|
| Thread: What went wrong in Heroes of Might and Magic III |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
posted December 15, 2011 06:06 PM |
|
Edited by B0rsuk at 18:15, 15 Dec 2011.
|
SkeleTony:
Just ignore them regarding WoG. It looks like they're looking for a fight.
Like it or not, WoG is a hack. Not a source port, not a mod: a hack. In the same way that, for example, Insecticide is a hack. I mean definition #1.3 on this page (point 3 in the first definition):
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hack
Insecticide is a fan patch for Master of Magic that fixes heaps of bugs and improves AI. It does so using reverse-engineering and assembly. It has to work under unusually hard constraints, for example it has to be coded within a limited space. It took a lot of skill and it works, but is it elegant ?
This is not a fault of the WoG team.
==================================================
Some of you said that Heroes III and Heroes II use largely the same skill and creature systems, therefore H3 can't be that bad. I disagree for the following reasons:
- scalability. What felt distinctive with 6(castles) * 6(levels) = 36 base creatures doesn't necessarily feel distinctive with 8 * 7 = 56 creatures. And this time around all creatures have upgraded versions, which doesn't help variety - because upgrades are very similar to base creatures. Their failure wasn't that of action, but that of inaction. They failed to realize it doesn't scale - like trying to clean a wall with a toothbrush.
- creatures themselves are less distinctive. This is the bad side of balance: the risk of making stuff interchangeable. When there's a big variation in stats, extra abilities may not be needed. For instance Paladins and Crusaders have very impressive defense skill (damage reduction). But it doesn't work against spells, tin cans are highly susceptible to spells. Variety can be accomplished with stats alone. To drive the point home, H3 largely did away with it, for example level7 creatures seem to be derived from a generic "300 HP, 3 per week" template.
Alchemists and hero types
-------------------------
In my opinion cookiesareyum has a good point, and he brought up a fitting example. I haven't thought about it this way. It inspired me to look at the issue from the higher level:
In Heroes 2, you get 6 hero types but are practically free to mix and match them as they see fit. There's little to discourage it, although the inability to start with another hero is annoying.
In Heroes 3, they created dedicated might/magic heroes for each town type. This is a significant shift. Rather than choose a type based on its pros and cons, they tell you "you use this or that hero". I find that limiting. In H2, you were practically able to use one of 5 hero types (because necromancy only gets in the way for others). IN H3, you are practically limited to 2. "Oh, but you can use the tavern just like before !" - not exactly. Rather to filter out up to 5 hero types, you filter out up to 7 * 2 - 1 = 13 hero types. The tavern is crowded.
They started ok - they gave each town two options based on function: might or magic. But they got carried away when they focused too much on distinguishing by flavor. If you want to give function-based options, stay honest to that and give effective options. An alchemist with Scholar and Learning is what makes sense and sounds right. An alchemist with Archery is what would work right.
To wrap it up - Heroes 2 was "pick what works the best for you". Heroes 3 - "pick what we selected for you".
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 15, 2011 06:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To drive the point home, H3 largely did away with it, for example level7 creatures seem to be derived from a generic "300 HP, 3 per week" template.
Angel - 200 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle; Archangel - 250 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle;
Green Dragon - 180 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle; Gold Dragon - 250 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle;
Giant - 150 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle; Titan - 300 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle;
Devil - 160 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle; Arch Devil - 200 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle;
Bone Dragon - 150 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle; Ghost Dragon - 200 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle;
Red Dragon - 180 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle; Black Dragon - 300 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle;
Behemoth - 160 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle; Ancient Behemoth - 300 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle;
Hydra - 175 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle; Chaos Hydra - 250 HP, 1 basic growth, 2 with Castle;
Firebird - 150 HP, 2 basic growth, 4 with Castle; Phoenix - 200 HP, 2 basic growth, 4 with Castle.
