills, etc. for instance. Who can argue that it's a whole lot easier to have the resources roll in once a week than to have a "gofer" hero who spends his/her time collecting the rent.
I love the fact that the creature dwellings don't just stop at the weekly allocation of creatures like HOMM III does. (e.g. 1 angel until he's recruited, and then wait a week. In HOMM IV you can let them acrue and then, caravan them to your town.)
Which brings me to another aspect of the game I like. Caravans. No more packmule heroes.
Talk all you will about how "difficult" the game is, or how different. I remember the first time I booted up H3 on the old computer. It was a far cry from H2, and I really wasn't sure I liked it. The strategy that had served me so well in H2 (who remembers the "genie bomb" strat, or the ghost strat), just didn't work any more. Thus I was forced to learn a whole new set of strategies. (cloning angels, taking that big stack of mighty gorgons to attack the stack of dragons and watching them die under the "terrible gaze".)
NOw we're faced with H4 and once again we're forced into a new strategy. Take this game for what it is, not what it isn't (i.e. H3).
On a side note, I read on another board that 3DO has no plans on updating H4, but is instead concentrating on H5. Let's hope that they spend a little more time on the AI, and above all, take what is best from all previous versions of the game.
I, personally, like unique heroes. Unfortunately H4 gives me a batch of generic heroes that I have to try to customize. I miss getting to take Solmyr and his chain lightning to go out early and conquer, or taking Caitlin so I can get that extra 350 gold a day when I'm playing at the impossible level. However, when I'm playing H3, I miss being able to restore a game from a couple of moves ago as a "autosave previous".
Then again, isn't what the "altar of wishes" is all about?
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 14, 2002 11:20 PM |
|
|
Since Svetac seems to have copied his post from The Round Table, I will copy my reply to it.
"They were either too weak or too powerful."
The statement would indicate that Heroes were balanced. It's part of strategic decisions not to engage in fights you can't win. Some Hero classes are much more or less suited against certain types of enemies. Good players knows which hero to use in which fight.
"Also there was no restriction on the number of heroes per party, and I think that this broke big part of the strategy of the game - the spellcasting."
I believe this is a natural consequence of introducing more creatures with spell-books, and several creatures where you can pick the spell being cast. Not even Heroes 3 had the restriction of 1 spell per round. It was only the Heroes who were restricted to this.
1. One Hero per Army
Actually I'm very much against one Hero per army. Heroes should be able to complement each other in battle. That's one of the points I enjoy about heroes 4. There is no need to try to put all money, creatures and best artifacts onto one Hero because a combination of Heroes might be better. You will inevitable get back the IMO lamentable strategy to make one particular hero much better than the others.
At least one Hero per army (tombstone or alive) is Ok with me. It removes a lot of possibilites for micromanagement which tends to just prolong game-play without adding strategy.
About scouts.... Every map I've seen has guarding stacks which stops single army scouts to enter enemy territory. The reason i want it removed is that players split away this 1 pikeman and let the Pikeman pick up all loose treasure and then dismisses or garrisons the pikeman afterwards. Game works better if only hero stacks can pick up treasures, so requiring 1 hero per army works fine.
2. Heroes in Combat
I prefer the Heroes 4 style of using heroes.
No hero at the side to begin with. Players are instead required to make a strategic decision on whether or not it's a good idea to attack to begin with, and a judgement on if they can protect the heroes.
Combat skills should be removed and split into several skill groups for the Warrior. The new skills will work similar to the Offence, Armorer and Archery skills in H3, and include both hero improvements and improvements to creature skills. You can't have one skill for Warriors and 5+ skills for Mages. That's bound to lead to problems.
Heroes 4 takes care of hero death admirably by allowing you to have several heroes in the army. It doesn't matter all that much if you lose a hero. Ressurrection is not far away anyway.
I'd say grid-size should be made bigger than in Heroes 4. Squares are too small and it's difficult to say who has line of sight to who.
3. Special Abilities
This might work if you assume just one Hero class per town. However, if you have only one Hero class and have specials likes the one listed then that might give some towns a great disadvante or advantage against other towns.
It sounds like it would be difficult to balance this proposal.
