|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 28, 2011 02:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No one can argue against novelty - you can only argue about its implementation and whether it works or not.
I can, actually - if I wanted a new game, I would go buy a new game. When I buy a Heroes game, I want to get a game that plays like the old Heroes games.
If I want a game that plays like the old heroes games I play one of the old heroes games.
Quote:
Of course I'm putting things to an edge here, because things are never as clearcut as I state them. If I felt Heroes 6 had been fantastic, I might have praised them for their changes - but I honestly feel that many of the changes they've made have no logical explanation nor any justified reason as to how exactly they improve the game. And that's where the trouble starts.
Well, that's not at all where the trouble starts. It's perfectly clear how the changes are SUPPOSED to improve the game, but in some instances they simply didn't adjust things to make everything else fir into it.
Take for example the resources which are an example. The reduction of resources is based on the consideration that a) different resource needs of faction would bring in an element of chance on every map where mines are not equally far away from the starting town or differently guarded, making it a lottery whether you can reach your urgently needed resource easily or not, and b) that thsi would mean, players wouldn't need to battle for (all) mines, since they wouldn't need them all later on.
I can follow that. However, the reduction does other things as well. If there are no useless resources anymore, the market has to be changed. Exchange rates must be way better, and so on. Also, there are no cheap builds anymore, since every build is reducing the resources you need for a better build, and while that's not bad, because it forces you to make a list of priorities, it's also dull, because you can build less.
Also, only 3 mines instead of 6 means, that players will either be short of resources, absolutely spoken, or you'll have to have mines in double quantities. A usable mechanism to increase resource production (like with money production), for example via a dwelling (working only in the town area) might have been a way to go (and may still be one). More radically differing costs, etc.
In short, the actual problem is, something has been changed, but not consequentially implemented to make up for all (and possibly adverse) effects of the change.
Another example: Take the creature pool. Let's say, you have 2 identical towns. On day 3 you hire half of your pool. On day 5 you lose one of your towns. How does that affect your creature pool for the actual week? Do you lose part of your creatures - half of it? Nothing? All? What?
THAT is the current problem of the game. Not the fact that there have been changes.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 02:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No one can argue against novelty - you can only argue about its implementation and whether it works or not.
I can, actually - if I wanted a new game, I would go buy a new game. When I buy a Heroes game, I want to get a game that plays like the old Heroes games.
If I want a game that plays like the old heroes games I play one of the old heroes games.
See, that's where people go wrong imo. I see this argument all the time: "If you want a game that plays like Heroes 3, why not just play Heroes 3?".
First of all: I played Heroes 3 for 4 years or more, pretty much as the only game I played (I did also play Civilization, so let's make that the two only games I played). I loved Heroes 3 to death - but I'm sort of done with it.
Second: I don't want to play Heroes 3. I want a game that plays like Heroes 3, but which adds to it, and improves it. Nor do I want to play Heroes 5 - because it was buggy and had a lousy AI and lacked some for me essential game features. But I want to play a game that expands on the good things from Heroes 5, and corrects the bad.
But in the end, I loose either way - UbiSoft didn't want to make an upgraded version of Heroes 5 - they wanted to make a new game. Whether they call it Heroes 6 or something else doesn't change the fact that I didn't get what I wanted. Too bad for me, but nothing much I can do to change it. I hope the Eternal Essence mod will someday work as well as WoG, and then I can hope my new computer runs Heroes 5 at an almost managable speed.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Nirual
Famous Hero
Imbued Ballista
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 04:25 PM |
|
|
Great franchises evolve slowly. Just take Starcraft 2, which changed very little in terms of core gameplay compared to the first.
That doesn't mean Blizzard was lazy, they experimented with pretty much every aspect of the game intensively.
And a lot of these experiments can actually still be experienced in the singleplayer, but ultimately they stuck with a lot of the same basics because they worked well to begin with.
It also helps that this makes the game immediately familiar to those who played the previous game, yet its different enough that they can experience new things.
Heroes 6 on the other hand has changed so much that I almost have to remind myself that I'm playing a Heroes game, not any other fantasy TBS. And some of these changes don't make any sense to me, no matter what way I look at them.
____________
In ur base killing ur doods... and raising them as undeads.
|
|
kusosaru
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 04:59 PM |
|
|
My opinion on some of the points made:
- Reduced amount of resources: While I liked the sound of this change at first it somehow feels wrong in game - maybe having 2 rare resources instead of only 1 would work better. I don't agree that 4 rare resources were good, because things like upgrading a mage guild were a nightmare if you were for some reason lacking 1 of the resources.
