|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
posted December 12, 2010 02:13 PM |
|
Edited by Jiriki9 at 14:33, 12 Dec 2010.
|
I think that, too. There had been two proposals at elast, here, going in that direction:
-choose racial skill for any hero (thus quasi making him the hero class of your like) instead of hero belonging to one class, having it's racial
...I don't think that is a good idea, though
and:
-racial skill less connected to towns
which I think is a good idea.
Another idea (jsut collecting now) could be that heroes could associate themselves to one other faction than their home faction.
Other ideas would mean a rather strong rework of the hero system, I fear. Do you have concrete ideas, jaba?
EDIT:
Just a moment ago, a REALLY interesting idea jumped into my mind:
-non-fighting units. These units cannot fight in battle and they take no ordinary stack place. Instead, you would have few (maybe depending on hero level or a skill), so 1-3, stacks for units which won't fight in battle. Such units would provide you with a nice bonus, similar to an artifact, but still being units, and stacking. Such units could be
-merchant: gives you trade bonusses
-Wagons: If you have enough wagons, they enhance your AM-movement quite good!
-Builders: Can build roads and some minor Buildings (takes soem time, mostly a day or more, unless for roads. Time depends on the number of builders)
-Cook Team: Increases the max-hp of your living troops.
-Dwarven Brewer: Increases the moral of your living troops.
-Engineer: Increases the max-hp of your war amchines and mechanical troops.
-Enchanter: If you have enough enchanters, some or all of your troops begin each battle with a positive spell.
-<XYZ>-envoy: Decreases negative influence through facton <XYZ>.
-Field Medic: Some of your fallen living troops are ressurrected after battle.
-Scouts: You get more information about enemy armies, troops, towns, etc.
-Wall Archers: For each 10 Wall Archers (name to be revised) one wall of you gains a shoot, when you defend a city (or something else which has a wall).
-Armoursmith: If you ahve enough armoursmith all your units using an armour gain +5% defense (at least +1) and, if you have enough armoursmiths (needs more) the ability "armoured".
...I think you see the point. Such units could be recruitable in faction towns or be neutral. They are a bit similar to war machines, yet also completely different.
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 02:24 PM |
|
Edited by Jabanoss at 14:26, 12 Dec 2010.
|
Quote:
-racial skill less connected to towns
which I think is a good idea.
Something in this formation is what I have been thinking about, but it will most likely clash at least some with lore and story. However I will be able to think something better out, I if get some time to think
For example if the hero is a Barbarian and he is commanding Haven units. He is the commander, so he "teaches" and really make sure that the units use their rage when doing battle. Where as a haven hero instead would be using his Guardian angel ability, with this way the hero gives his own "touch" to the units.
hmm that maybe didn't sound to good, but anyway with a little time
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 02:35 PM |
|
|
I think it is worth an idea....the problem is that it wouldn't be working with the H5 racials which are really lore-based
...
did you notice my edit in my last post before this? I got a new idea...
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 03:00 PM |
|
Edited by Jabanoss at 15:20, 12 Dec 2010.
|
For me I rather have them ignore the entire lore thing with racials if it should be happen to be the only thing stopping heroes from having units from other factions successfully. But the best would of course be a solution that makes it work lore-wise and gameplay-wise
And about your idea with non-combat unit.
Hmm maybe, it sounds interesting. There shouldn't be an unlimited stacks of them, more like war machines instead. For example a hero can only have maybe 1-10 field medics and so on.
Overall I don't really know, it sounds cool, but also boring and somewhat "useless"  But again nice idea though 
Edit: okey not that boring, it is just that it really needs to be done right, seems like it can easily be badly implemented; but I guess that's not your goal of making it bad 
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 03:06 PM |
|
|
|
Thanks. XD Yet I don't think it would necessarily be boring and useless. It would be one step in a direction I would like to see in homm (or mm:h^^): Increasing the whole role of the adventure map play.
|
|
boeserlich
Hired Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 04:52 PM |
|
|
Interesting idea with that non-fighting units.
But that seems to be the same as items or special abilities of the hero.
You could also make items which give you trade boni or give you some benefits by defending a city. So it seems a bit unnessecery.
But still a nice idea.
Yes more interesting item-properties whould be nice. Not just 'adds X to the heroes Y-stat'.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 08:02 PM |
|
Edited by MattII at 20:31, 12 Dec 2010.
|
Quote:
Another idea (jsut collecting now) could be that heroes could associate themselves to one other faction than their home faction.
You know, that's exactly the reason I came up with allowing heroes to choose their racial skill; because that thing was tied so heavily to the faction
Quote:
-non-fighting units. These units cannot fight in battle and they take no ordinary stack place. Instead, you would have few (maybe depending on hero level or a skill), so 1-3, stacks for units which won't fight in battle. Such units would provide you with a nice bonus, similar to an artifact, but still being units, and stacking.
Sorry, if these things are like artefacts, then why not make them artefacts, because in fact about half the effects are 'already' in use on artefacts. Maybe they'd be better taking up a siege weapon-slot.