Conclusion - you haven't played Heroes III for more than a few hours, if at all.
|
|
SkeleTony
Hired Hero
|
|
posted December 15, 2011 09:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, we already agreed that Heroes III should have increased spell costs for "advanced" and "expert" spells. But you are still ignoring the fact that many of the 'different' spells in Heroes II were just 'mass' versions of the same spells. This is crap. heroes III was on the right track by actually making DIFFERENT spells and tying the 'mass'(and other variances) to skill levels, even if they missed details like increasing spell costs for the (generally)better versions.
Well, I think you're pointing out a consistent design flaw in heroes 3 - they added a whole bunch of crap (more creatures, more hero types, more town types, and more spells), and unfortunately a lot of it turned out to be just that - crap. This is most evident in spells, because who in their right mind would cast expert mirth or sorrow (lvl 3 and 4 spells) if they have expert haste or slow (both lowly lvl 1 spells)? In fact, an entire battle could be determined by timely casting of these two lvl 1 spells alone - they are that powerful. The cape of velocity and Mr. Mulligan are also ridiculously overpowered for this reason alone. So, you have these two extremely common lvl 1 spells basically outclassing 90% of the new spells added in heroes 3, essentially making them all crap. Why bother with expert fire shield, when you have haste or slow? Even the all-powerful blind is crap compared to these two spells. In heroes 2, mass haste (lvl 3) and especially mass slow (lvl 4) were relatively rare, and very much sought after - mass slow was a gamebreaking spell, just like it is in heroes 3, only trumped by the mass-haste-counter or proper armageddon usage. Mass cure, the only counter besides mass haste, was also a lvl 4 spell. In heroes 3, build a lvl 1 mage guild, and level up earth or air, which most heroes can easily do. You're done. Mass cure? Learn water. Resource cost - 5 wood, 5 ore, 2000 gold. All those nice ideas that they had for other spells, especially the lvl 3 and lvl 4 spells? All crap (except berzerk).
Haste and Slow are TOO STRONG. Maybe if they had a wisdom requirement too at the expert level along with your idea of increasing mana cost, it would balance things out a little, but that just messes up the framework they put into place. It requires a lot more rethinking, in my opinion. Maybe they got it right in the later installments.
All in all, I think the earth air fire water idea was really good but very poorly implemented. They basically half-assed redesigning the spells - they added some changes but failed to consider what those changes would do to the existing framework, and ended up botching the whole thing. Maybe if a lvl 4 spell at a basic level was more powerful than a lvl 1 expert spell and thus worth leveling the magic guild, but this is only true for direct damage spells (chain lightning basic completely overpowers magic arrow expert) - then we run into another problem...the effectiveness of direct damage spells was totally negated by the dramatic increases in creature HP/week...yet another unintended consequence of the changes they made. Spell power is a joke in heroes 3, by far the weakest primary skill.
You make a lot of good points. I cannot refute any of them and I thus concede. I still prefer Heroes III for a few reasons(RMG, campaign editor etc.) but cannot honestly say that H3 was a better game than H2 overall.
Quote:
Quote:
Heroes II(that is '2', not '3') had the best music I think everyone agrees(I don't think I have ever seen ANYONE until you just now say that III had better music.).
Really? I thought heroes 3 had great music, especially stronghold, by far my favorite. Heroes 2 had opera, which was funky, lol. Heroes 2 battle music was much better, I agree, but overall heroes 3 music is a bit better in my opinion.
H3 had good enough music. Better than 80% of the games ever released I think. But Heroes II is top 3 material for music. That opera was just enthralling to me.
Quote:
Quote:
Better to have many factions each with their own "might" and "magic" hero types. Where H3 messed up was by not putting enough thought and effort into the development.
You know, on one hand they did. The secondary skill priority chart is gigantic. However, then you have things like alchemists having a very high probability of learning "learning", and having a very low chance of learning archery when tower has 3 ranged units, and you realize that tower class is even worse off than in heroes 2 in getting a decent might hero.
Oh well. I guess there were a lot of reasons why I didn't continue on with the series.
