Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Heroes 5 - Temple of Ashan > Thread: This game takes too long!!!
Thread: This game takes too long!!! This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT»
phoenixreborn
phoenixreborn


Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
posted February 08, 2008 04:14 PM

Quote:

That's why I like to play with the best pros here... they play faster and we get to the fun part more quickly...



Is that true? I thought the pros spent more time abusing neutrals and took longer.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
H5TotEFakaTD
H5TotEFakaTD


N/S/E/W - I'm nowhere near...
posted February 08, 2008 04:30 PM

Quote:
Quote:

That's why I like to play with the best pros here... they play faster and we get to the fun part more quickly...



Is that true? I thought the pros spent more time abusing neutrals and took longer.


Yeah, the point isn't to begin the final battle with one population of the first and second lvl. creatures.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elvin
Elvin


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
posted February 08, 2008 06:15 PM

The fact that H5 stills has this 'annoying' feature is a sign of success Yeah I get that too once in a while.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
H5TotEFakaTD
H5TotEFakaTD


N/S/E/W - I'm nowhere near...
posted February 08, 2008 06:20 PM

Quote:
It is not that the game is too long.  It is too addictive.  Last night I planned to sleep by 11pm and was plenty tired- I crashed at 2am... again.  I try to limit my time, you know, for sleeping and stuff but it doesn't happen that way often.

Those are signs of a GREAT game and a lack of discipline!

There is a momentum with this game that makes me want "just one more turn," and you cannot deny it.  Why else sit for 7 hours?

Q  



Yeah, I know the thing.Yesterday I went to sleep at 6 in the morning.I played for at least 11 hours.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Momo
Momo


Promising
Famous Hero
posted February 09, 2008 02:08 PM
Edited by Momo at 14:20, 09 Feb 2008.

This thread has even a point? The game allows you to save your position and leave whenever you feel like, so no, it doesn't take too long. It takes as long as you want it to do.

Of course, a well founded complaint could be that the game doesn't take too long in and of itself, but rather that you spend too much time building position for a final fight that won't be too satisfactory -and last, indeed, a few minutes. One comes to think that out of a game that lasted five-six hours, actually only five-six minuted where game-deciding.

However, this is a false impression. More often than not, whoever wins/loses the 5-minutes battles had indeed won/lost the game long before that, when he/she made the choices that settled the current circumstances. Wich of course can be pretty annoying -why did you had to play for the last two hours if you indeed lost the game two hours ago when you (say) let the opponent take that town?

However, any attempt to fix this would mean attempting at making long-term strategy less relevant in this game. Meaning, lessening your reasons to play the game at all, since is (duh) a strategy game. In short, the game takes as long as it should, especially since the speed of every action is customizable.

Sure, it may sound less fair if you lost because your opponent got Implosion in his/her MGLv5 out of mere luck, with your few ways to prevent it or even knowing it, but even then you have the tools to fight a Magic based strategy, and Nival tried to lessen the impact of luck on the magic-oriented facions' performances.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
okrane
okrane


Famous Hero
posted February 09, 2008 03:06 PM

Would you say WoW lasts exactly how long you want it to last?

Let's face it. We like the games we like only because they bring us fun and satisfaction. Now there are games that can bring the satisfaction wanted in below one hour (Starcraft, Warcraft, Dota, any fps), games that bring it in 7-8 hours (Heroes), and games that bring it in 6 months-one year(World of Warcraft).

If satisfaction is about the same thing, which one of these would you prefer. I surely take the ones that last a shorter amount. That way I can take care of other aspects of my life and get some other types of satisfactions too...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
H5TotEFakaTD
H5TotEFakaTD


N/S/E/W - I'm nowhere near...
posted February 09, 2008 03:31 PM

Quote:
Would you say WoW lasts exactly how long you want it to last?

Let's face it. We like the games we like only because they bring us fun and satisfaction. Now there are games that can bring the satisfaction wanted in below one hour (Starcraft, Warcraft, Dota, any fps), games that bring it in 7-8 hours (Heroes), and games that bring it in 6 months-one year(World of Warcraft).

If satisfaction is about the same thing, which one of these would you prefer. I surely take the ones that last a shorter amount. That way I can take care of other aspects of my life and get some other types of satisfactions too...


Wow, that's poethic.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Momo
Momo


Promising
Famous Hero
posted February 09, 2008 04:00 PM bonus applied by alcibiades on 10 Feb 2008.

