|
| Thread: Olden Era - what to keep / what to improve / where to innovate |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
Etharil
Shaper of Lore
|
posted December 30, 2024 03:22 PM |
|
|
frostymuaddib said:
I would love to see good map and campaign editor with full modding support. Something like StarCraft 2 has: you can create a mod via the editor, and it allows you to change a lot in the gameplay, without affecting campaigns or singleplayer/multiplayer maps. Hopefully, the editor should have some script language. If we get that, it would be awesome.
However, the HoMM IP is still owned by Ubi...
Last time I checked our map editor doesn't allow you to modify creatures yet but it's something I can bring up. =)
____________
|
|
gnollking
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted December 30, 2024 03:52 PM |
|
|
Etharil said:
Last time I checked our map editor doesn't allow you to modify creatures yet but it's something I can bring up. =)
Please do! The more options the map editor has, the better! Custom maps are the heart and soul of the series for many players, and I'm very excited to see what you guys are cooking up.
|
|
frostymuaddib
Promising
Supreme Hero
育碧是白痴
|
|
posted December 30, 2024 04:56 PM |
|
|
Etharil said:
Last time I checked our map editor doesn't allow you to modify creatures yet but it's something I can bring up. =)
Thanks for the reply  I've been away from the forums for a while, so I missed that there is a dev here I guess you are from Unfrozen?
Anyway, back on topic: it would be awesome to have that feature. Having custom creatures and custom towns for specific scenarios would really be an interesting feature.
I think HoMM games have this kind of longevity because of good map editors. Investing in it will pay off in the long run, imo.
|
|
Rimgrabber
Promising
Famous Hero
Voice in Gelu's Head
|
|
posted December 30, 2024 05:12 PM |
|
|
Heroes 7 did something like that if I recall.
____________
|
|
Etharil
Shaper of Lore
|
|
posted December 30, 2024 11:06 PM |
|
|
frostymuaddib said:
Etharil said:
Last time I checked our map editor doesn't allow you to modify creatures yet but it's something I can bring up. =)
Thanks for the reply I've been away from the forums for a while, so I missed that there is a dev here I guess you are from Unfrozen?
Anyway, back on topic: it would be awesome to have that feature. Having custom creatures and custom towns for specific scenarios would really be an interesting feature.
I think HoMM games have this kind of longevity because of good map editors. Investing in it will pay off in the long run, imo.
Aye, that's correct! I'll see if there's something we could do, I'll definitely pass it on!
____________
|
|
frostymuaddib
Promising
Supreme Hero
育碧是白痴
|
|
posted December 31, 2024 10:39 AM |
|
|
Etharil said:
Aye, that's correct! I'll see if there's something we could do, I'll definitely pass it on!
Thanks for the reply Etharil
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted December 31, 2024 10:42 AM |
|
|
Heyy Frosty nice to see you
____________
|
|
LordCameron
Known Hero
Veteran of the Succession Wars
|
|
posted December 31, 2024 05:55 PM |
|
|
Galaad said:
Heyy Frosty nice to see you
Hey Galaad, since you're here, can you turn my post linked below into a project? I'm pretty sure it's in your forum.
____________
What are Homm Songs based on?
|
|
frostymuaddib
Promising
Supreme Hero
育碧是白痴
|
|
posted January 01, 2025 01:27 PM |
|
|
Galaad said:
Heyy Frosty nice to see you
Hey Galaad! Nice to see you too Always good to be back
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted January 01, 2025 08:40 PM |
|
|
LordCameron said:
I'm pretty sure it's in your forum.
Yeah that's new. Done!
____________
|
|
LordCameron
Known Hero
Veteran of the Succession Wars
|
|
posted January 01, 2025 09:43 PM |
|
|
|
GapasGapas
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted March 04, 2025 05:41 PM |
|
|
Hey everyone!
