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


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


Adventuring Hero
posted November 04, 2002 09:37 AM

Hi everybody,
nice to see a heated discussion here

I liked the "heroes in battlefield" idea in concept. Then 55 sprites killed my level one hero in the first battle already. Of course I didn't quit playing just because of that (there are other reasons like atmosphere etc.) but you all see the problem.

With multiple creatures in stack, a combat hero levelling up and gaining defense must be balanced against a standard growth and recruitment of lvl 1, 2 and 3 creatures.

map/difficulty balance
- if a map is rich with resources and there are multiple castles to recruit from, a hero will have to be strong enough to withstand an assault of say 10 black dragons in two months' time (just numbers). Then according to the same level up scheme, the hero will be too strong against 5 black dragons in a less resource friendly map with less castles. So here we have to balance against map/difficulty rating (maybe make heroes receive less exp when on poor maps?)

magic damage problem
- caster creatures like genies are able to generate enormous damage to single targets. Hero defense is not taking that into account (also during suggested level-up). This might be balanced using the War3 method - make spells do less damage to heroes. This solution is more punishing towards academy and assylum, as they have a good possibility to kill heroes that way.

why discriminate magic heroes?
- "a magic hero is supposed to be more frail than the might hero". But then, why should he not gain experience as easily and the might hero? Dead hero = wasted experience, combat skill taken = wasted experience.

These are objective reasons why heroes on battlefield = bad currently. As opposed to those out of thin air:

ThE_HyDrA: "The magic heroes ruled the battlefield.
In Heroes IV, much has changed."
>> It already changed with HOMM3. A might hero with a developed school of magic is stronger that an all magic hero for the huge attack and defense differences. So heroes in combat were not the main factor

"I admit, Heroes IV has kept me hooked for longer than Heroes III."

>> I admit, I quit playing HOMM4 in two weeks after the first try. I still play HOMM3. That is subjective from both sides, don't you think?

Juulcesaar: "In heroes of might and magic 1-2-3 the heroes had a GOD state: they weren't killable, and the only thing they could do was using some magic. This isn't good, if you see eg the conflux strategy with Armageddon. The hero was untouchable, so you lost a great deal of troops. Now you only have to kill the hero, not his troops"

>> That was an imbalance due to the availability of magic-immune creatures too early in the game. You attribute it all to the hero, that is subjective reasoning

"Our might hero finally has something to do. In older versions, even the barbarian would cast a spell (I don't want to say there's something on it that doesn't fit). A sort of extra combat creature is nicer than something untouchable."

>> "X is nicer than y" stands out as a really strong argument Also, the combat feature currently is not extra, it is compulsory. An inexperienced leader would not charge into battle if he could choose his destiny... Even low level combat heroes die, what about those level 1 mages?

We do not need to play the "more arguments, however frail, will turn the tide of discussion" game.

The title question was a bit rushed. I just didn't want another HOMM4 game.

I like the idea of seeing my hero do smth active in combat. Maybe, the question should be "how to better balance heroes"? NWC is just considering the options, and returning heroes to the "general" mode seems an easy way out.

From what I've seen so far, the best idea is to give an option for the heroes - enter the combat, or stay and command the army from the hill-top. This gives a possibility to level up heroes when they are too frail to fight, and possibility for mages to stay... mages
____________

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


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
posted November 04, 2002 11:21 AM

"nice to see a heated discussion here"

Yes, nice discussion. There could be a few Qps coming this way. I'll wait and see how it developes a bit longer though.

Sprites are one of the creatures I list as dangerous myself. They are fragile but are fast and do enough damage to down a hero. They will also often attack your heroes already from round 2. (And even round 1 if you place the hero in the wrong position.)

When you start out my advice is take two heroes with you in the army. You cover less ground but if one hero dies then that means the other hero get all the XP.

Most of us agree on the defence part. It should be part of level-up, and not a secondary skill.

On the map-difficulty balance. It's mainly up to the map maker to make a good map. To a certain degree players will have to adopt different hero strategies depending on the map.

Also it's not only a matter of you having 1 hero against 5 or 10 blackies. You will perhaps have 10 or 20 Titans to defend yourself with also. Another tactics to employ is bring 2-3 heroes to the fight, then it doesn't matter if you lose some. As long as one is standing you still get Xp for your troubles. Then see it this way. It is far better that the enemy knocks of your heroes than if they had attacked your creatures. Heroes are ressurrected free of charge, creatures are lost.

A strategy I employ is that I let the heroes take some hits to preserve my creatures. Sometimes the hero gets hit once too often. That's not good but usually no disaster, since I have more than one hero in the army.

On magic damage: You have magic resistance and numerous cloaks that can give you good protection (and some of them are very common). The Nature mage has the anti-magic spell. Each controlled stronghold with a magic dampener reduces the damage your hero takes with 10%. For a lone hero with 100% MR Genies are as easy to slaughter as orphaned kittens, and say faerie dragons are also fairly easy to take on.

