|
| Thread: No chaining anymore? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
posted July 13, 2011 12:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There are exploits competitive players don't like to see or use, for instance wraithbombs (most hated tactic EVER) and suicide armageddon. Those are usually banned. However chaining is just a method of going around crappy logistical issues (Sorry but spending a week to get back to the castle for creatures and another week to get where you were previously ain't fun) and also a mechanism to weaken the broken town portal spell in long games. That's why it's allowed. As for Red Rush and other strats that can be gruesomely annoying - those are usually prevented by mapmakers due to map design (i.e. garrison you have to break through, impossible to do @ week 1). Nobody plays on "original aka provided with the game" maps anyway in serious games, because those are usually not balanced well (highly favoring one player or offering excessive randomness. Plus town portal ain't banned on them. )
As for no chaining: well, we competitives will miss it, but we'll get used to it
However, Town Portal seems to be the logical solution to those crappy logistical issues that you mention. And while I agree the idea that you had to learn Earth Magic in H3 to use TP properly was silly, H5 seemed to find a good way around that - apart from the fact that they didn't make a proper Town Portal, duh. H6 has a new take on it, and while I haven't got a full impression of how it works, at least making it a building seems to make it more even for all. Ironically, the new skill system if anything would make it easy for TP to still be a spell without locking you overly much on skill selection to gain it.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 12:59 PM |
|
|
Exactly. It's a fine compromise.
Anyway, reading comments here, with every word I read I remember better why I wanted to have no part with the tourney community.
I find the rules ridulous. They are based on a game HoMM isn't. The idea of having 2 players that conquer part of the map and then somehow "fight it out" is definitely not what this game is all about. The idea of meeting in the field with roughly equal forces and heroes and decide the map in some end battle, is complete... well, you can guess what it is.
Because it won't be decided by skill but by luck - provided things are roughly equal -, while if things are not roughly equal, the inferior force would be foolish to fight at all.
Siege battles, since the towns don't have defences just for fun, have to be part of the game. The inferior force is thankful for the protection.
However, siege battles may be very costly, and the attacker needs to have a sufficient force.
The conclusion is, that tourney maps MUST provide the means to win a siege battle as well, but of course only for one player. A grail buried somewhere in the middle, a collection of powerful artifacts, a town where troops are waiting to be picked up, whatever.
Which is logical as well, otherwise you wouldn't need to play a cuople of weeks or months but could immediately play a duel.
In other words - there should not be any additional rules except a time limit.
All tactics aiming on investing into something that has the potential to hurt the opponent more than they cost oneself, should be allowed, not only the cheesy ones. Why would you allow chaining, but not Armagedddoning (or WoLling or CotNning)? Sure it may be tedious to always be on the lookout for kamikaze or other tactics, but tedious is tedious, and having to chain to the max because the opponent might do as well is not less tedious.
That's why time limits are such a good idea, because time limits and tediousness are somewhat mutually exclusive.
[/rant off]
HoMM 6 Tourney mode promises to be quite interesting.
I encourage everyone with a beta to try BA in tournament mode, starting with a moderate time, like, well, 3 hours, then cutting back on time limit.
|
|
conan_dw
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 01:16 PM |
|
|
aehm,
chaining isnt only the fact, that u could build "telegraph-lines" to move your troops to your main over a long distance!
chaining or what u could say "clouding" means, that u fight several fights with one hero. at this point, where the heroe is out of movement, is another hero waiting, who takes all the troops. now this hero makes several fights, at the point, where he end, is another hero waiting.. and so on..
with this logistical skill of a player, u could do f.e. 5 time more fights in one day, as if u only do the fights with your main. you are getting recourses much more quickly, could faster build up your town, the main has the time to visit all helpfull skillbuildings and could MUCH earlier fight the really important fights like the guards to the next area f.e
without THIS, all players only move there mains from fight to fight and THIS would be boring!
