|
| Thread: Heroes taken off battlefield in HOMM5? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV |
|
Miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
posted December 11, 2005 03:31 AM |
|
Edited By: Miru on 11 Dec 2005
|
Heroes/Heroines back out of Heroes
I Can't believe they're doing this, let alone, but some of you actually like it!
The whole point of heroes is making your stonghold, then conquering with your heroes. Before they put them in batll I thought that it was way screwed up. They final fix it, but then they screw up the recruitment engine. But they're screwing it up again!!!
I could list 1,000,000 reasons they should put the heroes back while they still can, but this post is long enough already.I called "heroes", I mean comon, don't take 'em out again!
If anyone knows a way I can convince the proggramers to share my point, or atleast talk to them, tell me.
|
|
Miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
posted December 11, 2005 05:39 AM |
|
|
Well I think we've debated enough, and whether or not we did, the majority of us voted we should put heros back. So now we must find some way to convince the proggrammars to put them (the heroes/heroines) back into combat. Its time to act...
We have to fight
For the right
To [put heroes back in the] partay!!!
|
|
TDL
Honorable
Supreme Hero
The weak suffer. I endure.
|
posted December 11, 2005 08:33 PM |
|
Edited By: TDL on 11 Dec 2005
|
is it of any good?!
The subject of the thread is clear - heroes taken off the battlefield in Heroes of Might and Magic V. Well, now that we now they are not the same as they were in the fourth part of the series, I ask myself (and I have no doubts you all do) is it of any good to have heroes put aside (so-to-say, to return the Heroes of Might and Magic III)?!
Well, I myself am a big fan of both Heroes 3 and 4, although I much more like the fourth part (I will not start debating which is better as we all have different opinions on what is what) and different aspects and opportunities of gameplay it offers. I liked very much the skill chains which made the heroes appear on the battlefield (combat, etc.), but they seemed to make your hero too powerful. Heroes were like super-creatures that could easily kill even the most powerful creatures, depending on the skills of the hero and also on his/her level and that is what I did not like. Nevertheless, I liked the whole gameplay a lot.
But the Heroes of Might and Magic 3 style seemed to be better as the heroes were more or less dependant on their armies, not only on their level and skills. The primary/secondary skills also seemed to be more complex and more effective.
The question is if it is of any good. I can say that it is, at least for me. There will be some new opportunities in the game and we will also have a few more things to ponder about (and also have to remember the third part, in case we have forgotten - many things from it will undoubtedly be included  ). And also, do not forget that heroes will not be cast aside! They will not only cast various spells, but also have a set of attacks, special moves that resemble the combat of H4. Yes, I will lose certain features from H4 (such as skill-chaining, especially when speaking of magic), but I am looking on the bright side - the upcoming game will surely be good as it should . It should have something new and different, in any case  .
P.S. Miru:
I can also list 100 000 things about why should or why should not the heroes be on the battlefield. Let us not be so pessimistic about the game, saying that heroes are a MUST and the H5 will not be 'as good' or 'better' without playing it first 
Bear in mind, I am not trying to change your opinion - (I truly respect it; after all, it is you who posts using your username and your mind )I just say that heroes on the battlefield is not the main thing .
____________
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
posted December 13, 2005 01:27 AM |
|
|
in some battle's i've read about, comanders and leaders would stand in a safe place and direct their wariors from there. this gave them a unique view on the battle, as well as preventing them from harm. this has been replicated in heroes 1-3, and in heroes 5.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted December 15, 2005 09:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Making the heroes "immortal" and untouchable was part of what was Heroes of Might and Magic. Now HOMM is just like any other turn-based fantasy strategy game.
Agreed.
Please do not spoil the great series.
|
|
Alvira
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted December 20, 2005 10:35 AM |
|
|
I support the idea that heroes be taken off the battlefield and I am glad that it has that case in HOMM5.
I see the hero as a general of an army. Whether that army consists of a mob of 50 peasants or a warhost of 10 archangels, 100 knights, etc. Its still an army.
A general without an army is nothing.