Discriminate magic heroes:
I'd extend this to non-Combat heroes, since all non-Combat heroes are frail in combat. For mages I can see three ways of handling this:
- Introduce more artifacts that depend on magic powers (and make this available in the blacksmith/shop of the town)
* You could for instance have a cloak which increases your defence and magic resistance with a percentage which depends on how many magic skills you have (perhaps 5% increase for each secondary skill), but drains 5 spellpoints each round it is used.
* You could have artifacts that increases effictiveness of spells.
- Allow mages to cast spells on themselves before combat starts.
- Allow mounts that give different bonuses, either defensive, offensive or magical.

Lords and Thieves will likely also need some special protection.

It should be remembered that usually, the hero aren't the one dealing the bulk of the damage. The hero's army is. But regardless of this, it's only the hero who gets Xp. If you are fighting a tough opponent, then bring several heroes.


"An inexperienced leader would not charge into battle if he could choose his destiny... Even low level combat heroes die, what about those level 1 mages?"

If you are level 1 and go up against too big troops then hero should have a big likelihood to die. Heroes are meant to be frail in the beginning. The imbalance here is perhaps that if you level-up your hero to GM Combat, then your hero suddenly becomes able to take a lot of punishment. And in my opinion much more punishment than you would expect a hero of that level to take.

Heroes should become progressively more durable depending on level, and most of the durability of the hero should be tied to level and not skills. Warriors should have additional means of improving durability by improving secondary skills.

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


Adventuring Hero
posted November 04, 2002 07:52 PM

Quote:
Juulcesaar: "In heroes of might and magic 1-2-3 the heroes had a GOD state: they weren't killable, and the only thing they could do was using some magic. This isn't good, if you see eg the conflux strategy with Armageddon. The hero was untouchable, so you lost a great deal of troops. Now you only have to kill the hero, not his troops"

>> That was an imbalance due to the availability of magic-immune creatures too early in the game. You attribute it all to the hero, that is subjective reasoning

No, As long as this hero is able to be killed, no armageddon problems existed. It is only because you can't kill the hero, you must destroy all of his creatures, and that's relatively much (think of it, the armageddons blade, that provides the same benifit as half the conflux, is relic class, so your hero and creatures have suffered a lot. But don't stray from the topic). So, as I said, killing the hero (probably at a great cost, but not as great as grabbing some stress-ball and watching your creatures fall for the immortal hero), is a more logical (tough logic isn't much worth) and fun option.


Quote:
"Our might hero finally has something to do. In older versions, even the barbarian would cast a spell (I don't want to say there's something on it that doesn't fit). A sort of extra combat creature is nicer than something untouchable."

>> "X is nicer than y" stands out as a really strong argument Also, the combat feature currently is not extra, it is compulsory. An inexperienced leader would not charge into battle if he could choose his destiny... Even low level combat heroes die, what about those level 1 mages?

An inexperienced leader becomes much more experienced when he charges into battle then when he stands as a coward behind the lines. I agree making being at the battlefield not nessecary, but as a sort of payment, I think these heroes can't cast any spell, and gain only half the experience. Besides, it is part of the challange to let survive your heroes.


We do not need to play the "more arguments, however frail, will turn the tide of discussion" game.
Quote:

'xcuse me. I tried to provide solid and from my point of view logic arguments)



____________
I do no longer exist...
Check 'reynaert' if you want to see me...

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


Adventuring Hero
posted November 05, 2002 09:03 AM bonus applied.

Juulcesaar, I understand what you are saying, I just wanted to show that the problems you mentioned could be solved in different ways.

Djive, you offer a good strategy for HOMM4 (problems dying, take more heroes). If I open my mind I can see how heroes in War3 die and are resurrected continuously, just like in HOMM4...

Let's see how these games deal with hero deaths. In War3, heroes have skills to make them harder to kill. They can cast their spell instantly before the combat (not having to wait for their turn). Right now in HOMM4, all a hero gets is defense (from the first strike)...

So how could heroes in combat be balanced in a normal way, to make the best of both - heroes in combat and enjoyable gameplay?

To solve quick hero deaths:
- defense upon level up, definitely.
- allow heroes to cast spells upon themselves before combat (sanctuary, mirror image, anti-magic, force field, guardian angel - of course, only one spell directed at the hero-self). Here, the casting sequence has to be well thought through, maybe, determined by "haste"? That was not my idea but I see how it helps now.

To solve overpowered hero issues:
- limit the use of immortality potions to one per combat. These should only be available from chests (randomly offered instead of gold/experience).
- review the spells available to heroes. Say goodbye to some, introduce more balanced versions (that is a topic in itself).
- I think that warriors have a right to improve their durability (through secondary skills) even further. However, the GM combat or whatever the skill should be achievable a bit later in the game than it is now.