I’ve played HOMM IV, V, and VII, with IV being one of my first games as a kid. It got me into the series, and I still enjoy V today. As a casual player, my strategies tend to be repetitive: play defensively, minimize losses, then either steamroll the enemy or get crushed and quit. The late game often feels predictable, which got me thinking on how it could be made more dynamic.
General
Army Limits: Restrict the number of creatures a hero can lead (faction-dependent, but expandable) or eventually limit city recruitment (scalable with (very) costly upgrades). This would prevent overwhelming stacks and encourage multiple armies & strategic movement.
Stronger Neutral Threats: Instead of scattered weak creatures, neutrals could spawn around mines and key locations in large, diverse groups. Occasionally, neutral raids could even threaten castles.
Resource Scarcity & Replenishment: Over time, creature recruitment costs could increase, making mines alone insufficient. Rare resources and high-level neutral armies could appear, forcing players to explore again and fight for new income sources.
Fog of War Regeneration: If an area lacks heroes, buildings, or mines, the fog could slowly return, to maintain the need for exploration and the uncertainty from enemies.
Combat & Pre-Battle Enhancements
More Deployment Options, before the battle start:
- Central positioning (1 creature max), delayed reinforcements (deploy only a part of the army, with the other part appearing after several rounds - Basic), or flanking attacks (same concept, but the army will appear on the North or the South - Advanced).
- It can also be a strategy during combat, where a stack of creature can be sent on the side of the map (and only available after x rounds).
Pre-Combat Spells & Terrain Manipulation:
Activate hero/creature abilities before combat starts to influence terrain.
- Modify battlefields with permanent (rocks, trees, holes) or temporary changes (fog: to hide creatures; pest cloud: to contaminate an area; firewall: fire damages if crossed; ice wall: cannot be crossed but can be destroyed; roots: stop the action of the enemy and reduce moral if crossed).
Varied Battlefields & Context:
- Not just two sides— possibility to position creature on north/south, reduced battleground (where we can’t deploy the whole army), or vast battlegrounds (where dragons cannot cross the place in 1 round).
- Terrain affecting movement, with penalties/bonuses depending on type.
Expanded Siege & Tactical Equipment:
- Battering rams (can cross the map with creatures inside, strong against arrows and magic, but not against other creatures), mobile wooden shields (can be moved, used to hide behind, archers cannot shoot across this shield (all, not only enemies), or damages reduced), and anti-air ballistae (shoot aerial creature as soon as they move more than 3 hexes).
Also, why not having neutral armies led by Heroes: Sometimes, neutral creatures could have their own hero.
What do you think? Would these ideas help make late-game less predictable and more dynamic?
I would like to hear your thoughts!
|
|
Syth1984
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 06, 2025 12:12 PM |
|
Edited by Syth1984 at 12:12, 06 Mar 2025.
|
GapasGapas said:
Hey everyone!
General
Army Limits:
I don't like Army limits. But the more stack you travel (beyond five for example) there should be movement penalties for the hero.
Stronger Neutral Threats:
Like variety so yes. Rather than repopulating mines ,passes or roads should be repopulated.
Fog of War Regeneration:
If its not overdone I like fog of war regeneration I support this
Pre-Combat Spells & Terrain Manipulation:
This one ı especially like.It's like tactics with an extra step. Might heroes should have options in battle or pre battle.
Varied Battlefields & Context:
I also want some different dimension battle maps showing up.Spices things up.
Expanded Siege & Tactical Equipment:
I would like artifact versions of them but not that much of variety.
Also, why not having neutral armies led by Heroes:
Would prefer small hero like banner man like from captains quarters from H2.
A dragon utopia like treasury once it's busted spawning dragons or equal would be nice though.
Nice list! I hope developers listen.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted March 07, 2025 07:01 PM |
|
Edited by Galaad at 19:06, 07 Mar 2025.
|
GapasGapas said:
General
Army Limits: Restrict the number of creatures a hero can lead (faction-dependent, but expandable) or eventually limit city recruitment (scalable with (very) costly upgrades). This would prevent overwhelming stacks and encourage multiple armies & strategic movement.