Quote:
Would you say WoW lasts exactly how long you want it to last?

Let's face it. We like the games we like only because they bring us fun and satisfaction. Now there are games that can bring the satisfaction wanted in below one hour (Starcraft, Warcraft, Dota, any fps), games that bring it in 7-8 hours (Heroes), and games that bring it in 6 months-one year(World of Warcraft).

If satisfaction is about the same thing, which one of these would you prefer. I surely take the ones that last a shorter amount. That way I can take care of other aspects of my life and get some other types of satisfactions too...


While very insightful, your post doesn't take into account some things.

First off, that WoW is a game with many declared problems regarding the time it demands. There is a great article about it by David Sirlin, somewhere in the internet. At highly competitive levels, WoW cares a lot about how many time you expend on it per day; Heroes doesn't, and you can play the same campaign in two days or two weeks, or even two months.

Of course you would then say: "Why I have to prepare for two months what will bring me ten minutes of actual satisfaction?" This leads us to the second problem.

Wich is, not all forms of satisfactions are the same. Let's cast aside Starcraft, because it's considered to be the Alpha and Omega of strategy games by far too many people and I don't think it's only due to the quickness of the gameplay; there are plenty of games that will "satisfy" you in less times than Heroes, problem being if they will satisfy you as much as Heroes would, or to say it better, in the same way Heroes would; this however lead us to what is satisfaction for you, otherwise we all would be playing rock/paper/scissors, wich is a fairly short game to play and ends in a bunch of seconds.

I beg your pardon if I mention another article; it appeared on Magicthegathering.com and was written by Richard Garfield, formerly creator of Magic: The Gathering. The article is about "busywork", meaning the "unfun" part of the game that you need to play to have access to the "fun" part of the game. Like, designing your deck in Magic is the only way to access the fun of playing your own deck. The murderous dream of a game designer is removing as busywork as possible, thus increasing the percentage of "fun" in a game. However, the biggest problem is that not every player perceives "busywork" the same, and namely some think A is busywork and B is fun, some other think the opposite; for example, I love designing my deck in Magic and often leave it to someone else to play just to know if it works -playing is almost "busywork" to me.

Sorry for this partial derail, back to the point: what is satisfactory (aka "fun") for you in Heroes? If it's just the final battles, then most of the game is "busywork" and it takes far, far too long for you. However, this is most likely due to the fact that you're playing the wrong game.

If building a city or more and managing a kingdom is boring to you, then yes, the game takes too long and you should play something else; maybe Starcraft, maybe not even a strategy game. If however you enjoy it, with all the strategical implications that each choice has, then you're not waiting 7-8 hours of busywork to get your fun, but having fun for 7-8 hours.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
InfernoX880
InfernoX880


Promising
Famous Hero
posted February 09, 2008 08:46 PM

It's quite a simple basis. Longer games make the end more fun. If you strive to play quick skirmishes, you'll end up going to maybe Tier 5 after which you use strategy to destroy neutrals for level ups as you make your way towards the enemy. In longer games, you can have weel established heroes, powerful armies, and sometimes exciting final battles.

I don't understand why one would complain that it takes too long. Isn't that what most gamers want? A long game? But I can understand an arguement against that. Still, why exactly is a long game bad? You don't need to play it all at once. I prefer it that way. If I'm in the mood for some Heroes 5 early game, I start a skirmish and save as I enter the mid-game. Then the next time I'm in the mood for some mid-game, I play again and so on.

Besides, longer games have more to offer. Artifacts, cool spells, and powerful heroes. Way more exciting than basic armies, low stats, and few boosts of any sort whatsoever.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 09, 2008 09:49 PM

For those enjoying pure battling, there's the duel mode. Too bad it's imbalanced and left to rot with numerous issues - and it could've been one of the best quick online games around, if only Nival took some effort and balanced it + made it more popular.

The game takes too long.. umm, dunno. The best player I know (a champion of some sort of h3 tournament in my city) beats me within 2-3 weeks every time, using a bag of tricks and his natural skill for this game, so no, in skilled hands it doesn't take very long.

