|
|
seddy
Known Hero
Spinner of delicious cupcakes
|
posted July 30, 2011 09:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Heroes game is more like tennis court than the world, definitively... 
With secondary heroes being ball boys!
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 30, 2011 11:43 PM |
|
|
lol at the ball guys thing ... anyway, I guess it's one of those things we'll never really agree on. I don't mind some randomness, as I see it, it throws in some spice. In my optics part of being a tactician is also being able to cope with an unplanned situation. But of course there are instances where things can be too random, and Word Of Light / Curse Of The Netherworld being level 5 spells were deffinitely one of the WTF moments of Heroes 5, although they did sort of make them decent in one of the last builds, iirc. There was a certain win-some, loose-some element to the mage guilds, and I didn't mind that too much on the lower levels, but of course when it came down to such a hefty investment as level 5 guilds were, you needed a pay-off.
And again, I can see the environment you play in being decisive for how you feel about those things - if you play in an intensively competitive style, where the least step below optimal means loss, obviously randomness is bad; whereas if you play in a more loose style, where a bit of bad luck doesn't mean too much, it can throw in a bit of fun and surprise.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 01:22 AM |
|
|
they removed most random elements in H6, right? from what I read, no creature has a chance based ability. before, when your unit had a chance to blind, it was fine, and quite "exciting", but now that this is systematic (sisters I think) it seems imba and boring.
making the chance based on the ratio between the attacker and defender stacks was a good move in H5, I felt the 20% chance of heroes 3 was too unreliable, in particular, an unit like the ghost dragon come to mind, depending on your chance, it could be either a pathetic creature, or an extremly dangerous one. I remember my minotaur kings once got slaughtered cause dragons aged them on the 1st turn. I mean, usually, minotaurs just don't die.
|
|
bronzephenix
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 05:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
and a whole different genre 
"random" and "strategy" just don't go well together.
So wrong.
Somehow many videogame players seem to think that strategy is supposed to be a clockwork-tuned thing, with no room for randomness. Actually, strategy is the art of being able to ponder the odds and random factors, devise a plan according to it, and readjust it according to the random things that can happen. A guy that only had one plan fit for the "perfect situation" can hardly be called a strategist.
Sure, as you say Napoleon didn't have to deal with Arcane Armor, but he still had to deal with uncertain elements like weather, supply woes and so on.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 05:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
and a whole different genre
"random" and "strategy" just don't go well together.
So wrong.
Somehow many videogame players seem to think that strategy is supposed to be a clockwork-tuned thing, with no room for randomness. Actually, strategy is the art of being able to ponder the odds and random factors, devise a plan according to it, and readjust it according to the random things that can happen. A guy that only had one plan fit for the "perfect situation" can hardly be called a strategist.
Sure, as you say Napoleon didn't have to deal with Arcane Armor, but he still had to deal with uncertain elements like weather, supply woes and so on.
Somehow many videogame players seem to think that strategy is supposed to be a pray-spray thing, with has no room for strategy.
By no means does randomness increase the replayability of the game.
Ever played H5 and lost to randomness?
Also,not knowing what is going to happen =/= to randomness.
Also,dont try to define strategy with randomness.
ANy counquest in this world was done with at least some strategy in mind.Of course it could rain, become cold and what not,but we are talking here about a heroes game,not RL.
You know people/kids/whatever, H5 had too much randomness in it. In magic, in combat and in adventure map.
If you have 5 non random skills to choose of ,which all of them are useful,you should be able to CHOOSE the one you need or want to build your strategy on.
If I wanna go ranged,I choose what I want.Not like the crap H5 forced you to choose, like between two crappy choices,which ruined strategy.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 09:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
By no means does randomness increase the replayability of the game.
Perhaps your preference is no randomness. But for me randomness in a game keeps things fresh and very much makes the game more replayable for me . I think randomness is particularly important for the single player aspect of the game.
I've not played the beta but I can say as far as I am concerned the lack of randomness in available skills and spells is a MAJOR turn-off for me and I'd bet it is that way for a lot and probably even MOST players. Especially the players who enjoy the single player gameplay more than multiplayer. I don't think most players are die hard "professional" multiplayer players who cry if the dice may favor their opponents some times. If you are a good player you will still have a good record even if randomness favors your opponent every now and again.