Highly disagree.
I really don't like the idea of limiting the number of creatures a hero can lead or locking city recruitment behind expensive upgrades. I understand the goal of encouraging multiple armies and avoiding huge doomstacks, but for me, that takes away a big part of what makes Heroes so satisfying -the feeling of building up a truly massive, powerful army.
In my experience, stack growth balances itself pretty well through things like resources, losses, and the natural pacing of the map. Adding artificial caps feels like it punishes successful play and forces extra micromanagement, with more small armies to control just for the sake of spreading things out. I also think it risks making the late game feel less exciting. I love that Heroes can build toward those huge, decisive battles -limiting that would take away from the payoff of all the work leading up to them.
It’s probably just personal preference, but systems like this in other games (like Songs of Conquest) never really clicked with me for the same reasons. I’d much rather see other ways to challenge doomstacks, like stronger enemy heroes or better-designed late-game threats, instead of hard limits on how much I can grow.
Quote:
Stronger Neutral Threats: Instead of scattered weak creatures, neutrals could spawn around mines and key locations in large, diverse groups. Occasionally, neutral raids could even threaten castles.
Agree.
I really like the idea of stronger neutral threats appearing around key locations and occasionally raiding castles. The randomness is what makes Heroes exciting for me, as it keeps players on their toes and forces you to adapt your strategy.
If the neutrals are varied -some being territorial, others more aggressive- it could make exploration more dynamic and rewarding. I think it would add an extra layer of tension and strategy that would keep the game fresh and engaging, especially if the raids are well-balanced and feel like an exciting challenge.
Quote:
Resource Scarcity & Replenishment: Over time, creature recruitment costs could increase, making mines alone insufficient. Rare resources and high-level neutral armies could appear, forcing players to explore again and fight for new income sources.
Mildly agree.
While I see the potential for added strategy with rising recruitment costs, I’m not entirely convinced. I personally enjoy the aggressive early game, where players can quickly build up armies and pressure their opponents. Increasing recruitment costs over time could slow this down and make it harder to sustain that momentum, especially if rare resources become too hard to find.
That said, I do see the value in encouraging exploration and pushing players to make tougher strategic decisions. It could add an interesting layer of depth, especially in the mid-to-late game, as players fight for rare resources and adjust to the changing economy. However, I’d still want to make sure the early-game aggression and fast-paced action are preserved.
Quote:
Fog of War Regeneration: If an area lacks heroes, buildings, or mines, the fog could slowly return, to maintain the need for exploration and the uncertainty from enemies.
Mixed feelings.
I see the potential benefits of the fog regenerating over time. It could definitely encourage more exploration and keep the game feeling alive and unpredictable. The idea of maintaining uncertainty around your territory could add some tension, and I like the thought of having to be more strategic in how you control the map.
However, I’m a bit concerned that this could lead to frustration if players constantly need to go back to clear fog, especially when they’re trying to expand or focus on other objectives. If the fog regenerates too quickly or too extensively, it could lead to downtime and take away from the more exciting parts of the game. So, while it could add depth, I’d want to make sure it doesn’t get in the way of the flow of the game.
Quote:
Combat & Pre-Battle Enhancements
More Deployment Options, before the battle start:
- Central positioning (1 creature max), delayed reinforcements (deploy only a part of the army, with the other part appearing after several rounds - Basic), or flanking attacks (same concept, but the army will appear on the North or the South - Advanced).
- It can also be a strategy during combat, where a stack of creature can be sent on the side of the map (and only available after x rounds).
Mixed feelings.
I think adding more deployment options, like delayed reinforcements or flanking, could really enhance the strategic depth of the game. It would give players more ways to approach each battle and add variety to their tactics, which I’d find interesting.
