|
| Thread: NEW HOMM(VII) - Battles based on ancient HOMM4 |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Luiscarlosapeu
Hired Hero
|
posted July 18, 2013 08:58 PM |
|
|
NEW HOMM(VII) - Battles based on ancient HOMM4
Suggestion for the next version: Heroes of might and magic (7) – /battles based on ancient HOMM4/
- More heroic battles Dynamics: Fight … Hero x Creatures/ Hero .
________________HEROES NEED BE MORE ACTIVE PRESENCE : _______________
Although Homm 4 - Heroes Of Might And Magic IV is a junction for several factors numerous failures of AI and gameplay that made him one of the most criticized versions... Was in HOMM4 that existed there never was in all versions Heroes Magic… advantage that I see to be superior to any other version.
Judging that all heroes must be immortal. At what point do you say that? ???? just inside of the battles??? They do not fight ... there is no damage in combat... And what about after the defeat of an army and the disappearance of the hero in the adventure map??? Yet there is immortality heroes??? What a bad concept of immortality... The heroes are mortal and need to be... otherwise there will never be defeats in battles... the truth is that characters seem to be cowards because they do not fight...
In HOMM4. heroes are mortal!! waging battles with dynamically as any creature, but he that was discussed was the unfeasibility due heroes have level initial or current in many campaigns well below the extremely high power creatures... making us wonder if the heroes are heroes or even extras failed to die so early in the fighting... but nothing that is difficult with good edits map or a reconfiguration of the powers of ATTACK and DEFENSE of our heroes.!!
If the new version of HEROES bring the heroes back to the struggles on the field of play... would be extraordinary in light of the new 3D versions, would further improve the gameplay.... As well as witness more of a hero in a battle.... It is very interesting to see the heroes move into combat to fight for truth, moving through the field like any other creature, being subject to strike and also fend off opponents, the risk of dying like any other army unit… depending on your own level for their survival.
Actually regressed in current HoMM V and VI, the most dynamic in terms of battles that ever existed was forgotten in HoMM IV (4). 
If someone disagrees and does not want to see their hero fighting…attacking the body-to-body… receiving damage from enemies… making it deadly ... In my opinion, should exist in the next version at least the option to :
- " IMMORTAL HEROES” (UNPLAYABLE IN COMBAT)
Or
- " MORTAL HEROES” (A UNIT OF HERO IF SHIFT IN BATTLEFIELD AS A COHABITANT BE IN FIGHTS ... TO GIVE AND RECEIVE DAMAGES).
What do you think?? 
Sorry for the english!!
reproduced by translator
LCapeú / BRA.
____________
|
|
Simpelicity
Promising
Famous Hero
Video maker
|
|
posted July 19, 2013 01:23 PM |
|
|
Heroes already are everything in a battle. You know how later in campaigns you can take on much more than you ought to? You got a good hero, he's doing everything.
The only thing that having the hero on the field does is it creates them a vulnerability that the enemy can exploit. If you want them on the field than you'll need to give them boss level HP because they'll logically be the first target, considering how important they are to th rest of the army.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted July 19, 2013 01:44 PM |
|
|
I don't like heroes within the battlefield for numerous balance reasons. For one, there is no way to scale hero strength with army strength that can range from a few peasants to 125+ weeks of army. None that sounds remotely realistic but even if that were the case the hero would be overpowered against neutrals. Secondly, that would also mean armies that can travel on the battlefield without a hero - otherwise they'd scatter if you lost your hero but won the battle. The former would introduce micromanagement, the latter would simply suck. Then there are other considerations.. What would happen if one hero puppeted the other? Would he be able to cast the other hero's spells too? Would his warmachine or other skills start working for you perhaps? Or what if he died? Would his army suddenly lose ALL kinds of skills? There are so many ways this can go wrong..
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Simpelicity
Promising
Famous Hero
Video maker
|
|
posted July 19, 2013 11:53 PM |
|
|
To be fair, Elvin, a lot of the problems you pose aren't really problems. Armies can move without heroes? So what? You'd never want to bring an army to a fight without a hero, you'd get crushed. Armies being able to move without heroes would only serve as scouts or other logistic purposes (reinforcements, etc). Heroes also don't have to be susceptible to mind control. The only real issue is balance.
