|
| Thread: Heroes V: The Future is Upon Us |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
DonGio
Promising
Famous Hero
of Clear Water Mountain Clan
|
posted October 09, 2002 01:32 PM |
|
|
OK, you guys have way too much time on your hands... And I think that's the longest post I've ever seen, Xeno 
I haven't had the time to read all the posts thoroughly, nor do I have the time to make an extensive and thorough reply, so I'll just post a couple of short ideas I've had. Now, remember, they're quite new to me, which means I haven't thought them through in all ways and taken every aspect of it into consideration, so it may be that the ideas suck or are impossible to incorporate. I am aware of this.
Here it goes:
Thieves Guild:
How about making this part of the game more "active"?
Couple of ways this could be implemented:
You had to budget a weekly or monthly sum of money to a spy network, and based on how much money you've and luck and other factors the game would calculate how much information you'd get on your opponents. This could also feature an enemy specialization, i.e. that you could choose to learn more about red, but then you would know less about blue. This could be monitored with a percentage system, for instance.
or
There could be units/creatures/heroes of some kind that could embark on spying missions, and if they arrived undetected at their destination, they could report back on that particular destination, or if it were some kind of a headquarter or capital, it could report more than just the information about that one town.
Levels
I think the whole level thing is a bit outdated. How about letting that concept go entirely. Of course some units would be stronger than others (dragons would fry pikemen any day), but that a creature's strenghts and weaknesses would depend on what it was fighting. Say your pikemen were attacked by crusaders (on foot), they'd be slaughtered like sheep. But if attacked by mounted units, their pikes would really come to use, and they would fare much better.
And ranged units could be much more effective against flyers than agile and quick pixies. These examples are just meant to illustrate my point, not things I would necessarily like to see in HOMMV.
Mind you, I'm not saying sall units should be of a strenght, just that the level system, where it is impossible for a level two unit to defeat a level 3 or 4 for that matter, is a bit limiting, in my experience. But as mentioned, these are not finished propositions, merely rough sketches and ideas.
Wish well
DonGio
____________
There are 10 types of people: Those who read binary, and those who don't.
|
|
Destro23
Promising
Famous Hero
Keeper of GrongGrong
|
|
posted October 10, 2002 01:53 PM |
|
|
Ok well first of all..
I've not responded yet as I have not been able to read xenophanes first post.. Sorry but a extra long post, with an extra if not massively overabundant use of quoting bores me.. No offence meant Xenophanes.. Just find it nicer to read posts from you rather than someone elses...
But in response to the points raised so far...
Heroes XP in Combat..
Certainly a novel idea here... However I think I would take The_Hydras Idea and completely invert it..
SO.. A mage at level 14 has no trouble killing 4 mantis with a powerful Disintegrate spell or a like powerful casting.. However he would imo Gain much more battle knowledge from killing these same 4 mantis by hand. I think that might warrant an exp bonus.
But also with Djive on this issue I feel its a nice idea, but somewhat impractical in reality.
And for those complaining that theives and lords don't have the means to benefit from that..? ok lords maybe.. but even so a pure lordly hero would have a massively incresed creature base and perhaps this could be taken into account. And as for theives give me a break!.. Wasn't this the very first imbalancing issue raised by most people? That theives and there stealth gave FAR to much experience? Which btw effectively doubles there exp, as they pass the monsters then return with army to fight them.
Concerning the town income. I disagree completely with Djive. The town needs more income than enough to purchase 2 lv7 units per week. This is of course your assuming you have already built all your dwellings and structures. I agree much needs to be taken from the adventure map. However what happens when the adventure map runs dry? If anything I would have to suggest the lower income promotes players to hide out in town for longer trying to amass a force capable of dealing with some guardians. (not me btw lol) but some.
In regards to jenovas posting about frailty in heroes.. if you've maxed out your first skills magic type your basically asking for trouble not taking combat.. GM combat is accesible as a stand-alone skill (same way I feel pathfind should be) and with GM combat your hero will be able to take blows from 3-5 black dragons without perishing.
This to me seems nessecary, My heroes anyway only action is not consume immortality continously.. But then again I am a might nazi.
Hero levels and skill powerups. I think your a touch off base here Djive. For example a Ranger is more likely to gain Combat skills.. ok sure.. but try hitting a altar in the game.. I've done this before I realized they were nice for upgrades later rather than early. ANd all of sudden your hero is sure likely to recieve combat, but just as likely to be given a choice to take the other skill you've given him.
Imo the best way to make hero developement would be this, allow the characters to advance there primary skill ie combat, a magic, scouting, tactics, or nobility for 3-6 levels then allow for an option.. such as
"Your hero can now choose to take the path of a General or a Assassin.. which road shall you follow..?"
In other words.. I'd like more control over the skills offered in the mid range of levels. I find all to often that I wait and wait for a particular skill I want and all of a sudden I have no choice but to take a skill I really didn't want or I don't have proper time to develope it.
I find it silly that a clas such as Cardinal, who requires 2 slots of Nobility and 2 slots of Life magic, will most likely advance in these skills.. They are the prerequisites.. of course your going to advance in them!
Have you ever seen a level up screen saying would you like to choose basic order magic, basic tactics, or basic nature magic.. no of course not. no matter what the class you will be offered skills from the primary skill trees your hero is currently developing. But yes you are more likely to learn skills from the pre-req categories.
For the record.. You need to remember when reading my posts, I don't play single player. Multi-player only and I understand its a different game altogether. SO I suppose some of my views may sound silly. But my games a hero never goes past lv18 or so.. and games end, even on champion difficulty before week 6.
Also regarding the towers and turrets.. I would like to see the same as most, the heroes3 turrets back. But maybe only 1 or 2 such turrets allowing for 1 or 2 of the h4 turrets. Moat doing dmg was annoying in H3 it will be annoying again in H5 should it be included.
I'd definately like control of the turrets given to the player.. Perhaps it could work as in H3 where if the hero had a ballista he could control the towers. Which brings me to another thing about H3 I miss terribly in H4.. Seige Machines.. I loved the catapult, ballista, first aid tent, and ammo cart.. I think these were highly strategic units. And should be brought back.
