|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
posted July 01, 2018 12:12 PM |
|
Edited by Elvin at 12:27, 01 Jul 2018.
|
I don't see how skill/spell balance in 1999 proves anything. If I took several minutes to fix them would there be no real complaints for the game? 
While I'll be the first to agree that balance and implementation are the first thing to consider when keeping, changing or introducing features, should we really be arguing about that? When I speak of a game's Base I do not have in mind unit stats, skill bonuses and resource rates but rather the features I would like to see and whether they make sense with each other. But in a broad sense, more than that feels like balancing a game that does not even exist.
I could argue how H3 failed to update stat boosting spells when it made primary stats half as important compared to H2 or how much it sucked to get the wrong spell in H5 mage guild. But I would rather assume that such issues are already resolved when thinking of a new game. Or maybe isolate such talk to a more narrow topic. Sometimes not even a 'best of' can save a game
@JJ
By the way I do not think that galaad believes that an H3 or an H5 'base' would exclude good points from heroes games like H4 or H6. He's just generalising. At the very least, H6 did address the power of mass spells compared to basic versions, spell power influenced buffs-curses and both option to upgrade and pick an alternative champion. All those could be considered an evolution of the classic formula, right?
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 12:26 PM |
|
|
Let's just summarize it that making a good game is like cooking: what's important is not only which ingredients you add into the mix, but also in what quantities and in what combinations. NWC failed rather badly at H4 and UbiSoft totally missed the mark with H6 and H7.
For me personally, the battlefield in H4 was atrocious, it's one of the main things that detracted from the game for me. Second was the Town Screens, which were way too structured in their layout (basically indvidual blocks placed next to eachother, spread over 3 heights or so).
Battlefield Heroes might work - but as JJ indicated, that will only be possible if you take a critical look at all other things affected by it, directly or indirectly. Personally, I think that if you want to add Heroes directly to the battlefield, you have to severly limit stack sizes of all creatures. But you can take that as a starting point to redesign the battlefield. Make a move towards Age of Wonders, where the battlefield is (much) larger and the player can deploy a lot more stacks for the battle. Let Hero level determine maximum number of troops that can be carried around. Enable the use of reserve troops. Stuff like that can redefine some core elements of the game, without really moving away from what makes Heroes games Heroes games.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 12:51 PM |
|
|
Maurice said:
Let Hero level determine maximum number of troops that can be carried around. Enable the use of reserve troops. Stuff like that can redefine some core elements of the game, without really moving away from what makes Heroes games Heroes games.
I disagree, it removes chaining, which was one of the core elements defining adventure map strategy of H2/H3. Also it basically defines the game as one main hero, one he is lost all is over.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 01:05 PM |
|
|
I actually very much agree with you on all those points, Maurice. But I guess that was a given since it's basically a throwback to our group theorycrafting back in the day.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 01:14 PM |
|
|
Yeah, never change cheap exploits when they feel like an achievement.
See, guys, that's what I mean and try to tell you. Debating single features doesn't make any sense at all. In the end, if you have the finished game, it either works out or it doesn't, no matter the "features" (which is what they didn't seem to get with H7).
It's not the features that make or break the game, it's how it plays. Whether you have this "just another turn" feeling or not. Whether SIMPLE things combine to a whole that is deep without being convoluted. Heroes games should be elegant. They should be enjoyable, playing them casually, but they should offer the depth to really put thought into it. The scope has to be limited. Repetitio non placet, as they said, so the game shouldn't force you to follow the same steps over and over again. Build the same heroes or towns. The more involved a building process is, the less often should it be repeated in one game.
And of course the game SHOULD be balanced, because one of the advantages a game of this scope has is that you can go MP fairly easy. Slightly differently phrased, there should be a "window of balance". It's clear that if you design fundamentally different factions and heroes, the balance will tilt, depending on settings and game length.
|
|
hahakocka
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 01:19 PM |
|
|
At Heroes 4 i think the best was the was variety and number of useful spells and spell branches. (H3 has got so much less and useful spells)
Also the fight of Heroes but sadly because the publisher was bankrupting at that time, it was unbalanced!
Also the music and the campaign for sure the best of the series!
Also i liked that the creatures can pick up resources as well. Fasten things.
The animations the battlefield view was not quite good also...
The idea of the shooters shoot back was great and make it more real!  But sometimes made me angry also.
Random is a quite good thing unless you got it almost to the whole of the gameplay and the game! H3 done that . Oh with Morale and luck also! H6-H7 made second morale and luck less time also with less quantity because you can move just halfly what you before also hit half of damage.
What do you think of the flanking system in H7? I think it was good! May be i would put it in H8 also.
They hire a man in China for a M & M Heroes game so thats a sign i think for me at least!
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 01:26 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Yeah, never change cheap exploits when they feel like an achievement.