In H4 it was set so that they were extremely weak early and completely overpowered late. Never a particularly good balance, but you'd almost have to build yourself up an army.
In any case, balancing a midfield hero is a nigthmare.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 12:15 PM |
|
|
No problem? When every single player splits 7 pixies in single units and scounts with each this is not only a waste of time but annoying micromanagement. Some might like it but..
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
luiscarlosapeu
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 08:24 PM |
|
|
Are you kidding ... not deluded or are content with little ... Heroes nonexistent in combat on battlefields ... it is a thing of the past ... Homm's 01-03!
WAIT ALL!
I will demonstrate to you that this was all just a roll of the critical fourth version ... which once was botched by the producers of the game ... only agree with this ... but the ideas of the fourth version are good but ... Heroes die in the battlefield is the best ... I'm writing a brief text and introduce to you ... yes it is possible to be a balance within the combat ... creating "LIFE" ... existence of the heroes in the game ... above all in battle ...
BASIC EXAMPLE:
Armies without heroes ... create micro-managements?? this is just theory ... as they spoke, it was only a kind of recruitment or search for spices, riches by adventure map ... knowing creatures travelers could never take possession of buildings ... and could never master anything within the field of adventure ...
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 10:21 PM |
|
|
Time to enter a discussion after a long time..
For start I say I do not like the idea of Heroes in combat.. Elvin said most of the reasons so I won't repeat them but....
Eventhough I understend the "Kick" behind the idea I think it does not mmatch to the idea of what a "HERO" in a Heroes game is.
A hero in these game is not the savior, the chosen one, or the main protagonist. He is the comander, the token of your ideas, your mind and your strategy. He is just a figure on the game board. Even if they have names now. background and unique skill they are still just a tool for the player to use.
The general idea of a comander/representativ of the player, in this game is not to take part in the combat directly, but to watch, analyse and then give orders to his units. Rarely he may enter the battlefield to boost moral/power. But he should not be the "main power house" He has his units for this.
If we look into history, we can see the differences. Take Napoleon as an example. When he was a young field comander, he was on the battlefield with his man, becoming the hero and making his name. But later, when moved from a comander and became a general, his role was not to be in the front lines, but somewhere way back, on a hill, watching the battle and giving orders who should go where, who should hold lines etc.
Now to the topic of imortal heroes. Back in the middle ages, the time most fantasy games take inspiration for their setting, it was a normal custom "NOT TO KILL" the knights, high comanders and generals. Rather then to kill them, they were taken hostage. Why? The answer is easy... gold. The family of a wealthy knight would pay a lot to get their son/brother/father back home, and from this gold you could buy food, more man, weapons. Taking a high ranked kinght hostage was like a win in a lotery. You got his horse, his armor, all very expensive, and you evetually got the ransom. It was a dream for many foot soldiers.
To sume it up...
A hero in our beloved game is not the Prince Charming, not the Barbar Conan. He is not there to make his hands dirty, he can do it but its not the main role. He is the Cesar, Napoleon, Sun Tsu, the man behind the scene who puls the strings. And this is how it should stay. I rather like the way Heroes V and VI managed the hero role. Shure Heroes VI failed in the field of abilities for the hero. But the concept is OK.
What I would like to see is a way where the heroes influence is not that direct and rather more tactical. Less pure damage spells, more pasives and mass boosts. And at the same time make the individual boost less powerfull, especialy the boosts provided by the heroes atributes.
p.s.
I think the idea of heroes in the field generaly deos not work with the idea of Heroes games, where the strenght of an army/player is based on the number of units. Games like Disciples II which limit the number of units and their, development is based on individual experience is better suited for such a concept.
____________
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.
|
|
luiscarlosapeu
Hired Hero
|
posted July 21, 2013 02:56 AM |
|
|
Dave_Jame...
Not so fast ... you are mistaken ... a hero is not present to be a representative decisive war ... or as imagine ... a fighter champion ... that will decide a campaign within all battles ... which it prevails on the field with his supreme power ... never surpassed by any creature or living being ... Homm never lose your strategy ... on account of a hero in the battlefield ... quite the contrary ... the intention is to increase the dynamics of battles ... is well established ... this feature will never hinder the strategy of a player ... just because a hero would be a supreme master in combat!!
His theory is failed
sorry ...