So considering the numerous possibilities of balancing the game, the heroes can stay on the battlefield. And they should, definitely. My only fear is that NWC may not achieve this balance and thus the "behind the row" heroes would be a fair choice instead (and the creative thought focused on atmosphere, improved hero development, balanced creatures, more towns, better graphics, better/more maps, multiplayer options).

I feel a bit nostalgic about the supporting heroes. "Creatures of might and magic" was really fun
____________

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


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted November 05, 2002 09:30 AM

nice discussion we have here...

that's a pleasant surprise... anyway, on topic now... I too like the idea of heroes having fun in the battlefield... or the creatures having fun on the heroes' corpses ...if they take the heroes back to their god status, the game will lose one of its best features... after all the game is called HEROES of Might and Magic... as most heroes-in-combat supporters said, heroes are a bit too fragile at the moment... it is a bit frustrating when (in a XXXXL map) you lose your Archmage (GM, in all magic schools but of course no Combat) to sprites or even worse ...peasants ...with each level up, heroes should get more HP and other stats (a bit like HoMM3) ...that should make them capable of lasting a few more rounds in the battlefield without making them uberheroes...

...on the HoMMX is better than HoMMY subject, I think it is something we can't all agree... each one of us has his/her own ideas about gameplay, feeling... heck, even graphics and eyecandy... we should keep in mind that bugs are not features of the game (no, really...) ..when HoMM4 came out it had a zillion bugs... (I still think they gave us the beta version) ...when HoMM3 came out it also had its issues, however when veterans talk about the game they easily forget all these problems of the first days, making HoMM4 look like a waste of time... they are both good games but I guess most people waited a HoMM3.5 not a HoMM4 ...personally I'm glad 3D'oh decided to allow NWC to give us a new game... even if they ****** it up with their company policy...
____________
Dreams of Darkness nWoD IRC Chronicle, set in Edinburgh

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


Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
posted November 05, 2002 10:48 AM bonus applied.

Ways to implement Heroes in Combat differently?

OK. I have seen a discussion which has views on things such as 'yes, heroes should be on the battlefield' and 'No, I liked it better when heroes were on the sidelines' Up until Xenophanes' post that what this thread was generally about. I think we have the general split of people who don't want Heroes in Combat, and those that do. But I have exctract one general consensus from this heated discussion: The Hero system in combat needs to be implemented in a different way, which both sides would seem pleased by. The current system cannot stay the way it was, especially now since the changes to Heroes IV, and now the major changes to Heroes V. Both of these versions warrant new changes to the heroes in combart implementation.

Xenophanes:

"Some have said that the Heroes in previous Heroes games were too godlike as a result of their staying out of the fray of battle."

This is true. I also agree with this saying. The hero cannot die unless his hero is defeated. This also brings up a question of realism: if his ARMY is defeated, why is the hero? This doesn't seem too realistic in my books.

"However, the Hero should have the option of charging into the battle to fight as a unit and as they do in Heroes IV, an action that would increase troop morale by a considerable amount."

I indeed like the concept of your idea. Though I believe that it must be implemented differently in order for Heroes to be a success in this field. People will find strategies-the conservative ones and the attacking ones. Some players will simply go for the same strategy all the time, such as bring the hero on when the Black Dragons have finished attacking, then take them off just befor the Black Dragons attack, etc. This idea seems a little unrefined, but I think if it is changed slightly , it has the possibility of working, and working well.

Djive:

"Good morale is 25% extra damage, poor morale means doing 20% less damage. In a tight battle this is the difference between success and failure."

Indeed I must agree with you there. Motale, while it seems realistic to increase when the hero comes onto the battlefield, may be to big a card to be playing with in battle. There will be almost no incentive for a weak hero to come onto the battlefield, and vice-versa for a strong hero.

"Myself, I'd prefer to give all heroes the same defence boost per level."

If this game was realistic, I would have to disagree with you. Realistically, might heroes, who begin the game trained in combat, etc. would find increasing their defence easier than the magic heroes. This would work in the same way for the latter. Magic heroes would be able to gain more spell points per day, or something magic related. But as I said at the start of the answer; 'if'.

"I'd like three Might skills, to dissuade mages to take them all (because they would seriously fall behind in their magic developement if they did.)"

I very much like this idea. This would also help to clarify and distinguish between the archers, and the attacking and defending type heroes. It would also, as you say, dissuade the mages from taking all three skills ( as then it would be equal to combat)

"I'm also for letting the player tailor the character as far as possible. For instance by offering choices like:"

Yes, this is what I would like to see. The heroes need to be customised more. They're not all the same person. This 'customisation feature' was missing from Heroes IV ,and was one of the components for me that disappointed me. (Mind you, there weren't too many)

"let Hero level-up as the result of combat rather than requiring the Map maker to place dozens of tree of knowledge on the maps."

