|
| Thread: Ubisoft asks our Help on H5 features. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
valkyrica
Supreme Hero
|
posted May 23, 2004 07:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This is really just a dream, but how bout more then two players in a battle 
I think looking at your avatar took you too far
____________
I'm Guybrush Threepwood, mighty pirate
|
|
St_Anfi
Hired Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2004 08:40 PM |
|
|
aw come on... that would be so awesome tho, like 2vs2 in just one battle... that would be crazzzzzzzzzzzy
____________
Forcefulpuspus/St_Anfi
|
|
balcough_dra...
Supreme Hero
unlucky? i want to pump you up
|
posted May 24, 2004 01:15 AM |
|
|
h5 has to be good on its not
not copy aow
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted May 24, 2004 04:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone tell me have they mentioned anything about Chaining being in H5?
Would be alot of help if I knew now if they were gonna regress and bring back chaining. If so then I would know not to wait on H5 and find another game.
Jinxer
Regress lol, yeah. Regrees back to the greatest game of all time 
Rychen buddy, Heroes 3 was an AWESOME game, and I will agree that it was ALMOST perfect, there was a couple aspects of the game that drug it down, and the chaining aspect was the main one that kept it from being a 100% perfect game. I know ALOT of people like it, cause it lets them have fast sweeping of maps games, and they can get quit points etc, but I am judging it from a realistic game feature aspect.
There are slot of features in H3 I would have liked to seen in H4. And vice Versa. Just DONT want chaining back, that was the best improvement they made in newer Heroes verison.
Jinxer
|
|
insatiable
Supreme Hero
Ultimate N00bidity
|
posted May 24, 2004 09:31 AM |
|
|
chaining was amateurism
period.
____________
|
|
BargainMon
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted May 24, 2004 11:11 PM |
|
|
heroes V
Needs the BEST Map Generator ubi can come up with
Every Game should be new and exciting and prevent rushers from memorizing the map and taking most of the FUN out of playing. My humble thoughts, for what its worth.
____________
h4s "battered" footman
Low Bridge, Everybody Down
|
|
Blue_Camel
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 25, 2004 04:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
h5 has to be good on its not
not copy aow
i think i'm getting better at translating ball slave speech --> english..
"not" really means "own"
|
|
insatiable
Supreme Hero
Ultimate N00bidity
|
|
posted May 25, 2004 05:29 PM |
|
|
im sure though everybody read 'own'.. somehow
this is balcough magic
____________
|
|
rychenroller
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 25, 2004 11:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone tell me have they mentioned anything about Chaining being in H5?
Would be alot of help if I knew now if they were gonna regress and bring back chaining. If so then I would know not to wait on H5 and find another game.
Jinxer
Regress lol, yeah. Regrees back to the greatest game of all time
Rychen buddy, Heroes 3 was an AWESOME game, and I will agree that it was ALMOST perfect, there was a couple aspects of the game that drug it down, and the chaining aspect was the main one that kept it from being a 100% perfect game. I know ALOT of people like it, cause it lets them have fast sweeping of maps games, and they can get quit points etc, but I am judging it from a realistic game feature aspect.
There are slot of features in H3 I would have liked to seen in H4. And vice Versa. Just DONT want chaining back, that was the best improvement they made in newer Heroes verison.
Jinxer
Mike,
Would you play a game that you gave a rating of 95%, ie almost perfect? I think so. What if they made a game which is as good as heroes 3, if not better. The presence of chaining would turn you off such a great game? Realism isnt a priority in fantasy games, you only have to look at the game detail to see that, and chaining, while not realistic, contributed to the uniqueness of heroes 3. Personally, I would like to see chaining left out too, but its presence wouldnt stop me playing a game, that by all other accounts is perfect.
|
|
valkyrica
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 26, 2004 12:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Mike
who you talkin to here richierich ?!
____________
I'm Guybrush Threepwood, mighty pirate
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted May 26, 2004 12:30 AM |
|
|
Mike is Jinxer & it's true he loved heroes 3 like he loves grass  .
I think it's rediculous that he condems a game with an idea in his head that Chaining may sill be a factor & if it is who cares.
They seem to have some attention to it if there is no chaining in heroes 4 & if there is maybe it could be a bit diferent to fit the fun factor.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
pixie
Hired Hero
|
posted June 05, 2004 09:52 PM |
|
|
i want a sea town and all towns from h3
____________
|
|
Immortal
Adventuring Hero
Transylvanian Dread Knight
|
posted June 07, 2004 07:33 AM |
|
|
Then maybe they can put an option at the start of the game like the one with stationary monsters or wandering monsters.