Yeah when they first announced some of the 'Might' classes at the 3DO forums way back I remember posting "Alchemists are MIGHT heroes?! That sounds like a pretty contrived and desperate bit of nonsense...". I also did not like "Battle Mages" as the 'Magic' hero for the Stronghold("Shaman" or "Witch Doctor" would have been far more appropriate in keeping with the heroic fantasy theme) and that was just for aesthetic/thematic reasons(without even getting into the skill issues).
I have been giving Heroes 4 another try since I bought it from GoG for dirt cheap. Still not one of the better Heroes games but it is more fun than it used to be(AI is better now though there are still some issues). I liked a lot of things about Heroes 5: Tribes of the East but the freaking graphics and smaller seeming maps and some other cosmetic issues(Centaurs are now ORCS?!) kept me from getting much into it.
____________
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted December 15, 2011 10:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Shaman" or "Witch Doctor" would have been far more appropriate in keeping with the heroic fantasy theme
You're forgetting that Krewlod barbarians don't like magic. at all.
So it's better for the practitioner to be buff and act though, something which shamans and witch doctors aren't known for.
Besides, Battlemages are not unheard of in fantasy settings.
|
|
SkeleTony
Hired Hero
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 01:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
"Shaman" or "Witch Doctor" would have been far more appropriate in keeping with the heroic fantasy theme
You're forgetting that Krewlod barbarians don't like magic. at all.
Who cares? Why is this even relevant?
Quote:
So it's better for the practitioner to be buff and act though, something which shamans and witch doctors aren't known for.
WHICH shamans and witch doctors are not known for this?! What is your point here?!
Quote:
Besides, Battlemages are not unheard of in fantasy settings.
Neither are Melniboneans. But you would not include Melniboneans in a strategy game meant to emulate a fairly generic fantasy theme because denizens of Melnibone' are pretty specific to a particular setting. My point being that "Shaman" is, like "Wizard", a pretty standard, generic fantasy archetype, whereas "Battle Mage" is a stupid Warhammer name IIRC. It is a cosmetic issue but it is akin to creating a "Warrior" class in a fantasy RPG/strat but calling it a "Facebeater" because someone wrote a fantasy story where roving gangs of "facebeaters" used swords also. Stupid.
A minor quibble but it illustrates how badly the design process was on Heroes III from the start.
____________
|
|
SkeleTony
Hired Hero
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 01:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Not a personal attack calling them "amateur teenagers"? You will not mind then if I call you "amateur" after reading your "critics". 
I said that WoG, the game hack/mod for Heroes III screamed "amateur". And no, that is not a personal attack on ANYONE. It is a comment on the design of WoG which seems poorly thought out to me. Keep in mind that back when I was playing WoG it was NOT a "modding platform" of any kind really. Just a snow ton of hacks through the robust ERM and I said even back then that the effort was incredibly impressive and the coders should be praised for that much, even if the design was poorly thought out. A personal attack would be if someone said "Those WoG guys are a bunch of _________!"(fill in the blank with "idiots", "@$$holes" or whatever). If I were to finish anything I ever started to code In Visual Basic or whatever then any real programmer looking at what I did would rightly say my app/game was "amateurish"(at best) in it's coding.
____________
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 01:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
WHICH shamans and witch doctors are not known for this?! What is your point here?!
What was yours? The H3 barbarian faction is not a spiritual one, so why would they include shamans?
I really don't see a problem here.
Quote:
"Battle Mage" is a stupid Warhammer name IIRC
Wrong. As I said, it is used in lots of fantasy settings. The Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age and Magic: The Gathering, to name a few examples.
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 01:43 AM |
|
Edited by B0rsuk at 01:50, 16 Dec 2011.
|
Quote:
Quote:
To drive the point home, H3 largely did away with it, (...)
Conclusion - you haven't played Heroes III for more than a few hours, if at all.
1. No, you're using biased data. Selection bias to select data proving your case. Of course using unupgraded creatures will make your case stronger, but it's not what people use. Let's try upgraded creatures:
250, 300, 200, 250, 250, 300, 300, 200, 200.
The average is closer to 250, but that's it. Now Heroes 2:
65/4, 300/3, 300/3, 80/4, 100/3, 150/3
The amplitude is much higher. Stats are using to make creatures different, not to make creatures largely the same.