I think a lot of people who don't read forums but who are die hard HOMM fans will be disappointed when they pick up the game and are faced with the same skill/spell choice in every game.
It would be nice if there were an option to offer random skills/spells on level up. Then those who want randomness would be happy and those who want the same skills ans spells every time would be happy.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 09:24 AM |
|
|
Bad design choices are no argument against randomness.
WoL/CotN should never have been level 5 spells, but instead tier 3 abilities of Light/Dark Magic - that's obvious. Instead a better version of Regeneration and Vampirism could have been the level 5 spells.
Take Luck and Moral in H6. Luck adds 50%. Moral adds "50%" as well - your MA is halved and the damage is halved as well. That's good design choices.
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 09:37 AM |
bonus applied by alcibiades on 31 Jul 2011. |
|
Quote:
Somehow many videogame players seem to think that strategy is supposed to be a pray-spray thing, with has no room for strategy.
By no means does randomness increase the replayability of the game.
Ever played H5 and lost to randomness?
Also,not knowing what is going to happen =/= to randomness.
Also,dont try to define strategy with randomness.
ANy counquest in this world was done with at least some strategy in mind.Of course it could rain, become cold and what not,but we are talking here about a heroes game,not RL.
You know people/kids/whatever, H5 had too much randomness in it. In magic, in combat and in adventure map.
If you have 5 non random skills to choose of ,which all of them are useful,you should be able to CHOOSE the one you need or want to build your strategy on.
If I wanna go ranged,I choose what I want.Not like the crap H5 forced you to choose, like between two crappy choices,which ruined strategy.
I partly disagree whit you
Well in many parts.
First of all Randomness does increase the replayability of the game but only in single player. A different layout of the map creates an interesting new enviroment, even though the map is the same. The same thing goes for the random skills and spells. Why? These are all factors that create situations that the player has to get use to and to deal with. They create different challenges for the player.
This makes every game, even with the same set of opponents different. If it was not so, the only thing that would change this would be the order in which the players make there actions.
I would like to point out one thing, a very important thing that I think none has mentioned so far.
There is an difference between player vs player and Player vs PC replayability In general between single and mulit player.
The best mult. games of my age were those that had no Radomnes. (CS, WC3, SC.) All these game have a set layout, and the only things that change are made by the players (were to go, what to buy, were to build). I can still imagine to play some of these games with my frend, but not alone.
On the other hand, the games that I think were the best for singel player, were those that changed every time I played them (MaM, Heroes II..)
The problem here is not in the point "Is randomness good or bad for the game?" but in the opinion "Do I want, and will I play, the game in single player or multiplayer?" Many of you, especialy those who have experience in varies tournaments, keep looking at the game from the Multiplayer point of view. But as much as you or I would like, Heroes does not have the potential to be a massive online multiplayer game and be famous for it. It will never became a progaming sport. Some of the most important reasons are:
TBS: The game just takes to long, especialy in two players.
A game must be played in one piece. (unlike other online-TBS which you have to play only about 30-60 minits a day)
I would not go so far to call it Single vs multi insted of Random-less vs random, because there are many people that dislike the randomnoss in single player. But many of us do use the argument of a balanced multiplayer
Heroes will always be in my eyes more of a Play alone or Play and chat whit friends game. And I enjoy randomness for making each of my games unique. For many others it is about comparing there skills whit other players, and these people do not like it when there plan is interrupted by a random feature. I understand this, but please let us remember that even with all the new features, balance and Conflux, most of the games will be played offline and in single player. So let us not overdoo it with the none-randomness in the sake of balance.
____________
I'm just a Mirror of your self.
We see, we look, we gather, we store, we teach.
We are many, and you can be one of us.
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 09:44 AM |
|
|
One thing they definitely should get rid of is Fog of War.
So much randomness 
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 09:47 AM |
|
Edited by B0rsuk at 09:48, 31 Jul 2011.
|
Quote:
they removed most random elements in H6, right? from what I read, no creature has a chance based ability.
So they will discover the hard way Heroes is fundamentally not suited for multiplayer :-).
