|
| Thread: Things that H6 did right |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Simpelicity
Promising
Famous Hero
Video maker
|
posted September 27, 2012 08:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The thing is that you thought you had a point, but you have none, and you come up with wrong claims and wrong conclusions to support the assumption that there might be options I don't consider.
That, however, is irrelevant either, because that's true for EVERYTHING. For all and everything there may be options and stuff I, you or everyone else do not consider, but when I read a story, play a game or watch a movie, if something doesn't seem right I don't start looking for excuses or options that may explain the ... gap. It's the task of the story, movie, game or book to deliver that, to make it believable. If it doesn't do that, if there are contradictions, inconsistencies and so on - bad for them. They sisn't do their homework.
Period.
I didn't read this whole side argument (felt a little pointless), but I'm pretty sure you're not understanding him. I don't know specifically what his argument was, but his point was that you're reading the whole thing wrong - that your basic premise isn't right. Not that the gap in the story has this or that excuse (that the game didn't point out), but that you're reading the story wrong. It's a little hard to explain. The story moves forward following a certain set of factors, standards, whatever. They explain and/or justify what's happening. The story is a byproduct of how all those factors interact with each other. If there's a gap, and that's what you seem to be going on about, it's just something that either isn't explained by said factors or that seems to go against the existing factors. And to you he's just trying to justify that gap by adding another factor, which is bullcrap, yes. But, as I understand it, what he's trying to say is that the factors from which you are reading the story are wrong in and of themselves (at least partially), which is why they lead you to a gap, a nonexistant gap if you take the "proper" factors. Very obscure I know. I don't think I'm using the right words for it anyways. But at least I tried.
____________
"You r the shakespeare of heroes vi, in every single battle i say: "he is gonna to loss"." - Cumulo88
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted September 27, 2012 08:43 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2012 09:42 PM |
|
|
Simpelicity, your name is some strange ironic allusion, right.
In any case the trouble here is, that there is no story. As I pointed out a couple of times, and as Elvin said himself, the ability Life Drain is an evolution of the high level spell Vampirism of Heroes V, which has its predecessor in Vampiric Touch, a high level spell of Heroes IV which is a spell that basically changes the spell recipient into a being that has the ability of a Vampire which is a special attack that drains their victims of their life, killing it in the process, while using part of that life to regenerate.
While under the influence of the spell the recipient is, for all intents and purposes UNDEAD with all appropriate effects.
In game terms this is a high level spell because it is powerful; storywise it's a high-level spell because it accomplishes a lot.
Life Drain does nothing like that. It doesn't change the recipient into an undead being, so it doesn't change the nature of the attack - also it works from a distance. Also, it's a very simple and easy spell that you can learn immediately, therefore it's not complex. So where IS the story here?
The spell is clearly better than the other resurrection spells, the longer the game lasts. If you have high numbers of creatures, the ability is extremely powerful. You can cast it on, say, Crushers, and with their double attack they can compensate a lot of retaliation damage. That's the inconsistency in game terms.
Now, Elvin said HoMM VI did that well.
Did it?
Come on.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 27, 2012 10:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Did it?
Well, they did not associate it with the undead or touch (Nothing about "Life drain" suggests that you have to touch your target or be undead) and they gave it a rather relatively low power (especially when compared to H4 Vampiric touch) so I would say mission accomplished... but obviously I'm wrong and invalid for reasons you have stated time and again before.
BTW, I agree with the list Elvin made and rather like the spell Life Drain, I would really just add the ability to purchase higher-leveled heroes as wanted/ needed (With the note that there could have been fewer to chose from...).
Things that would have been nice if they had been made and implemented properly: The Core-Elite-Champion system (beyond army synergy, balance at the levels themselves), Magic skills (If they had been spell focuses instead of spells themselves it would have been better), Pooled creature growth (Straying from the traditional 50% fortification boost and giving building upgrades creature growth felt... strange, the first few games I played), Leadership and Destiny (Making them hero stats was interesting... but they should have had more worth for every point. +1% is pathetic), all the different elementals (Light and Water need their own sprites, and that's the entirety of this complaint.  ).