- Windows for Heroes/Artifact/Skill, Town/Recruitment/Building: Those are things that will probably stop people from buying this game, because they are all way too SMALL and the icons are hard to identify. At least for me they do not only take away the atmosphere - they also make it hard to use them compared to the good old full screen menus.
- Skill system: Another thing that may stop me from buying this game. I really loved the Heroes 5 skill system - balance some skills here and there, remove the random aspect and it's a solid system for everything. Not this mess we have in H5 where we have no order , the passive skills are mostly crap and there's just way too many spells when you will only need a handful of them (thanks to low durations and only 1 skill/spell per turn)
- Spell system: I have no idea why the spells are chosen when leveling up - to me level ups should grant passive skills only and spells should come through another source.
- Racial skills: Imo they can't compare to the H5 ones and they don't seem to add much strategy (orc and sanctuary are just "press once available" now compare that to the pure awesomeness of H5 stronghold's rage)
|
|
mike80d
Famous Hero
Map Maker
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 05:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is where I stopped reading your post lol.
Now now, I think we should all cease the hostilities, people.
Radox, would you kindly provide some examples to back up your claim regarding the poor English?
Wasn't trying to be hostile. But his opening sentences of the post were almost indecipherable English. That'd be like me complaining about something I have made it obvious that I don't know well at all. Wouldn't my other opinions carry less weight then?
Sorry, guess I'm just a bit sick of the threads about the negatives of the game. Seldom do I see people post positives. Tough crowd!
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 05:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Second: I don't want to play Heroes 3. I want a game that plays like Heroes 3, but which adds to it, and improves it.
I don't think you are going to have your wish granted. Heroes4 was hugely ambitious, it replaced many systems, not just magic system. A thief hero that avoids combat ? "Might" heroes of which only one works the old way (Tactics skill). A magic system where you no longer must dispel some spells (like Berserk or Blind). But H4 lacked time to polish it.
Enter Ubisoft. "Hmm, let's see. Heroes 4 is very innovative. Fans dislike Heroes 4. Therefore, fans dislike very innovative games."
I have no proof that's how they see it, but it's quite likely. So we have Heroes 4 bashers to thank for scaled down games like Heroes5 and 6. Additionally, I would say a game like Heroes 3 will not happen in 3D. In Heroes 2, all it took to add an artifact, a creature or building was an idea, a picture and some code. In 3D, graphics are much more costly.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 06:44 PM |
|
|
Quite on the contrary, I think UbiSoft very much want to be innovative with Heroes 6 - I just don't like that. With Heroes 5, they said they were sort of "testing the waters", and hence kept pretty tight to the Heroes 3 formula - something that I really liked them for. So for them, Heroes 6 is where they really work with the series.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 07:19 PM |
|
|
alcibiades stated my thoughts well so I'm not going to add anything else about my opinions concerning the legacy of HoMM, however the conflicting POVs <imo> always boil down to one supreme issue with me; the "Commanding Vision" for the game.
Alci covered the "new vs improved" mindsets well. I think there is another stand-alone of a sort; "Diversity". My big picture (that appears will not see the light of day)has been a hope that UbiBH would have really grabbed a vision and addressed the following;
HoMM is a long-lived and well-loved game. It's fans are of all ages with many, many conflicting wants for this game-world.
With the above in mind, I'd hoped that H6 would really break new ground e.g. by polishing H5 (yes some stuff rocks), bring back the mistakes of dumping some of the fine features of H3 and H4 that were foolishly tossed aside ( the user-friendly H3 editor comes to mind) and then focus on this effort; make a world where a lot of options for play are available. Note: These ideas are not about campaigns, but about the future of the core game.
e.g.
Why could there have not been 6 or 8 faction slots with more factions available and so the player and himself/herself opt for what's in?
How about 1 selection button that allows all neutrals available that were ever-included in HoMM? I just think by now the creature list of what is in the world should be huge and not pared-down to a precious few.
Why not a couple of magic systems to choose from?
Why not two modes of play (since this is a huge never-ending argument), one warrior "competition and the game adds extras that target that preference”? and adventurer "single player where you define a great deal in the world because balance means something very different"?