As for heroes with specialties.. hmmm I think theres massive bonuses to both. Without specialties the hero becomes your to design.. but with the Heroes4 skill system I would think specialties for specific skills would be devastating.. a Combat or Sorcery specialty would have really no equal (within reason) Just imagine a Lv25 Combat SPecialist... You'd not be able to dent him with normal physical dmg.. given that magic resistance is common to combat oif course, and the abundance of immortality potions, this could quite easily become an unkillable hero.
As for creature specialties. I think this could be easily arranged.. however with only a possible 8 specialties per town type (presently) and 6 choses excluding Lv4 monsters as these specialists would undoubtedly become too powerful, the hero selection would be somewhat lacking.. Also as Jenova (was this her handle? or just the Avatar LOL) stated with bonus increasing by level. This did happen in Heroes3 ie.. lv1 specialty +1/+1 per level, lv2 +1/+1 every 2 levels.. ect ect.. And on top of that it gave the 1 time bonus of +1 speed and morale. and therefore a new system would need to be worked out.. As a level 1 creature with an accumalted +3/+3 is not even remotely comparable to a Lv3 creature with a +2/+2 bonus..
My views on this are kinda split.. Specialties are fun and nessecary to heroes3, but I think the new methods in which heroes4 has evolved specialties would not be a worthwhile addition.
SO I guess thats all for now..
Although I would add again.. The gold mine needs to be reduced in Income! Or the town needs to be Increased! I don't mind being poor, but I hate the other player being twice as rich because his guards were easy, or he got vampires early!
----------------------
The Dead Walk!!!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 10, 2002 03:29 PM |
|
|
Since the release of HOMMV is certainly far in the future, if not entirely theoretical, I'll make my input much more general than everybody else's.
What made/makes (depending on your view of HOMMIV) the heroes series so fun is the way you have decent control over both the strategic side of the game (world map, army building and troop development) and the tactical side of the game (the battles), without making either side of the game so overwhelming that you are forced to micromanage. A lot of wishes are essentially along the lines of make the tactics more detailed or make the strategy more detailed. The fact of the matter is, though, that you can't have the level of strategic control that you have in, for instance, civilization because then you wouldn't have time or energy for the battles themselves and you'd end up choosing some sort of quick combat option most of the time. At the same time, you can't up the tactical combat to the level of , say, table top miniature games or Fantasy General because then you'd be spending an hour just getting control of a mine.
Basically what I'm saying is that the first and foremost thing that HOMMV has to do is keep the balance between the two elements of the game and not end up as a bad Civ clone or a bad Fantasy General clone.
There are two things I would like to see changed, though.
First, I'd really like to see steps taken to discourage one dimensional armies. Most games actually have this problem. What I mean is, no matter what people like to say with regard to "personal preference" and whatnot, there are always certain troops that just end up being better than others, especially in endgame and you end up seeing a lot of armies that are made up of big stacks of one or two types of troops. What I'd like to see is a sort of rock-scissor-paper kind of interplay. If anybody remembers the Ancient Art of War, Barbarians were really good against Archers but bad against Knights, Knights were good against Barbarians but bad against Archers and Archers were good against Knights but bad against Barbarians. A lot of the game involved getting favorable matchups and using combined forces. Starcraft did a decent job of this, but Hordes of Hydralisks or Carrier Fleets were still all too common strategies because, quite simply, they were often succesful. The game that really did the best job of forcing you to use combined forces was Dune 2000 (although it had other gameplay issues that prevented it from being one of the alltime greats). For instance, heavy infantry could absolutely shred tank forces because they had just a huge concentration of anti-tank weaponry. Light infantry were basically useless against tanks. However, because of the light infantries higher rate of small arms type fire, they could easily take care of heavy infantry. Artillery was good against infantry, but bad against vehicles and missle launchers were good against vehicles but bad against infantry, etc etc. The end result was that even a huge hoard of a single type of unit could be defeated with almost comical ease. You absolutely had to use the combined forces philosophy to win. I'd like to see some of that in the next Heroes game.
The other thing is I kind of want the behind the scenes sort of guy back. Heroes of the battlefield is great, but there's sort of something missing without the guy who affects things from the back. With heroes on the battlefield, I'd like to have some sort of overarching ruler of the kingdom, much in the manner of Master of Magic. Age of Wonders, despite initially being fun just really didn't manage to recreate the God-Emperor feel that I loved about MoM and I'd love it if HOMMV manages to give me that again.
|
|
CraigHack
Known Hero
Have fantasies, will travel...
|
|
posted October 10, 2002 04:33 PM |
|
|
I agree with almost everything thats been said here 
When we start wishing for things in Heroes V we need to remember that there are 2 kinds of Heroes games being played. Single player and Multi-Player. Some of us are both but most of us are one or the other.
These are two totally different games! The graphics are the same and the interface is the same but thats about it.
Single players talk about level 4 creatures and multiple level 22 or more Heroes on X-Large maps and they are often more knowledgeable about the game details. Single players dont usually like multi player maps!
Multi players play mostly Medium maps, level 3 creatures is all we see mostly (or need) and we end our games in week 3 and move on to the next one. Our Heroes are level 8-10 unless its a rich map. We never see 20 Black Dragons and if we did we wouldnt bother them
Multi players sometimes play single player maps for fun and dont finish them! We really dont care about the score at the end.
Both normally like blind maps
I used to look down on single players and many multi players do because it's a different game. Single players lose games when they begin to play multi until they learn the differences. Multi players are looking for small advantages and a quick win because the game is 4-5 hours long minimum in multi and they want to finish it.
I think the Heroes series has done a remarkable job in providing games that can be played by both kinds of players!
____________
The Gods have brought us together... I can't imagine why.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted October 10, 2002 05:28 PM |
|
|
Thieves do gain +25% additional XP for creature they sneak by, but this translates to about 1 level. It's a bit more than Expert Leaning in H3, but who considered taking the learning skill? The Thief has to spend 4 level-ups to get GM stealth, and at least 1 level-up before they gain any benefit at all. The truth is that the reason you take Stealth is because you can get to things without fighting at all, that is the major benefit with the skill. If it just had given extra XP then nobody would have taken it because it takes more XP to develope the skill than you gain by using it.
Thieves and Lords do not have skills that are directly usable in combat (except the bonus from Seamanship for water combats). They have things that are usable as pre-combat effects (Diplomacy can net you a lot of creatures, Nobility increases growth in your towns) or on the adventure map (Pathfinding, Scouting, Seamanship, Stealth), or additional resource (Estates and Mining).