Treat creatures with their own movement like in h4 , or only use hero movement....
|
|
Immortal
Adventuring Hero
Transylvanian Dread Knight
|
|
posted June 07, 2004 08:01 AM |
|
|
As any great game, there must be a final version of heroes, before it begins degrading too much...So in my oppinion , heroes 5 should be a game that contains what was good in all versions and forget about bad parts.
So i think h5 should have all creatures and buildings that were on the first 4 parts.I didnt saw altar of sacrifice in h4.I didnt see in h3 the crossbow that gived one extra catapult shot (i really missed that one).
There should be 6 or 9 factions (2 or 3 for good , evil and neutral ).I dont mind the h4 spells system.But make there an extra one called neutral spells or adventure spells that should be available in all castles (visions , view hero , town portal etc).
I think all native creatures should be available in that respective castle for the build (something like in heroes 2)
EX. Castle should have easants ,squires, marksmen ,pikes, swordmans, monks , balistas , champions , angels).But the hero have 6-7 slots and cant take all of them, so the player will decide which ones he will use for combat and which for defense purposes.
That all for now , but i`ll post more if some new ideas come to me
|
|
mike11
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2004 05:53 PM |
|
|
Can we please design it so we don't spend 15 hours playing solo against the computer, only to be over in a 5 min fight with a human, at the end?
____________
Wez - WoW Darkspear 60 UD Priest - Herb/Alch
Timezone = PST ( EST -3, GMT -8 )
Wez - WoW Archimonde 60 Human Priest
Wez - SWG Bria TKM/Doc/Fencer
Mike11 - HOMMIV TOH Legionaire
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2004 06:26 PM |
|
|
What I want to see from previous HOMMs:
HOMM 1:
Everything.
HOMM 2:
Some creatures have more than one upgrade.
Ultimate Artefacts.
Genies.
HOMM 3:
Every creature has an upgrade.
Hero "doll" to equip artefacts on.
Grail structure.
Necropolis and Inferno SEPERATE.
Combined artefacts.
Hero specialties.
Conflux.
Spell system.
HOMM 4:
Heroes in combat.
3D Graphics.
Branched dwelling-building path.
Line of sight.
First Strike.
Several/no heroes in an army.
Ability to choose spellcasting creature's spells. (ex: Faerie Dragon}.
Spell system.
Every creature has a special ability.
I suggest using two spell systems, HOMM 3 and HOMM 4. Two school systems: Life, for example, and Fire.
I suggest there to be branched creature-building with 1 or more upgrades. For example, you could build either a Peasant, a Pikeman, or a Squire. The Peasant would be weak, and be numerous and cheap. The Pikeman would be average, and upgrade to a Haleberdier, which is more expensive and better in every way. The Squire would be tough and expensive for its level, upgrade either to a Macemaster, an attack-oriented creature, or a Flailer, a defensive-oriented creature.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
balcough_dra...
Supreme Hero
unlucky? i want to pump you up
|
|
posted June 10, 2004 06:33 PM |
|
|
what are you talking about?
all that stuff is in thegames already lol
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2004 07:00 PM |
|
|
|
LoneRiver
Tavern Dweller
Defender of Light and Truth
|
|
posted June 14, 2004 01:48 AM |
|
|
I would like to see the heroes removed from combat, but I would also like the ability to combine 2 heroes in a unit if I want. This would however make the group too powerful against enemy creature groups.
To solve this I would love to see each unit have a hero type:
Thieves - Leader
Knights - Commander
Footmen - Sargent
Angel - Arch Angel
Orcs - Chief
Wizards - Mage
Etc...
They could have level development built in to their type and prgress in level with the strength of the unit they command.
Even if they don't take the hero's out of direct combat I hope they take on my unit hero/leader idea.
LR
____________
Baruch Habba Bashem Adonai
Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord
LoneRiver
|
|
Immortal
Adventuring Hero
Transylvanian Dread Knight
|
|
posted June 14, 2004 03:50 AM |
|
|
I was thinking about a fact these days and i really don`t understand why everybody want different heroes with specialities.I agree, this gives them a little more personality than in heroes 4, but if there will be specialities in heroes 5, i think they should be much less powerfull than in heroes 3.For example, Ivor should gives elves 1 speed and thats it.Or say it 1 attack 1 defense.I think this will avoid the arguing before games about what everybody will play.In the last 30 games i played or started on zone, i don`t know if there were 5 in which the opponent didnt chosed rampart with Ivor or Mephala , or Castle with Caitlin , or Fortress with Tazar , or Stronghold with Crag Hack.Not to mention that on every game u see rules like no logistic hero , no diplomacy , no hero 3-4 spell , no Mullich....so why do you all ask for specialities when you ban 3/4 of them and only play 5 heroes?...isn`t it more fair the way it is in heroes 4? You pick the class you want and it will be your fault if your hero will be weaker than the one of your opponent, and not because his speciality is better than yours....
____________
You and which army?
|
|
|
|