An interesting idea. I agree that the expereince givers should be less prolific in the course of the game, but I wouldn't like them to be eliminated entirely.(I don't think that was what you were inferring anyway)

Shaowei:

"Then 55 sprites killed my level one hero in the first battle already. Of course I didn't quit playing just because of that (there are other reasons like atmosphere etc.) but you all see the problem"

Yes, I see what you mean there, Shaowei. This feature does not change siginificantly throughout the course of the game. My 'studies' have shown that those 55 sprites can evolve into 15 devils attacking you level 10 hero. Obviously, that hero doesn't stand a chance there. I would like to see heroes and creatures more balanced (i'll explain more later on)

"So here we have to balance against map/difficulty rating (maybe make heroes receive less exp when on poor maps?)"

Yes, this is what I suggested in my earlier post. Obviously you didn't read that section. But regardless, I agree with you.

"A might hero with a developed school of magic is stronger that an all magic hero for the huge attack and defense differences."

Yes, but you see it is the might side of the hero that is exerted, it is the magic side. You said yourself, might with magic is better than magic with might. Obviously the addtion is the second one, and you said that the magic addition is better than the might addition.

"I admit, I quit playing HOMM4 in two weeks after the first try."

Allright then. I don't have a problem with that. Just letting you know I'm still playing. (Even without TGS expansion.) (When will it be in Australia!?)

Djive 2:

"Sprites are one of the creatures I list as dangerous myself."

I would also agree here. Sprites, while weak by themselves, let their numbers take over, and with no retaliation, can make a good scout or a worthy adversary in battle.

"A strategy I employ is that I let the heroes take some hits to preserve my creatures."

I also employ this strategy. Even more so when I am in a siege, and I am attacking. I let my hero take many hits. Being a might hero helps my cause. Since it usually has more HP, and it can take more damage, while it doesn't contribute to the combat as much as a magic hero does. I don't usually sacrifice a high level magic hero, since it is too devastating to the battle without its aid. The reason I sacrifice Heroes in siege combat is that they always get resurrected in the combat, and they get the expereince from it.

"To solve quick hero deaths:"

I like the cores of these ideas. But I don't think casting spells and helping the hero before combat dispells the fact that heroes and creatures would be quite unbalanced. Also using this many spells would have too much of a positive effect on the hero. It would be good to limit the usage of them.

"Creatures of might and magic" was really fun"

Ah, people seem to like my term very much. LOL.

Lith-Maethor: Good to see you back posting about Heroes

"that should make them capable of lasting a few more rounds in the battlefield without making them uberheroes"

I would agree here. Things need to be done ( especially ion the level up and not just pre-combat bonuses) to aid heroes in their quest to retrieve some of that 'God like status' (but not too much)

My Idea:

While it may not be too elaborate, I think it may help, even if it is in a slight way.
The hero level up system must be changed is such a way that in a might persepctive, heroes can stay about on par with the creatures of every level. NWC have done that successfully by altering creature growth. Similarily, they can alter the hero XP gain using little features as the amount of mines and resources( e.g. 50 mines(100%), 150 (50%)resources, large map(125%, this would equal to approximately 85% so, the hero level up would be decreased by 15%. (Or something along those lines)

Also, some may argue that making heroes like creatures, could see them become just another creature. What I plan to do about this is make heroes more elaborate, by openly using artifacts, putting their multiple special abilities to work, and utilise spells well. This would set them apart from creatures. They could even be looked at as 3 creatures in one - a hero.

BTW: Keep the discussions going.
____________
"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.

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


Promising
Known Hero
The Moonchild
posted November 06, 2002 10:13 AM bonus applied.
Edited By: sikmar on 6 Nov 2002

First at all, don't you think 3DO is pressing the "Retreat" button when they consider to forget fighting heroes? They're talking about cancellation of what in my humble opinion is the MAIN new concept of the game... it's like they publically recognize they walked a step in the wrong direction.

Mi first reaction after reading the Vanover interview was "Oh, so they have accepted the truth and we turn back to HOMM3...", but almost immediately I changed my mind. Why? Cos the new hero system is probably the only feature I really consider an improvement from HOMM3. A HOMM5 game introducing the HOMM4 hero system in the HOMM3 engine will be quite close to my desires.

So I have a curious dilemma. I like the HOMM4 hero system very much. When I start a game I mainly focus in what heroes I'm gonna develop and why, and without that I'll be probably returning to HOMM3 or HOMM2. It makes sense heroes rule in a "Heroes" game. But... as all of you know, there's a point when your trained heroes totally eclipse the rest of your forces, and I can't admit that's the way 3DO wanted things to work. Why putting such an effort on town constructions, creature optional tree, etc., when a high level barbarian (with Grandmaster Magic Resistance and as many immortality potions as money can buy) can walk the Earth like a demi-God?

At last, there are two solutions:

- Abandon the HOMM4 system and return to the fail-safe HOMM3 engine with untouchable heroes. As a HOMM3 lover, I will immediately buy this kind of HOMM5, but I will have some nostalgia sensation of that banished mortal heroes.