"However what happens when the adventure map runs dry?"
It never runs dry, not if the map maker has placed enough creature banks on it. In case you haven't noticed they regenerate. On larger maps I find myself getting way too much resources and way too much money. The creature banks regenerate after one month and sometimes it takes some additional days, so if you play 6 weeks then only the creature banks you hit in week 1 are likely to have regenerated.
"If anything I would have to suggest the lower income promotes players to hide out in town for longer trying to amass a force capable of dealing with some guardians."
If a player could recruit everything immediately, then they would do so and conquer the world immediately. Therefore too much money is bad for the game. If you have less money and can't buy all your creatures, then some daring people (not the AI) will try to cope with a limited army, and try to raise enough money to build level 3 and level 4 dwellings.
Some towns have tougher requirements for buildings to set them back in developement a bit. A very rich map sets this out of play. So I guess rich maps will benefit Order and Might.
"GM combat is accesible as a stand-alone skill"
If Combat had not interferred with the advanced class selection I would have agreed. You can get 1-2 advancements in another skill through tuition, but you can't get 6 advancements, it's often hopeless especially if the map is small.
A single Altar doesn't change which skills you are offered. On the other hand if you get tuition for enough skills to have all your five skills covered then the third skill you will be offered as an advanced class will often be in one of the three additional skill groups. These skills comes into play after you've maxed out Combat to GM (so the game can't offer you another increase in it, or you need to have about five slots in both your advanced skills, that also have a tendency to exclude Combat being offered.)
Altars and other tuition are often the only way for your Hero to get an advanced class which doesn't include Combat as one of its components. Even if you hit an Altar and get a non-advanced class you will keep getting Combat offered as the third choice up to around level 15. The Hero is always offered Combat until it reaches GM or until about level 15 or so. Try yourself and decline the Combat increase and see what happens.
An advanced class at lower levels gets the following choices at level-up:
1 skill in first skill group which is part of adv. class.
1 skill in 2nd skill group which is part of adv. class.
Combat
I like more control over skills offered at every level, not just the low levels. Removing excessive offerings of Combat is one part, but I'd also like the Hero's 'biofile' to affect which skills are offered.
"But my games a hero never goes past lv18 or so.. and games end, even on champion difficulty before week 6."
Uhh.. sounds like Maps either are Small/Medium or way too rich.
The basic things I can see for Hero specialists is:
Creature specials
Speciality in a single spell.
Speciality because the Hero is a certain race.
Influence due to background. (Affects skill offerings.)
The creature specials would have to take into consideration the XP growth of the creature. So if you got 120% bonus to Skeleton stats, you would get 60% to ghost, 30% to Vampire and only 15% increase of Bone Dragons stats. The stats affected would be the attack and defence values, and perhaps also boosts to speed and movement but then perhaps a +1 for every 10 levels.
About Gold Mines, they should perhaps include a structure which gives less money. Perhaps a "Silver Mine" which produces enough silver to correspond to 250 or 500 Gold.
The approach to have a Gold Mine 1-2 days away from your main town is in my opinion lamentable. Players should cope with poor economy instead.
|
|
Destro23
Promising
Famous Hero
Keeper of GrongGrong
|
|
posted October 11, 2002 01:05 PM |
|
|
I agree with almost everything Djive has said here.
But yeah I do play 90% medium sized maps, vs another single human player with no computers.. which usually equates to the time duration I had mentioned. The maps are not terribly rich.. but I suppose they might be to another players eyes..
I have a difficult time doing the extra large maps, not so much as a time restriction, but I get very frustrated when I have to wait, and wait, and not advance.. I am a player who takes that chance with the small army to gain an edge. But many extra large maps I find I advance so far, too quickly and find myslef bored. I know the limits of my armies and heroes.
One point I forgot to mention was this business about hero races. I think this is a horrible idea. (No offence to the Creator) But giving certain heroes flying, breath weapons ect ect.. well it will just horribly unbalance things, and of course who wouldn't want a fire-breathing flying hero? kinda Dull I think. A good Idea in theory perhaps, but Poor in practice I would suggest.
Djive about the gold mine thing..
Had you read my statements above?
1) Gold Mine(prebuilt) 500gp per day
2) Abandoned Gold Mine(hundreds of trogs) 750gp per day
3) Gold Vien (unbuilt) 1000gp per day.
My main concern is still that the top income in the town gives the same as a gold mine. You can give me this stuff about H3 and H4 are different economies and sure they are. But imagine if H3 HAD given 4K gold per day for a measly little goldmine. It would be awful. Even 2K to match the city hall would be a phenomonal amount of gold per day.
Anyway I guess thats all for right now.
----------------------
The Dead Walk!!!
|
|
shaowei
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2002 03:40 PM |
|
|
Heroes in combat
Maybe, heroes should not be able to be killed? Eliminate hitpoints, hero defense and immortality potion issues. Thus the hero would be treated as the "necessary evil", and will be sought to be neutralized through spells like slow, blind, sorrow etc. After the army is defeated, the hero "abandons your cause".
OR
There is an option to transform HOMM to Age of Wonders and have a hero and individual units following him around (adding upkeep/day to the units cost). That way, the hero level-up versus creature power can be controlled more easily.
The creatures could gain multiple ranks/levels like in Disciples 2 as well. You might ask, who would recruit dwarves instead of black dragons Dwarves would gain levels much faster (Disciples 2 is kind of balanced that way).
This would be a huge step away from the original HOMM theme, although HOMM4 was as revolutionary by adding fighting heroes.
HOMM4 now is a mix that doesn't fit into any category and therefore the immortality potion abuse and heroes-in-combat problems. So either way the problem has to be adressed in HOMM5.
____________
|
|
Zutus_evil_p...
Hired Hero
Flaming bird
|
|
posted October 29, 2002 06:35 PM |
|
|
Since they plan to take the heroes of the battlefield in homm5, I've come up with something else.
Maybe you should be given the option: do I let my hero go out in the battlefield, or do I keep him on the sidelines?
Sideline heroes will never get damaged, and their only purpose is to cast spells or bestow other bonuses on the creatures like tactics.
Heroes that take an actif part in battle will be able to fight ofcourse, and also cast spells. For classes like the barbarian it is of course a lot better to make them take part in the battle.