My own preference is to tailor developement through biofiles, that is individual bonuses for heroes. The first thing here is that each hero starts with 5-6 secondary skills, and the background also influences which secondary skills you are likely to be offered.
Special abilites comes from the class,(2 selected from perhaps 5) and from biofile (another 2 decided soley by hero). You could buy one of these when you get the Hero, and then get the choice perhaps every fifth or tenth level to buy another special.
(Of course with this approach you will not be able to select the Hero of your choice in the Tavern.)
4. Hero Classes
It sounds a bit restrictive with just 1 Hero class per town.
Getting rid of advanced classes sound like a good idea to me too. At the very least if they are kept then they should have really tough requirements and be much fewer in number.
5. The Skill System
"I think that it was essential part of the game that should be brought back."
No, actually. The race to get one hero which is much better than everyone else is something I don't want back at all.
I agree with most of what you say here, but I'd prefer spellpower to depend on how many magic secondary skills and subskills you have, rather than on some external number.
At 20% increased efficiency who would want to take Sorcery?
Stealth should be broken out as a new skill and new thief/spying skills added to it.
For Combat I'd say split it up in the skill groups like this:
- Toughness (+hero hp), Armorer/Defence, and special defence abilities. (like blocking)
- Melee (hero combat), Offence, and special melee abilites.
- Hero ranged attack, Archery, and speical ranged abilites. (This could be improving effectiveness for war machines like a catapult or ballista)
Lords will have two groups of skills:
Nobility, Estates, and Mining
and
Diplomacy, Leadership, Tactics (possibly)
6. Artifacts and their impact on Heroes
"The Artifacts should have requirements in order to be equiped."
Overall I feel this is bad idea. It's annoying to have artifacts that cannot be equipped. The vast majority of artifacts should be usable by everyone.
What could be considered is to have artifacts with two effects, and one of the effects require a certain skill to work. But if the artifacts you mentioned are useless unless you have a skill, then you will end up with too much junk.
7. Potions and Scrolls
I believe the result of your proposal in 6. will result in you carrying around a lot of useless artifacts insted
Potions needs to be revamped or removed. Scrolls have existed since Heroes 3. I believe they should be kept.
8. The look of the Heroes, Gender and Race
"Can you imagin female Wizard or Warlock?"
Actually, I can easily imagine them.
I can agree with a need of cutting down on number of animations for heroes. And also with the statement that gender and race is the two first things to look at, but to some extent you also need to look at starting class. For instance you need might and magic heroes of the more common classes. (Like humans, elves and dwarves and perhaps a few others.)
However, the fact you want to mount and dismount a horse (which would require quite a few frames of animations in itself.) and the fact that each type of hero will need a full set of animations both mounted and unmounted is somewhat in contrast to this.
UncleJR: Caravans, and flagging of warer wheels and the like are good additions i H4. Also necessary to reduce the amount og FoW on the map. I believe creature grew in H2 also so that is carried over from there.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Svetac
Promising
Known Hero
Saintified Paladin
|
|
posted November 18, 2002 07:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Also there was no restriction on the number of heroes per party, and I think that this broke big part of the strategy of the game - the spellcasting."
I believe this is a natural consequence of introducing more creatures with spell-books, and several creatures where you can pick the spell being cast. Not even Heroes 3 had the restriction of 1 spell per round. It was only the Heroes who were restricted to this.
While creatures have only few spells, Heroes have great range of spells, and this is taking out the strategy from the previous heroes games. Also I feel that the spells of the creatures that cast them, especially genies and mages, should be toned down, and balanced.
Quote:
Actually I'm very much against one Hero per army. Heroes should be able to complement each other in battle. That's one of the points I enjoy about heroes 4. There is no need to try to put all money, creatures and best artifacts onto one Hero because a combination of Heroes might be better. You will inevitable get back the IMO lamentable strategy to make one particular hero much better than the others.
Or than, heroes should have separate stack field among the army. They shouldn't take up creature slots. And there should be definite number of heroes per army - maybe 3 as a maximum.
Quote:
About scouts.... Every map I've seen has guarding stacks which stops single army scouts to enter enemy territory. The reason i want it removed is that players split away this 1 pikeman and let the Pikeman pick up all loose treasure and then dismisses or garrisons the pikeman afterwards. Game works better if only hero stacks can pick up treasures, so requiring 1 hero per army works fine.