Sure, change what a majority people loved and perfected as tactic over 8 years then wonder why the game doesn't sell.
The problem is that you look at the game analytically, not instinctively, as most of players who just want to have fun and take it in hand instantly. When I first tried H4 and went into the first battle, saw that battlefield, the game was over for me, and I don't feel as I have to apologize for not having a more "comprehensive and analytical" approach. No fun, no play, that's so simple.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 01:28 PM |
|
Edited by Galaad at 13:31, 01 Jul 2018.
|
Elvin said:
By the way I do not think that galaad believes that an H3 or an H5 'base' would exclude good points from heroes games like H4 or H6. He's just generalising.
Thanks.
Maurice said:
Battlefield Heroes might work - but as JJ indicated, that will only be possible if you take a critical look at all other things affected by it, directly or indirectly. Personally, I think that if you want to add Heroes directly to the battlefield, you have to severly limit stack sizes of all creatures. But you can take that as a starting point to redesign the battlefield. Make a move towards Age of Wonders, where the battlefield is (much) larger and the player can deploy a lot more stacks for the battle. Let Hero level determine maximum number of troops that can be carried around. Enable the use of reserve troops. Stuff like that can redefine some core elements of the game, without really moving away from what makes Heroes games Heroes games.
This is such a far cry from the classic formula, I don’t understand the need to change what works. When introducing new features means you have to redefine the core, you are basically changing what the game is. Even if it turns out to be a great game (and insofar it didn't in this series) it will still feel like another foreigner to who heavily played H2-H3 and/or H5. I enjoy Age of Wonders, I do feel it has more in common with Heroes than H6 and H7, but that’s because H6 and H7 missed the mark so hard, not because AoW is so close to Heroes, it isn't. I believe additions should strengthen the core and not conflict with it. We all love H4's magic system and hero classes, but H4 is not the game we keep coming back at.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 01:33 PM |
|
|
hahakocka said:
What do you think of the flanking system in H7? I think it was good! May be i would put it in H8 also.
What do you mean, "system"? 
"Flanking" is a mechanism that assumes, once you are "occupied", your attention is concentrated on a certain direction, which would you vulnerable to something like backstabbing. However, that works in both directions: when you are melee-occupied, you cannot simply break contact, because your melee opponent will not sit and watch, but hit you.
The flanking mechanic doesn't make sense as a general game mechanic in a game where few stacks with just one hit and one retaliation per round battle it out.
The way H7 works it would make more sense to either give it selected units as a "backstabbing" ability or have it as ability for Dungeon racial.
Of course you could make it a design goal to make battles more tactical (and add a flanking system), but that would involve a lot more like opportunity hitting and possibly a complete change of rules, gfor example involving action points instead of separate movement, hits and retaliation.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 02:18 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
JollyJoker said:
Yeah, never change cheap exploits when they feel like an achievement.
Sure, change what a majority people loved and perfected as tactic over 8 years then wonder why the game doesn't sell.
The problem is that you look at the game analytically, not instinctively, as most of players who just want to have fun and take it in hand instantly. When I first tried H4 and went into the first battle, saw that battlefield, the game was over for me, and I don't feel as I have to apologize for not having a more "comprehensive and analytical" approach. No fun, no play, that's so simple.
You use the word majority too often.
Game design is actually pretty simple, and chaining is a bad feature, because you cannot base maps, campaigns, gameplay and so on on the fact that the majority will use such an "exploit" naturally. What the majority certainly won't do is working and perfecting a tactic over 8 years.
So a feature that allows to move armies ovr large distances in one turn is bound to make a very big difference in how fast a map is done and how easy/difficult it is to beat it. It basically KILLS the game, because you solve the problems in a way that isn't actually part of the game.
Of course you COULD have such a feature as a regular one, documented and nowadays mentioned in a tutorial, but you'd still have to limit it to be able to work with it when it comes to level design.
I also think that the combat map in H4 sucks, for the simple reason that it makes movement and paths and blocking and positioning a guessing game. Things in heroes games must be clear, simple and predictable. The Initiative bar of H5, for example sucks because there is no way to see what Initiative changes will do with the turn order - you don't even see what happens when you wait (skip half a turn). For the same reason the way spell damage of creatures is computed in H5 is wrong, and basically the whole arithmetics of H6 are wrong. At eny time, when you play a Heroes game and you have no clue what EXACTLY will happen/change when you do something, the game is on a wrong track.
Complexity isn't depth.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 02:29 PM |
|
|
I totally disagree on the qualification of exploit. The capacity of moving armies fast from one point to another is a core element of real life warfare through all history, it is called supply. Those who do it properly get more chance to win, and this was the case also in H2/H3.