Edit: A universal creature recruitment system
IE. Instead of the old method, or the H6 method (which kind of inspired this), you get a single tally of say 120 points at the start of each week which can be spent on recruiting, so that you can recruit either 120 Peasants (1 point each) or 3-4 Angels (30-40 points each), or anything in between.
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted December 12, 2010 08:36 PM |
|
Edited by Jabanoss at 20:37, 12 Dec 2010.
|
Quote:
You know, that's exactly the reason I came up with allowing heroes to choose their racial skill; because that thing was tied so heavily to the faction
I consider this being a "okey" solution, it works well lore-wise. For example a heroes who has been living with demons are familiar with Gating even if he is not demon himself, and the same can been said about all the other racials. So in that aspect it's all fine but I can still see ONE big problem, and that's that is still doesn't ALLOW a hero to have many different creatures from many different faction in his army.
Maybe it's just me but I would really like to see a good way for this to be possible, without any bigger weaknesses for the hero.
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted December 13, 2010 11:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Non fighting units won't solve the missing neutral creatures and units problem, as I want to see basilisks, hydras, medusa's, minotaurs and all other creaturs that won't appear in towns or in future expansion towns, i'm not looking for humans that don't fight but give blessings.
No, but taht's nto the only issue here nnightterror! Though you may think it the most important 
More neutral units is a very different thing than non fighting units and I didn't get nor post that as a response to the desire for more neutrals^^
I mean, "more neutral creatures" also does not solve that battlefields are too small
For the argument that non-fighting units are too close to artifacts:
That's mechanical. You may know by now that I often do care more about other aspects. In this case, it is that armies may be supported by other UNITS than fighters. Also, I'd want the units to be differed from artifacts, which should then be altered and focus mostly more on the hero, whereas the supporting units focus on AM-Effects & the army. The idea that such units could share stacks with War-Machines (but not catapult!) is a good idea, however!!! War Machines are a mix between Artifacts & Units, anyway! Maybe the war machines could be a bit more unit-like, too...so that having more ballistas, healing tents & such increases the effect...I think that idea very very interesting! thanks for that, MattII!
That could even be expanded...
let's say we have the following: 4-5 support slots & 1-2 siege slot.
In the 4 support slots you can post units like I posted before, ballista, ammo cart & healing tent. It is questionable, tough, if ballistas shouldn't take normal units' stacks then... In the siege slot you can put the catapult or alternate siege units...tunnel diggers, mineurs, trebuchet, Skullthrower (maybe), Cannon, etc. They will probably be rare and more expensive than catapults.
Note: all these units will have a max, probably hero level * a factor based on the unit (lower, f.e., for cannons than for tunnel diggers). This max will also work with catapults, healing tents, etc.!!!
They will also all be placed behind the units, like we are used to from our good old war machines...
|
|
Agent_00_BLeRD
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2010 02:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
On a serious note, however, I'm against many neutrals. Neutrals are for me a waste of creatures; you put a lot of effort into making a creature but it doesn't get to play in a faction and thus is rarely encountered or at least controlled in the game.
I'd rather see them making a new faction than more neutrals.
That rarely encountered/controlled thing is what I would like to be different. In almost all cases, if I encounter a non-town creature (I prefer calling them non-town since they ARE aligned to a faction - and affected by its racial skill - just not recruitable in that town) I say to myself, "I'll get a few of these to clear out some mines and then replace them with my higher level creatures". I never think of using them as permanent parts of my army because of the hassle of going to get them and their low growth. If this system in implied, I believe MOST mapmakers would place a random creature dwelling aligned to your castle and since its creature growth is linked to your town's development, you can actually consider using them in your army.
If you've played King's Bounty, you'll probably know what I mean. I started the game with mostly human troops. At one point, Royal Snakes became a permanent part of my army because of no retaliation and I picked the frog bride that gives massive bonuses to them. Then I replaced my clerics (blue robed guys) with troll shamans. Some time later, I was playing with Cyclops and vampires. I loved trying out a new troop whenever I got to a new island. The variation in combat was refreshing.
In H3:Wog, mixing up neutrals and tower creatures was also a new spin on my tactics and I enjoyed that a lot. In my opinion, adding neutral creatures is far easier than adding faction creatures:
1. You don't really have to fit them in the town. They can easily be similar to a town troop.
2. They don't need balancing as much as the faction creatures do. You can easily make them produce less creatures and cost more yet have powerful abilities without risking breaking the balance.
3. They don't have to fit into the lore as well as faction creatures have to.
I would recommend trying it out with a custom Heroes 3 map and giving yourself another town with just a single creature dwelling fully upgraded along with the castle.
|
|
whiterider
Known Hero
death walks with me
|
|
posted December 13, 2010 02:52 PM |
|
|
I would like to see
1. Move and attack actions in one round - i.e. your archers can take few steps away and then shoot.
2. Rechargeable abilities for creatures - if you use an ability it recharges after 1,2,3,4 rounds and you can use it again. One time abilities as well, but this adds further depth of tactics.
3. All creatures have special abilities that are really worthy - the devs stated that demons will have less abilities (maybe some creatures with no abilities at all) but this is dull. Make all troops unique and versatile.