Agree.
Quote:
I'd say grid-size should be made bigger than in Heroes 4. Squares are too small and it's difficult to say who has line of sight to who.
Since they are using the engine of H4, and they won't need to start the coding from scratch, I think that they better spend some time this time around and implement the old hex grid and fit the creatures in it.
Quote:
My own preference is to tailor developement through biofiles, that is individual bonuses for heroes. The first thing here is that each hero starts with 5-6 secondary skills, and the background also influences which secondary skills you are likely to be offered.
Isn't this much work to be done? And possible disbalance can raise from here. This is much more time consuming than what I suggested. In my case the classes should be balanced, this way you have to balance each hero individualy.
Quote:
4. Hero Classes
It sounds a bit restrictive with just 1 Hero class per town.
Getting rid of advanced classes sound like a good idea to me too. At the very least if they are kept then they should have really tough requirements and be much fewer in number.
I would like to see two classes per town. That is if they have time to make them good and distinguished. And I hope they have.
Quote:
6. Artifacts and their impact on Heroes
"The Artifacts should have requirements in order to be equiped."
Overall I feel this is bad idea. It's annoying to have artifacts that cannot be equipped. The vast majority of artifacts should be usable by everyone.
What could be considered is to have artifacts with two effects, and one of the effects require a certain skill to work. But if the artifacts you mentioned are useless unless you have a skill, then you will end up with too much junk.
This is contradictory to what you suggest. You want to have multiple heroes per army. So I imagine that that way, you'll have heroes that are trained in combat and others that are trained in magic. So the magic ones will cary the magic arties, while warriors will carry the might arties. Also the requirements can be toned down.
In H2&3 you needed basic wisdom to learn 3rd level spells. The same can be applied here. Anyone can carry +1, +2 arties, +3 will require basic skill, +4 advanced, +5 expert.
But I also like your idea, that powerful artifacts can have special powers, but only if you have the appropriate skill you can use it. Good idea Djive.
Quote:
I can agree with a need of cutting down on number of animations for heroes. And also with the statement that gender and race is the two first things to look at, but to some extent you also need to look at starting class. For instance you need might and magic heroes of the more common classes. (Like humans, elves and dwarves and perhaps a few others.)
I agree. But if they don't have time to make animations based on the race and gender, than they better make the classes unique in terms of race and gender.
Quote:
However, the fact you want to mount and dismount a horse (which would require quite a few frames of animations in itself.) and the fact that each type of hero will need a full set of animations both mounted and unmounted is somewhat in contrast to this.
I newer said that I want the hero to mount and dismount the horse. This can also be solved very rationaly.
Example:The hero is standing on the side of the battlefield on a horse. You want him to join the battle. He is riding out of the screen on his horse. He is entering the battlefield on his foot. In the background his horse, with no rider is taking the original position. No mount/dismount animation used.
____________
--- Paladin of the Macedon ---
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 18, 2002 08:16 PM |
|
|
"While creatures have only few spells, Heroes have great range of spells, and this is taking out the strategy from the previous heroes games."
Great range? It's much harder to get spells in H4 than in H3. It's especially hard to get different types / schools of spells, because of the requirements to learn them. The Heroes had a lot more spells available in H2 and h3. (And them I'm counting with low to mid level Heroes up to perhaps level 20.)
I don't think magi are overpowered. Genies are a bit too flexible win their spell seclection.
"Since they are using the engine of H4, and they won't need to start the coding from scratch, I think that they better spend some time this time around and implement the old hex grid and fit the creatures in it."
H4 engine = 3D. 3D doesn't work well with a hexagonal grid. (Creatures must face 4 or 8 ways, not 6 ways as is implied with the hex grid.) In fact, the graphical engine they use could very well require facing 4 or 8 ways.
Quote:
My own preference is to tailor developement through biofiles, that is individual bonuses for heroes. The first thing here is that each hero starts with 5-6 secondary skills, and the background also influences which secondary skills you are likely to be offered.
Isn't this much work to be done? And possible disbalance can raise from here. This is much more time consuming than what I suggested. In my case the classes should be balanced, this way you have to balance each hero individualy.