- Adjust the hero system to make it balanced. Yes, it's difficult, but it will worth the effort. There must be ways to balance hero training to avoid those unbeatable creature slayers (what about training also CREATURES?) Djive and others have lots of ideas concerning hero tuning... if only some 3DO manager took a look here...

And just a note more:

- Potions of immortality. Somehow I think they were added in a last effort to save game balancing. Heroes were too weak and this was the solution... a bad solution indeed. Now, having lots of them and having the ability to drink one of them prior to battle, heroes are too strong. And they are available in every town for a ridiculous cheap price!! I really feel as a cheater drinking those extra lives to win battles without creature loses. Am I the only one?

____________
This is my truth. Tell me yours

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


Adventuring Hero
posted November 06, 2002 01:54 PM

Quote:
Am I the only one?


No you are not As I mentioned, I was hyped up with heroes participating in combat. However, in later stages heroes really eclipse creatures. And that is so "stereotype breaking". You mentioned that you would be nostalgic about "mortal heroes". I am nostalgic about "supporting heroes" and this nostalgy is based on three games already...

Now with the disaster that MM9 was that product line might never see the light again, and it makes sense (perhaps) for 3DO to merge MM/HOMM a little bit. This feature was really welcomed by the fans, but could not be balanced in the time available for the development team.

I agree that heroes in combat allows for much more customization of the army. Given that, and the fact that heroes in combat seem to be welcomed by the majority of fans, it seems logical to try and balance the feature instead of removing it completely.

There are some dangers, though. I think simplicity and atmosphere were the main features that captured the fans of HOMM1 and HOMM2 that carried over to "increased and improved" HOMM3. The last installment suffered in those two fields while introducing a lot of new features and losing the unique looks of castles, nice landscapes (now they look like a table top) and simple definitions (hero handles the adventure map, creatures handle the battle). In my opinion, these are more important than "heroes in combat".

If they improved hero development (carried over good things from HOMM4 like 5 skill levels, advanced classes, and introduced specialties), but left them out of combat and focused more on creating atmosphere, how would you react?

____________

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


Promising
Famous Hero
posted November 07, 2002 01:44 AM

Like I said before and nobody paid no attention, Having heroes being untouchable in their previous positions made it Heroes of Might and Magic.. in a sense it was their trademark in the game. Now the TBS is just like any other one; lords of magic, age of wonders etc.
____________

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


Adventuring Hero
posted November 07, 2002 08:34 AM

I am afraid you are right, Darion. While heroes in combat is a nice feature, this is pulling HOMM towards all other TBS'es. That makes it possible for people to choose between HOMM and AOW, Warlords, Disciples 2 etc.

Personally, I like the improved hero development (5 skill levels, prerequisites etc) much more than heroes in combat. It achieves a purpose of differentiating heroes, and a feeling of "personalized" heroes. While others may advocate the increased tactical depth of battle, I think there were other ways to improve it without unbalancing the game (or breaking away from the roots).

This opinion is not popular, though, and I think that 3DO will listen to the fans. And HOMM5 (if based on HOMM4) may come out a good game. But I don't think it will be a worthy member of the HOMM family because it will be simply too different. It cannot replace the HOMM1,2,3, and that is an untapped market possiblity to say the least. It makes business sense for them to revisit the same winning concept with more possibilites later I would definitely welcome that.

I'll put a post comparing HOMM vs other TBS of choice in the HOMM4 impressions where it belongs I think.


____________

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


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
posted November 07, 2002 09:28 AM

If they go for developing H3, then they would have WoG to compete with. There's a lot of work putting into expanding H3 to WoG, so making a product that is better is perhaps not easy.

The problem with continuing with H3 style is that they had taken H3 almost as far as the H3 style of playing allowed.

A lot of the skill system is torched if you return to H3 style of playing. You will have to return to H3 style of playing with Attack, Defence and similar stats.

The difference between Heroes and at least some of the similar games is that Heroes have stacks of creatures, and not single creatures.

People will probably choose between Heroes and AOW etcetera anyway because even if heroes are handled differently the games are anyway similar (to greater or lesser extent.)

The reason I feel H4 is a different game in combat is not the heroes. No it's the reduced size of the battle-grid.

In H2 and H3 I counted hexes and made strategical decisions which simply are not possible (or too time-consuming) in H4. The reduction of the size of a H2-H3 hex to the tiny square in H4 means a lot more to me than if heroes fight or not.

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


Adventuring Hero
posted November 07, 2002 10:36 AM

I will quote this, although it makes a longer post.

"If they go for developing H3, then they would have WoG to compete with."

>> That is fine. WOG is a welcome mod, but it cannot change castles, creatures, skill levels etc. Like, why not make grandmaster possible? And they cannot balance the game. It is a user-made mod, they do not have the manpower to test the game properly (don't know about NWC, but that is another story)

"The problem with continuing with H3 style is that they had taken H3 almost as far as the H3 style of playing allowed."