 
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted July 21, 2013 10:46 AM |
|
|
Considering that heroes in battles only appeared once, halfway through the series and were never heard from since speaks volumes about which feature failed.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted July 21, 2013 11:19 AM |
|
|
luiscarlosapeu said:
Dave_Jame...
Not so fast ... you are mistaken ... a hero is not present to be a representative decisive war ... or as imagine ... a fighter champion ... that will decide a campaign within all battles ... which it prevails on the field with his supreme power ... never surpassed by any creature or living being ... Homm never lose your strategy ... on account of a hero in the battlefield ... quite the contrary ... the intention is to increase the dynamics of battles ... is well established ... this feature will never hinder the strategy of a player ... just because a hero would be a supreme master in combat!!
His theory is failed
sorry ...
Actuall it did. Heroes IV was more of an micro-RPG game where the hero was worth more the each of his units, or was inferior to any of them. Leveling the hero, creating builds and fast acces of levels, artifacts and skills became more esential then the building of dwellings and the economy part connected to creatures in ganeral.
Heroes IV was succesfull only thanks to the variouse ways how you could make your hero so much stronger then any army. This was liked by some, but disliked by others.
____________
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.
|
|
IbnWaliBarad
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2013 04:10 PM |
|
|
In history, many defeats happened because the enemy armies managed to corner the general.
In ancient times, it was very common for generals and their body guards to enter the fight, mostly to boost a certain flank's moral (Caesar did that).
And anyway, melee hero actually do that in HOMM. Yet they never take any damage, nor can they be cornered or anything. Even the campaign's story makes reference of your own hero's fighting amongst his men.
Also this leads to extremely annoying situation. You have an all powerful badass but if you make the mistake of going out with only 1 peasant in your army, and you encounter 2 zombies, once the peasant is dead, it's like you're hero is retarded and can't defeat 2 zombies by himself.
This is a constant frustration. The fight is a close call, the enemy only has a few units left and their heroes is a pathetic weakling, yet as soon as your last soldier is dead, it's like your hero commits seppuku or something. The invincible archmage goes down without a fight...
Heroes in battlefield adds a strategic dimension : protect your hero, maneuver in order to not get him surrounded... just like it should logically happen.
Also, your hero's power becomes an absolute : it isn't determined by the size of his army, just his own spells and armor. He can defeat small armies only by himself, and doesn't have to ''mule'' 300 archers before that.
It would just reacquire some heavy balance and tweaking. But ubisoft doesn't want to bother with that.
They just ''play it safe'' each time. By either copying entirely HOMM3 systhem (without any innovation), or dumbing it down (HOMM6).
That way they focus everything on shiny ''NewGen'' graphics (not even cool technological stuff like physics), because this is the thing that sells for sure.
|
|
luiscarlosapeu
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2013 05:11 PM |
|
|
IbnWaliBarad said:
In history, many defeats happened because the enemy armies managed to corner the general.
In ancient times, it was very common for generals and their body guards to enter the fight, mostly to boost a certain flank's moral (Caesar did that).
And anyway, melee hero actually do that in HOMM. Yet they never take any damage, nor can they be cornered or anything. Even the campaign's story makes reference of your own hero's fighting amongst his men.
Also this leads to extremely annoying situation. You have an all powerful badass but if you make the mistake of going out with only 1 peasant in your army, and you encounter 2 zombies, once the peasant is dead, it's like you're hero is retarded and can't defeat 2 zombies by himself.
This is a constant frustration. The fight is a close call, the enemy only has a few units left and their heroes is a pathetic weakling, yet as soon as your last soldier is dead, it's like your hero commits seppuku or something. The invincible archmage goes down without a fight...
Heroes in battlefield adds a strategic dimension : protect your hero, maneuver in order to not get him surrounded... just like it should logically happen.
Also, your hero's power becomes an absolute : it isn't determined by the size of his army, just his own spells and armor. He can defeat small armies only by himself, and doesn't have to ''mule'' 300 archers before that.
It would just reacquire some heavy balance and tweaking. But ubisoft doesn't want to bother with that.
They just ''play it safe'' each time. By either copying entirely HOMM3 systhem (without any innovation), or dumbing it down (HOMM6).