H6 derails my ideas because of too much "new". But maybe one day they will approach new, not as a new creature or formula but a new gaming experience that centers on individual preferences. Btw, with the big 25 coming up this idea would have been quite timely; because sometimes nostalgia is not a bad idea.
I've not stated my case perfectly because there are even choices in what I've said but again...trying to zero-in;... It's the Grand -Vision of very little new but everything enhanced and optional to a level never seen before.
Just dreaming
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
chimthegrim
Adventuring Hero
That guy ...
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 08:12 PM |
|
|
Blackhole really has had some good ideas for the game, its a shame that they are failing to put the little pieces together.
How hard is it to use Heroes 3 as a staple, and then try to add the improvements from Heroes 5?
|
|
Aosaw
Promising
Famous Hero
Author of Nonreal Fiction
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 08:12 PM |
|
Edited by Aosaw at 20:18, 28 Jul 2011.
|
The trouble with the "If you want to play a game like the gold games, go play the old games" argument is that the old games aren't in print anymore.
And that's fine for us, because we have things like Amazon and used gamesellers - but if you buy the game used, Ubisoft sees no profit.
So this argument is not a good way to start when developing a game. It would be like saying, "Here's a cheeseburger, but instead of cheese we used lettuce, and instead of a burger we used a hot dog. What, you don't like this new cheeseburger? Well, we don't make the old cheeseburger anymore. You'll have to go somewhere else."
Sure, now I have a craving for a hot dog wrapped in lettuce, but when I want a cheeseburger, there's no one making cheeseburgers.
I actually think Civilization V handled innovation quite well. Some people dislike the hex grid or the fact that you can't stack your units, but these features were implemented logically, seamlessly, and the game plays just as well as (if not better than) its predecessors because of it.
Unfortunately, some of the "features" of Heroes 6 change elements of the gameplay that didn't need to be changed - and from what I can tell, all of the changes they made are interface-based. Town Screens. Hero Paper Dolls. Leveling. Spell Selection. Building construction.
All of these things have very little to do with the world of the game or how the creatures interact on the battlefield. For the most part, the game plays exceptionally well. Combat is smooth (although it still has some bugs - thank you, beta), the creature animations are gorgeous, and even the creature models are far more detailed than they were in Heroes 5, which I think is a good thing. The Blood/Tears system works great in theory, although there are some concerns about balancing the scales. Even the reduction in resources is, while a little silly, not a problem. The lore explains it, and in theory the maps will make up the difference.
So as far as the world of Heroes is concerned, they nailed it. Boom - hammer meet nail. Bravo.
Where they went wrong was where the player enters that world. The user interface, the choices the player can make on gaining a level, the layout of skills and buildings. As has been said before, this is not an interface that allows the player to quickly and seamlessly enter this new world of Heroes. And I think that was a mistake.
EDIT: Another comparison. Take Windows. Windows 98 and Windows 7 are, more or less, the same. The interface is very similar, everything's in basically the same spot. When you create a new operating system, you don't have to redesign the whole concept of file placement; you know basically what works and where to put things, and that makes it easier for your users to learn.
A game should be, at least generally, the same way. Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 use the same engine - and when they released Neverwinter Nights, it used a different engine, but they used Infinity as a model, and it worked much better than if they had attempted to design something from scratch. Knights of the Old Republic uses an entirely different engine, not built from the same model, and it doesn't work as well. It works okay, but it's not as intuitive as Infinity, because they started from scratch.
When you're creating a sequel to a game that's already been released, the interface should be even more similar. It shouldn't feel like a completely different game. It should feel like the same game, but with different moving parts. Like a new model of an old car: "This time it has spoilers!"
Fix what's broken, add new things, but don't get rid of what already worked. If you want to do that, you make a different game. I think that's the point that Radox and Alci were making.
|
|
chimthegrim
Adventuring Hero
That guy ...
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 08:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The trouble with the "If you want to play a game like the gold games, go play the old games" argument is that the old games aren't in print anymore.
And that's fine for us, because we have things like Amazon and used gamesellers - but if you buy the game used, Ubisoft sees no profit.
So this argument is not a good way to start when developing a game. It would be like saying, "Here's a cheeseburger, but instead of cheese we used lettuce, and instead of a burger we used a hot dog. What, you don't like this new cheeseburger? Well, we don't make the old cheeseburger anymore. You'll have to go somewhere else."
