|
| Thread: This game takes too long!!! |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV |
|
okrane
Famous Hero
|
posted February 12, 2008 11:34 AM |
|
|
In multiplayer the most important change of Heroes 5 is that simultaneous turns have appeared. Initially regarded as a way speed the game up, it brought a major impact on the game play and map making. From the desire to make shorter games, map-makers started using and including simultaneous turns in their maps. You can notice this simply by checking all the toh maps which all are designed is a similar fashion.
All present multiplayer maps have two separate areas, sufficiently far from one another so that simultaneous turns don't stop after just a few days, in which players have to battle neutrals, gather army, experience and artifacts before the final battle. These maps are mostly mirrored as it's the easiest way of balance. The problem is this type of map-making reduces "multiplayer" to a minimum.
Basically the only part of the game where you can say you're playing with someone is the final battle. The rest, is more like a race to the middle area, or in any case, a race for clearing the map faster and more efficiently. So the main concept of strategy in Heroes 5 involved only guessing what type of skills/units your enemy will use and counter them. The alternative heroes strategies known in previous installments, like mine wars, resource wars, controlling the most towns, are made redundant, simply because of the need to speed the game up.
Some of the dynamism of the games we played against heroes 2 and 3 AI, where you get invaded by lots of enemy heroes, who capture your mines and menace your towns is completely lost. I assume playing such a harrasment game against a human oponent would have been really delight ful back then.
So my conclusion is, because this game is too long, the measures taken to speed it up, affect the gameplay and the fun itself. The busywork as you mentioned it, represents the most part of the game, and it simply consists in a single player creeping his side of the map. This way strategy suffers. I am open to changes in the hero system that would shorten the length of the game and at the same time improve the strategy. Elements of RTS could be really beneficial as long as the possibilities of playing this game increase.
|
|
mlai
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2008 04:53 PM |
|
|
Yes, it's advantageous to look to RTS to fix this area of H5. Which is why I recommended merc heroes. They play the role of scouts and skirmishers found in RTS.
Another possibility is allowing free-roaming hero-less player-controlled armies. For example, if you assemble an army that will move without a hero, it will be free (or very cheap), and/or will only subtract a fraction of the town's garrisoned population.
For example, if you hire 10 hero-less Furies and 15 Minotaurs from your castle, the castle counts it as only -2 and -3 from its stock.
This hero-less army cannot pick up treasure or take mines, but can go raid enemy mines/dwellings/towns.
Also, H5 campaign introduced the dynamic of destroying dwellings/towns. I think this can further MP play. It probably shouldn't be irreversible, but rebuilding would certainly cost.
|
| |
|
|