That way they focus everything on shiny ''NewGen'' graphics (not even cool technological stuff like physics), because this is the thing that sells for sure.
My noble friend ... so far no one has presented a rationale consistent ... not to be heroes in battle ... My Congratulations! you just show a good excuse to get back in fighting heroes!! There is just you ... others wish to return this magnificent function Heroes!!
I'm not supporting those who are in favor ... much less want to take credits on who is against .. But ...
I'm still waiting for someone to prove that it is not interesting the return of this feature ... Need justifications correct ... with sense ... because .. I'm just reading ... opinions on programming errors in the game ... engine failures ... lack of good aticulação levels of combat units ... as my friend IbnWaliBarad speaks ... Ubisoft's lack of interest in making "The BEST"!! 
For statements favorable to the return of the heroes in the struggle ... I have many ... justifications for such ...
|
|
flonembourg
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2013 10:50 AM |
|
|
IbnWaliBarad said:
Also this leads to extremely annoying situation. You have an all powerful badass but if you make the mistake of going out with only 1 peasant in your army, and you encounter 2 zombies, once the peasant is dead, it's like you're hero is retarded and can't defeat 2 zombies by himself.
I can't agreed more on this statement, moreover for me Heroes 4 was the most immersive heroes game because the hero was on the battlefield.
Also when a creature was in front of an other the archers could not shoot the creature behind and i found this more realistic that this shot that can touched everything on the batllefield in H5 and H6, that make the shooters too strong!
A hero must be in the battlefield and with immortalility's potion and healing potion.... there is no special problem i think.
Dave_jame said:
What I would like to see is a way where the heroes influence is not that direct and rather more tactical. Less pure damage spells, more pasives and mass boosts. And at the same time make the individual boost less powerfull, especialy the boosts provided by the heroes atributes.
This is exactly what i wouldn't like to see, less pure damage = no wizard , warlock in the game... Change the title for heroes might and might....
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted July 22, 2013 12:14 PM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 12:16, 22 Jul 2013.
|
It's a balancing nightmare for sure. On one extreme, you have the Hero with just one or two creatures to accompany him, meeting a few enemy creatures that he could easily dispatch on his own. On the other extreme, you have vast armies, consisting of thousands of soldiers crawling around the battlefield and the Hero is just one of them and cannot stand up against the enemy on his own.
A side question: why can an army only ever have one Hero? Why can't the Hero have a second-in-command? Officers that work out details of his orders and direct their troops?
It's a matter of scale. On small scale, the whole idea and concept of the Hero is more that of an RPG, which is vastly different from what it is on the large scale, where he gives direction to the army. Advocates of both sides are present in this topic.
Frankly, the only way I see this happen is if the player gets the choice to field the Hero or not. While being off on the side (the "Napoleon"), his influence boosts the army's statistics and efficiency, based on his leadership skills. Only a subset of Magic spells might be usable in this form, no direct melee stuff (perhaps only Mass spells?). While charging onto the battlefield (the "Caesar"), the player gets access to a powerful unit on the battlefield itself, but at some consequences. The leadership bonus drops from his troops and the Hero becomes a valid target for enemy troops. While being able to deal direct damage, he can also receive direct damage and suffer physical harm. In this shape, I would say only single target Magic spells are usable.
I would say that this battlefield presence is forced on the player automatically, once the number (combined with quality) of commanded troops drops below a certain threshold, regardless of the number of enemy troops. When above the threshold, the player may opt to field or unfield the Hero at any time during his own turn.
This whole concept requires a thorough restructuring of Hero skills and abilities, since you essentially have to tailor them for two different roles: that of the "Napoleon" and that of the "Caesar".
Besides this, I would also very much like to see a feature where you can ransom an enemy Hero. Capture an enemy Hero, and he gets locked up in the dungeons of your kingdom. The enemy can then buy the Hero back at a set amount of gold, depending on level of the Hero. For balance purposes, I would say that the enemy may opt to pay the ransom at any time, while the captor may not decline it once the ransom is offered. With the capture option, a Hero that gets defeated on the battlefield is then considered captured, not dead. Personally, I think the capture and ransom component is pretty much required with the battlefield presence.