A hero himself should NOT be the equivalent of an army. But once you put the hero into the battlefield, you essentially make the hero a one-man army. Balance problems come in immediately, and in the end, tactically, its just so difficult to balance I rather they take it out.
I enjoyed the HOMM series because of the strategy involved, and the tactics I used. Putting in a hero physically in the battlefield simply turns the game instead into a RPG game. Where all the rest of the armies, creatures, become support, where the objective is to give one hero the most xp as possible so that he/she becomes unstoppable.
Heroes prior to HOMM4 were vulnerable simply because they lived and died by their armies. You could have the most powerful hero with the most powerful artifacts. But if you had a crap army, and you were faced with a huge opposing powerful army, you would still be defeated.
Heroes in HOMM4, by virtue of having stats, and being physically present on the battlefield, could become gods. They were one man walking armies all on their own, able to move astonding distances, stealth behind enemy lines and in general face down all but the most powerful armies.
Even in the fantasy world setting, it is too much. Yes, because of magic and such, individuals can become powerful. But should it be such that they become demi-gods? The game is a strategic game, it is not diablo 2 where you can get one charecter to lv 99 and wipe out the entire hell of creatures.
In most settings, "heroes" are simply generals. And generals, while they may fight with their troops, lead their strengths from boosting the overal effectivenes of their army. And from hero spells that they cast. Thus, this is reflected in the combat values of a hero making an army more powerful, in the leadership, etc of a hero giving the army higher morale, in the spells of a hero making a difference on the battlefield.
All these are what truely makes a difference. These are what makes the strategic and tactical elements of HOMM fun. So you have he-man who can singlehandedly go in and take out that entire army all by himself. Then why do you even need an army?
All the strategic elements of townbuilding, capturing resources, hiring troops, etc are all meant to centre around the armies that we build up. And suddenly, by putting heroes into the battlefield, we render all the troops into being a sideshow.
Some might say, make the heroes vulnerable so that they are NOT one man armies. But in that case, the heroes become essentially irrelevant. Because they will then die to the first big attack by that big flock of dragons. And in dying, they then give up all their tactical benefits, etc. (Otherwise, the act of a hero dying would not make sense). So we build up selected heroes painstakingly over many battles, equip them with powerful artifacts, just to have them taken out in the first round of battle once the heavies comes in?
There is just no easy way to balance their presense on the battlefield. As such, its far better that they are removed from the battlefield.
Removing them from the battlefield does not mean they are unkillable. Defeat the army, and you defeat the general/hero. Simple, clearcut.
Everyone can easily understand why a hero can be captured or killed once his army is lost. What is far harder to accept is that one lone figure can singlehandedly take down 50 knights and 20 unicorns.
The conflux/ammegeddon combos are similar to the undead/death ripple combos. They are just effective use of wide area spells in combination with troops that happened to be immune to them.
Its like equipping an army with poison gas suits and then releasing poison gas.
Its just tactics and strategy coming into play. But purposely having one hero trained in a certain way, and having that one hero fight every single battle so that he morphs into some mighty power ranger that can take down anything is no longer about strategy. That's about who is better at min-maxing one charecter in a RPG setting.
Yes, maybe some people want to play HOMM as a RPG game. Some maps are even designed that way. But overall, the most appealing aspects of the HOMM series was the tactical and strategic decision you could carry out within the game and on the battlefield. And many of these are lost once you put heroes on the field physically.
So, I am glad they took heroes off the battlefield physically. Yes, have them affect the battle with their spells, or in other innovative ways. But they should never be a unit on the battlefield.
____________
|
|
miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
posted January 09, 2006 09:02 PM |
|
|
see thread
I have seen the future. Sorry I misspelled combat (cambat).
PS the icon smiley i used i dont understand. What is it?
Moderator's note:This topic has been closed, as it refers to an older version of the game. To discuss Heroes 3, please go to Library Of Enlightenment, to discuss Heroes 4, please go to War Room Of Axeoth, to discuss Heroes 5, go to Temple Of Ashan.
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.
|
| |
|
|