Errr... why? The secondary skills are supposed to be balanced to begin with, so why would you get imbalance because heroes start out with different skills and are prone to learn different skills. It's not like any hero gets more skills than any other hero.
I don't think this is much more time-consuming at all, sure some clerical additional work is required but i don't see implementing this as either difficult or time-consuming. The above configuaration is something you should do when you write the biofile.
Example: You have a Priest who has gotten a taste for say Death Magic and rulership (Nobility undeveloped).
You could then give the priest starting skills:
3 skill slots in Life Magic.
3 skill slots in Death Magic.
25% of the weight for level up depend on the biofile, so you could assign this weight as:
+10% chance to be offered Death magic skill.
+15% chance to be offered Nobility skill.
You get a few more attributes which are set on a per hero level, instead of only having the attributes on a per class basis.
I think it's much more work to include a number of special abilities that may or may not become available to a hero in a class and then balance the classes.
"This is contradictory to what you suggest. You want to have multiple heroes per army. So I imagine that that way, you'll have heroes that are trained in combat and others that are trained in magic. So the magic ones will cary the magic arties, while warriors will carry the might arties. Also the requirements can be toned down."
If you have level 10 to level 15 heroes (and you probably will have that for the final battle in a multi-player battles with medium map size) then those heroes won't have expert more than in perhaps 4-6 skills. If there then are about 40 skills (or perhaps a few more), then the chance to get Expert in a certain skill is fairly small, even if you got 2-3 heroes in the army.
It helps a bit to have a warrior-only but even then you could be out of luck, because there are several warrior skills and if you're unlucky you won't have the correct one. The problem is similar to trying to develope a Lord in a Chaos Town in H4. The game just won't let you have such a hero. (Your best hope is probably to hire an Archer and hope for Nobility to pop up as a choice.) And it's the same way with the magic skills and mage characters.
"I newer said that I want the hero to mount and dismount the horse. This can also be solved very rationaly.
Example:The hero is standing on the side of the battlefield on a horse. You want him to join the battle. He is riding out of the screen on his horse. He is entering the battlefield on his foot. In the background his horse, with no rider is taking the original position. No mount/dismount animation used."
Well, if they used such an approach I'd be slightly disappointed. It seems to be a cheap solution in a case where I'd expect something more. True, there could be some way of solving it but I can't think of any good ones.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Svetac
Promising
Known Hero
Saintified Paladin
|
|
posted November 19, 2002 01:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Great range? It's much harder to get spells in H4 than in H3. It's especially hard to get different types / schools of spells, because of the requirements to learn them. The Heroes had a lot more spells available in H2 and h3. (And them I'm counting with low to mid level Heroes up to perhaps level 20.)
Still heroes have greater range of spells when compared to creatures.
Quote:
H4 engine = 3D. 3D doesn't work well with a hexagonal grid. (Creatures must face 4 or 8 ways, not 6 ways as is implied with the hex grid.) In fact, the graphical engine they use could very well require facing 4 or 8 ways.
H4 engine = 2D. And yes it can work well with the hexagonal grid. When creature attack the animation will be executed in one of the 8 directions, after that the creature is placed facin only two possible directions - much like in H1,2,3.
Quote:
I don't think this is much more time-consuming at all, sure some clerical additional work is required but i don't see implementing this as either difficult or time-consuming. The above configuaration is something you should do when you write the biofile.
I would rather see them first making 2 distinguished hero classes per town with distinguished class skills (or special powers if you prefer). Though I would like to see your idea implemented.
Quote:
If you have level 10 to level 15 heroes (and you probably will have that for the final battle in a multi-player battles with medium map size) then those heroes won't have expert more than in perhaps 4-6 skills. If there then are about 40 skills (or perhaps a few more), then the chance to get Expert in a certain skill is fairly small, even if you got 2-3 heroes in the army.
You are thinking the H4 way here. I don't think that the exp needed per level, and the skills will remain the same. So this idea might work with the new system perhaps.
Quote:
Well, if they used such an approach I'd be slightly disappointed. It seems to be a cheap solution in a case where I'd expect something more. True, there could be some way of solving it but I can't think of any good ones.