Sure, now I have a craving for a hot dog wrapped in lettuce, but when I want a cheeseburger, there's no one making cheeseburgers.
I actually think Civilization V handled innovation quite well. Some people dislike the hex grid or the fact that you can't stack your units, but these features were implemented logically, seamlessly, and the game plays just as well as (if not better than) its predecessors because of it.
Unfortunately, some of the "features" of Heroes 6 change elements of the gameplay that didn't need to be changed - and from what I can tell, all of the changes they made are interface-based. Town Screens. Hero Paper Dolls. Leveling. Spell Selection. Building construction.
All of these things have very little to do with the world of the game or how the creatures interact on the battlefield. For the most part, the game plays exceptionally well. Combat is smooth (although it still has some bugs - thank you, beta), the creature animations are gorgeous, and even the creature models are far more detailed than they were in Heroes 5, which I think is a good thing. The Blood/Tears system works great in theory, although there are some concerns about balancing the scales. Even the reduction in resources is, while a little silly, not a problem. The lore explains it, and in theory the maps will make up the difference.
So as far as the world of Heroes is concerned, they nailed it. Boom - hammer meet nail. Bravo.
Where they went wrong was where the player enters that world. The user interface, the choices the player can make on gaining a level, the layout of skills and buildings. As has been said before, this is not an interface that allows the player to quickly and seamlessly enter this new world of Heroes. And I think that was a mistake.
Interesting take...
I really wish they would've just put town screens in the game. WTH were they thinking?
|
|
Aosaw
Promising
Famous Hero
Author of Nonreal Fiction
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 08:20 PM |
|
|
It could be that they were having difficulty coming up with a design concept, so they put in a placeholder - and then they ran out of developing hours to replace it with something better.
I can't imagine that they're not working towards a solution, though. Too many people are annoyed by that for them to ignore it. Definitely not for the release (as has already been confirmed), but I would be surprised if a patch isn't created by Christmas that addresses at least some of these issues.
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 08:31 PM |
|
|
|
Cutting a game into 1/3 is not very innovative in my book. Heroes 6 removes a lot more than it adds. Uniform resources ? Uniform ... creautres ? Convert all cities into 1 type ? Pool all units into 1 hero ? Does it add variety ? Strategy ? I think it's degeneration, not evolution. Not all change is good change.
|
|
Austere
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 28, 2011 11:37 PM |
|
|
It's funny, people keep saying that less resource types = less strategy. I think it could be argued the other way as well, given the system as it stands in Heroes 6.
When there are multiple resources in play, the resources guide your strategy. On the surface you have to make a strategic choice, but, in my mind, it's not really a choice: you simply build optimally based on the resources that are available. I.E.: I was going to build Building A this turn, but I don't have enough Sulfur because I couldn't get to the mine. Crap. Instead I'll build Building B because that one I can afford.
In Heroes 6, presuming you have Crystal at all, at every moment you have to wisely choose how you want to spend that Crystal. Imagine you have 10ish Crystal and you're in the middle of the week: what do you do? You could go for upgrading all three of your Core buildings, you could go for two Elite buildings, you could go for an Elite building and upgrade it, or you could save it and possibly collect enough Crystal before the end of the week to get your Champion building. In my opinion, this is far more strategic in general.
Also, having fewer "rare" resources helps balance out difficult guards, because while it is conceivable your mine could be a hard to capture, it is still likely you can get a significant number of Crystal from pickups. In Heroes 5, when you're looking at randomly generated resource pickups from so many possible choices, you can end up being completely screwed by randomization not in your favor, be it guards or which specific resources are spawning for you to pick up.
Additionally, for balance, where do you put the mines? Under the Heroes 5 model, certain towns value certain resources more, and are automatically at a disadvantage/advantage depending on where the important mines spawn relative to their castle.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm new to Heroes. Before picking up Heroes 5 the last Heroes game I played was Heroes 2 when I was like ten years old. But from my perspective, a lot of the things people are complaining about with Heroes 6 seem like awesome, streamlined and positive changes.
Take Healing. A lot of players feel that Healing right now is totally busted. But I don't think the way Healing is implemented is wrong, I simply don't like that three factions have units that heal and two don't. Having played all the factions, creeping is much much more tedious, difficult and risky for Stronghold and Inferno than it is for the other three. With Stronghold I found myself using a rush to Fury build just to be able to creep reasonably whereas with Haven I was able to build every core building and my champion building in the first week on Fast leveling, no powerful secondary heroes, no Dynasty bonuses and nearly zero unit losses. To me, that is an imbalance.