____________
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 01:54 PM |
|
|
Look chaining is cool to use, but affects time.....
The fact is, if all things are equal to all players then it's okay....
In H6, one can't chain anymore due to max number of heroes, so it's the same for every player....
Besides less heroes to manage is better, don't want to get too many headaches playing!
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 02:02 PM |
|
|
Actually the battle is half of it if not less. I have seen more games won by good map navigation and control of the locations than a well played final battle. Made most battles look like a joke but it gave you the satisfaction of winning for having the better strategy. Like one of my favourite quotes goes..
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
Problem with town sitting was that.. it was lame. Needlessly prolongs the game, making you spend another 2 hours of your life when you could decide it then and there. There were many cases where I *could* go on whether by townsitting or hit&running but that would be cheesy. The way H5 was made further complicated things:
Have you tried to take down a dark faction with orcs? Painful. Sieging a dark opponent? Plain impossible. You cannot win. Same goes if you face dungeon behind enemy walls, it had an incredible advantage. It CAN get new artifacts on the beginning of each month and will not be hurt if the opponent controls the map. Unless armies start getting too large where it will be forced to start hit&run tactics and yay! - Suddenly we double the time it takes to finish the damn game!
H6 looks better in that there are no super duper archers(though archery II might still be a concern) and the hero cannot kill half your army with a few spells. Should make sieges more tolerable. Better yet the area of control system and dwelling convertion works against townsitting. With any luck the tohers might not have to argue about this until H7 ^^
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 02:53 PM |
|
|
There is a huge difference between multiplayer strategies and single player. I hear that chaining is tedious, hit and run/town sitting is lame. Well, chaining is not tedious for those trained at it, and being able to do 10+ fights in the same turn is often what decides the game outcome later, so nothing about luck as JJ implies. Town sitting is also a single player valuable strategy, while in MP it does not help but prolong the game. Hit and run is both single and MP possible strategy, there are various counters to it (shackles, resistance, red orb, speed+) and it never was a deciding factor.
In all, I prefer the game without any rules, because I am not so picky about the luck factor, but about trying to outcome different challenges.
I was able to win while the other had dimension door (also lost to it of course), and the game was thrilling at some point. My opinion is that the ones who never tried intensely both variants (mp and sp) should not express harsh statements as "is stupid, lame, tedious". That only makes them look fool in the eyes of those who actually know what is about.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 03:03 PM |
|
|
Elvin, I agree and I disagree. 
I agree that town sitting is lame.
However, that can happen only, when there is no alternative victory condition.
One victory condistion is, for example, control of, for example, a certain number of mines or a certain town for a certain time and so on.
I've always found, that simple kill-each-other maps are basically unplayable, because there are two targets, and when in dounbt it's way easier to defend the one you already have than trying to conquer the one you don't.
However, as soon as there is one additional target, that is either a direct win or conquest would make victory highly probably, siege or not, town sitting won't win ANYTHING and can only lose.
Now the thing is, that with one or even more additional VITAL targets, the original one is becoming one as well: since the opponent is bound to make a grab for it, you may just try a surprise attack on his town, hoping to wrong-foor him.
So it's simply a question of the map - they are lacking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And, Conan_dw, we all know how chaining works and why - however, I wonder that no one is playing with a darn TIME LIMIT. Chaining makes turns incredibly Loooooooong which is incredibly boring. So I wouldn't play without a serious time limit of not more than two minutes, where everyone could chain as much as they want.
|
|
vitorsly
Known Hero
Joker!
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 03:05 PM |
|
Edited by vitorsly at 15:24, 13 Jul 2011.
|
Note that I only play hot-seat with my 12 year old brother that is not THAT good of a player ( can't say I am THAT good too ).
In small maps I always have 2 heroes:
1 Main battle and creeping hero.
1 scout hero to grab non-guarded resources and explore non-guarded territory.