Quote:
Dragon logic is bizarre.
It really is.  Oh, and humans just serve the Dragon of Light, unlike the angels they were not created by it.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
chrambo
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2012 11:27 PM |
|
|
So... in all honesty I couldnt' care less if the called it "magical-happy-rainbow-drain-dance", as long as it does what the tooltip says (which, in all likelyhood, it doesn't).
Another thing that was *almost* right about Heroes VI was the patches. I certainly appreciate what Limbic did. Unfortunately that source code must be a beast, because it seems like minor seemingly harmless changes would affect the strangest things (like checker board townscreens, for example).
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted September 27, 2012 11:40 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 23:45, 27 Sep 2012.
|
JollyJoker said:
Quote:
Since I don't know exactly how the spells work in those games I can't say anything about it
All the crucial information is written there. It's not a long lecture. There is no info about those spells killing anything. As the name implies those spells drain the life force of victims, and there is no need for being undead to use them. That's why I gave you those examples.
Quote:
You're kidding, are you? Why would we have ANY kind of resurrection?
No, you're kidding, right? Healing/resurrection spells have been a part of the franchise from as long as I can remember. Animate Dead was always the reason I hated Necromancers in Heroes III But it was part of their way of doing things... I am a type of player that always tries to minimize unit losses, and believe me there are many players who use such strategies. For me, I can possibly think of a Heroes game without healing/resurrection spells. So do not turn down such a way of playing the game because you don't like playing it in such a way.
Quote:
IT IS NORMAL TO LOSE CREATURES!!!
Of course casualties in Heroes are normal but... steady income of reinforcements is all that matters? It's very common in the game that there comes a time when you are not earning enough money to buy all units available for recruitment in your towns. It's not a case of wrong management, it's a matter of not having enough gold income, because units in Heroes 6 are expensive (AI doesn't seem to have such problems :/). Of course you don't have to build all those structures and building upgrades, but constant progress is the essence of Heroes games. In that case you must cherish those units which you bought, because there will come a time when your enemy overpowers you (especially AI player). And no battle strategy will help you if you'll have not enough units. If you loose your main army, or at least a big part of your units, it will be hard to hold off an enemy that overpowers you with numbers if he is quick enough to attack you, because you will not have enough time to fill the gap between the size of your forces and his. So the trick is to put a resistance with healing spells, to prolong the battle, that even if you loose it, you'll make like 1:3 loss ratio in your favor. And healing spells really help in this, believe me...
Quote:
The units are tougher than in every other heroes game
Mmm... I believe Black Dragons (H3 or H4) or Archangels (H3) were tougher then any unit in H6. There are no units in H6 that devastate so many other units with such ease, well maybe Pit Lords because of their special ability. Maybe lower tier units are tougher in H6, but still, they die quickly, so they are cannon fodder, and who would resurrect those (in late-game that is). Resurrection and healing spells are reserved for your expensive, precious, higher tier units. Don't tell me you like loosing those...
Quote:
faction-specific abilities would be needed. And a very POWERFUL game mechanism that allows to bring back DEAD creatures would certainly be a candidate then for such a faction-specific thing. After all - DEMONS DO NOT DIE AT ALL
No, there was never such a thing in Heroes games. Powerful racial traits that heal units for every faction present in the game? Why is that even needed if you have three schools with healing magic in H6? And if you insist on "bringing" back demons from Sheogh, there's always this Inferno Might Tear-specific ability (if I remember correctly) that supplements your lost units with gated ones after battle...
I believe you are trying to change something which has always functioned properly in Heroes games, because you have your style of playing the game. No healing spells? That's completely absurd for me. And why is this even important how the spell works in the first place. Is it really that important if the devs give a description of how the spell works in the games universe, in the midst of how the game is bugged and how there are more pressing matters to attend to? I understand you don't like the mechanic. But why do you bring all is this logical/illogical nonsense into it? It's not worth it, it's a single spell for f's sake...