If they go back to the left-to-right battlefield, this will look good, not cheap. If they stay with the isometrical battlefield like in H4, than:
a) the heroes beside the battlefield don't have to ride horses at all. They can simply stand, and when they decide to enter the batlle they simply walk in.
b) the heroes can ride the horses beside the battlefield and into the battle as well. they don't have to dismount.
____________
--- Paladin of the Macedon ---
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 21, 2002 12:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
H4 engine = 2D. And yes it can work well with the hexagonal grid. When creature attack the animation will be executed in one of the 8 directions, after that the creature is placed facin only two possible directions - much like in H1,2,3.
Well, it's a full 3D engine, but the way creatures move and animated are very much like 3D.
NWC has a lot of programming work if they are to exclude the importance of where the creature is facing. You don't have a problem with a 1-hex size creature, but if you begin to study the prroblem you need to solve with a 2-hex (or mult-hex) creature then I'd say that the problem you are facing looks quite complex.
Quote:
You are thinking the H4 way here. I don't think that the exp needed per level, and the skills will remain the same. So this idea might work with the new system perhaps.
I hope you are right but the Exp. system in H4 is exactly the same as in H3. While almost everything else changed this is one of very few things that didn't change.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Svetac
Promising
Known Hero
Saintified Paladin
|
|
posted November 21, 2002 03:14 AM |
bonus applied. |
|
Quote:
NWC has a lot of programming work if they are to exclude the importance of where the creature is facing. You don't have a problem with a 1-hex size creature, but if you begin to study the prroblem you need to solve with a 2-hex (or mult-hex) creature then I'd say that the problem you are facing looks quite complex.
To be hones, I would like to see the return of the old battlfield screen from more reasons:
1. Hexagons - they served us well in H1-3. And can provide good protection for the heroes on the battlefield.
2. The battlefields were more rich with the scenic landscapes in the background, that if animated can make the whole battlefield scene look amazing.
3. This will cut down the time needed to animate the creatures and heroes and this way improve their quality, because animators will have more time to work on each single creature. Mainly becasue this way they should care only about one position of the creature related to the point of view of the player, thus meaning that the creature should be animated with one facing side in mind. While in H4 we have 8 facings per creature, and the animator should take care about the look of the creature from all sides. And I think that we better see 2 dimensional creatures that are amazing in terms of look and animation, than semi-3D creatures with animation that suck, and with looks that many players disagree with.
4. The battlefield and the square grid in H4 proved to be there only from cosmetical purposes and this way ruined the battle feel. I would rather go to the old look, with creatures that take up 1-2 hexes, than sit with the new look with creatures that take up several squares but serve for no good.
Quote:
I hope you are right but the Exp. system in H4 is exactly the same as in H3. While almost everything else changed this is one of very few things that didn't change.
Well, I think they gonna fix the problem with new skill system, that would be some possible merge of the H3 and H4 systems, yet simple to understand and use.
____________
--- Paladin of the Macedon ---
|
|
shaowei
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted December 09, 2002 10:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
To be hones, I would like to see the return of the old battlfield screen from more reasons:
1. Hexagons - they served us well in H1-3. And can provide good protection for the heroes on the battlefield.
2. The battlefields were more rich with the scenic landscapes in the background, that if animated can make the whole battlefield scene look amazing.
3. And I think that we better see 2 dimensional creatures that are amazing in terms of look and animation, than semi-3D creatures with animation that suck, and with looks that many players disagree with.
4. The battlefield and the square grid in H4 proved to be there only from cosmetical purposes.
I can only say - YES! Especially to #3. Why make ugly-but-3D creatures if you can have amazing 2D.
My path of logics in "squares vs hexagons":
1. Some people liked the isometric view more. Some didn't, and I am not talking only for myself. So it is a feature that can go or stay.
2. If you want a good looking battle, you have to have 2D, or "side-view" look (for better/easier creature animation).
3. Given the side-view battlefield, there is no need to have squares anymore...
Moderator's note:This topic has been closed, as it refers to an older version of the game. To discuss Heroes 3, please go to Library Of Enlightenment, to discuss Heroes 4, please go to War Room Of Axeoth, to discuss Heroes 5, go to Temple Of Ashan.
____________
|
| |
|
|