Sideline heroes could advance in level much slower than those we actually fight themselves, so you might think it might be convenient to let your magic hero out of the battle against, for example, twenty angels, you're hero will be save, but if he had fought himself, he would have gained a lot of experience, which he doesn't now.
____________
Meet you at TeaNY's...
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 21, 2002 12:12 AM |
|
|
Thieves Guild
Hmmm... Not a bad idea, but I tend to think this is going a bit too much into details. I don't mind building Thief Guilds in Towns and getting information after how many Guilds you have, but this souds like too many details and administation for my liking.
on the alternative....
I believe that is what you have the Thief Hero for. I'd like to see extended possibilities for Thieves and Spies like visiting enemy towns (learning spells in their mage guild, recruit creatures and caravan them to one of your own towns, visiting other beneficial structures, stealing the income for the next day...) So expand thief skills and make them a group separate from the scouting skills. (But stealth remains as a thief skill)
Creature Levels has some uses when it comes to measure how strong a creature is. It's for instance needed if you want to keep the Stealth skill. The level is proportional to the strength so it's reasonable to believe that a fixed amount of creatures with a higher level will beat the same amount of creatures of a lower level. (And failing to do so would have to be a rare exception.)
About some creatures being more efficient against a particular enemy. They have put in some of these things as hidden surprises which doesn't show outwardly.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
posted November 21, 2002 01:39 AM |
|
|
Many ideas for Heroes V are being tossed about...
*Please use this thread for all miscellaneous talk on Heroes V. Djive has said that instead of making new topics.*
Barring Djive's recent post, this thread had not been around and active when we recieved the first 'official' news about Heroes V. That, coming in the form of an interview with Christian Vanover, also known as, Evil C. of the 3D0 community. The most significant of the news released to us was:
-} Heroes V will be based on Heroes II and III more than IV.
This came as a surprise to me. I would have though, making all of the chanegs as NWC did to create Heroes IV, they abandon it and start fresh using predominantly Heroes II and III elements. It will be interesting to see how NWC merges those ideas.
-} Scissors-Paper-Rock effect between town strengths.
This seems to be a very interesting prospect. For those of you who don't know what this means, here is an example:
Death beats Life, Nature beats Death, Life beats Nature. This is more of a Heroes II revelation than anything else. This will aso mean that there is no overall strongest town. In that respect, it isn't similar to Heroes II.
-} Heroes most likely won't be on the battlefield
I think this one has caused the most stir over the past half a month or so. A recent poll on celestial Heavens showed that 60% of voters wanted Heroes in Combat. While that isn't an overwhelming figure, it does show in favour of Heroes in Combat. There are many arguments for and against, and also some for 'in between'. My take on this issue is that it is to early to state a true opinion on
what will be good for the game. Our opinions are based on the previous successes of Heroes in or out of combat. For Heroes V, it might be better of Heroes to be in battle, or maybe in the context of the game, it may seem better to leave them out. I believe to make a true opinion, you have to know what the rest of the game incurrs first.
Replies to others:
DonGio:
"How about making this part of the game more "active"?"
Having read both of your suggestions, I can see that they are quite effective, and I like the two ideas. I think I like the former better, it corresponds more to the game. As an addition to that, there can be a Thieves Guild, (on the adventure map) which includes the idea you suggested, and then an Oracle, where you don't have to pay anything, and you get all the information about everyone in a Heroes II style of display. That could be a special bonus, where you would have to fight a creature to get to it. It can also be flagged so you can protect it. But these Oracles will be much rarer than the ordinary Thieves' Guild. Nice idea DonGio.
"How about letting that concept go entirely."
Hmmm. I can agree with you here for some of the post.Firstly, I like the relative idea of pikemen being weak against some, and stronger against others. But I think the levels need to stay for the reason that creatures need to be grouped. One couldn't tell a weak level 3 from a strong level two. Also, how would the castles be organised?I think maybe levels can be used just to display an overall strength of a creature, and nothing else. Then you could have freedom of deciding any creature in your castles.
Destro23:
"However he would imo Gain much more battle knowledge from killing these same 4 mantis by hand. I think that might warrant an exp bonus."
Well, then that can go to his combat side of things. Say when he gains experience by killing by hand, it will increase his attack and defence slightly. Such as 1000 experience = +1 attack and defence if defeated by hand. This could also work when it is defeated by magic. I really don't see what is impractical about it. It can still use the old method that I created in my previous post, though.
"The town needs more income than enough to purchase 2 lv7 units per week."
I would agree. I would probably look at the average cost for a week of a fully built town and then think of a good amount to produce for the town in the highest level hall. Maybe 2,000-2,500?
NEW IDEA:
This may not seem too appealing, I myself am not to sure about it, but I'll see what kind of feedback it gets:
To keep the towns and income in balance, there could be a restriction as to when you get the City Hall or Capitol. So, if the buildings in your town add up to 7,000 gold, you can build the Village hall, but not the others.
Then you rach 12,000 gold in your town, you can build the town hall. But not the City Hall.
Then when you reach 22,000, you can build the City Hall. There also can be more 'halls' to accommodate for all of the levels. The figures of gold were just rough.
"I would like to see the same as most, the heroes3 turrets back"
I have to disagree there, Destro. While I agree about the positioning of the towers, one at the back and two at the front, I don't like the way the computer handles sieges.so I will be happy if the layout of the towers are the same as in Heroes III, but I would like to see the creatures you have in the army climb up there, and letting you control them. I think the old computer method was too indirect and it didn't go for the 'most needed to kill' creature at the time of the siege.
"I loved the catapult, ballista, first aid tent, and ammo cart.. I think these were highly strategic units. And should be brought back."
I agree here, Destro23. I have said that these are strategic and need to be brough bac into the fray. In terms of sieges, I would still like to see the gate remained as a way of entering. It would be good to have the ballistas attacking the walls while your creatures attack the gate. The catapults will be able to destroy the towers, and maybe if lucky with 'GM Ballistics' maybe even the gate in one hit.
Bort:
"Basically what I'm saying is that the first and foremost thing that HOMMV has to do is keep the balance between the two elements of the game and not end up as a bad Civ clone or a bad Fantasy General clone."