But, in terms of being able to use Healing to produce low or no loss creeping I actually like it quite a bit. The meticulous and specific style of creeping necessary for excellent results in Heroes 5 is strategically challenging and competitively compelling, but it sets a high barrier to entry and it causes a common action done multiple times a turn to be, often times, slow and complicated. The quick access to Healing, indeed Resurrecting Healing, speeds up creeping considerably and moves the game along much better, in my opinion.
I feel similarly about the creature pool, unit dwellings and zones of control. To me, all of those reduce the needlessly complex problems of sending heroes all over the place just to be able to use weekly reinforcements or resources. A lot of the game is about collecting resources and using that to train units and using those to fight. A player should be able to access those units and resources and use them easily without a lot of hassle. I see the unit pool and zones of control as good moves that generally speaking positively address this concern.
____________
|
|
Aosaw
Promising
Famous Hero
Author of Nonreal Fiction
|
|
posted July 29, 2011 12:23 AM |
|
|
I don't mind the way healing works. I just don't like the fact that necromancy doesn't exist as something unique. Takes most of the fun out of playing a necromancer.
I agree that the reduction in resources doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in strategy. I liked it better with them in, if only because mercury and sulfur were markedly different from gems and crystal and it was clear that they were used for different things.
I always sort of thought gems and crystal could be easily combined, and I'm surprised that didn't happen sooner. But sulfur and mercury? I dunno. It's just not similar enough to make me think, "Yeah, four centuries ago they probably could have done the same thing with crystals."
If that was true, then there would be no reason to use them in Heroes 5. But that's a flavor thing, not a gameplay thing.
|
|
Zeki
Supreme Hero
sup
|
|
posted July 29, 2011 12:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's funny, people keep saying that less resource types = less strategy. I think it could be argued the other way as well, given the system as it stands in Heroes 6.
When there are multiple resources in play, the resources guide your strategy. On the surface you have to make a strategic choice, but, in my mind, it's not really a choice: you simply build optimally based on the resources that are available. I.E.: I was going to build Building A this turn, but I don't have enough Sulfur because I couldn't get to the mine. Crap. Instead I'll build Building B because that one I can afford.
Or you could use the market to trade with some other resources. You have also to consider if you need one of the other resources for other buildings or if you should take wood/ore or one of the other rare resouces. It could be that you have found lots of resources you don't need (as you have stated also), then you could trade this.Maybe it's better to trade with gold if the other resources aren't enough.
You see, there is some tactical choise.
Quote:
In Heroes 6, presuming you have Crystal at all, at every moment you have to wisely choose how you want to spend that Crystal. Imagine you have 10ish Crystal and you're in the middle of the week: what do you do? You could go for upgrading all three of your Core buildings, you could go for two Elite buildings, you could go for an Elite building and upgrade it, or you could save it and possibly collect enough Crystal before the end of the week to get your Champion building. In my opinion, this is far more strategic in general.
Well, if this is more tactical or not, isn't that clear imo. They have both their good and their bad sides.
Quote:
Also, having fewer "rare" resources helps balance out difficult guards, because while it is conceivable your mine could be a hard to capture, it is still likely you can get a significant number of Crystal from pickups. In Heroes 5, when you're looking at randomly generated resource pickups from so many possible choices, you can end up being completely screwed by randomization not in your favor, be it guards or which specific resources are spawning for you to pick up.
Additionally, for balance, where do you put the mines? Under the Heroes 5 model, certain towns value certain resources more, and are automatically at a disadvantage/advantage depending on where the important mines spawn relative to their castle.v
This should be avoided by qualitive map making. All this things should be taken in consideration by the map maker. He has to take care that there are enough resources for to can play ordinary. Or maybe he wants to make it harder for you and puts less resources of one sort to make you find a way to play without them. So here's another tactical part. While when you have just one rare resource a map maker can either put in enough crytals or not.
Quote:
I'll be the first to admit that I'm new to Heroes. Before picking up Heroes 5 the last Heroes game I played was Heroes 2 when I was like ten years old. But from my perspective, a lot of the things people are complaining about with Heroes 6 seem like awesome, streamlined and positive changes.