All this was in Kings Bounty and I cant imagine playing a Heroes without them, for me it will be a step back in the gameplay. KB is an example how a computer game office with 20 people (Katauri) can beat both in quality and quantity a game designed by 200 people (Nival) - check their websites about this info.
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted December 14, 2010 12:27 PM |
|
|
Nice to see some more suggestions
...however: Kings Bounty IS NOT HOMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a different game for a reason...at least, that's my opinion^^
|
|
Agent_00_BLeRD
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2010 12:31 PM |
|
|
|
That doesn't mean Heroes can't borrow good concepts from that game.
|
|
Demonge
Known Hero
more than meets the eyes
|
|
posted December 14, 2010 01:15 PM |
|
|
I have not read the whole topic, so my idea may have already been given.
Nonetheless, in an attempt to balance magic and might for heroes, I think it would be nice if might heroes were able to attack several targets at once.
Hero's spell already can do that, e.g. fireball, but H5 Might hero's attack could only target one stack. The only exception was the rain of arrows for Avengers.
So if H6 devs are trying to balance might attack and magic spell as they stated once, I would like to see more hero abilities similar to Rain of Arrows.
____________
Wait a second! I'm not big-boned, I'm just fat!
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted December 14, 2010 01:22 PM |
|
|
@demonge: To see if your idea's allready in, you would just have needed to read the list^^ Even only one section: Heroes. There you should find a point which exactly covers your concern
@agent:
of course...but I am in a critical mood and I find a bit too much "do it liek in KB" in the altar lately
|
|
Demonge
Known Hero
more than meets the eyes
|
|
posted December 14, 2010 01:27 PM |
|
|
Right, my bad, I have been lazy.
I think my idea fits the "-Different Hero direct attack options " entry.
As long as one of those options is "mass" attack.
____________
Wait a second! I'm not big-boned, I'm just fat!
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted December 14, 2010 01:37 PM |
|
Edited by Jiriki9 at 16:44, 14 Dec 2010.
|
More than one, probably. It means that you have quite soem different options of attack, as I remember. It could be some rain of arrows (for ranged heroes), a cross-strike, a round-strike, a charge charging through one line of the battlefield, a massive attack, to only name some options for the seciton of multiple targets. It could also include things like backstab, crippling attack, bash, and such
EDIT:
also, I did some more explanations in the short time I had no net at home:
Bigger Battlefields
Quite Obvious^^ The idea is battlefields could be bigger in terms of squares/hexes, and in comparison to size of one unit and the army.
Option to retreat without losing the whole army
This means that when you retreat, you would not, as now, loose your whole army, but keep some troops.
Battles taking time, possibly even lasting day (with a certain rate of turns=>day Heroes, unless surrendering, are stuck in the battle. Reinforcements can be sent.
This means every battle turn takes some time from the hero, ssymbolized by movement points. When a battle last longer than the hero still has movement points, it ends (at this point), but will continue on the beginning of your next day/the enemies next day (if it's a player). Heroes, of course, cannot leave this battle. Maybe it could be possible to send Reinforcements into the Battle.
simultaneous retaliation
Like it was in H4, the retaliation system would work not with the attacker striking first and then the defender, but both striking the same time, usually. This makes offence less usefull and obvious.
combats with more than one hero on one side
The idea is that, still fighting against each other on two sides of the battlefield, there can nevertheless be more than two heroes fighting, since each side could have more heroes. This would probably need Bigger Battlefields. Concerning bonuses, there are at least three ways: Each hero grants bonuses only to their own part of the army, only one hero gives bonuses to the whole army, or both heroes are considered, and allways the best bonusses are taken.
Castle and obstacle Penalties for shooters.
Shooters have high penaltys, usually, when shooting a target behind obstacles or a wall.
simple options when starting a battle, like quick combat button
When you start a battle, you first get a message „What action do you want to take?“, then you get options like „Attack (play battle)“, „Quick Combat“ and „Quick Combat, but don't use spells“. Maybe, here could also be options when enemy creatures want to join you, or even the option „Leave them alone“, if you just redecided not to attack the enemy.^^
infinite (weak) retaliation for most creatures
Quite obvious point. There are, for most creatures, no retaliation limits, each creature can retaliate unlimited times. However, retaliations are much weaker.
What do you say?
|
|
boeserlich
Hired Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2010 05:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Castle and obstacle Penalties for shooters.
Shooters have high penaltys, usually, when shooting a target behind obstacles or a wall.
Thats very good. It prevents the shooters becoming overpowered and gives slow units a chance to not get already killed by them before they finally reach an enemy they could attack.
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted December 14, 2010 05:20 PM |
|
|
@boeserLich:
((btw: are you from germany or a german speaking country?^^ )
When saying "what do you think" I mainly mean: Are the explanations understandable and, if you can say something abotu that, maybe when I write one for an idea by you: are they correct?
thanks for the comment, anyway!!!
I would take it as a but I'll open a new evaluation thread for this soon, so...
|
|
boeserlich
Hired Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2010 05:49 PM |
|
|
Ohhhh yes you are right (what was my mistake? ). Sorry my english is terrible so it can happen that I missunderstand a message
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