2. Firebird is still the only example of a creature with growth 4. That's 1 out of 9 (1/9), rather than 2 out of 6 (1/3).
Conclusion: you're intellectually dishonest. A red herring to avoid responding to my actual point.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die
|
|
cookiesareyum
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 04:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
<discussion>
An alchemist with Scholar and Learning is what makes sense and sounds right. An alchemist with Archery is what would work right.
All good points.
Quote:
<blah blah lvl 7 stats>
Conclusion - you haven't played Heroes III for more than a few hours, if at all.
I think you've proven that you haven't played heroes 2, period. Are you even aware that there were top tier creatures in heroes 2 with less than 100 hp, and one with 50 hp? Borsuk's calculations are spot on...I'm still amazed that 4 crusaders combined still don't have the hp of one black dragon.
To tie these two points together, Heroes 2 was definitely thematically biased towards the warlock and wizard, who happened to be Roland and Archibald. If you started with knight or barbarian, your goal was usually to level up a good might hero, and find a wizard or warlock city as your real main. Knight especially was a real handicap in heroes 2 - ogre lords were a saving grace for barbarian.
In heroes 3, they tried hard to balance all the factions. Every faction had a 'champion' lvl 7 unit, unlike heroes 2 where the crusader and cyclops were totally outclassed by the titan and dragon. They tried hard to balance every level creature, or at least to make it key to that faction's strategy (like imps and gogs...useless but great for demon harvesting). I think it largely worked. Inferno was very well designed, and they designed it following this new template. Now only if demons weren't so butt ugly, lol...
For me, they lost me somewhere while doing this. They didn't quite balance it out (evident with alchemists especially), and at the same time there were still those annoying "form over functionality" issues, again especially with alchemists and with tower in general. I'm probably singling out tower disproportionally because wizard was my favorite class in heroes 2. Given the weakness of magic in heroes 3 and the uselessness of alchemists, I ended up giving up on them.
All the while, the campaigns were so disjointed...it was really hard for me to follow the story or get attached to it, even this time around. A lot of posters here said that they thought heroes 2 had a lot more charm...that charm allowed me to overlook the balance issues in heroes 2. Not so for heroes 3...
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 08:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1. No, you're using biased data.
250, 300, 200, 250, 250, 300, 300, 200, 200.
The average is closer to 250, but that's it. Now Heroes 2:
65/4, 300/3, 300/3, 80/4, 100/3, 150/3
The amplitude is much higher. Stats are using to make creatures different, not to make creatures largely the same.
I don't get what you try to prove, except that H2 was extremely unbalanced in mutiplayer, and you do it quite well. Finally they learned from mistakes and bring all creatures stats closer. This does not mean at all that everything will be similar, because there are thousand of factors and game diversity (not present in H2) which will make every faction unique and equally candidate to win.
We played H2 several years online, and the odds were every game 100% predictable, speed won, warlock won, knight and barbarian lost. With one phoenix and high spell power one could hit and run endless times every turn, provided he had enough gold. H3 got rid of those, by introducing speed artefacts, anti magic artefacts, speed related terrains, anti magic terrains, shackles. Which were great improvements.
H2 campaigns were amazing. But don't forget that single player is a one time trip, and multiplayer is what keeps a game alive. The improvements H3 brought over H2 from this point of view made it the best game of all sequels. Because we needed them, we asked for them, they listened to us. We did not need what H4 came with, nor what H5 came with.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 09:19 AM |
|
|
And don't forget the "wait" button..
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 09:28 AM |
|
Edited by B0rsuk at 09:30, 16 Dec 2011.
|
Quote:
I don't get what you try to prove, except that H2 was extremely unbalanced in mutiplayer,
That the creature system used by H1 and H2 worked fine in the first two games, but it couldn't handle 2x the number of creatures.
Sure Heroes 2 creatures were unbalanced, but I didn't care because at the same time they were varied. It was at times unfair and dramatic, but it wasn't dull. Heroes 3 is dull.