JollyJoker said:
So a feature that allows to move armies ovr large distances in one turn is bound to make a very big difference in how fast a map is done and how easy/difficult it is to beat it. It basically KILLS the game, because you solve the problems in a way that isn't actually part of the game.
Seriously? They limited heroes to 8, movement does not affect creatures, you can transfer armies. They corrected the exploit which reset movement to heroes after rehiring but didn't touch to chaining, it is clearly part of the game.
JollyJoker said:
You use the word majority too often.
You don't read the context too often. My answer was to Maurice who proposed several slips from original while saying "preserve what is good". In that context, a majority of players believe chaining is a core, successful and truly challenging element of the Heroes game. It requires skill, training and it rewards accordingly. There were endless threads about, people gave their opinion, we don't have to build again the world.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 02:30 PM |
|
Edited by Elvin at 14:42, 01 Jul 2018.
|
I'd like to have action points tbh. They offer possibilities like improved pathfinding, different mixed between movement and attacks or abilities, plus action point manipulation mechanics. Even improve the spellcaster system by allowing the casting of a high tier spell or two weaker within the same turn, or save action points for the next turn, maybe draw some from your next turn leaving you with less the next turn. Divinity 1&2 did some good things with that system.
As a bonus, such a system could work fine with an atb. Atb is great, you can always make an educated guess. And besides, the game could always introduce the ability to see where units will end up on the bar, prior to using an ability. Shouldn't be THAT hard.
Even if heroes were affected by atb, differentiating the atb cost of spells-abilities by their tier/cost would allow people to rearrange the order. H5 basically had half and full turn atb so the opponent could easily hound you and keep his atb spot before or after you.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 02:41 PM |
|
|
@ Sal
You were right, if people would design a game exclusively for that majority of players who still play H3 regularly.
No one does, though.
So let me repeat: you don't design a game with maps, campaigns and whatnot based on the balance of an undocumented byproduct of a design decision, because in that case, all newcomers won't be able to win a campaign or map.
However, when you disregard the feature in that process the maps and campaigns will be a cakewalk, once a player got it.
Which means, it's bad as and undocumented byproduct, but neither good nor bad as a documented feature (it would depend on the rest of the game).
I don't expect you to acknowledge the difference, though.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 02:50 PM |
|
|
Eh, chaining is a concern only if you can buy heroes by the dozens. Or if the map is small enough that you can chain an attack on the enemy hero's Base before he can buy his army on first day of the week. Seems a stretch to say that a map would become unplayable or too easy because of chaining.
For the record, while I find chaining beyond 2-3 heroes cheesy, I instantly disliked the limited unit movement in H4. Maybe H3 had spoiled me a little
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 02:56 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
@ Sal
You were right, if people would design a game exclusively for that majority of players who still play H3 regularly.
No one does, though.
I never said I want a game based on H3, my starting point was that if you lack ideas on how to add/change the game and still be great, then stick to what was successful, improve the existing ones.
It's silly that Stevie frames me as conservative while I am the last one, out of arrogance, to pop up in Ubisoft forums and yell to developers what I want. I only specify that I loved a lot H2/H3 and it would please me if the new sequel core features (perspective, battlefield, movement and a few others) come easy in hand.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 03:29 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 15:39, 01 Jul 2018.
|
There's no framing and no ill intent, it's in your own words. You don't want to learn a new game, you want to stick to the old and the successful. Conservative view. I want the new and the different, another take on the same concept, and of course I want it to be good and successful as well. I don't look at the past to find the next level of Heroes gameplay, but in the unexplored vision of the future. Progressive. I'm not at odds with anyone, I just know what I want.
Furthermore, I also believe that the new game should not alienate the old fans, but rather have them make a seamless transition as much as possible. We can agree on that. Though it comes down to how well an individual can adapt. People like my father for example hate the learning curve of new games, no matter how good they are.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 03:36 PM |
|
|
|
So many cheap shortcuts. We talk here about sequels of a great game, not any new game. If I like mercedes cars, I expect them to make a new car using same forms, characteristics and performances, but in better, that doesn't make me conservative but a solid mercedes fan. There are lots of games using the features "progressives" here propose, and thats fine, play them.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 03:56 PM |
|
|
Well, even if I don't think the analogy is that accurate, I'll play along. If your idea of an improved Heroes game is like a Mercedes with better characteristics and performances, then my idea of an improved Heroes game is like a Mercedes with wings that can fly, swim, and potentially transform into a robot. You gave your Mercedes more horsepower and added stats, I gave it new features, new dimensions. It might not be a Mercedes to you anymore, not in your traditional understanding, and that's where the conservative line lies. You want your old but better, I want my new and better.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 04:00 PM |
|
|
|
yeah, but I don't dream while being awake, me.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2018 04:03 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 16:04, 01 Jul 2018.
|
| |
|
|
This MEGA THREAD is pages long: 