>> There is truth in that. Chess style of play hasn't changed for a while, although possibilities are endless I think that they took an easy way out with the new game by borrowing good ideas. That is fine, but I don't like the implementation.

"A lot of the skill system is torched if you return to H3 style of playing. You will have to return to H3 style of playing with Attack, Defence and similar stats."

>> Perhaps so. But the skill system in HOMM4 is far from perfect. The magics would remain unaffected. Melee, archery, combat - these were specially developed for the hero in combat, they would have to go. Scouting is easily made useful by introducing the fog of war. You can still have the hero provide stealth for (some?)creatures by casting overland spells (or skills that are available only to stealth heroes). Nobility - how is that affected? I have to study more of HOMM4 skills to see how going back to HOMM3 style would change them. Primary skills are really fine - I don't find anything wrong with them.

"The difference between Heroes and at least some of the similar games is that He.roes have stacks of creatures, and not single creatures."

>> You are right. Which is also why it is so hard to balance the heroes in combat with all the possible outcomes. And having super strong heroes in later stages of the game makes creatures so much less useful...

"People will probably choose between Heroes and AOW etcetera anyway because even if heroes are handled differently the games are anyway similar (to greater or lesser extent.)"

>> Not necessarily. I play both Heroes 3 and Disciples 2. They do play differently. There is different focus. Both are very good, although I like Heroes more for the deeper tactical combat. It makes market sense to have different games, so that customers buy both

"In H2 and H3 I counted hexes and made strategical decisions which simply are not possible (or too time-consuming) in H4."

>> So true. I didn't want to go into that in this thread, but I liked the chess-like way you could estimate moves several paces ahead. That was also greatly complemented by the battle log.

I am strongly for having another game with all the goodies from HOMM4 + all the tactical possibilities from previous versions, but without heroes in battle. I don't think WOG is able to achieve that, since it is just a mod... And some theme refreshment would really be in order.
____________

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


Promising
Known Hero
The Moonchild
posted November 07, 2002 12:32 PM

Quote:
If they improved hero development (carried over good things from HOMM4 like 5 skill levels, advanced classes, and introduced specialties), but left them out of combat and focused more on creating atmosphere, how would you react?


I would react with a congratulations cry. Maybe my last post wasn't clear enough and I seemed to be a HOMM4 engine enthusiast, but I prefer HOMM3 to HOMM4 by far. Except for the hero development, which I would like to see inserted in the HOMM3 game.

I would also choose the new magic system (you can add another town to each magic school or introduce new schools to increase number of towns), but in the rest of features (atmosphere, town design and building, external dwellings system, hero portraits, general interface, shorcut keys, kingdom overview, creature and town variety...) HOMM3 wins the race.

So we basically agree. The only difference is that I'd like to keep heroes fighting and you prefer them to be only external commanders, but losing fighting heroes is of little importance for me if HOMM5 implements finely all the remaining features.
____________
This is my truth. Tell me yours

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


Adventuring Hero
posted November 07, 2002 01:19 PM

Quote:
So we basically agree. The only difference is that I'd like to keep heroes fighting and you prefer them to be only external commanders, but losing fighting heroes is of little importance for me if HOMM5 implements finely all the remaining features.


I wouldn't even mind fighting heroes if they brought back all the good things from previous versions.

Nice to agree with someone here at last .
____________

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


Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
posted November 10, 2002 11:57 AM

Heroes V For better or worse?

Ultimately, the idea NWC selects in terms of heroes in combat will be one of the pivotal turning points in what makes people buy the game. I also heard in the interview that Heroes V will revert to the old Heroes 2-3 style. So Heroes IV was a pioneer for its own style and Heroes V will follow in the footsteps of II and III.
So, this not only raises the question about retaining Heroes in Combat, but also:
=}Will creatures be allowed to roam free without a hero?
=}What about the decision for creature levels in towns?
=}Will the magic system remain the same-the 5 star?
=}What of the advanced hero classes?
There are many more questions which could be asked, but I realise this is not the time or the thread to ask them.

Regarding the discussion on Heroes in Combat at the moment, and taking into account other members' input, on the whole, I would have to say that I had slightly mixed opinions.

Sikmar:

"They're talking about cancellation of what in my humble opinion is the MAIN new concept of the game"

Indeed. I believe it made the game more open, and really exposed the heroes of the game into the world of combat, not only physically, but they also incorporated the magical side of things into it well.
You're right, this was a main concept, but also an experiment, and admittedly, a risky one. In most cases, I would say that it payed off, and people enjoyed their presence. There were, and still are, a few inequalities with the heroes and their role in combat, the slow xp level up, especially in the beginning, but predominantly in the end bears the brunt of that in my mind.

"Cos the new hero system is probably the only feature I really consider an improvement from HOMM3."