Like einomida said:
Quote:
H6 doesn't fit your "rules" and you're trying to shoot it down
I agree with gnomes2169's and einomida's points of view, and their explanation of Drain Life. But you are apparently discarding anything that doesn't "comply" with your vision of game "rules". But at least be more considerate with other points of view, because there is truth behind what we say if we three agree that Drain Life spell in H6 can be explained one way or the other, and for me those explanations are sufficient. If you don't like healing spells then don't use them, and invest your skill points in different abilities...
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 12:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's very common in the game that there comes a time when you are not earning enough money to buy all units available for recruitment in your towns. It's not a case of wrong management
..It is a matter of cheating AI and area control.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 12:10 AM |
|
Edited by Elvin at 00:12, 28 Sep 2012.
|
Reason I wanted the discussion to steer away for this argument is that it really offers nothing to the discussion than playing devil's advocate to each other and argue on the mechanics of the nature of magic as if we talked about ki manipulation.
As you well know I am not a fan of the healing overkill this game introduced. We are not in disagreement that this spell is better suited for the undead and that learning it at lvl 1 is lame, I already mentioned how I'd like to see it with a magic guild implementation. What I did say was how the spell was redesigned to work better as a lower level spell: Having a limited amount of drain, a short duration that does not improve with spellpower and working with ranged attacks. Just a spell that channels life energies from a unit to another which might as well have been an instant activated effect but it kept the attack and receive gameplay which I much prefer. Which is not to say that both spells cannot exist at the same time, a life drain and a death ripple/wail of netherworld. In a setting where mages can pull objects back and forth with telekinesis I see no reason why a dark mage wouldn't be able to similarly manipulate another's vitality/health/whatever in a similar way(pull it out or put it in so to speak) - its more inner/spiritual counterpart.
But all this? Nobody cares. Such indepth explanations are left for the lore creators and subject to retcon anyway - the Ashan setting has received quite a few and you can bet anything you want that H7 will also have retcons. That is why I said give it a rest. Not just you of course, that refers to everyone. Please post within the thread's guidelines, if so want to discuss life drain so bad you can always start another topic.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 12:40 AM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 00:43, 28 Sep 2012.
|
Elvin, what you said is in fact the exact same thing I was trying to explain to JollyJoker from the beginning. And not only me...
Drain Life enables "attack and receive" play-style, which is a marvel for those who like the "heal, and reduce casualties us much as you can" strategy. Healing based magic support is preferred by many players not only me.
And this whole discussion about the lore behind the spell is pointless. Drain Life is such a common spell in many games and was presented in so many ways (weapon enchantments, warlock spells, vampire touch etc) that there is no point in trying to find a logic for it in H6. It's just is, and that's all that matters. I accept it's form and I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be in game.
The discussion reached such proportions, because many other aspects of the game (preferred play style, skill tree construction) where touched in the process, so I couldn't stay silent about them...
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 12:53 AM |
|
|
|
I hate casualties so much, I quit playing immediately after I've started a new game and pretend I never lost anything.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 09:08 AM |
|
|
I have to say that I'm quite pissed about the way one absurd claim after another is made and how I'm suddenly supposed to have said ridiculous things, just to have something to argue against. "No healing spells"? Where did I say that?
It makes no sense to discuss serious issues with people who either can't read properly or would attack things never said, just to continue a pointless discussion. For me this sounds a bit like dogs barking, sorry.
Finally, I wouldn't even want to discuss something with people who seem to think that if the same idiotic thing is done often and long enough it stops to be idiotic, but instead becomes accepted standard.
And finally, Elvin: Quote:
As you well know I am not a fan of the healing overkill this game introduced. We are not in disagreement that this spell is better suited for the undead and that learning it at lvl 1 is lame
So why is that something then, that Heroes VI did WELL? In my book it's obviously part of something they screwed up, because they could have made it a lot better.
Also. if you like the attack-dependant things so much - why don't we have this beautiful formula for damage spells? Would it be so difficult to cast a damage spell not onto an enemy stack, but on a friendly stack, say, "Firestarter", giving it a +X% Fire Damage or "Lightning Caller" a +Y% Air Damage to all adjacent enemy units, and so on. It could even be a +Z damage for each creature - and not that it hadn't been suggested, and long ago, as you very well know, since we were part of the people looking for a more general solution to the problem that damage spells AGAIN would not scale with the course of the game. The reasoning was, that different abilities would be useful in different situations in a battle and couldn't be equally useful all the time.