Yes, I would agree here. The strategical elements of Heroes of Might and Magic need to be balanced, as you say. One thing can't be more important than the other at any given time. The domination and control of the adventure map is just as important as the victory and success of the battles you have. Together, they make Heroes, Heroes. They beauty here is that the two work together in harmony, so if you defeat a strong enemy, you have more control over the map, and if you have control over the map, you are most likely to beat a strong opponent.
"What I'd like to see is a sort of rock-scissor-paper kind of interplay."
Bort, your wish has come true.
Djive:
"Perhaps a "Silver Mine" which produces enough silver to correspond to 250 or 500 Gold."
Yes, that would seem like a good alternative. This coudl have the priority of a wood or ore mine, seeing it doesn't produce as much as a gold mine. It could even be called a 'Pyrite Mine' (Pyrite is fool's gold)
Destro23:
"My main concern is still that the top income in the town gives the same as a gold mine."
Yes, towns are large places, and they need to provide for the whole of the kingdom. Even Heroes II, while the castle provided 1000 gold per day, there were always structures in each town which increased the amount of money given, etc. The Dungeon in the Warlock town, +500 and the Library in the Wizard town, +500. There were also others I had forgot.
Zutus_Evil_Phoenix:
"Maybe you should be given the option: do I let my hero go out in the battlefield, or do I keep him on the sidelines?"
Yes, this idea was expanded and elaborated by Xenophanes. This seems like the best soultion to the dilemma we face today. The expansion of the idea included things such as:
If the hero stays on the sidelines for over 50% of the battle, he gains 1/2 the experience he would if he spends over 50% on the battlefield. There is also an option to have a default: Starts on the battlefield or not.
I think you have come up with a very commendable idea, Darkspirit.
Djive 2:
"I'd like to see extended possibilities for Thieves and Spies like visiting enemy towns"
I agree. They didn't totally live up to their names in Heroes IV, the thieves. This can also go for others. The Lords did, as they could become governers. But I think even the basic initial classes should have bonuses, since they need to get more involved and live up to their namesake. I think Djive's idea here is quite good.
Thankyou all for replying. Don't forget use this thread for miscellaneous Heroes V discussion.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”
|
|
Svetac
Promising
Known Hero
Saintified Paladin
|
|
posted November 21, 2002 04:33 AM |
|
|
To Hydra:
Quote:
OK. This sort of happens in Heroes IV, too. To memory, a Champion has 150 HP, while the great Black Dragon has 400. Look at that difference. 250HP. In Heroes II, Cyclops had 80, and Crusaders had 65, which makes the difference of 235 HP. Maybe Heroes IV isn't so different in that respect?
I would like to add something and make the point of Xenophanes complete. What he missed to say is that the creatures in H4 aren't generic in terms of HP. You're example shows that the system is identical to the one of H2, and that is good in my opinion. But the generic thing here is that each creature generator of same level cost exactely the same gold amount. So, the Angel dwelling cost 14.000gp, the Champion dwelling 14.000gp, Titan 14.000gp, Black Dragon 14.000gp etc. This is something that wasnt't done that way in H2, and they must bring the H2 way back.
As for your suggestion for the Capitol to be brought back I agree. And you're right that 4000gp in H3 were too much. With the current economy of H4, where each town produce 1000gp, even 2000gp produced by the capitol would be suffecient.
____________
--- Paladin of the Macedon ---
|
|
Medusa
Famous Hero
Yeah, right
|
posted November 27, 2002 03:48 PM |
|
|
The towns in Heroes5
I would make the towns like that in heroes5(look below). They would have 5 levels of creatures and a funny bonus pack creature. So now the towns:
Order
1. Halfling (fits just right into order)
2. Golem (it was in h3 and in h4 so let it stay )
3. Magi (they should be stronger than in h4..)
4. Genie (they're better than nagas)
5. Titan (for keeping the tradition..)
Funny bonus: Scientist (can cast mind spells)
Life
1. Pikemen (of course they should be weaker than now)
2. Crosbowmen (ummmm... )
3. Griffin (I liked that they were in h3)
4. Monk (imho, they're the best units in haven)
5. Angel (well if it's haven...)
Funny bonus: Pope (can heal, bless, etc.)
Nature
1. Dwarve (they fit here better than in order)
2. Elf (they're just fine for nature)
3. Unicorn (these are nice but i like nightmares better)
4. Dendroids (they remind me of Wub )
5. Fairy dragons (i only like them because of the spellcasting)
Funny bonus: The summoner (can summon nature units)
Chaos
1. Trogodlytes (i don't like orcs nor the bandits)
2. Medusa (i must vote for relatives )
3. Manticore (I liked them very much)
4. Nightmare (that was agood idea to create them here)
5. Black dragons (i just wish you could cast positive spells on them...)
Funny bonus: Mad man from asylum (the names says everything...)
Death
1. Skeleton (i think necropolis doesn't need demons)
2. Wright (they were much scaryer than ghosts..)
3. Lich (return them from h3!!)
4. Vampire (life draining is great!)
5. Ghost dragon (they fit here fine..)
Funny bonus: Lich_King (hehe )
Might
1. Berserker (but it nerves when they move theirselves)
2. Boar rider (i think might needs goblins)
3. Harpy (hmm ran out of ideas )
4. Cyclopes (they're the coolest units in might)
5. Behemoths (but they should look prettier)
Funny bonus: Mighty barbarian (he shoul be very strong- like dogwoogle in GS campaigns )
Demonaria
1. Imp (it's better to put them here)
2. Cerberus (also better here than in necropolis)
3. Magog (the demons need some shooting units)
4. Efreet (old good unit...)
5. Devil (but they must be more shapen than in h4 )
Funny bonus: Demonologist (like summoner, but summons demons)
Elemental
1. Sprite (it's not a drink from coca cola co.)
2. Gargoile (it's elementalistic, isn't it?)
3. Ice elem. (can cast ice bold and freeze the enemy)
4. Magic elem. (can cast all kind of spells of 1st level)
5. Pheonix (hmmm i dunno why i've chosen it)
Funny bonus: The master of elements (a strong combination of the air, fire, water and earth elementals)
Here was my minds about the h5 castles... they are not changed alot, but... oh well
Medusa
____________
Guardians Grove forum
|
|
jondifool
Promising
Adventuring Hero
extinct but alive!
|
|
posted March 05, 2003 11:24 PM |
|
|
(edit some spelling and trying to fix a link)
Greetings (and long time since!)