That said, it’s important to keep things balanced and not overcomplicate the game. The key is to provide more tactical choices without slowing down the pace or making things too complex. For me, it's all about maintaining that balance -keeping the game simple and accessible while still offering enough depth to make it rewarding to master.
Quote:
Pre-Combat Spells & Terrain Manipulation:
Activate hero/creature abilities before combat starts to influence terrain.
- Modify battlefields with permanent (rocks, trees, holes) or temporary changes (fog: to hide creatures; pest cloud: to contaminate an area; firewall: fire damages if crossed; ice wall: cannot be crossed but can be destroyed; roots: stop the action of the enemy and reduce moral if crossed).
Highly agree.
I’m all for this idea! Adding pre-combat spells and terrain manipulation options would add a whole new layer of strategy and give players more ways to control the battlefield before the fight even begins. The ability to set up traps or create obstacles like firewalls or fog would make battles feel much more dynamic and engaging. It would definitely give heroes and creatures a bigger role in shaping the outcome, making them feel more impactful in the lead-up to combat.
That said, there are some risks to consider. If not properly balanced, some of these abilities could become overpowered. Also, while I love the idea, it could slow down the pace of combat if players have to spend too much time setting up or managing all these new elements. There’s also the potential for new players to get overwhelmed by the extra layer of complexity, especially if they have to learn how terrain interacts with spells. Still, I think the potential upsides far outweigh these concerns.
Quote:
Varied Battlefields & Context:
- Not just two sides— possibility to position creature on north/south, reduced battleground (where we can’t deploy the whole army), or vast battlegrounds (where dragons cannot cross the place in 1 round).
- Terrain affecting movement, with penalties/bonuses depending on type.
Highly agree.
I’m all for introducing more varied battlefields and contexts! The idea of having different layouts that affect movement, like reduced or expanded spaces, would add a lot of depth to combat. It would force players to adapt their strategies to the battlefield itself, which is a great way to keep things fresh and engaging. It could make each battle feel like a new challenge, with no two fights playing out exactly the same.
Quote:
Expanded Siege & Tactical Equipment:
- Battering rams (can cross the map with creatures inside, strong against arrows and magic, but not against other creatures), mobile wooden shields (can be moved, used to hide behind, archers cannot shoot across this shield (all, not only enemies), or damages reduced), and anti-air ballistae (shoot aerial creature as soon as they move more than 3 hexes).
Mildly agree.
I agree with the general idea that sieging could use more tactical layers. In previous entries, sieging often felt too straightforward, and adding more strategic options could make these battles feel much more engaging and dynamic. The concept of introducing equipment that opens up new tactical possibilities sounds great -anything that adds depth to sieging and creates more diverse strategies is a win in my book.
That said, we’ll need to be cautious with the specific choices of equipment and how they’re integrated to avoid making things too complicated or slowing down the pace of the game.
Quote:
Also, why not having neutral armies led by Heroes: Sometimes, neutral creatures could have their own hero.
Highly agree.
However, I think it’s important to ensure that these neutral heroes don’t slow down progression too drastically. Ideally, they could be rare occurrences, appearing in select areas or at certain points of the game. Defeating them could offer unique rewards, such as powerful artifacts or other valuable resources, to make the encounter feel rewarding without derailing the overall pace.
Quote:
What do you think? Would these ideas help make late-game less predictable and more dynamic?
I would like to hear your thoughts!
These are my thoughts on your suggestions GapasGapas, thanks for posting them and welcome to the forums.
____________
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted March 07, 2025 07:15 PM |
|
|
Syth1984, just noticed you that you had strongly updated your first post in this thread. Really well thought-out post. Shiny awarded.
____________
|
|
Syth1984
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2025 01:37 PM |
|
|
Galaad said:
Syth1984, just noticed you that you had strongly updated your first post in this thread. Really well thought-out post. Shiny awarded.
Hey thanks! I appreciate it. I feel to keep my ideas tidy and neat so that inspire other ideas and even reach out to developers is important. Thanks!
____________
|
| |
|
|