And, hey, NOBODY CARES?
After the last time somebody said that to you (you remember, "nobody cares about bloody H6 anymore except you and Elvin"), I wouldn't have thought that you would come up with it as well - and so fast. Memory is such a wondrous thing.
Obviously someone DOES care, obviously these things are important.
So the question you have to ask yourself is: do you really want to see the same idiotic healing overkill in Heroes VII? Tier 1 spells that allow waking the dead as if you had to play with a handful of units the whole game? Yeah, I read it, some people like to heal everything, never lose a drop of blood - Urgash, how boring is THAT? I wonder how these guys ever came to play a game like Heroes where you would lose A LOT of units in ALL games except this last one. This isn't Disciples.
Oh, and attack-and-receive play style, what kind of nonsense is that? You attack - you receive damage for the opponent. Why would you want to get another cookie for it and revive half of your lost troops? As a reward for being able to launch an attack? Shouldn't you get a cookie as well for defending properly, then? Defend-and-receive style? The "Armor of Life", giving you health back for every damage point NOT received, when attacked? Now, THAT would be great, especially as a tier 1 mass spell. The armor would simply create life force out of the potential but not realized damage of an attack. Maybe a Water spell.
We could also have something like move-and-receive style. Same as charge, but instead increasing attack damage it could heal damage per square moved - friction healing, kind of an Earth spell, Mama Earth giving graciously to the creatures trampling around on her.
Or there could be a tier 1 fly-by-healer, working like the alternative Griffin upgrade in Heroes 5, except that she would heal damage with all units she was flying over.
And with potions making it back into the game - what could be more natural than a cup of "Healing-to-go" restoring X HPs for each gulp?
Come to think about it - why fight at all? There could be a level 1 spell - in fact every hero could just start with it, making things clearer -, that would make all enemy units fall into their own weapons, now THAT would be something, right? "Urgash's Command". There could be an advanced version dividing the killed HPs permanently onto your troops, so that they would have masses of HPs after a couple of, err, encounters.
Christ, why DO I bother?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 10:05 AM |
bonus applied by Elvin on 08 Oct 2012. |
Edited by Zenofex at 10:08, 28 Sep 2012.
|
I don't know what you're arguing about but since JJ is involved, it won't end any time soon so I'll just hijack the discussion to what interests me.
Quote:
I disagree with you on the use of the term Lore. Lore is lore, the knowledge of the world. And a story is the story put into this knowledge. Lore influence what the characters can do, but the character's presentation in the story can never change the outcome. The outcome of the story creates more lore but the character and the way the story is written does not have to do anything with the lore.
I guess it's possible to make such distinction to a small extent but ultimately what you call "lore" and "story" are inseparable. Let's say that the "lore" consist of the fundamentals of the world and the "story" is built upon them - it's still the same structure and you can't say "oh, don't look at the ugly façade, it's really solid underground, let me give you the technical details". Even if I agree that the Heroes VI "lore" is good enough - and I don't, see my response to Simplicity below - there'll still be nothing all that good on top of it. In essence what you call "lore" is a combination of events and processes that stretch back in time even though they might still be ongoing in the present, i.e. this is a large number of small, generalized "stories" which are however interconnected somehow and affect the current day (Heroes VI) events and processes. In the Heroes V context much of the Heroes VI "story" is then "lore" and so on. Point is, in the big picture these two things are almost indistinguishable and can't be isolated from each other.
Quote:
Castle first then, why not? The town is very human-based. Probably has the lineup that is the most centered on what its race actually is, 5/7 are actually humans (few towns compare, though amusingly enough, those that do are the other 2 I'll talk about). Pikemen, crossbowmen, crusaders, monks, knights. Medieval, all of them. Very much so, in fact. The actual social standings of each is also kept somewhat intact, with the pikemen/crossbowmen being somewhat interchangeable. They can all be found in one way or another in IRL medieval, even fighting monks, though fighting monks don't fight with hadukens IRL. Then throw in a little mythology, because why not? Griffins, they are noble, and more importantly the namesake of the king/queen. And then angels, whom yes aren't true to the actual christian angels, but still finish grounding the faction into the classical medieval christian faction (if crusaders and monks weren't enough). Classical medieval christian faction. That's all I get from it.
