|
| Thread: E.P.I.C. Visions of HoM&M Thread! |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
posted August 24, 2020 08:14 PM |
|
|
veteran_player said:
MattII said:
So like in HoMM4 where you had untapped veins of resources, but needed a hero to build a mine there? Not a bad idea.
Thanks to you, Matt, we've been able to articulate a potentially successful new strategy path for the series to evolve in! Building upon the historic success of both Heroes 1 and Heroes 5! The - Heroes 3 - focused approach of MMHVII - having proved itself to be a blind alley and a dead-end, there is still light at the end of the strategic tunnel that is HoM&M design and development! 
The problem is HoMM7 didn't follow the HoMM3 formula, if it had we'd have had something closer to HoMM5, not the weird mix of HoMM5/6 the game actually was.
|
|
veteran_player
Adventuring Hero
|
posted August 24, 2020 08:34 PM |
|
|
frostymuaddib said:
PandaTar said:
I think what kills the most these games, for me at least, is the multiplayer feature. Multiplayer sort of forces the game to balance factions at some point (not thoroughly, of course). This is the main reason why I started to lose my steam of likeness to HoMM when the third installment was released.
I couldn't agree more. I'm all for multiplayer where it makes sense. SC2 did that rather well, factions in multiplayer are one thing, but in single player are/can be completely different. But, I do not think that Heroes games should be multiplayer oriented, the game loses the charm.
I played multi-player StarCraft for 20 years and loved it! (In college, I even designed my own multiplayer map for it: http://sc.nibbits.com/maps/view/125046/)
HoM&M is different - more inclined toward single-player(vs the AI!). But the strategic challenge can be even greater than StarCraft! It has its own tbs appeal...
____________
|
|
veteran_player
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 24, 2020 08:48 PM |
|
|
MattII said:
The problem is HoMM7 didn't follow the HoMM3 formula, if it had we'd have had something closer to HoMM5, not the weird mix of HoMM5/6 the game actually was.
I actually read somewhere that Limbic had tried to build upon the apparent success of both H3 and H5 in designing H7. They floundered! And now we have hindsight! 
____________
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 24, 2020 08:50 PM |
|
Edited by MattII at 20:52, 24 Aug 2020.
|
veteran_player said:
MattII said:
The problem is HoMM7 didn't follow the HoMM3 formula, if it had we'd have had something closer to HoMM5, not the weird mix of HoMM5/6 the game actually was.
I actually read somewhere that Limbic had tried to build upon the apparent success of both H3 and H5 in designing H7. They floundered! And now we have hindsight!
The skills work more like those of H6 than H5.
|
|
FirePaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
DoR Modder
|
|
posted August 24, 2020 08:57 PM |
|
|
veteran_player said:
MattII said:
The problem is HoMM7 didn't follow the HoMM3 formula, if it had we'd have had something closer to HoMM5, not the weird mix of HoMM5/6 the game actually was.
I actually read somewhere that Limbic had tried to build upon the apparent success of both H3 and H5 in designing H7. They floundered! And now we have hindsight!
Uh, they didn't do that, in the end, and the game wasn't polished, they added spiders, they changed much stuff after all, etc.
____________
Enshackling time itself, heralds of the Ancients among their heat-depleted land.... Who could they be, who could rally the beings of the East and the North and control the mortals' fate?
|
|
PandaTar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
|
|
posted August 24, 2020 09:23 PM |
|
|
Exactly. I remember when they were releasing stuff in that blog. Just artwork, artwork, spiders, foul townscreens, people already complaining. Then, when it was too late to really discuss or change something more important, they showed mechanics. It was right there that it was doomed. Tons of really oddity and beyond-crazy decision-making that was going to stick, because 'it was too late'.
We had hindsight since before that time and they should too. But apparently, something (and someone) screwed big time.
Imho opinion, H3 is H3, H5 is H5. There's no thing that can be a sort of metamorphosis of these things, or it'll fail again. It need to take basic stuff, general key-features and work from there and avoid much of inheritance and tinkering.
Probably ditch spiders in the process.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS – Portal 2
|
|
FirePaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
DoR Modder
|
|
posted August 24, 2020 09:43 PM |
|
|
We can just pray for Fanstratics and Countryballs: Heroes (which I'm 90% sure it'll be a success, regarding the game itself), or maybe smt else, who knows, since Ubicrap probably just keeps HoMM as a title on the shelf and will do that for years to come as well. Exception being the China market, ofc, easy money.
____________
Enshackling time itself, heralds of the Ancients among their heat-depleted land.... Who could they be, who could rally the beings of the East and the North and control the mortals' fate?