Quote:
making the chance based on the ratio between the attacker and defender stacks was a good move in H5, I felt the 20% chance of heroes 3 was too unreliable, in particular,
In Heroes 4 it was 30% :-)
Anyway, randomness is neither good nor bad in games. It's a personal preference. This article discusses the matter in detail. Highly recommended:
http://playthisthing.com/randomness-blight-or-bane
|
|
Nirual
Famous Hero
Imbued Ballista
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 10:06 AM |
|
|
There is still a good deal of randomness in H6. Weeks of X, Morale and Luck, creature placement (rough power is pretermined, but the exact creature can vary), advanced market offers (both the special offer and the artifact selection)...
I think you get the idea. This is part of what baffles me about the design choices in H6. They removed some random factors, nerfed others, yet the weeks, which I consider one of the worst random aspects, remain relatively unchanged.
I don't mind that they removed the random skill system, although I dislike the layout of the new one. Especially the magic side, as it forces you to stick to one or two spells.
____________
In ur base killing ur doods... and raising them as undeads.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 10:20 AM |
|
|
I think you have some good points there, and I guess what you say is exactly what Doomforge pointed out when he said that the developers of the game were challenged because the SP and the MP aspect of the game had diverging interests.
I do agree that for me, the randomness very much adds to the replayability. When Seraphim asks if I have ever lost to randomness, the answer is "yes - and so what?". That's not an issue for me - I have also won courtesy of randomness.
But I also agree that again, this is a matter of taste - are you a "chess" guy, or a "backgammon" guy? I'm very much the latter, I always loved dice and cardgames, because while skill will have a huge impact, no two games are ever the same. It also adds that chaotic element which sometimes lets the inferior player win over the superior player, which for me is not a bad thing.
But great posts, I'm off to read b0rsuk's article.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 10:56 AM |
|
Edited by B0rsuk at 11:01, 31 Jul 2011.
|
The funny thing is, the most serious strategies, where human lives are involved (wars) are also full of essentially random events. No war ever had a level playing field, there were always differences in position, training, information, morale, weaponry. Some quotes from the article I linked:
Quote:
Why do I say that variability of outcome is essential in a wargame? For a simple reason: wargames are supposed to be simulations. They are supposed to represent, with greater or lesser fidelity, a real or hypothetical military conflict. There has never yet been a general who can confidently predict the outcome of battle.
Part of the reason for that is, of course, fog of war; at the inception of battle, both sides generally don't really know how strong the opposing side is (something few games do a good job of simulating). But even if they knew what they were up against down to the last man and piece of equipment, they could not be certain of the outcome. So much is dependent on the actions, or failures, of individual men on the field; so much on vagaries of weather and lighting; so much on improvisational genius or confusion and sloth.
"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." - Helmuth von Moltke
(...)
"Alea lacta est," Caesar said as he crossed the Rubicon, leading his army to Rome in defiance of the orders of the Senate; the die is cast. Surely he thought he had the power to triumph, as he ultimately did; but he knew also that he was taking a huge risk. As in Poker, military command is a matter of minimizing risks and making the best bets you can -- but as in Poker, you cannot be sure of the outcome.
To properly simulate war, therefore, unpredictability is essential, and the easiest way to ensure unpredictability is to harness the power of randomness; like Caesar, we cast the die, in our case to simulate the impact of all the multifarious factors that no commander can control.
In other words, a wargame that contains no random elements is, by nature, a poorer simulation than one that incorporates randomness. Accuracy, or at least verisimilitude -- the feeling of accuracy -- is essential to the aesthetic of the wargame: When playing a simulation of the Second World War, we want it to feel like the war, to feel that as commanders of one side or the other, we're making decisions about what to do that were within the realm of possibility for the opposing sides. If things happen that strike us as ludicrously infeasible -- like, say,
Sweden conquering Russia in 1943 -- then it's clear that the game is flawed. To a wargamer, at this point it doesn't matter whether the game system is strategically deep, or provides an interesting narrative, or satisfies any of the other aesthetic criteria that some bring to games: it's a bad game, because it's a bad simulation, and for a wargamer, value as a simulation is a major part of his aesthetic.