Castle is by far the most boring faction in Heroes III but using your voluntaristic approach to the things (i.e. coming up with stuff that's only implied in the actual game), it can be made more interesting. For example - you compare the Heroes III Castle to the Heroes VI Haven. Why not compare the Heroes III Castle to the Heroes I/II Knight faction then? Let's see what are the differences:
1. The human faction in Heroes I/II represents the humans in Enroth (continent) while the same in Heroes III represents the humans in Antagarich. Their army structure is different, particularly 3 new units are introduced in Heroes III and 1 is replaced, namely - Griffin (being part of the Enrothian Warlock armies), Monk and Angel + Pikemen instead of Peasant.
2. The above can be used to draw conclusions about the social differences between the Enrothian kingdom and that of Erathia. For example, the Enrathian army is more professional because it has no need to recruit Peasants to fill its numbers. It's also more versatile, because it has two flying creatures in its ranks which implies that it has to deal with more checkered list of opponents. You could also say that it's more cosmopolitan - and thus its society - as for the first time it's not 100% made of humans.
3. Looking at the top tier creature in each armies, they have somewhat different (although partially similar too) roles to fulfil. The Crusader is clearly anti-undead unit with its double damage vs. undead. The explanation could be Archibald's affiliation with the Enrothian Necromancers and thus the Succession Wars + who knows what other unmentioned events. The Angels on the other hand are anti-Kreegan - they appear in aid of Erathia when the Kreegan forces make it clear that they are in Antagarich to conquer it and of course come quite handy. The nature of the Angels themselves is not quite clear but it's certain that they are not your regular God-created worshipping puppets/warriors but more likely part of Enroth's defense system vs. the Kreegans. This alone makes them far more unorthodox than the Heroes V/VI Angels which are almost copy-pasted from the Abrahamic mythologies, except that they seem to have free will.
4. Lastly, the Heroes III Castle employs a force of warrior monks unlike the Enrothian army. On one hand this could imply some stronger form of spiritualism in Erathia as opposed to Enroth. This however is a bit hard to prove as both kingdoms seem pretty secular and don't care all that much about religion in a strict medieval sense - which is yet another departure from the typical Western Medieval kingdom that is their stereotypical prototype. In Erathia the Monks just seem to be used to battle what the locals perceive as "evil".
I can go on with other minor details (such as that the Heroes III Crusader is of much lower status than the Heroes I/II one and doesn't have bonus vs. undead, thus his different function in the Castle army) but you should be getting the point already.
Quote:
nferno is amusing. They are aliens. Even then, they manage to confirm very well to a christian vision of devils and hell. The devils themselves are an obvious example. Demons are also very caracteristic. Gog and Magog are the biblic creatures that guard the doors to hell. Same with the hellhound I believe, except it's not biblic of course, and it's not exactly Hell either. Efreeti are the demons of another culture than christian as well, I suppose that is to relieve the heavy christian influence. Pit lords are rather ordinary. Red men with horns and a whip. Overall? Hell, and different incarnations of various demons, mostly christian based. With the amusing twist that they are aliens . Really though, that fact doesn't change anything to its design.