Should the Hero suffer enough damage to be considered a casualty on the battlefield, but his army wins the battle, then the Hero will persist and simply need time to recover hitpoints.
|
|
Luiscarlosapeu
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2013 05:08 PM |
|
|
flonembourg said:
I can't agreed more on this statement, moreover for me Heroes 4 was the most immersive heroes game because the hero was on the battlefield.
Also when a creature was in front of an other the archers could not shoot the creature behind and i found this more realistic that this shot that can touched everything on the batllefield in H5 and H6, that make the shooters too strong!
I agree with you 100% ... I'm with you!!
HEROES RETURN TO FIELDS OF BATTLE ... The best feature of HOMM4.
Ever imagined in GODRIC Homm V!! on his horse ... fighting countless dragons ?? 
Maurice said:
Should the Hero suffer enough damage to be considered a casualty on the battlefield, but his army wins the battle, then the Hero will persist and simply need time to recover hitpoints..
Good observation!!!
Would be a good discussion ... Nothing impossible with good editing of game ... That's part of the game, increases the realism of the adventure ... the expected "life" of the heroes ... based on the balance of the HP ... spending the previous battle to recovery ... the amount of regeneration by round (variable according to the type of Hero - Knights and Orc are faster) ... but I see that every hero (however slowly it may be) should recover in mínmo 25% per round ... 50% also may be on the verge of ... so you can start their battles to next round with HP leveled, at least ... enough 70% recovered ... The great realism exists in these cases ... you want to do more fighting in the same round ... Fight 1, 2, 3, 4 etc ... and still want your hero to be fortified for a 5th battle in the same round????
____________
|
|
Luiscarlosapeu
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2013 08:47 PM |
|
|
Dave_Jame said:
Time to enter a discussion after a long time..
For start I say I do not like the idea of Heroes in combat.. Elvin said most of the reasons so I won't repeat them but....
The general idea of a comander/representativ of the player, in this game is not to take part in the combat directly, but to watch, analyse and then give orders to his units. Rarely he may enter the battlefield to boost moral/power. But he should not be the "main power house" He has his units for this.
If we look into history, we can see the differences. Take Napoleon as an example. When he was a young field comander, he was on the battlefield with his man, becoming the hero and making his name. But later, when moved from a comander and became a general, his role was not to be in the front lines, but somewhere way back, on a hill, watching the battle and giving orders who should go where, who should hold lines etc.
Now to the topic of imortal heroes. Back in the middle ages, the time most fantasy games take inspiration for their setting, it was a normal custom "NOT TO KILL" the knights, high comanders and generals. Rather then to kill them, they were taken hostage. Why? The answer is easy... gold. The family of a wealthy knight would pay a lot to get their son/brother/father back home, and from this gold you could buy food, more man, weapons. Taking a high ranked kinght hostage was like a win in a lotery. You got his horse, his armor, all very expensive, and you evetually got the ransom. It was a dream for many foot soldiers.
To sume it up...
A hero in our beloved game is not the Prince Charming, not the Barbar Conan. He is not there to make his hands dirty, he can do it but its not the main role. He is the Cesar, Napoleon, Sun Tsu, the man behind the scene who puls the strings. And this is how it should stay. I rather like the way Heroes V and VI managed the hero role. Shure Heroes VI failed in the field of abilities for the hero. But the concept is OK.
p.s.
I think the idea of heroes in the field generaly deos not work with the idea of Heroes games, where the strenght of an army/player is based on the number of units. Games like Disciples II which limit the number of units and their, development is based on individual experience is better suited for such a concept.
Unlike Thinking: Dave_Jame!!
Heroes on the battlefield ... does not make them the great savior in the fighting. chosen. and the main protagonist of his campaign ... Much less will not disengage strengthen an army with the best creatures ... the strength of the group will never be made only by HERO ... not make them a great champion ... Unless you use a map editor and make it be one - God the fight -. In Homm 4 ... Do not develop your creatures and wait for heroes to see if your group will survive!
Hero is a COMMANDER?? Who runs the game you ... the player's mind ... strategy is you. Who is in front of the computer ... not the game character "hero." the hero is the leader of his army. only ... which exist ... like all great general ... descends the throne and go fight too ... the puppet hero will not make tactics for you ... it is her ... as it should fight for it too!
In Homm4. in some battles ... My hero did not have to move ... already had an arsenal of highly competent creatures ... You will not always need to fight or defend his hero's death ... if you are a good manager of resources and wealth!!