Nope. Totally disagree. I was on the whole disappointed slightly with the mechanics of Heroes III compared to Heroes II. There were many changes which I didn't like, and many of them were fixed in Heroes IV.
=}The NWC team tried the make the castles too balanced. It didn't work out, IMO. In Heroes II and IV, it was implemented much better.
=}Every creature had an upgrade. It made it too tedious buying the prerequisites, then the dwelling, then the upgrade. Heroes II and IV both address this.
In terms of changes from III-IV:
=} New magic system, it worked out very well, a knight in Heroes III could just go out and learn necromancy. Not possible in Heroes IV.
=} The skills are more refined, and there are more of them. On top of this, 2 extra level, Master and Grandmaster.
=} The heroes have specialised classes.

"when a high level barbarian (with Grandmaster Magic Resistance and as many immortality potions as money can buy) can walk the Earth like a demi-God?"

Well, this works the same way in Heroes III, but only to a greater extent. The hero cannot die if his army's unbeatable. In that way, you don't have to worry about the hero if your army can clobber everyone elses.

"Djive and others have lots of ideas concerning hero tuning... if only some 3DO manager took a look here..."

That's me. Yes, I would like the second way, I'm not a huge Heroes III fan, but I still like the game very, very much. I would have to go with this second option. The hero system is in a state of disrepair if the heroes are to continue in their mortal ways. (Or even if they're not)

"a bad solution indeed"

Yes. Remove these completely, focus on reworking the hero system before anything of this nature is tried to save the heroes from their unbalanced selves.
I would agree that these immortality potions were indeed added in the end to compensate for the liabilities of the hero level up system.

Shaowei:

"and it makes sense (perhaps) for 3DO to merge MM/HOMM a little bit"

NO!!! Just because NWC and 3DO cannot afford to make one game, it doesn't mean it should still continue-as a part of a different genre! I don;t relish the idea of RPG X Strategy too much. This wasn't included in Heroes IV directly, people could make it slightly RPGish if they wanted to. It's not the game I play though. This would ruin the originality of the strategic series. Even now, with Heroes IV having Heroes in combat, is it an RPG. Creatures still rule the battlefield, and Heroes rule the adventure map, but with not quite as much dominance in both cases.
So no, it would not make sense.

"The last installment suffered in those two fields while introducing a lot of new features and losing the unique looks of castles, nice landscapes (now they look like a table top) and simple definitions (hero handles the adventure map, creatures handle the battle). In my opinion, these are more important than "heroes in combat". "

The antique and genuine look of castles was sorely missed by me, I addressed that severly in my Heroes V thread. Nice landscapes? They do look nice, especially with the increased amount of vegetation and oddments you can place onto the adventure map, the landscapes look good. You can also render the height with the elevation tool.
No, I would say heroes in combat is more important, while I believe that the game looking nice is also significant, when you play the game, you worry about winning, not if the map or castles look nice or not.

Darion:
"Having heroes being untouchable in their previous positions made it Heroes of Might and Magic"

No, It made it 'Creatures of Might and Magic'. The hero's role was somewhat small.

"Now the TBS is just like any other one"

In that respect you are right. But there are other elements that make the game enjoyable. That is just one of them. Heroes is very unique in its structure, and the differences aren't too subtle between other Turn-Based Games.

Djive:

"A lot of the skill system is torched if you return to H3 style of playing. You will have to return to H3 style of playing with Attack, Defence and similar stats."

Yes, I would have to agree there. Not only will it have an impact on skills, but many other things,like  town structure, magic system, and others. If they base Heroes IV on a then 5 year old game, it would be too much of a step backwards.

Thanks for the discussion all those who participated.
____________
"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.

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


Promising
Known Hero
Saintified Paladin
posted November 13, 2002 01:55 AM bonus applied.
Edited By: Svetac on 12 Nov 2002

Hydra:

Quote:
No, It made it 'Creatures of Might and Magic'. The hero's role was somewhat small.


What you say is relative and dependant on the point of view. I think that with the presence of the heroes on the battlefield, occupying army stacks, they also became creatures in some way. So for me the game from H4 become Creatures of Might & Magic.

Quote:
Yes, I would have to agree there. Not only will it have an impact on skills, but many other things,like town structure, magic system, and others. If they base Heroes IV on a then 5 year old game, it would be too much of a step backwards.

5 years period is not that much. Civilization III was based on Civ I, look at the time gap there. Or Age of Wonders being based on Masters of Magic. Sometimes you must take step back in order to make step forward. Rennaisance being the best example in the human history.

Quote:
No, I would say heroes in combat is more important, while I believe that the game looking nice is also significant, when you play the game, you worry about winning, not if the map or castles look nice or not.

Hm, that's rather mathematical point of view I care about the two equally. You need good graphics if you want to be sucked in the world of Heroes.

Juluus Cesar:

Quote:
No, As long as this hero is able to be killed, no armageddon problems existed. It is only because you can't kill the hero, you must destroy all of his creatures, and that's relatively much (think of it, the armageddons blade, that provides the same benifit as half the conflux, is relic class, so your hero and creatures have suffered a lot. But don't stray from the topic). So, as I said, killing the hero (probably at a great cost, but not as great as grabbing some stress-ball and watching your creatures fall for the immortal hero), is a more logical (tough logic isn't much worth) and fun option.