First of all - no, they are not all aliens. Like all other Heroes III factions except Necropolis, Inferno is not monoracial but actually an alliance of sorts. The Kreegans, i.e. the aliens, are the dominant factor and they command the whole faction + lead the conquest of Antagarich but they are the minority. The Efreeti are Fire Plane creatures which are not exactly native to Enroth (not much more than the Kreegans anyway) but otherwise have no links to the Kreegans except their similar behaviour - in short the Efreeti have pretty destructive behaviour and that's all that the Kreegans need of them. The Imps and the Gogs are native to Enroth and could be part of the "local demons", as seen in Conquest of the Underworld. Same for the Hell Hounds. I'm not sure if the Demons and the Pit Fiends are Kreegans - there've been speculations about this but I'm more inclined to believe that they aren't because of their distinctively different physiology compared to the M&M Kreegans and the Heroes III Devils (still, there could be different types of Kreegans). So we're left with the Devils which are the only certain aliens of the lot - they are similar in appearance to the M&M Kregans, die in a similar fashion and are hated by the Angels which are believed to be Ancients-engineered + Lucifer Kreegan himself is depicted exactly like a regular Devil and Xeron, being half-Kreegan, looks like one too. In short, if you take some time to actually do some research, you'll find out that the Heroes III Inferno is "typical" only on the outside.  The Heroes V/VI Inferno is no different in this regard, except that it's actually FAR more typical on the inside. 
Quote:
Necropolis then. A very boring vampire jumps to mind. Probably because I fell in love with the Ubisoft design for the thing. Other than that, the whole thing is very standard. Even its heroes, which is the place where I gripe the most. They're evil, period. They do that because... they're evil. They want the world. They're having a trip. They're bad people. Name it, it doesn't matter. They're evil - period. There isn't even a solid explanation for it. I mean, with the devils, you could argue it's aliens trying to exterminate the local populace to get the planet, at the worst case anyways. Not even that with the undead. They're just bad people because they are. Or rather, because necromancy itself is evil. That's age old in terms of belief (if you believe in necromancy, at any rate).
The vampires aside (I don't like Arthas, sorry), you could be right here. There's a different problem for me here - the Heroes II/III/IV Necromancers simply have style even though they are cliched while the Heroes V/VI ones remind me of half-crazed fanatics that serve as an unwilling extension of the Haven faction and all the stubborn short-sightedness that come with the fanaticism in general. I.e. the Heroes V/VI Necropolis is conceptually inflexible while being more original in general (but only compared to the old Necropolis - the idea about a faction mostly composed of narrow-minded religious nutjobs is hardly something new). When I think of the old Necropolis, I think of Archibald, Sandro and Gauldoth Half-Dead, all of which are remarkable characters. When I think of the new one, I can only remember the maddening "Asha uses all" chant which I'd much prefer to forget.
As a conclusion, I don't think you're very familiar with the old world to evaluate it properly. The most fascinating thing about the pre-Ashan universe was that it had a surface that could lead you to believe that it's generic - and many people believe just that - but there were far more things going on the inside. At the same time, Ashan is just obvious and where you see creativity, I see strained, at best semi-successful attempts to overcome the horrible legacy of Heroes V lore-wise.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 11:07 AM |
|
|
|
Another thing Heroes VI does well are "map dimensions": the relation between map size, hero movement allowance and map object size looks right. That was something HoMM V didn't too well, going 3D.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 12:23 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 12:38, 28 Sep 2012.
|
Quote:
I have to say that I'm quite pissed about the way one absurd claim after another is made and how I'm suddenly supposed to have said ridiculous things, just to have something to argue against. "No healing spells"? Where did I say that?
Be my guest:
Quote:
Why would we have ANY kind of resurrection? The units are tougher than in every other heroes game. In V, you battle Hordes of level 1 creatures that will hurt you BADLY if they get in a hit. IT IS NORMAL TO LOSE CREATURES!!! At least in a Heroes game. Why do we even need the resurrection nonsense?
You will probably say something like: "I'm talking about resurrecting not healing". Then please, try to read what I'm trying to explain to you in previous posts, because I get a feeling I'm talking to a deaf trunk here. Drain Life: healing and resurrecting in one spell, is something that makes the game smoother for players who like to use healing strategies. It's obvious that if you don't like it, don't use it. If you're enemy uses it try to counter it. Those spells wouldn't be logical if their effect was healing only, because it's completely stupid to heal units that have like 18 HP max. In Heroes 3 you had cure which only healed but it also removed negative effects so it was quite useful, and of course the resurrection spell. Mass healing spells were introduced in Heroes 4 and are present in Heroes games to this day. And like someone stated before Drain Life is not a spell that is so overwhelming strong at low levels to be a game-breaker. It may be powerful late game, but tell me, what spell isn't...