Currently we only use skills (not many have considerable value in combat). this is extremely disheartening ... within the combat is still limited ... little realism .. some dynamics to operate it with the heroes ... not funny! We can build on "Disciples II". really ... perhaps to make a better setup in balance Hero and Creature.
Napoleon?? was one of the few commanders who did not fight ... why is remembered in history as a loser! coward. a unplaced ... strategist was bankrupt ... if fought perhaps consecrated. most recognized!! Alexander the Great ... really was GREAT ... because it was a leader who fought alongside his men. This was a true hero! If there is a Hero in the game. is materialized in the adventure map ... the trails along with his army ... because they can not defend their group when needed?? He is a hero ... not a wizard ... creatures have their units to help in the fighting ... creatures that can be much more powerful than your own Hero ... Depending on your management!
The series is Homm's fantasy ... is not a game to reference the history of the great commanders ... their war strategies ... look for another war game ... with soldiers, combatants. tanks. helicopters! Heroes on the contrary ... tells the story of one (or more) that catch our heroes struggle in search of conquests for their survival ... but actually hid the heroes always Homm ... because I do not see the most basic ... the practice of hero ... The most interesting addition to the strategy .. battles are ... because they are out of this nice game position? ... fight for your group! The man behind the scene is you. we are the players.
Current versions of the hero is really unique role ... FIGURE INSIGNIFICANT. static ... frozen image of a character from the game without validity ... without participating in one of the main activities of the game!!
NOTE: The name of the game is "HEROES". Because there can be real heroes, battles inside (when possible)??! Name of the game is not MANAGER ... COMANDER ... MANAGER ... ADMINISTRATOR ... REPRESENTATIVE ... ASSISTANT ... VIEWER ... Spectator ... FAN ... 
When you are defeated. exterminate all his creatures Army ... and his hero loses too (DIE) ... this could also losing the battle with their units ... what we discuss ... would not just be in the presence of these battles .. as this is vital to gameplay HEROES ... would be applied as a way to make a hero hostage rival Army ... May have two options to the winner ... imprison or kill the hero in exchange for rewards ... GOLD!! Woe worth a HERO ... if he is strong ... important for their skills and attributes of personal combat ... you'll want it again ... giving rewards to the opponent!!
Beleza robinho?
____________
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted July 22, 2013 10:40 PM |
|
|
You may dislike my opinions but they are very close to the principles and the general idea of the game.
You may play with words. Keep doing it, I'll have, fun but it won't change the idea behind the game. Ever played Heroes II? Try the story part. In it there is no "HERO" no "Leader" of your armies. Those litlle man on horses are not important at all, they are just names. There is only you as the anonymous generl who comands these individual armies and fights with them. That is the core idea of the game. The RPG part you like so much was only added later.
Don't take me wrong, I don't have anythig against "heroes" in combat, but not in a !!Heroes!! game. The idea just does not work together.
The problem is simply in two asynchronous powers. One is the hero, who gets stronger with every battle he wins and item founds, and the army which get stronger based on the time and constructions. These two power are independent and balancing them would be imposble. Since you would not only have to balance factions, but hero developement, and take this into account on each and every map at every part of the game (begining, midle prart, final part)
If you take a look at disciples, there the "Army" works like a group and each member develops with experience. So there is no problem in makeing the hero just a slightly different kind of a unit.
Take this idea, take all of your ideas, create a concempt and name it what you want, but do not name it a "Hereos" game since it won't be one. Call it Leaders, Warlords, Comanders but the concept of heroes is based on time and resources, not the hero developement.
____________
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.
|
|
Luiscarlosapeu
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2013 11:40 PM |
|
|
DAVE... !Não pega corda!
THEN ... I STARTED PLAY THE FEW ... HEROES OF migh AND MAGIC FROM THE FIRST SERIES ... VERY BASIC ... NOT LIKED VERY Homm 3 ... BUT found it interesting SHAPE GAME ... NOT WAS PLAYING WITH FREQUENCY!! GETTING TO FOURTH VERSION, DESPITE THE LACK OF MAKING THE MOST OF FEATURES IMPLEMENTED ... TARGET OF MANY CRITICAL TO TODAY ... I found what was missing THIS VERSION AND THE GAME left MORE EXCITING AND REALISTIC ... Accordingly. Homm's liking ...