Looks of course a lot worse when two noobs play each other, turtling in their castles endlessly. Who has the patience to play like that?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
okrane
okrane


Famous Hero
posted February 09, 2008 09:59 PM

It still depends on the map.
I doubt he could do it on Battle for Honor, for example...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
InfernoX880
InfernoX880


Promising
Famous Hero
posted February 09, 2008 11:43 PM

Duel Mode is pathetic. The Heroes are lame and some are notably better than others. The hero who specializes in gating can someone many stacks in few turns while avoiding damage to the originals while other heroes can barely use their racial skills. The Artifact Sets balance it a little, but look at Helmar, who clearly has the best one.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
phoenixreborn
phoenixreborn


Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
posted February 10, 2008 12:47 AM

Quote:
It still depends on the map.
I doubt he could do it on Battle for Honor, for example...


So therefore TOH map makers should make more small battle maps.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 10, 2008 10:23 AM

It's NIVAL who should standardize the map pool and isolate the "pro play" maps so people would have the standard 5-6 ones to practice on. Pretty much like.. yeah, you know who.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
phoenixreborn
phoenixreborn


Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
posted February 10, 2008 03:23 PM

@ Doomforge, haven't you given up on Nival? I have.

@ Okrane the point of this discussion isn't game time (the 2-3 week loss) it's real time which takes "too long".  I agree with you and it's frustrating to sit for 30 min. while a 'pro' player abuses neutrals.

Did you see Zenithale's replay of killing the blood-eyed cyclops with minimal inferno army?  That took a long time and that was just one fight.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mlai
mlai


Adventuring Hero
posted February 11, 2008 02:22 PM

I don't think the real problem is what a player considers busywork vs fun.  In a single player game, the entire experience is fun.

But the point of a MP game is for the opposing players to have as much interaction as possible, as much of the time as possible.  Parts of the game that were "fun" in MP (such as creeping), is "busywork" in SP if the players aren't interacting.

If players fight each other repeatedly through-out the course of the long game, nobody would consider it too boring.

I originally thought that this may be resolved if, by default, a player always gets to control the creeps when an enemy player fights a neutral stack.  But then I realized that this can get boring quickly as well, because creeps always lose.

Now I think that maybe what the game needs is expendable skirmish forces.  If every vs battle counts, then yes, there will only be 1 decisive battle at the very end of a long game.  But what if at regular intervals, players get access to expendable forces that they can throw at the opposing player?

For example, a new building that hires "mercenary heroes" for free or at a cheap fee.  You get 1 each week, or every 2 weeks.  They cannot be leveled up, cannot accept additional troops, cannot take treasure/mines, and will not fight neutrals.  Their only purpose is to be hired, and then go into enemy territory to mess with enemy towns, enemy mines, and enemy heroes.  As game weeks wear on, you get access to tougher and tougher merc heroes with better armies.  Merc heroes' default toughness will be affected by game time, the upgrade level of your merc hero building, and the development of your towns.

Tell me if that's a good idea.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DarkShadow
DarkShadow


Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
posted February 11, 2008 03:40 PM

Who bother's to look in game while it's your opponent's turn?I don't,and the longevity of creeping is skill to do it with no losse's.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Orodruin
Orodruin


Adventuring Hero
posted February 11, 2008 08:08 PM

@okrane  I'm certain that you already set up in the options menu the full speed for battles and hero's movement over land (for a try), does it bother you, I mean do you think it's a good way to hasten the game ( for example, to fasten battles you're sure to win when creeping) or is it not way of an option. I think it really works for multiplayer, specially when you try the Dynamic Battle mode.

____________

Yggdrasil is my inspiration.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
okrane
okrane


Famous Hero
posted February 11, 2008 08:48 PM

Some battles are to be played the way they are meant.

In multiplayer, if you don't lame that horde of Zombies with your 1 Sprite, and your oponent does it, you will lose.

I tried everything in order to make the game go fast. I play pretty fast myself, and I don't waste time pondering about stuff. But as the game is played in two the oponent must do the same.

And despite all these, it still last a huge amount of time.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Momo
Momo


Promising
Famous Hero
posted February 12, 2008 12:30 AM
Edited by Momo at 00:30, 12 Feb 2008.

@Mlai:

I don't know how good it would turn, it seems it creates a lot of room for abuse and brokeness.

However, a brilliant realization in your post is that in Multiplayer the definition of "busywork" changes because you play multiplayer mostly to interact with the opponent, therefore the game should maximize times where the players interact: congrats, a very good design policy.

A partial solution is cooperating; by cooperation, interaction one with the other is a lot improved. However more generally speaking I must admit that Heroes lacks something in this respect, and attempts at improving interaction in MP are advisable in the future (smaller maps? Border towns? Guards in mines? Faster game?).
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0460 seconds