So if you are fond of strategy games without randomness, you are deluding yourself. Strategy, especially war games, without randomness, are a made up pixie world.
Note the sentence in parentheses. No Heroes game except Heroes 4 fulfills this condition. You almost always know exactly what's coming your way. Especially in multiplayer play on rich maps, which is the norm in Heroes 3. There are scouting heroes everywhere, and terrain remains permanetly scouted, revealing all arriving heroes.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 10:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sure, as you say Napoleon didn't have to deal with Arcane Armor, but he still had to deal with uncertain elements like weather, supply woes and so on.
I knew someone will mention weather lol.
Yeah but... guess what... weather works for both "players" at the same battlefield. Much like week of something (which is fine as long as not overdone like week of we-screw-up-casters-rising-manacosts-tenfold.) And getting Arcane armor works for one. Or rather, screws up one.
Supply woes being "random" ? How, when? Someone just screwed up at supply lines. Nothing even remotely "random" there. It would be random if their ammo and food could drop from the sky or not.
You're confusing randomness with other things. It would be random if Napoleon could get a cannon from factory, or an armchair, and would be asked to win with either of them no matter what.
Quote:
So if you are fond of strategy games without randomness, you are deluding yourself. Strategy, especially war games, without randomness, are a made up pixie world.
This is just wrong. Nobody goes to war with random gear, random people, random tactic. Everything is carefully selected and planned. Please refrain from calling it deluded, it's not really nice.
However YES this is made up pixie world,and it will never be realistic. So it may as well be a competitive environment so when two players will clash, the BETTER one will win, not the more lucky one.
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 11:04 AM |
|
Edited by B0rsuk at 11:09, 31 Jul 2011.
|
Quote:
I know someone will mention weather lol.
Yeah but... guess what... weather works for both "players" at the same battlefield.
How about when there's heavy rain and you rely on heavy cavalry versus the opposing side with crossbows ? Mud is for everyone, that's for sure. But who loses more ?
Quote:
Supply woes being "random" ? How, when? Someone just screwed up.
Read my post above (I was in the process of editing it). Randomness is the easiest way to simulate unpredictable events and lack of information. You won't know someone is about to screw up and ruin your supply line.
No, I will not refrain from calling it delusional. In fact I will say you are acting dense. Maybe you read the part of my post before I added all the quotes (I hope).
War is a mess of unpredictable events and unknown factors. Even best strategists like Caesar or the Prussian general couldn't be certain how a battle goes. What makes you think you are better ?
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 11:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How about when there's heavy rain and you rely on heavy cavalry versus the opposing side with crossbows ? Mud is for everyone, that's for sure. But who loses more ?
And how's that RANDOM? Do you randomly got a cavalry team and the setting screwed you up, or have you built your army around that and it's the tactician's fault?
You're confusing randomness (of heroes games) and bad decisions. One could foresee the possibility of rain and prepare accordingly. It's not like it could randomly start a meteor storm on the battlefield 
Quote:
Read my post above (I was in the process of editing it). Randomness is the easiest way to simulate unpredictable events and lack of information. You won't know someone is about to screw up and ruin your supply line.
I don't see a point in emulating off screen real life events in a game by giving me Arcane Armor at level 5 guild.
Can we also simulate assassinations then? In a turn you have 0.001% chance to instantly lose and the game displays the info "sorry, you have been assassinated, you lose" 
Would you be happy with such "realism"? I wouldn't.
Quote:
War is a mess. Even best strategists like Caesar or the Prussian general couldn't be certain how a battle goes. What makes you think you are better ?
Computer games =/= real war.
In real war you don't have dragons. or armageddon spell.
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 11:21 AM |
|
Edited by B0rsuk at 11:34, 31 Jul 2011.
|
Quote:
And how's that RANDOM? Do you randomly got a cavalry team and the setting screwed you up, or have you built your army around that and it's the tactician's fault?
It's not always possible or cost-effective to build an army to account for the possibility of rain. In real world you don't build cavalry on Day 1 when you see an army approaching your castle. Training cavalry could take years to train. Longbowmen certainly took years to train. Once you invest so much into particular kind of force, sometimes a random event just screws you up. A rain comes and your bowstrings get wet, while French crossbowmen could remove bowstrings and hide them in a dry place.
