|
| Thread: All the unrealism in HOMMs |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV |
|
killa_Bee
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
|
posted March 10, 2004 10:53 PM |
|
|
Final Thought
I know this thread is old but I've just recently read most opinions on the chaining of heroes. I'd honestly say (tho I dislike giving compliments) that almost all of them made good points and were well thought out. I do want to make a clear point.
The opinion that the chaining of heroes is unrealistic and unnecessary is severely flawed for numerous reasons.
1. Realism - Fantasy Turn Based
Realstic Fantasy is an oxymoron! Fantasy games are very hard to satisfy the likings of people that want realism because THEY ARE NOT REAL! If you want realism you should try Medal of Honor (no disrespect intended). The truth is the first 3 games of the Heroes of Might & Magic series allowed troops to be chained from hero to hero. It was a strategy that would intimidate many players that had no idea how to chain. It's not that hard just takes practice!
2. Reasons - The true failure of Heroes 4
There were so many reasons why Heroes 4 was disliked and the heroes community split. Between very limitted hero and troop movement, 5 minute transfering of data between 56k users, scattered creature generation, many many turns to have a decent hero... IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE BIGGEST FAILURE OF HEROES 4 WAS THE FACT THAT IT WAS TOO TIME CONSUMING. I mean c'mon who the hell wants to sit through a 4-6 hour game every time you feel like having some fun on a computer.
Chaining of heroes DOES NOT necessarily mean turns will take longer. I happen to be one of Heroes 3's greatest players of all time and I chained troops from hero to hero almost every turn and with no exaggeration I averaged 5 minutes per turn. The chaining of heroes will make games go much much faster. As soon as games can end in 2-3 hours the popularity of the game will skyrocket.
3. Revolutionizing - Limiting hero chaining
**For those of you who are still not convinced or feel hopeless if the chaining of heroes was once again enabled**
Perhaps the chaining of troops from hero to hero could be limited to a max of 4 heroes only. At this point, I'm sure 75% of Heroes players, whether it be from Heroes 1 to Heroes 4, would be satisfied with any type of hero chaining. Realism can enhance certain types of games but Heroes of Might and Magic is most definitely NOT one of them! It's a fantasy game ladies and gentlemen. Fantasy means almost nothing is supposed to be real. And if you throw in unrealistic features to enhance gameplay by all means DO IT. Heroes 4 was a huge failure and the taking away of hero chaining was too brutal. The original features should be enhaced and revolutionized, not taken away!
I humbly ask that all of you try to take my opinions into consideration. I can almost guarantee you that if hero chaining is enabled the heroes community will be bigger than ever with the release of Heroes 5.
Thanx for your time.
Killa
|
|
midnight
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2004 03:48 AM |
|
|
Having played a lot of H3 (chaining) a little of H4 (no chaining) and a lot of AOW (no chaining). I prefer chaining. Without chaining:
* armies get too fragmented
* defender gets a huge advantage
* slow troops dont get used
* have to be more cautious expanding since going wrong direction is hard to recover from (thinking of RMG maps mainly)
Chaining is distinctly HOMM, just like creatures not carrying damage between battles is a traditional heroes feature. Both features allow for aggressive fast play. 
In AOW my fast creatures did most of the work (since cant chain the slow ones), but after a while carried too much damage so had to wait around till they repaired: BORING
____________
|
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
|
posted March 11, 2004 05:06 AM |
|
|
NO chaining was the BEST move made in Heroes 4. Each creature having its own movement improved the game 200%.
Not trying to start a war here, but I can almost guarentee that Ubisoft wont regress and add chaining back.
@ Midnight, I cant speak in great detail about AOW. I only played it about a week. The graphics and battles were unbearable, but from what I seen not sure the games are alike enuff to compare them fairly. From what little I seen, the maps had almost NOTHING on them so yes moving on map from one battle to the next would be boring.
I hope to see you guys all back in H5
Jinxer
____________
|
|
Targan
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2004 06:01 AM |
|
|
there should NOT be chaining of units in h5
i suppose you dont want the possibility to walk with creatures without a hero on the adventure map then?
creatures must have movement.
btw its still possible to chain artifacts and tombstones
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted March 11, 2004 10:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Having played a lot of H3 (chaining) a little of H4 (no chaining) and a lot of AOW (no chaining). I prefer chaining. Without chaining:
* armies get too fragmented
* defender gets a huge advantage
* slow troops dont get used
* have to be more cautious expanding since going wrong direction is hard to recover from (thinking of RMG maps mainly)
Chaining is distinctly HOMM, just like creatures not carrying damage between battles is a traditional heroes feature. Both features allow for aggressive fast play.
In AOW my fast creatures did most of the work (since cant chain the slow ones), but after a while carried too much damage so had to wait around till they repaired: BORING
i think this must have been one of the best chaining defenses i have read.