A reaction to hydras mention of "the first official homm5 news" (yeah this is an old thread but its a good one! but if I missed a newer one please direct me to it!)
Quote:
-} Heroes V will be based on Heroes II and III more than IV.
This came as a surprise to me. I would have though, making all of the chanegs as NWC did to create Heroes IV, they abandon it and start fresh using predominantly Heroes II and III elements. It will be interesting to see how NWC merges those ideas.
Not an surprise to me! based on friends reaction to the game. (might also be easy to see from forums activity (or lack off) and discussions or even sales?)
Look up the tread from shaowei in land of axeoth: http://www.heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?FID=4&TID=6994
I find that this is a very accurate description of what homm4 tried to achive heroes/army wise (and failed with). With that complicated task in mind, the desicion to go back to basic looks wise , but not brave! I have wondered if Homm4 was a result of a implemantation of a lot of different fanwishes or a (uncomplete) vision of new standard game from developers! If it was a vision shouldn't thay realise it now then?
BTW I see that most treads here do discuss homm5 compared to homm4. Though logical , we might not help (asuming 3d0/NWC listens) cathcing the mistakes from returning to older games! And there is alot of things I don't want to see come back! (would it be an idea for a tread ? What we don't what to see come back ? well it's properly out there)
Quote:
-} Scissors-Paper-Rock effect between town strengths.
This seems to be a very interesting prospect. For those of you who don't know what this means, here is an example:
Death beats Life, Nature beats Death, Life beats Nature. This is more of a Heroes II revelation than anything else. This will aso mean that there is no overall strongest town. In that respect, it isn't similar to Heroes II.
It looks like a very dangerous prospect to me!
I hope they mean between creature strength and not town strength! Else I have to blow the shires hornsignal very LOUD!... Wake UP Danger Flames Enemies Wake UP....
I don't like one town to be really stronger than another, different and played different yes - but no way stronger!
Who wants the game to be decided with choice of town? It has to be skill on map and in battle there decide! Now if rock/sissor/papper is applied to creatures and that then give towns a different taste/flavor and playing style! Fine with me! But with Balance. So if used it does look like an enforced way to give spells to make balance!
in homm2 there was a very rock/sisser/paper like setup with (fast)flyers (slow) strong mellee and shooters! Now if this is to be reinforced it could be done in interesting way and in bad ways! See one of the unbalanced things in homm3 (imho) was SPEED, the most dessicive factor in the battle (besides numbers ofcause). The importance of an uncountered mass slow/haste always turning battles into a nearly decided Rock/paper/sisser game! 2 spells to solve most of the rock/sisser/papper effect the game had. Turning most battles against AI into nobrainers !( I am a little unfair now , I know .. but it was/is unbalanced)
But if as exsample using the warcraft3 rock/sisser/paper princip there could be meelee troops doing shooting type off damage (called piercing) and other way around! throwing boulders would not be piercing! And then we could have all kind of spells changing damage type or armour type, affecting damage and armour type. And ofcause there could be a lot of others ways to make a rock/sisser/paper effect (actual a good topic to start sometimes- wich rock/sissor/paper effeckt does we want? )
If they want to make this princip be dessicive in battles between equal strength armys, I like it! As it defines the role of the hero to provide the spells/skills there turn the balance (besides the damage spells wich offcause anyway would target the important ones in that rock /sisser/paper balance but not necassery the strongest one !)
Quote:
-} Heroes most likely won't be on the battlefield
I think this one has caused the most stir over the past half a month or so. A recent poll on celestial Heavens showed that 60% of voters wanted Heroes in Combat. While that isn't an overwhelming figure, it does show in favour of Heroes in Combat. There are many arguments for and against, and also some for 'in between'. My take on this issue is that it is to early to state a true opinion on
what will be good for the game. Our opinions are based on the previous successes of Heroes in or out of combat. For Heroes V, it might be better of Heroes to be in battle, or maybe in the context of the game, it may seem better to leave them out. I believe to make a true opinion, you have to know what the rest of the game incurrs first.
This is very true Hydra! To day I saw the poll on "heroes round table" over 80% called for heroes in game!
That doesn't surprise me as I exspect those to like homm4 to be the ones stil hanging around! But it might not represent the potential of players out there! (my cirkle of friend still plays an occational homm3 as exsample, but no homm4)
But even if what you say is true(and it is) I think its not that difficult to adress the issues that heroes in and out have created, that developers need to adress!
With heroes in battle we have the well known problem of balance versus monsters! 1 hit killed hero is no fun, and nonkillable hero no fun either! And the survival strenth is taken from the skill used to have impact on battle! Giving a very siplistic hero development in homm4. Difficult to balance and cruical to the fun of letting heroes be staying on the field!
But with heroes off the field aple to target everything, we have another problem from homm3 SPEED. As then having fastest creature first turn/last wait becomes way to cruical in my oppinion.
I see two solutions to the last one: 1) is to let heroes be off field but with induvidual speed! 2) let the use off wait have a time penality for that creature in next round, this removes the sure 2 hit/spell combos in most cases! It also takes away some of the cheassy no retalition hit and run tactics (I think homm4 adress the speed issue better but I am not sure I like same time striking as a solution to the speed issue!).
I don't have a solution to how to balance with heroes on the field, but if an elegant,balanced one shows up , I see no reason why not support the using off heroes on battlefield (exsecpt for the ones shaowai mentions!) Until that I agree with heroes off field!
(maybe a way could be found if heros where allowed to stand out until casting first spell ,then enter and then have the option to leave ,and then maybe an finishing spell, hmm not sure on that one either!)
My final thought on this , if developers manage to make a game where rock/sisser/paper really works in deepth and where heroes is the decissive factor in equal strength battles by the posibilitys of changing that rock/sisser/paper balance in many different ways (and with rare access to easy 1 spell solution) well then they might not be missed on the field!
with regards
Jondifool
____________
The Oxe is slow, but earth have patience
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
|
posted March 07, 2003 08:50 AM |
|
|
Expansion of Ideas (Jondifool's Reply)
It is very good to hear from you, Jondifool. Yes, this was the first thread with the official Heroes V news. And not too much has changed since then, actually. Hope you enjoyed your vacation from the Heroes Community. I don't believe there are any newer ones, but I will be posting a newer one in the near future.