In Medium maps I have 3 heroes:
1 Main battle and creeping hero.
1 ' guard ' that is also used to get troops to the main hero.
1 scout hero to grab... (see up)
In large and extra large maps I DO chain but it is never more than 3 or 4 links.
|
|
elvin_goose
Tavern Dweller
goose moose train-trucksXDDXD
|
posted July 13, 2011 03:36 PM |
|
|
alci grönbete great undeath carpenters XD 
____________
train-trucks 4034906:SMOLDERING
BRAIN ZOMBIE DEADS!!!!!!!!!WITH
YETIS!!!!!!!!AND TRAIN-
TRUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Ankhes
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 04:27 PM |
|
|
I didn't like chaining even though it required some skill but still not much. I just think it doesn't add too much depth into the game - it is something you basically had to do and it was time consuming(movement calculation-> moving heroeses->swapping all the units between them). I would much rather they worked on the idea from homm5 with summon creature.
I played quite a lot of MP and I preferred small maps with quite strong creatures as guardian(like t4-t5 for crystal/gem/mercury/sulfur), where you had to make decisions when and which one to take because it was very tough to get them fast without at least some losses. And at the same time it created small time window where opponent if scouted can either try to engage you when you have lost some units and invested in something that didn't really paid off yet(like higher tier unit) or take the mine and force you to camp and be in a highly disadvantaged position. I liked how in homm5 both buildings and upgrades were quite expensive and there was few options to go for example economy(city hall etc) or army and try to get resources by creeping more. Also there were decisions wether to go upgrade t4 or get t5 because on one hand upgrading really improved creature strength(it was basically like upg t3=t4 upg t4=t5 etc) but getting t5 would probably give you more advantage if you can get to the later game because you get higher numbers of them already.
I'm not sure if my reasoning is clear but hopefully you get the point
|
|
Warmonger
Promising
Legendary Hero
fallen artist
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 05:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Or just do as in Heroes 4
This was big mistake. I know many pro players that refused to play H4 just for that. If you guys not play multiplayer, play the game as you used to play, like someone force you to use chaining. But for multiplayer chaining it's a must. Nothing to discuss here seriously ...
Well, if you disable chaining for both players, will the game loose anything? They still will have equal chance. And turn will come shorter, on the other hand completing XL map in three weeks will not be so obvious. It will be harder to use same army for multiple fights eveyr day and may force players to manage heroes and their creatures with some trade-off in mind. No more abusing mechanics.
Quote:
also a mechanism to weaken the broken town portal spell in long game
First logical argument I see here. Others just say "This is how it has always been" or just offend common sense.
Still, chaining used in Maretti demos really impressed me and I started to use that startegy against AI, but it's no doubt abuse of game rules. Just as lame as single shooter with forcefield. Sure, it may essentail in some cases, but breaks intended balance and simplifies strategic option.
Very different approach is presented by breakthrought map templates like Hypercube or Guerilla, where players start with four towns so cannot chain in all of them anyway. Balance is provided by scale of the map - you can't get very lucky in ALL four starting areas. Still, it's very random and upredictable.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 05:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, if you disable chaining for both players, will the game loose anything?
It will lose both players...
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 05:28 PM |
|
|
Oh, please.
Again - play with time limit. Then you can chain as much as you want.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 05:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My opinion is that the ones who never tried intensely both variants (mp and sp) should not express harsh statements as "is stupid, lame, tedious". That only makes them look fool in the eyes of those who actually know what is about.
I can express my oppinion about it, no matter what experience I have, thank you. I'm not assuming to judge what is wrong or right, but my oppinion on the matter and whether I like it or dislike it I know just fine - and though people may have their own oppinion that diverges from mine, I'll claim my right to have mine without being a fool for that reason.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 05:48 PM |
|
|
Heroes 3 TOH players used the 4 minutes/turn (battles not added), which is very fast. Chaining is not taking time, it is a matter of good eye, appreciation of speed and tactical insight. So, please...