========
in all the fantasy argumentation the word 'fantasy' should imho be replaced with 'artificial'.
i personally want a fantasy world that feels real, not a fantasy world that feels artificial.
|
|
Maximus
Famous Hero
Bronzed God
|
|
posted March 11, 2004 05:34 PM |
|
|
i agree, chaining is what made homm er...homm!
i dont understand many of the arguments against chaining as chaining seems to be the main tactical engine of the game.
i do think other options are avalibe to help develop the gameplay without the removal of chaining. maybe limit the size of an army any 1 hero can carry, therefore making u use several main heros so end battle not just 1 big fight that u win or lose.
with regaurds to turn time and chaining. i dont see why having a "real time" turn wouldnt work. ie, if turn time is set to 4 mins, then the clock counts down from 4 mins regaurdless of what u r doing, even if u in a fight. that would speed the game up while still leaving the game as turn based and allowing chaining.
ur only limitation would b how much u could chain/fight/or whatever in ur "real time" 4 mins!
____________
Frost. Sometimes it makes the blade stick !
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted March 12, 2004 02:15 PM |
|
|
I notice a tendency you all have to make every debatable issue an option the player can choose in the game.
This will only ruin the game, devide the players, everybody will play with different options and there will be no common standard for heroes players. I think there shouldn't be any of these gameplay options, but i can deal with graphics options.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted March 12, 2004 06:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
* armies get too fragmented
i guess you mean that your hero that transports additional troops to your main hero spends a long time travelling in the empty explored and conquered land. or that if you have two armies in distant parts of the map then it's clumsy to unite them.
as far as i understand, creators of the game want you to use multiple armies. and it seems that this doesn't work well, because the opponent gathers all his troops into one army and conquers what he wants if you don't do the same.
i would support the localization (and fractionalization) of armies. i can see some problems with it, is this topic really discussed at all?
Quote:
* defender gets a huge advantage
imho it's good if defender gets an advantage.
Quote:
* slow troops dont get used
slow troops should be slow, why should they get used when you need speed? if the fast troops are too good, maybe make them weaker?
if troops were more localized and distances to travel weren't so insane, slow troops would have less penalty maybe. but then again, fast troops would be less localized.
you would want your fast troops and slow troops in different armies sometimes, doesn't this have some good sides?
Quote:
* have to be more cautious expanding since going wrong direction is hard to recover from (thinking of RMG maps mainly)
well.. yeah.. it sort of makes victory more random, like finding a good artifact or getting a good spell in your mage guild.
========
the game speed problem is always there, tough. i guess the one who can speed up homm multiplayer becomes a millionaire.
as i understand, the game is totally unplayable without cheating for great many people because of the time it takes, and most people don't have that much time.
========
and the other problem is that people want to feel that they are sucessful. if you make a mistake exploring a random map, it's totally unfair to them. they did everything right, yet it turned out to be a disaster because of unpredictable coincidences.
|
|
Hritik
Adventuring Hero
Weekly viewer
|
|
posted March 13, 2004 02:17 AM |
|
|
Leave the chaining system the way it is, the H4 system
____________
|
|
EmperorSly
Known Hero
Destroyer of Liver
|
|
posted March 15, 2004 10:54 AM |
|
|
Chaining was the WORST aspect of Heroes 3. Thank NWC its gone now and hopefully it stays so.
Essentially what it did was to add a lot of meaningless mechanical actions to every turn while the victory was still determined by your hero development, town management and combat skills etc. You had to do it to stay competitive, yet it didnt add any strategic depth to the game, only labour.
In fact, chaining even reduces the strategic depth -- it decreases the importance of defence and abolishes the need to balance aggressive attack with safekeeping your home. The only viable strategy becomes to make one über-army and go with it everywhere.
It was said chaining speeds up the game. Does it? Your outmost hero that defines the front line can still move at the same speed, the only help from chaining is that sending him weekly army updates from home becomes faster. So in realtity chaining doesnt allow you to advance faster, it only allows you to advance with bigger army.
Finally, if for some reason it is the consensus of fans that armies in Heroes must be ultra-mobile and hopefully reach everywhere (at least withing already disovered areas) in one turn -- there are easier ways to achieve this than allowing chaining. Game designers could give each and every hero ability to cast town portal spell with option to choose destination town and chance to cast it once per day.
This would have precisely the effect aimed at with hero chaining -- it allows main army to come to home defence immediately and bring support army from home to front lines fast. Advantage over chaining is that it can be done with 3 mouseclicks in 15 seconds, and not 3 minutes of hard work.
I wouldnt like this to happen in Heroes 5, but it would be preferrable to chaining.
____________
|
|
DonGio
Promising
Famous Hero
of Clear Water Mountain Clan
|
|
posted March 15, 2004 12:07 PM |
|
|
I agree with the destroyer of liver
____________
There are 10 types of people: Those who read binary, and those who don't.
|
|
midnight
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2004 03:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
From what little I seen, the maps had almost NOTHING on them so yes moving on map from one battle to the next would be boring.
The maps are fairly empty on default settings for RMG, most players max-out the settings to get more stuff to do. The boredom is a side-effect of damage carrying thru from battle to battle and turn to turn. Thus after a few battles your best creatures and heroes only have a few hit points left. The HOMM way is to regain all hitpoints after a battle, allowing for much more aggressive expansion even tho "unrealistic" just like chaining is "unrealistic".
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.
____________
|
|
|
|