Quote:
I don't see a point in emulating off screen real life events in a game by giving me Arcane Armor at level 5 guild.
The nazis worked on the nuclear bomb, but failed. They abandoned the project. Your mages failed to develop more impressive spells.
Quote:
Can we also simulate assassinations then? In a turn you have 0.001% chance to instantly lose and the game displays the info "sorry, you have been assassinated, you lose"
Would you be happy with such "realism"? I wouldn't.
Then you just like games which don't have much in common with wars. It's strange they are dressed up like war games.
Quote:
War is a mess. Even best strategists like Caesar or the Prussian general couldn't be certain how a battle goes. What makes you think you are better ?
Computer games =/= real war.
In real war you don't have dragons. or armageddon spell.
And you are the one who decides how far logic should apply ? Command and Conquer 1 has quite conventional military, nuclear bomb, aircraft, WW2 tactics. It's 95% real world. It also has stealth tanks. So because of 5% is not like real world, it's suddenly okay to throw logic out of the window ?
Logic shouldn't be applied to games in fantasy setting ? This is a weak argument especially that Heroes5 and 6 games try quite hard to make the world more realistic. No longer cities are composed solely of fantastic creatures. Factions are more like societies now. No more Hydra-griffin-gargoyle-dragon-centaur-minotaur towns.
Do you read books like George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones ? Fantasy can be rational, rational people like me tend to like rational fantasy too. Tolkien's books barely mention commoners. Reading them you may get an impression everyone was a knight or a noble. There are also books like Glen Cook's Black Company. It deals with fairly ordinary company of mercenaries, who only have minor to moderate mages, and even hide their presence so as to not attract the attention of powerful mages. Black Company is quite realistic, but still a fantasy. You say there is no room for rationality in fantasy games ?
Fantasy or realism is a false dichotomy.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 11:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The nazis worked on the nuclear bomb, but failed. They abandoned the project. Your mages failed to develop more impressive spells.
They failed, not randomly got Maus tank instead of nuclear bomb in their arsenal. Still don't see the difference?
Quote:
Then you just like games which don't have much in common with wars. It's strange they are dressed up like war games.
Again, war and games have nothing to do with each other.
Quote:
And you are the one who decides how far logic should apply ? Command and Conquer 1 has quite conventional military, nuclear bomb, aircraft, WW2 tactics. It's 95% real world. It also has stealth tanks. So because of 5% is not like real world, it's suddenly okay to throw logic out of the window ?
LOL 95% real world. Dude...
did it have diplomatic meetings? propaganda? public support of your war? selecting and putting people onto positions? Dealing with internal conflicts? Supplying? Relations with other countries when at war? Civilian protests? Protection of civilians? Research development? Increased criminal activity and necessity to deal with it? Supply shortage and dealing with it? People who want to overthrow your dictature and take your place? Assassinations attempts, both internal and foreign? Sabotage? Global consequences? Nature damage? Civilian deaths? Infrastructure damage? A million other things war-related? No.
It has NOTHING to do with war. It's a game where you select few tanks with a marker and right click the enemy's factory.
I'm surprised you talk of ANY sort of fallacy making claims like this. 95% real world LOL.
|
|
yasmiel
Supreme Hero
Former Chessmaster
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 11:53 AM |
|
|
I prefer some degree of randomness in Heroes games. And this comes from a chess player (where there is no random factors).
Law of big number says that even with such condition better players would swim to the top of ladders. It might not be precise to the spot but precise enough to differentiate master from beginner.
As it stands H6 has least randomness and could be most competitive one to date.... and least fun for majority (majority being my opinion).
The argue that is going on here is getting silly. It is obvious that there are 2 camps with different preferences, no need to troll each other with standard internet forum board quote wars. There is never a winner in such discussions and you guys are already starting to go further and further from the actual subject by picking of exotic parts of each others posts.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2011 12:00 PM |
|
|
|
I don't mind discussing randomness in detail. It's not really off topic, and there's no trolling here so far, unless you consider comparison of C&C and real world war as trolling. Which is weird, I agree, but I wouldn't call it trolling anyways.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