Quote:
It makes no sense to discuss serious issues with people who either can't read properly or would attack things never said, just to continue a pointless discussion. For me this sounds a bit like dogs barking, sorry.
You're the one who cannot read properly or someone who is deaf to other players opinions... the problem is your attitude.
Quote:
Finally, I wouldn't even want to discuss something with people who seem to think that if the same idiotic thing is done often and long enough it stops to be idiotic, but instead becomes accepted standard.
Yet you discuss it with us Maybe our claims are idiotic to you, I for one have always used healing spells in Heroes games. What you fail to understand is that there are players who use such strategies and don't find healing spells an accepted, idiotic standard, but a useful tactical option.
Quote:
Undoing creature loss may be something worth to have in games like Disciples where you lose a lot, once a creature dies, but it makes no sense whatsoever in a game like Heroes where one of the main targets is to get a steady flow of reinforcement creatures, that is, to build an always bigger army. Losses are one important way to differentiate between good and bad play, and if losses mount you finally lose the ability to beat something an opponent with less losses CAN beat, so the gap between good and bad play can get bigger.
Consequently, ways to undo creature losses should be expensive/difficult and not the cheapest arrow in your quiver.
So if I understand correctly you're mocking players like me for our play-style? Ok mr. Genius, fine, you are always right. You're play-style is the one and only and we are not worthy players because we are using cheap "tricks" like healing spells to hide our lack of strategic intellect. I'm really curious then, how does your great management fare if you're a warrior hero, and a mage hero obliterates your forces with damaging or debuffing spells while having a 3 times bigger army. If you're able to withstand such an onslaught without healing then congratulations, you are a genius tactician!
Quote:
Yeah, I read it, some people like to heal everything, never lose a drop of blood - Urgash, how boring is THAT? I wonder how these guys ever came to play a game like Heroes where you would lose A LOT of units in ALL games except this last one. This isn't Disciples
I didn't say I like to play without loosing no troops at all. I said that reducing your casualties is crucial when fighting bigger enemy forces. For you it's boring. For me winning a battle with as minor casualties as possible is pure fun. That's just my way of playing the game. In addition I don't like your "troops are cannon fodder" strategy. And guess what, I played all those games and this strategy was always working for me...
You seem to be someone who believes that your way of playing the game is the only correct one. It's because of smart-ass people like you I hate to play multilayer games...
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 12:33 PM |
|
|
Minimizing losses is not a playstyle.
When you have the options to resurrect fallen troops and convert towns,
would you ever NOT do it?
Well I guess role-players and those who'd like an extra challenge would choose not to,
but those are the exceptions.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 12:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Minimizing losses is not a playstyle.
When you have the options to resurrect fallen troops and convert towns,
would you ever NOT do it?
Mmm... what? Then what is it, if it's not a playstyle? You can win battles without healing a single unit, preferring a full-offensive playstyle. That's a choice you can make. I don't discard such a playstyle, I only defend my way of playing the game.
And to make things clear, you can resurrect only a handful of units in towns, so that doesn't work for me.
Some players seem to forget an easy mathematical calculation. The more units you save in battle+reinforcements=bigger army!
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 12:58 PM |
|
Edited by Elvin at 13:00, 28 Sep 2012.
|
In H6 it isn't much of a choice because there is no acceptable alternative. Skipping on heal/regen/life drain would be akin to bleeding from a hundred minor cuts, not lethal in itself but you'll feel the difference later Ideally both blood and tears, might and magic should have a viable alternative whether it involves protecting yourself or harming the enemy.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 01:10 PM |
|
|
Another example for the style of discussion:
Quote:
Quote:
Consequently, ways to undo creature losses should be expensive/difficult and not the cheapest arrow in your quiver.
So if I understand correctly you're mocking players like me for our play-style?
