|
|
Shae_Trielle
Honorable
Famous Hero
of Heroes
|
posted October 30, 2001 11:07 AM |
|
|
Hero Reputation
LOL no this has nothing to do with the red stars on HC!
I was just thinking that a really good feature to have in HoMM4 would be a reputation status for Heroes. There has been talk of razing towns and features of the map, but what do these things really do? Can you run around the map burning down cities and villages and not develop a reputation?
In Heroes 3 we have the treasure chests which allow us to distribute the gold to the peasants, in which case we gain experience and thus go up in levels.
I think it would be far more fun if things like this added to your 'honour' rating. Lets have an example.
A hero with a huge army wins battle after battle, killing everything, wandering monster and opponent left right and centre. Your army gets a morale boost, everyone's in good stead. What would it be like if this hero developed some sort of fame? Perhaps this could be much like the current Diplomacy skill, but your hero can be well known for his good deeds and valour in battle (which would persuade wandering creatures to join him perhaps) and even have neutral towns lay down their arms to welcome him when he arrives at their gates, but he could also do the opposite, burning towns and taking whatever gold he can, playing selfishly in order to advance his own needs. As such, he soon develops a reputation of infamy... creatures of good nature are far more likely to fight him and creatures of evil nature are inversely impressed by his wanton destruction and seek to join him in his glory...
Your reputation could also affect the morale of enemy armies who crumble at the sight of you on the battlefield as your reputation grows. Obviously, just like morale ratings (-3 to +3), there would be a sliding scale upon which your 'fame' was measured, with 0 being unknown. +3 being famous and -3 being infamous.
I've always been disappointed about how Heroes actions are always in relation to you, the player, and most often, do not affect the outcome of the game or how other players or npc's see you. To have the choice of making decisions which ultimately affect how OTHER players/characters/monsters see you makes a whole new twist to the idea of 'playing with honour...'
*smile*
PS: you can shoot me now okay?
|
|
sikmar
Promising
Known Hero
The Moonchild
|
|
posted October 30, 2001 12:10 PM |
|
|
Yes, another good one
I've also thought a lot about wandering armies and the ways they join a hero.
One of the things that makes no sense to me in HOMM3 is when I ride with a robust army of good aligned creatures (a good mix between Rampart, Castle and Tower) and a group of wandering zombies tries to join me. Are they CRAZY? Don't they see what type of units I am carrying? Don't they guess I will enjoy more taking them back to the grave than seeing them walk by my side. Come on! My angels are proud enough to reject such a join!!
This has been previously said a lot of times, but I insist: alignment is a very wasted feature in the HOMM saga. It should be a deciding factor when you encounter neutrals or try to mix different units.
Angels should feel comfortable with his seventh level partners, the titans and the gold dragons. They should remain impartial about neutrals like Phoenixes, Behemoths and Chaos Hydras. They should feel rather unpleasant when an evil-aligned creature is recruited (a Black Dragon, for instance), and they shouldn't allow to share their dinner with their natural enemies, the Archdevils.
Maybe a warning window could pop-up when you try the last troop mix, saying something like "Your angels are not willing to fight side by side with those archdevils. Will you keep the angels?". This will be an added tactical choice, and the alignment will have an improved sense.
One more suggestion. I play all the factions in Antagarich, but is well known that Deyla has my highest loyality, and necros has very serious penalties when you try to mix them with another units. Maybe the bad morale penalty should disappear among all evil-aligned kingdoms.
____________
This is my truth. Tell me yours
|
|
Jenova
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2001 03:20 PM |
|
|
I like this idea. In MOM you had a thing called "Fame". Get a hero killed in battle and you lose some. Completely conquer in battles and you gain some (and in many other ways which I've forgotten now). With higher fame, you get more offers to join your army from heroes or units (kind of like Diplomacy) or offers to buy artifacts. It would be cool to implement something like this into Heroes 4.
____________
|
|
darkspirit
Famous Hero
aka Zutus
|
|
posted October 30, 2001 04:54 PM |
|
|
what exactly do you mean by famous and infamous?
evil or good can both be famous... so every hero gets famous after a while, when you play him/her enough.
____________
Young moles appear to be in full dispersal which means there are more moles per acre than at any other time of the year
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted October 30, 2001 05:44 PM |
|
|
Famous by his merits...
I like this idea and also I like the idea that it could affect the relationships with other players if there would be some sort of "real diplomacy".
I like the idea that through fame you could get some creatures join you and maybe even you would have chances to get few happenings like getting better morale or some sort of trader offering good artifacts because of fame of hero.
If the hero is "evil" then some certain creatures don't like to join him/her when others are more interested (like demons) joining him.
I remember it was factor in MoM and I don't find it shouldn't be in HoMM.
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted October 30, 2001 07:24 PM |
|
|
Good reputation should be kept separate from bad...
The bonuses from good reputation are hero skills and rewards (of different sorts) when you complete quests. In some way the level of the character is a measurement of how famous he or she is. So we already have good reputation.
Infamy should be handled in other ways. Often enough, you incur the wrath of somebody or something special. Usually, others don't react to you badly.
If you destroy something like a University or a Library of Enlightment or other beneficial adventure locations, you should be severly punished.
letting some external agent, like the King or ruler of the land, issue a bounty on 100,000 Gold on the Player (to any who vanquish him/her) and 10,000 Gold for each Hero belonging to that player was my suggestion for this.
If you destroy a creature dwelling, then for the rest of the game that creature will react badly to you. Say -5 Morale in your army, +5 Morale if they fight against you.
Normally, you should live with the deed for the remainder of the scenario. Giving gold to the peasants will not appease the creatures for the dwelling you destroyed, and you'll not appease the King by giving away a few coins either.
I believe good actions and bad actions should affect your game score. (What is considered good and bad depends on if you're play a Good faction or an Evil faction.)
If I recall correctly Morale and Luck will now vary between -10 to +10.
Anyway, the Stranger's thread I created do offer some means of handling players with honour or the lack of it. So perhaps look at it and suggest something. 
Overall I agree with Sikmar. Reactions should look at alignments a lot more.
An evil army has better chances for mercy when joining a good army than the other way around. If you're good, you're also supposed to be merciful.
In the case of opposite alignments it would be more reasonable that they pay for safe passage rather than offering to join, when being outnumbered.
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.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
| |
|
|