In this case I would rather throw out the Armageddons Blade and all the disbalancing artifact than change the whole system. That way the main problem in H3, the unbalanced artifacts that were leading to same-looking hereos no matter the class.

Quote:
An inexperienced leader becomes much more experienced when he charges into battle then when he stands as a coward behind the lines. I agree making being at the battlefield not nessecary, but as a sort of payment, I think these heroes can't cast any spell, and gain only half the experience. Besides, it is part of the challange to let survive your heroes.

An inexperienced leader becomes more experienced if he doesn't die (he is general in the first place). Inexpereinced warrior becomes more experienced when charges into battle. Mages has no need to charge into battle when they can hurl fireballs and lightnings while being protected by their troops.

I say if it's challenging to you to fight with your heroes and survive, than let it be. If I enjoy to throw lightnings with my mage from safe distance, than let me be. There should be option when you want to include your hero in combat. The motivation will be the special skills that the heroes should have that are available for using only when in combat and not from the sidelines. And heroes on the sidelines should be forced to fight when all their troops are killed and no defenders are left.

Also the hexagonal grid should be brought back. This way we will protect the heroes in battle with the troops more easily. Just the way we protected the ranged troops in H1,2,3.

Also when hero join the battle once, he shouldn't be able to return to the sideline. Either he fight to the end of the battle (or until he dies) or he can surrender or flee.

This way, the two factions of players will be happy.

____________
--- Paladin of the Macedon ---

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


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
posted November 13, 2002 09:47 AM

The HyDrA:
"An inexperienced leader becomes more experienced if he doesn't die (he is general in the first place). Inexpereinced warrior becomes more experienced when charges into battle. Mages has no need to charge into battle when they can hurl fireballs and lightnings while being protected by their troops."

Well, you don't charge into battle with your Mages, Lords and Tactics heroes in H4 do you? You let them remain in the back line protected by your creatures.

If you let the hero fight then that probably means you have a well developed combat skill.

Svetac:
"If I enjoy to throw lightnings with my mage from safe distance, than let me be."

To me there is no such thing as a 'safe distance'. If you can hit anyone in the enemy then they can also hit you. Mages should take their chances as everyone else.

"Also the hexagonal grid should be brought back. This way we will protect the heroes in battle with the troops more easily. Just the way we protected the ranged troops in H1,2,3."

I think a hexagonal grid was not combinable with a 3D battlefield, which is why they changed it to square grid in H4. So this would mean returning to 2D graphics.

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


Adventuring Hero
posted November 13, 2002 01:29 PM

Quote:
Svetac:
"If I enjoy to throw lightnings with my mage from safe distance, than let me be."

Djive:
To me there is no such thing as a 'safe distance'. If you can hit anyone in the enemy then they can also hit you. Mages should take their chances as everyone else.

Svetac:
"Also the hexagonal grid should be brought back. This way we will protect the heroes in battle with the troops more easily. Just the way we protected the ranged troops in H1,2,3."

Djive
I think a hexagonal grid was not combinable with a 3D battlefield, which is why they changed it to square grid in H4. So this would mean returning to 2D graphics.


>>I think that in all the games where heroes are subject to damage, the battlefield is much bigger. Take AOW, it takes a while for armies to meet. I don't find THAT nice, however there is much more place for the hero to "dance" if enemies focus fire on him. If you want heroes in combat, you either have to give back the hexagonal grid, or make the batllefield much bigger (which is not good from the gameplay point of view, since is prolongs combat too much).
I say go back to 2D and give us back the hexagonal grid. No, wait, I want the hexagonal grid in any case

____________

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


Promising
Known Hero
Saintified Paladin
posted November 14, 2002 12:16 AM

Quote:
>>I think that in all the games where heroes are subject to damage, the battlefield is much bigger. Take AOW, it takes a while for armies to meet. I don't find THAT nice, however there is much more place for the hero to "dance" if enemies focus fire on him. If you want heroes in combat, you either have to give back the hexagonal grid, or make the batllefield much bigger (which is not good from the gameplay point of view, since is prolongs combat too much).
I say go back to 2D and give us back the hexagonal grid. No, wait, I want the hexagonal grid in any case



Couldn't agree more with you.

Djive:

Yes, the creatures could've been adjusted to fit in the hexagonal grid.
____________
--- Paladin of the Macedon ---

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


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
posted November 14, 2002 10:51 PM
Edited By: Djive on 14 Nov 2002

The problem with using hexagons with 3D is that you want the creatures to be able to face either 4 ways or 8 ways, and there is just no symmetric way and good way of doing that using hexagons in the grid net. You either get two facings (back and forward), or 6 facings.

There might be ways around this but my guess is that's a huge amount of work to make it work.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"

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

Page compiled in 0.1321 seconds