Obviously you don't. Because I say, that undoing creature losses - that is, resurrection abilities - should NOT be the cheapest tool, but expensive and difficult. And I may add - just like they were: what level had Vampirism in Heroes V? In Heroes IV (where Drain Life is a level 2 damage spell that at the same time heals HPs of the CASTER, Heroes on BF, you remember). What Level had Resurrection? Resurrect? Resurrect TRUE?
ALL Heroes game until VI would allow a resurrection of living units only with a high mastery of spells or with highest level creatures - except for the undead who could walk a better paved road here.
Minimizing losses isn't a tactic, but a necessity, and it is no question, that IF a game offers you better tools or tools at all to do so, you will use them. UNDOING losses, however, isn't quite the same thing than MINIMIZING them, OBVIOUSLY. It makes a difference, whether I break down my troops into this or that number of stacks, get tactics and try to place them favorably, then maneuvering about, or whether I don't care about all that stuff, bang away unthinkingly and then let the Sisters heal all losses and cast a Heal for good measure, if I was all TOO carelessly.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 06:02 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 18:05, 28 Sep 2012.
|
Quote:
ALL Heroes game until VI would allow a resurrection of living units only with a high mastery of spells or with highest level creatures - except for the undead who could walk a better paved road here.
True but spells like Drain Life are scaled down accordingly, a level one Drain Life is not what I call a high level spell (in terms of power that is) so what's the problem? Surely, it's not a game-breaker isn't it? The spell will be a "high level" one after you acquire a a lot of spellpower points. Heroes 6 introduced a bit of a different approach to learning spells. You say that you don't like the fact that resurrection spell is so easy to acquire in Heroes 6 and that a level one hero doesn't need one. Well sorry to disappoint you but I find healing spells useful in every phase of the game, be it the first few weeks or the last months of a scenario. An example: at the beginning you have only a dozen archers and sentinels and it's hard to conquer land with such a small number of troops. And as we now the quicker you get more resources or mines etc the faster you build bigger forces. So every unit counts, every lost archer is a serious loss for your army (well at least at the beginning of the game, but that's what I'm concentrating on in this example). Sure, you must plan your battle tactics accordingly, but there are fights that aren't possible to win without loosing your troops. And that's when healing and resurrection spells come in handy.
Although I agree that some things would need a little redesign, but personally, I like the new system, and the fact that you have full control over your character build. If you don't like it that's your problem, but as you can see many player such as myself like the "new" mechanic and spells that enable healing of your troops from level one.
Quote:
Minimizing losses isn't a tactic, but a necessity, and it is no question, that IF a game offers you better tools or tools at all to do so, you will use them. UNDOING losses, however, isn't quite the same thing than MINIMIZING them, OBVIOUSLY. It makes a difference, whether I break down my troops into this or that number of stacks, get tactics and try to place them favorably, then maneuvering about, or whether I don't care about all that stuff, bang away unthinkingly and then let the Sisters heal all losses and cast a Heal for good measure, if I was all TOO carelessly.
What do you take me for? You think that I take my troops, throw them headstrong into the clutches of my enemies why thinking "losses doesn't matter, I'll heal all my troops after the dust settles". Of course not, because it's not even possible when taking into account cooldowns and realistic power of spells. In battles with great unit numbers you only have enough mana and turns to heal a portion of your army. It's logical that the tactic is the most important factor here. Reducing casualties is the essence of battles in Heroes games, and just like good tactics, healing magic is just another tool to achieve that. Why do you so stubbornly separate healing (or like you said undoing losses) from minimizing troop loss via strategic maneuvers, if they lead to the same conclusion: reducing casualties?
|
|
Quique30
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2012 06:22 PM |
|
|
I don't think resurrection itself is a bad thing.
The problem in this game is that, the way they are presented, resurrection spells involve no risk, there are no trade-offs to make and they're all easily and early attainable. From a strategic point of view, there are no decisions involved in whether to pick them or not: If you don't, you're just handicapping yourself voluntarily, like Elvin suggests. So, in the end, they're a trap.
It would be an entirely different thing if, for example, said resurrection spells were deep down a tree, where you were forced to pick bad or so-so skills in order to gain them. Then, you would have to think carefully if it would be worth INVESTING in them, or just focus on something else.
|
| |
|
|