The balance of creatures is the only relevant flaw in Heroes 2 I can think of, and even that can be debated because it's personal preference.
Quote:
and bring all creatures stats closer. This does not mean at all that everything will be similar, because there are thousand of factors and game diversity (not present in H2) which will make every faction unique and equally candidate to win.
No, thousands of factors only matter if they affect the game in a meaningful way. First Aid, Learning, Scholar are not meaningful, and they're a tip of an iceberg. Choices in a game can be like a painting. You can add only so many layers of paint. If you add one too many, it doesn't make the picture prettier. It simply obscures what's underneath. With game choices, you get to choose, for example, between Learning or Logistics. It's a false choice, a no-brainer.
Quote:
H3 got rid of those, by introducing speed artefacts, anti magic artefacts, speed related terrains, anti magic terrains, shackles. Which were great improvements.
No. Speed artifacts, antimagic artifacts, not to mention shackles are random, you have no control over them. The slower army is equally likely to get speed artifact as the faster army. If the faster army gets them, GOOD LUCK. And terrains are highly situational.
H1, H2, H3 all use a flawed system. But its flaw are much more apparent at a much bigger scale (number of creatures) in Heroes 3. Sometimes bigger isn't better, just more bloated. I suspect JVC knew that and that's why he didn't wish to create another extension of H2.
The wait button
---------------
Is not a clear cut advantage. It decreases the importance of stack positioning. I never had to understand stack positioning very well to win in Heroes 3, but I had to understand it well to win in Heroes1 and Heroes 2. I'm glad fheroes2 made it an option, not a part of the game.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 09:30 AM |
|
|
I don't even know what the problem is.
HoMM 2 was one hell of a good game, and HoMM 3 was one hell of a good game as well.
None was perfect, not even close to perfect, but both were simply a lot of fun.
If you accept that both games had a lot of flaws, but STILL managed to capture the attention of so many people and were so much fun, the actual question isn't what went WRONG; the actual question is, what was so RIGHT, that the obvious flaws just didn't matter (much).
For WoG, it's basically the same thing. It's simply an option to take or leave, with the possibility to make use of any number of features, and as such there isn't the slightest reason to diss it.
No one is forced to install it.
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 09:44 AM |
|
Edited by B0rsuk at 09:45, 16 Dec 2011.
|
Quote:
If you accept that both games had a lot of flaws, but STILL managed to capture the attention of so many people and were so much fun, the actual question isn't what went WRONG; the actual question is, what was so RIGHT, that the obvious flaws just didn't matter (much).
It's about what went WRONG because I'm the topic starter. I chose this topic. It's by definition.
Quote:
These people deserve respect for what they achieved, in their free time and because their dedication. I've seen often arrogant lurkers spitting on everything, while they are not capable to create a single pixel for Heroes games. So, before going so harsh, I suggest you do earn your opinions, so you can experience on the field what is needed. Are you a professional designer so you can safely affirm their work is horrible? A professional programmer maybe? Scenarist? Then I will listen to your carefully selected semantics.
This is a textbook example of a personal attack. Focus on his points, you are bringing nothing to discussion. And you absolutely don't have to earn your opinion. Everyone is entitled to one. I'm not a shoemaker but I can tell good shoes from bad shoes. I'm a man, but by your logic I should never have an opinion on pregnancy or abortion. I'm an atheist, but I should never hold an opinion on religion.
Quote:
Warmonger is right: H3 is the best possible for that time. Still today, it is massively MP played, while H2 is not, just in case you or others still think H2 was better. H2 died once H3 came out. H3 is still played while H6 is out.
Bandwagon fallacy - appeal to popularity. Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong. Eleven million people play World of Warcraft, so it must be the best video game. Most analysts consider Enron Corporation a well-run company with excellent management, so its common stock is a good investment.