Not really, there are people who find some changes good, some that don't like them and also some that don't care about some things.
just my two cents on this aspects. And sorry for the bad english but right now I somehow can't make good english sentences. Maybe I should sleep sometime.
____________
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2011 02:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Having played all the factions, creeping is much much more tedious, difficult and risky for Stronghold and Inferno than it is for the other three.
If you want a game where all the factions play the same go play Settlers of Catan or something.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted July 29, 2011 02:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Having played all the factions, creeping is much much more tedious, difficult and risky for Stronghold and Inferno than it is for the other three.
If you want a game where all the factions play the same go play Settlers of Catan or something.
LOL
he is pointing out that those factions are harder to play without actually getting an advantage for that hard play.
It is a valid point,and your suggestion is invalid.
|
|
Aosaw
Promising
Famous Hero
Author of Nonreal Fiction
|
|
posted July 29, 2011 04:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Having played all the factions, creeping is much much more tedious, difficult and risky for Stronghold and Inferno than it is for the other three.
If you want a game where all the factions play the same go play Settlers of Catan or something.
LOL
he is pointing out that those factions are harder to play without actually getting an advantage for that hard play.
It is a valid point,and your suggestion is invalid.
It was, however, highly entertaining. 
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted July 29, 2011 10:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's funny, people keep saying that less resource types = less strategy. I think it could be argued the other way as well, given the system as it stands in Heroes 6.
Can you argue that less resources = more strategy ? To me, Heroes of Might and Magic 6 seems to be like Command and Conquer 4.
Quote:
When there are multiple resources in play, the resources guide your strategy. On the surface you have to make a strategic choice, but, in my mind, it's not really a choice: you simply build optimally based on the resources that are available. I.E.: I was going to build Building A this turn, but I don't have enough Sulfur because I couldn't get to the mine. Crap. Instead I'll build Building B because that one I can afford.
And what is optimal play ? Say you have two cities. Do you use those gems to upgrade unicorns ? Or enable Minotaurs in another city ? Or you can build the next level of Mage Guild, and you won't have gems for either. Or you can upgrade unicorns, enable minotaurs, but at the cost of trading sulfur, meaning your dragons will be delayed.
There are multiple choices with just two towns. If there's another town on horizon, you may choose between conquering and developing it, or using the excess resources on your magic guild. What resources are available guides not just the way you build, but the path of your conquest.
Quote:
In my opinion, this is far more strategic in general.
In the same way as spending the same point on Logistics or Ballistics is very strategic. When you have too many things costing the same resource, the choice generally becomes easier because it's hard to make many things equally interesting (balanced).
For the same reason I think the skill/magic system will be a disaster. It could work in theory when skills are very balanced. But I doubt they manage to pull it off, there will be some highly desirable skills and lots of junk. Players will end up sticking to very specific build. For example always healing first (it's basically resurrection, right ?), for factions who can manage without it - logistics.
Quote:
But from my perspective, a lot of the things people are complaining about with Heroes 6 seem like awesome, streamlined and positive changes.
Heroes 3 may have been full of pointless clutter and fake choices, but simplicity for the sake of simplicity is not what I want.
Quote:
Take Healing. A lot of players feel that Healing right now is totally busted. But I don't think the way Healing is implemented is wrong, I simply don't like that three factions have units that heal and two don't. Having played all the factions, creeping is much much more tedious, difficult and risky for Stronghold and Inferno than it is for the other three.
Because with built-in first strike and shooters, killing stuff without losses wasn't easy enough. What's wrong with taking losses ? Also, playing strategically in a strategic game is considered bad now ?
Creature pool - you no longer have to think how to make units from different factions fit together in your strategy. Do you develop two weaker armies and outmaneuver opposition ? Do you gather stronger creatures from both towns, invest in Leadership skill to improve your morale ?
Heroes in previous games were a resource. I just finished the last scenario in Heroes 2 Archibald campaign (after the Crown, not reinforcements). It's a large map. Having only 8 heroes felt like a painful restriction. I constantly had to think what's more important at the moment - scouting, resource gathering (static), mine capturing, sending reinforcements (3 different castles... send reinforcements which way ?). Do I capture mines AND pick up piles of resource at the same time, or capture mines first and pick up piles at a more convenient time ? It's a hard scenario if you don't take the reinforcements from the previous one.
If Heroes was needlessly complex for you, maybe you don't like the game as much as you think you do.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