@Alcibiade: You were not the target, I don't remember seeing you saying that it was stupid.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 06:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Alcibiade: You were not the target, I don't remember seeing you saying that it was stupid.
No, but I did say I found it tedious. But let's burry the hatchett then.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Aosaw
Promising
Famous Hero
Author of Nonreal Fiction
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 06:57 PM |
|
|
|
It's nice to see people making rash statements about other people's beliefs being foolish, only to rescind them when they realize their statements also apply to a moderator.
|
|
rainalcar
Promising
Famous Hero
Heroji su zakon
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 07:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps you think chaining is difficult, and by successfully chaining you are proving how good you are, but chaining is not difficult. It is time consuming and it isn't fun.
You are wrong. Top level chaining was not something many players could do successfully. I don't think there were more then 5 non-russian players that could be called top level, chaining mastery included, and I believe not much is changed now. 95% of Heroes (3) games are decided in battles against the map. Judging perfectly what troops, skills, spells and stats you need to fight certain fights, fight them as soon as possible, which requires to get there as soon as possible, is the key.
I do tend to come to the same conclusion that for the vast majority of players chaining simply isn't fun, and I can understand them, and can acknowledge that Heroes should not be made for hard core number crunching players, but for casual hotseaters. Will they be able to achieve that, and make the game diverse, so that there will good players, very good players, really good players, top players, we will see.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 07:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Heroes 3 TOH players used the 4 minutes/turn (battles not added), which is very fast. Chaining is not taking time, it is a matter of good eye, appreciation of speed and tactical insight. So, please...
4 minutes is an eternity, actually. For people who regularly play 4 minutes is plenty of time. If you read my post you'll see that I wrote I wouldn't play with more than TWO minutes time.
Also, as Rainalcar says, the actual CHAINING AS SUCH isn't the big deal. The point is to maximize the impact of your amount of available troops, and more often than not that includes a variable mix of splitting those forces and merge them again, when necessary.
So chaining, as in maximizing the RANGE of your forces is one thing, but chaining to maximize the IMPACT of your forces is something completely different.
So. That said, I never were opposed to chaining, and I'm not opposed to it now.
It's just that in my opinion the maps played at toh and general mp gaming is making maps too rich and too simple in difficulty, unnecessarily favoring the logictics part of the game.
Which, in the end, is the reason why I advertise so strict a time limit.
Anyway. Not much to discuss here. THEN was then, and everyone their own. NOW we hopefully have a hero limit.
|
|
LichKing012
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2011 08:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
One little example. Random map. Week 1. Most space of start zone is unknown territory. You creep with main hero for 4 turns in one direction. And boom, dead end ... To get back on road you have to loose 4 turns. This big waist of time will lead most probable to loosing game if your opponent is decent player. This not going to happen if you have support line of heroes ready to chain back your hero to main town with no waist of time.
Alternately, you aren't stupid enough to explore in one direction, or you have your secondary hero exploring in other areas.
Personally, I'm glad it's heavily restricted. It was a clearly broken feature that took away all of the real strategy from the game. Especially in super rich competitive maps. Basically create a grid of heroes, collect and kill everything, and give what you want to your main. No worries about dividing your army, keeping some troops at your castle, that kind of thing. You literally have your entire army available anywhere. This is clearly broken.
I also don't see the hate that group creature points are getting. Personally I lovelovelovelovelove the feature. It basically does everything that is good about chaining without causing any of the problems with what is clearly broken with chaining. You still have to divide creatures up, you need to have the creature structure built, or an outside dwelling for the creatures that you are getting, and it allows a fairly regular network of troops to your main as you want them. Furthermore it is limited by the fact that you can only get creatures at castles and strongholds. You have to capture and convert dwellings for them to be of any real use to you, all at a cost. The creature pool system is highly useful, and serves basically the same purpose that chaining did except its not nearly as broken.
|
| |
|
|