H3 had the advantage of being more recent, and having more marketing.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 10:01 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 10:08, 16 Dec 2011.
|
B0rsuk, really, what's your problem? You can't find enough people to play Heroes II with? This whole Heroes III bashing is so pointless and ignorant (you really haven't played the latter game much and that's damn obvious) that your posts look like some form of advanced trolling. You'll hardly find someone to tell you that Heroes II wasn't good but that's it, almost everything else will be in Heroes III favour. If you can be bothered spending some more time with it, you may even understand why.
Quote:
I think you've proven that you haven't played heroes 2, period.
I've played all Heroes games and still don't get your point. Heroes II is better because there are top tiers with vastly varying health and weekly growth? Heh, this makes Heroes IV possibly the best game in the series then - you have everything from 150 to 400 HP and 1 to 4 weekly growth for the best creature of each faction. Disprove that
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 10:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you accept that both games had a lot of flaws, but STILL managed to capture the attention of so many people and were so much fun, the actual question isn't what went WRONG; the actual question is, what was so RIGHT, that the obvious flaws just didn't matter (much).
It's about what went WRONG because I'm the topic starter. I chose this topic. It's by definition.
Yeah, sure, you can start any topic you like - but shouldn't you live with the answers you get and accept them, especially when you chose to ask a question which for most people is simply not applicable?
NOTHING went wrong with H3 - but some things might have been done differently.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 10:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Bandwagon fallacy - appeal to popularity. Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong. Eleven million people play World of Warcraft, so it must be the best video game. Most analysts consider Enron Corporation a well-run company with excellent management, so its common stock is a good investment.
H3 had the advantage of being more recent, and having more marketing.
Well, yes, you may be right from this point of view. But H5 had even more marketing, but players still playing H3, how do you explain? Even today the amount of players playing daily H3 online is twice the one playing H5.
It is about experience online. Once you get the game you like and improve at it, you won't change for a worse sequel. Back in time, we were in awe in front of H2, still when Vesuvius built TOH, every MP league around came in, and everyone stopped playing H2, because H3 answered to most of our complaints.
Quote:
The wait button
Is not a clear cut advantage. It decreases the importance of stack positioning. I never had to understand stack positioning very well to win in Heroes 3, but I had to understand it well to win in Heroes1 and Heroes 2. I'm glad fheroes2 made it an option, not a part of the game.
lol? It boosted the possible battle actions by 1 million. Try vs human, not AI, and see how is used.
Quote:
And you absolutely don't have to earn your opinion. Everyone is entitled to one.
Alright. But if you go for example in a religious forum and start a "what went wrong with religion" topic, you need steel arguments to survive. I don't see any, except some manual data.
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 12:48 PM |
|
Edited by B0rsuk at 12:52, 16 Dec 2011.
|
Quote:
B0rsuk, really, what's your problem? You can't find enough people to play Heroes II with? This whole Heroes III bashing is so pointless and ignorant (you really haven't played the latter game much and that's damn obvious)
I played Heroes 3 so much that I get sick whenever I look at it, including lots of multiplayer. That's why I went back to earlier Heroes games, to have some fun and to re-evaluate them with a fresh look.
But since you're above constructive discussion and must resort to personal attack, I'll ignore your posts from now on. You have reading comprehension issues.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 01:05 PM |
|
|
Constructive criticism is applicable to something that makes sense. Your posts are yet to fall into that category.
/reading comprehension
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 09:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But if you go for example in a religious forum and start a "what went wrong with religion" topic, you need steel arguments to survive.
Since when do you need steel arguments to win a religion argument? From my experience it's just a matter of who shouts loudest. 
Re: the wait button.
I'm not sure how anyone can defend that the addition of the wait option was a bad thing. Like any game, increasing strategic options usually makes it easier to beat the AI, because there seems to be an inverse proportionality between complexity of the game and the ease with which an effective AI can be written. Why do you think such proficient chess AIs have been written? Because chess is fundamentally a simple game.
Wait function increased strategic complexity of the game quite a bit, because you're not anymore simply limited to the order of battle defined by creature speeds. AI can't really use this very effectively because the AI doesn't think abstractly. But human vs. human - H3 battles are much more difficult than H2 battles, and a lot of that is because of the wait function.
|
| |
|
|