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 25, 2020 01:38 PM |
|
|
|
I must admit, one concept from Armageddon's Blade that did intrigue me was the fact that Dracon and Gelu could upgrade some types of troops
|
|
veteran_player
Adventuring Hero
|
posted August 25, 2020 06:11 PM |
|
|
MattII said:
The problem is HoMM7 didn't follow the HoMM3 formula, if it had we'd have had something closer to HoMM5, not the weird mix of HoMM5/6 the game actually was.
Developing a new HoMM is a complicated software project, but with our accumulated hindsight, it can also be successful. HoMMV was very successful, MMHVI was mildly successful, and MMHVII - flopped - in pleasing the core fanbase!
You and me, Matt(along with others), have already formulated a potential way forward, based on strategy from 25 years of experience.
The most important thing we can hope for in a new release is that it is challenging in a fun way! I have left many notes and observations on the evolution of the genre over the years, but the first and foremost thing we should insist on in a new release is that it just - plain - fun! And HoMM5.5 is the current title-holder in that regard! 
____________
|
|
PandaTar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
|
|
posted August 25, 2020 07:00 PM |
|
|
veteran_player said:
The most important thing we can hope for in a new release is that it is challenging in a fun way!
But that's the no-right-answer issue.
I prefer playing the game solo, campaigns, nice SP maps, random maps and take my time. I am completely not made for multiplayer and against its huge mandatory influence and its influence on all aspects of the game.
Nowadays, I find no HoMM games fun at all. I would, if I was younger, with different mind-set as I had, different priorities. Releasing a game mirroing H3 or H5, 5.5 and whanot is not something I want to buy. Mainly because these games already exist, so play them.
Multiplayer players enjoy the game in a more fast-paced action – and balanced –, where you don't have to delve deep into this and that, so you can make turns not to drag on indefinitely. That's quite understandable, of course.
The problem with mainly enjoying SP is that it requires some smart AI when you want challenge, and that was never the game's forte (as Quantomas have been working years to improve H5's). Some other issues bother me today, which didn't bother me years back: infinite numbers of creatures in battle, too many upgrades (makes them look vain) – and change from one to the other, as if metamorphosis is an easy thing –, you keep all your treasure even when you have no town to store it (where do you keep it, suspended in limbo and you withdraw out of nowhere?), chess-like minuscule battlefield, lack of interactive elements, weather and nature-things, heroes are plainly lacking depth (aside from one specialty perk, ID photo and name, another hero can basically be just a copy-and-paste), too many goddamn human heroes everywhere and all the other humanoids. These to number a few.
There are solutions for these situations I find quite elegant (or fun), but that's another personal issue. As I had in proposals, having equipment for troops could prune unnecessary upgrades (say you have pikeman that can equip spears or polearms, each giving a different perk that you can use fighting different armies. You actually use your blacksmith in town to produce those and you can have armies with half numbers equipped as well, sharing % of effectiveness). An AoW feature regarding mounts for heroes helping with some perks and movement, instead of having only humanoid riders ruling everything. More unique heroes belonging to a particular class or unit-tier-wise or not having any class at all, but unique skill settings, personal perks. Army size limitation: as in late game it almost all comes to which has more and which hero with the most ridiculous spell cast the spell first. If you lose your kingdom, you lose your resources (make use of banks, bury gold, the hell), decent-sized battlefield, more realistic and prone to new elements to influence strategies. Aside from one or another obstacle, you always have a cute plain ground. I am sure terrain perks, ground elevation, weather, surroundings, time of day, all these things counted too much in battles to be ditched and become a simply small painted square.
I really don't expect another Heroes game, if it ever gets here, to feel fun anymore, specially if it remains cimented on formulae that worked years back. Some of us might confuse nostalgia for a game for nostalgia for the feeling brought by that game, which is different. H2 felt the best, H3 felt different (and then somewhat wrong). H4 was a shock at first, then got to like it. H5 was when the tide started to turn and my brain started to say 'no, no, that won't do', yet I persevered (skill system was kinda cute and I missed some units that were not present in H4; not to mention H4 to H5 hiatus, so it was something anticipated). I would play any game today that would bring the feeling of H2 back, even if it's not a Heroes game, but another strategy one. For me today, that's the healthiest path I chose to follow.
And in a huge community such as this one, fun is hard to spot on. A bunch of fans will always be left out of it. I sort of made peace with that already.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS – Portal 2
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2020 04:51 AM |
|
|
Hm, limiting army sizes... I wouldn't myself do it by limiting how many troops each hero can have, but by introducing an upkeep cost on troops, either in gold, magic, or some other way.
Also, no mass spells, but heroes with a particular skill/perk/etc can cast a particular spell multiple times in a round, rather than just once.
I also wouldn't mind having more kingdom development in play. Not just building mines as in HoMM4, but also building roads, etc.