"Not an surprise to me! based on friends reaction to the game. (might also be easy to see from forums activity (or lack off) and discussions or even sales?)"
Yes, I agree that when Heroes III was released back all those years in 1999, the forum was much more interested in the game, and were talking quite happily. My friends actually really liked Heroes IV. (Probably because they hadn't played any other versions apart from III) But when Heroes IV was released, I believed that it was the basic first step of a great evolutionary process, deriving many of its elements from Heroes IV, improving them, and then adding some new elements. Since this is not the case, it makes Heroes IV a bit superfluous, but at the same time, unique. If people have had enough of the old Heroes and Heroes V, you could always go back to Heroes IV, the black sheep in some peoples minds.
I half disagree with Shaowei in his thread. I think that the old forumla of creatures rule the battlefield and heroes rule the adventure map doesn't really work too well. It has also been restated by yourself, that most people would like heroes to stay on the battlefield, which would eliminate that 'concept winning' formula.
"It looks like a very dangerous prospect to me!
I hope they mean between creature strength and not town strength! Else I have to blow the shires hornsignal very LOUD!... Wake UP Danger Flames Enemies Wake UP...."
Hehe. You seem quite excited there.
I'm sure you know what the scissors/paper/rock effect is, so there is really no need to explain it. But I believe that while not all castles will be exactly equal, rather they would be quite different, but also very unique, thus creating an effect of the incognito, and creating the aforementioned effect. In my mind, it will be similar to Heroes II, where the Knight Castle was weak against Warlock, but strong against Necromancer, and so on.
"If they want to make this princip be dessicive in battles between equal strength armys, I like it! As it defines the role of the hero to provide the spells/skills there turn the balance (besides the damage spells wich offcause anyway would target the important ones in that rock /sisser/paper balance but not necassery the strongest one !)"
Yes, I would agree with you there. I don't think that the creatures themselves will be equal but instead the way in which they're recruited, and how their special abilities are defined will go towards the s/p/r effect more. This still means that there won't be a single strongest castle, as they are all relative to each other, just as creatures were in Heroes III. As an example of that, the Ancient Behemoth would usually beat an Archangel, but would lose against a Black Dragon, while the Archangel beat it. I think this is what we'll see between the castles as well as the creatures.
"With heroes in battle we have the well known problem of balance versus monsters! 1 hit killed hero is no fun, and nonkillable hero no fun either! And the survival strenth is taken from the skill used to have impact on battle! Giving a very siplistic hero development in homm4. Difficult to balance and cruical to the fun of letting heroes be staying on the field!"
Yes, you have a point there, and has always been a problem for the NWC staff, and the players for that matter. The power and strength of Heroes on the battlefield is very, very hard to calculate and then fix. But I believe it has to do with the experience levels. Heroes need to be stronger at the start of the game, otherwise they will be defeated in battle quickly, and gain no experience from it. There also need to be more choices for hero skills, and some relation to what the hero actually needs, and not going off on a tangent when I choose just one combat skill. If heroes are to stay for Heroes V, they indeed need to be balanced, and in tune with the new system NWC are developing for it. If this doesn't eventuate, then it could be devastating, at least on the battlefield.
"I see two solutions to the last one: 1) is to let heroes be off field but with induvidual speed! 2) let the use off wait have a time penality for that creature in next round, this removes the sure 2 hit/spell combos in most cases!"
Those solutions are quite good for Heroes IV, but I think for Heroes V there needs to be a more in-depth solution which addresses all issues. And from the 10 threads I've seen claiming to solve the hero problem, none have them have succeeded. In my mind, Xenophanes cam close, but there needed to be a few things added. And nothing can be proved in theory.
"if developers manage to make a game where rock/sisser/paper really works in deepth and where heroes is the decissive factor in equal strength battles by the posibilitys of changing that rock/sisser/paper balance in many different ways (and with rare access to easy 1 spell solution) well then they might not be missed on the field!"
I am hoping that Heroes V be very strategic, and the introduction of the scissors/paper/rock effect is an excellent first step. While it is an excellent idea, I think there needs to be some differentiation between the elements of the game. As an example, not everything can have the scissors paper rock element to it.
I think Heroes would be missed if they are not on the battlefield regardsless of how good the rest of the game is. It is a very important topic.
Thanks for replying Jondifool. (I shall be posting a new thread quite soon) (Next 2 weeks or if more info. comes out sooner,(or later) it is linked with that.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”
|
|
jondifool
Promising
Adventuring Hero
extinct but alive!
|
|
posted March 07, 2003 12:38 PM |
|
|
the hornblower
greetings Hydra
thanks for the reply , ill get back to the rest off it!
But I am still blowing the horn, Hydra!!
Why is it that important that the Rock/sissor/paper is not tied to strongly to towns ? (and with that I mean, one town type leaning strongly against "paper" would beat another leaning strongly against stone!)
First big problem is in the multiplayer game! (not a problem in single as any challange from AI is welcome!) If opponents chossing a town with "rock" strength compared to my choise of "sissor" town, I have a big problem ,I then have to spend hours resolve !
How can I then counter this bad pregame choisse! Not on the exploration of the map! No because in multiplayer this is where you show your skill gaining a small or big advantage, or winning/loosing the game before the final battle on a fairly equal balanced map. It would be a bad game balance, if all that hours of supirior play gained was making up for a an unlucky pregame choisse! This is not what I want from multiplayer games.
second problem is that having a town with a lot "Rock" strength would force your to develop a counter to "paper" somehow! The obvius choisse would be the hero, as he is still the resource you actual develop through the game
See in Homm3 the development choise of heroes was linked to the map! And the whole discussion of might vs magic hero resolves more aroud Map types than town types! ( a big quality, in my oppinion).
If heroes in homm5 become the only way to improve a specific town weakness, do we then have a flexible hero development? Does it depend on the map ? No it might actual be more forced than ever! Where Heroes have to go exsactly one way to counter a towns weakness!
The final posibility is that the Town it self can develop a counter to its weakness! But then its not to strongly biased towards one effect, and we does not have a situation where a "rock" town always beats a "sissors" town!
You now see why I blow the horn.
Towns would provide a inbalance that the Maps rewards have to make up for or heroes development have to make up for!