Of course, if we really want to change things up, we really need to change something fundamental about the game.
|
|
Alon
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2020 01:23 PM |
|
|
MattII said:
Hm, limiting army sizes... I wouldn't myself do it by limiting how many troops each hero can have, but by introducing an upkeep cost on troops, either in gold, magic, or some other way.
I kinda like a food upkeep resource that requires heroes to take food from the countryside. Of course this resource is not relevant to the undead or to constructs, so Necropolis and to some extent Academy play very different that way...
____________
|
|
PandaTar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
|
|
posted August 26, 2020 01:43 PM |
|
Edited by PandaTar at 13:46, 26 Aug 2020.
|
MattII said:
Hm, limiting army sizes... I wouldn't myself do it by limiting how many troops each hero can have, but by introducing an upkeep cost on troops, either in gold, magic, or some other way.
Yes, upkeep is one of the things that may limit it, without putting down in numbers. I remember in CH that it was mentioned maintenance of the kingdom as a whole, like building and maintaining roads, and the like, which can be introduced by improving logistics-like skills, diplomacy, 'happiness' around your kingdom. Happy people, more people to join ranks, or produce food, there are a plethora of things to explore there. Upkeep itself also limit costs, because you may not want to keep your income too low maintaining a huge army, and then you happen to need gold badly suddenly, and then you don't have it.
Alon said:
Of course this resource is not relevant to the undead or to constructs, so Necropolis and to some extent Academy play very different that way...
On the setting I am designing, keeping animated, automatons or undead up and running requires levels of power of the conjurer, and constant mana draining. As well as summoning. But my Necropolis has just ... I think 2 or 3 undead units.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS – Portal 2
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2020 01:47 PM |
|
Edited by MattII at 13:54, 26 Aug 2020.
|
Alon said:
MattII said:
Hm, limiting army sizes... I wouldn't myself do it by limiting how many troops each hero can have, but by introducing an upkeep cost on troops, either in gold, magic, or some other way.
I kinda like a food upkeep resource that requires heroes to take food from the countryside. Of course this resource is not relevant to the undead or to constructs, so Necropolis and to some extent Academy play very different that way...
Food isn't a resource in the game currently, but for humanoid troops at least, gold could do. I thought maybe magic for Necropolis, or maybe some fiat 'Necromancic Energy' thing.
|
|
veteran_player
Adventuring Hero
|
posted August 29, 2020 07:34 PM |
|
|
re.. r-t-s vs t-b-s
Another good, more recent strategy release that I remember and loved playing, was World in Conflict. It had unique game-play and intense multiplayer.
____________
|
|
NimoStar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Modding the Unmoddable
|
|
posted August 29, 2020 10:03 PM |
|
|
Mantainance for armies is what would keep the game grounded according to the map resources and town upgrades instead of snowballing army sizes to infinity (which is already a problem in H3 late game balance). It would also work to make diplomacy not OP since if you take those creatures, you need to keep paying for them. Also gives a good reason to dissolve armies.
Paradox games such as Europa Universalis use a simple gold upkeep, and it works. It keeps armies tethered to your income and gives an incentive to concentrate force, then disband if needed (buit you become vulnerable in return for the resource buildup it allows)
____________
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2020 01:07 PM |
|
|
|
Okay, I'm going to make the suggestion that you can have the random maps either be 'developed' (as in most Heroes games), or 'undeveloped', wherein, apart from an Ore Pit and Sawmill for each player town, all other resources veins in the game are untapped, very few if any roads are in place, and the neutral towns are fully neutral, so the first visitor gets to select their alignment.
|
|
PandaTar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
|
|
posted September 02, 2020 03:40 PM |
|
|
For neutral towns, I'd point to something like a construction site, then. You get some resources and have it done the way you want. I would not like, though, if you had all freedom as to choose which faction. For me, it makes sense that it could only be your own current faction, OR, if you already own another town from another faction, to be able to reproduce that in addition to your starting faction, because you would have the knowledge of its infrastructure.
It would feel strange that you would have the specs to fund and build a town of your opposing faction out of the blue. ^_^
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS – Portal 2
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2020 10:31 PM |
|
Edited by MattII at 23:01, 02 Sep 2020.
|
|
Well yes, obviously there would be some limits there in how you pick the faction of the town.
|
|
Alon
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2020 05:37 AM |
|
|
This is why I am thinking in terms of that city-fortress kludge: cities preexist and are always faction-neutral, fortresses are factional and you can build them on the map or within cities and if they're taken then they're destroyed so the opponent can't build your faction's units and you can't build theirs.
If you want to be especially medieval-accurate, you can even completely untether the tech tree from the cities. Cities are just convenient locations that generate income if you flag them, and you can build a citadel (=in-city fortress) to help defend your income source from the enemy but the city itself doesn't really get involved in the fight any more than a mine does.
____________
|
| |
|
|