I fear that this would lock the game more than ever!
This is why I advocate that towns be of so equal strength as possible compared against each others! With the map as the factor to twist that balance a little!
But with this I am NOT saying that towns are NOT going to be different, unique and biased towards one concept or another! Its all good as long as there is a lot of work and tactical/stratetic choisses in utilizing the towns/heroes/armys strength! And that game deciding crucical decissions develop in game , not pregame!
Finally I owe to explain why this is so important to me , because some off you might think that its pretty obvius !
But it was actual 1 of the things that really put me off homm4! As exsample The different impact the choise of Farie dragon or Phoenix had on a battle against opponent with blacks ! A choisse too important for the multiplayer game and too random for my liking! Offcause I know it could be a skillbased choise (with gaining knowledge of opponents build path!)! But how often ? and anyway still to desisive (as I remember it - am i wrong here?) And if the choisse was made before encountering opponent , then its just the unbalance I fear from a pregame "Rock/Sissor/paper" town choisse".
Do I still have to blow the shires horn signal ?
with regards
Jondifool
____________
The Oxe is slow, but earth have patience
|
|
Magus
Hired Hero
Warper of Time-Space
|
|
posted April 06, 2003 10:37 PM |
|
Edited By: Magus on 6 Apr 2003
|
Just an idea I had on heroes in combat. They should be incorporated into a stack as its leader, giving their bonuses to the stack and being able to die with the stack. Maybe these would be seperate entities from your primary sideline leaders.
Another idea about combat with the R/S/P system. For those here who have played the archaic game Master of Orion you should know what im talking about.
If you shoot an arrow into an incoming force, how many will you kill? 1, maybe 2 if you are incredibly lucky. This system would mean that instead of just applying damage to the stack and killing off that much HP, the attacks would go creature by creature. (for an example, in MoO the most powerful weapon, the Death Ray, did 200-1000 damage. If you were fighting massive dreadnoughts with 3000 hp, it was a great weapon. If you were dealing with fighter swarms of 3000 ships with 3 HP each, your massive gun could only hit one ship per round, so incorporating more smaller guns or autofire weapons would not be as powerful against the huge ships, but better against the smaller.) However, some creatures damage should act as it does now. A dragons breath can hit many more than just one target
P.S. That was worded really badly. I apologize is i can't be understood
Edit) This was my first post, and i hadn't then seen the leader thread. Coincidence or Conspiricy?
____________
So was the land riven by Chaos and Destruction, and so it was cleansed from existence. I did this, the Magus of Ly'kail, Magus of the Sylvan Kingdoms.
|
|
ramparter
Hired Hero
|
posted April 07, 2003 09:54 PM |
|
|
Magus I find your idea very good. So 30 Pikemen for eaxamle could kill no more than 30 other creatures but 4 Hydras could kill up to 4 x 6(each hydra has 6 heads)creatures and 8 cerberus could kill 24.Isn't it what you ment?
About the towns income tht was mentioned before I think that upgrading your town from Village hall to town hall and from town hall to city hall should increase both your income and your population growth.
Village Hall: 500 gold per day, normal growth
Town Hall: 1000 gold per day, +50% growth
City Hall: 2000 gold per day, double growth
|
|
Magus
Hired Hero
Warper of Time-Space
|
|
posted April 08, 2003 02:30 AM |
|
|
Yes, thats the idea. Some things would still have "streaming" damage that can strike any amount of people. (a.k.a. dragons) Also if this system were adopted abilities like double strike would be much more powerful
P.S. I think hydras have five heads, i know they did in H 1,2,and 3
____________
So was the land riven by Chaos and Destruction, and so it was cleansed from existence. I did this, the Magus of Ly'kail, Magus of the Sylvan Kingdoms.
|
|
DonGio
Promising
Famous Hero
of Clear Water Mountain Clan
|
|
posted April 08, 2003 10:12 AM |
|
|
Magus: I definitely like your idea on "proportional killing". The question, I think, is whether this will be too hard to balance. For instance, wouldn't it make Behemoths useless versus low-level units? If you have five behemoths, now you have attack and damage to take out, say, 30 L1's, and with your system, they could only take out five.
Or were you only referring to ranged units? In that case, I like the idea even better, however the question of balance still stands.
On the whole rock, scissors, paper thing, I agree wholeheartedly with Jondifool.
What fun is a map if it's only determined by what towns you and your opponent start with? Hypothetically, let's say that Life beats Death, and you start a map with the Death town, build up and clear out your area, and proceed to take on the opponent, only to discover that he has the Life town, therefore you don't stand a chance (given that the players are of roughly equal skill). That would be death to multiplayer, and would probably make single-player more boring as well.
Dixi
DonGio
____________
There are 10 types of people: Those who read binary, and those who don't.
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted April 08, 2003 12:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just an idea I had on heroes in combat. They should be incorporated into a stack as its leader
....
If you shoot an arrow into an incoming force, how many will you kill? 1, maybe 2 if you are incredibly lucky.
....
P.S. That was worded really badly. I apologize is i can't be understood
i have been thinking about similar things, so i guess i am incompetent to say if it was worded badly or not.
*lol*
about heroes in combat: the idea could be that they are the last unit in a stack, i.e. they die last. so they wouldn't have to be super-powerful.
someone has said in this forum that heroes should have a bodyguard stack that distracts enemies that try to attack the hero. well, i like the last-unit-in-the-stack idea better, although the purpose of those two ideas is the same thing to me.
========
also, what i have thought about the other idea silently in my dark crypt was that not only could one creature kill no more than one enemy creature in one hit, but also if two melee armies meet, they have the contact line that determines how many creatures in the stack can have a chance to hit at all.
more small creatures fit on the contact line of same
length, and if the contact line is not linear but curved, one contact line should be slightly longer than the other, so that way the stack sizes should count.
========
well, i have been thinking about creating a small flash game, somewhat heroes-like, but not quite. with a bit different world view, economy and combat, and most importantly, without animations nor ai, otherways i wouldn't even try to dream about it.
also, there are some problems with speeding up the multiplayer (well, the only way to play without ai, i guess). if i solve those, i might start to consider the idea more seriously. i am somewhat busy atm and not willing to read through many threads, so i have a question: is there a nice thread with ideas how to speed up multi?
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
| |
|
|