___________________ Agreeing, or not .. _________________
1st epic you would see your hero be the last to survive, launching last attack ... before death ... winning the battle heroically ... (THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN HOMMs)
2 It would be amazing to see a battle between two great heroes ... dueling in defense of their groups ... after the defeat of the whole army of creatures!
3rd present two or more heroes ... within the same group ... fighting battles at camp adventure ... Only HOMM4 is possible to campaign mode: "The Lord Of The Rings"!!
4th Include heroes on the battlefield .. does not remove the need for a large army .. much less the power of the creatures ...Just spice up the fight ... function creates the hero in battle ... the hero is a constituent unit of the group!
5th Armies without heroes .. would not clutter the map .. serve to recruit at least .. return to another group ... because for that to happen ... His creatures were not good enough to withstand attacks opponent ... your hero by many incompetence / weakness ... deserved to die ... lose, be dismembered his army! What's problem? As you said yourself ... in first version Homm, follows the game by itself, even without heroes, only creatures.
6º Another series of advantages... at the moment, I have no time to stand out !
Many people prefer to continue ... laziness. lack of desire for the best. trying not implement. something that is not very demanding ... do not modify. what is reasonably good ... the risk innovate ... because if it is done correctly. Unlike HOMM4. carefully planned ... I do not see any way to disrupt game plans .. even. anyone who is against the presence of the heroes in the fight ... in return. supporting and encouraging. please many who want this feature!
The hero does not need to be a "God-war." much less be an easy target ... destructible by any creature ... would be a more difficult unit to be slaughtered. unless through wealth. developed quite the army (creatures). the level (amount) exceeding evolution of Hero, in map (during campaign) ... Disparity that could not be so great. within an adventure, but studing very equilibrium ... for not to facilitate the hero's death. destroying the main actor for anything! It can be stronger. after all it is a Hero. but not killing creatures. in serial... would be in resistance. early death ...
IF THE CREATORS NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO PREPARE A GOOD BALANCE OF FORCES. ASSUME THAT UBISOFT HAS CAPACITY ??? ... BECAUSE OF AN ERROR. IN CREATION HOMM4. We will not take advantages of the good characteristic.
____________
|
|
luiscarlosapeu
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2013 02:16 AM |
|
|
Dave_Jame said:
You may dislike my opinions but they are very close to the principles and the general idea of the game.
You may play with words. Keep doing it, I'll have, fun but it won't change the idea behind the game. Ever played Heroes II? Try the story part. In it there is no "HERO" no "Leader" of your armies. Those litlle man on horses are not important at all, they are just names. There is only you as the anonymous generl who comands these individual armies and fights with them. That is the core idea of the game. The RPG part you like so much was only added later.
Don't take me wrong, I don't have anythig against "heroes" in combat, but not in a !!Heroes!! game. The idea just does not work together.
The problem is simply in two asynchronous powers. One is the hero, who gets stronger with every battle he wins and item founds, and the army which get stronger based on the time and constructions. These two power are independent and balancing them would be imposble..
other...
Micro-RPG in the game ?, you would be adding more benefits to Homm, compared to other games. the same platform!! I see no problems. Besides searching for resources (natural Homm), development of creatures ... introduce skills development. own heroes. to value the battles, I do not see problems!
Or this feature would increase the difficulty of the game, you would not be able to make a good campaign? ... this increased to game mode??
heheheheh 
|
|
Luiscarlosapeu
Hired Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2013 10:19 PM |
|
|
________________________ CONTRASTS ________________________
• Heroes in fights : Evolutional beings (RPG-Small). Fight the battle as part of the group, the possibility of death.
VS.
• Heroes "Immortals" : Static unit . Simple helper in the battle, with no chance of suffering damage, being figurative.
.
All this is a matter to be discussed and , although I believe 60% (just over half) , be unfavorable issue of heroes fight. I believe, the real reason is distrust. a work that could be done wrong again. as occurred in HOMM4!!! however still there are many people who would like the return of this feature H4, but ... this time. WELL ESTABLISHED BY UBISOFT!!
Assigning, proper coding of the forces and developments - Balance between beings. Increases the quality of the gameplay. Attract more advantages for game.
A discussion about . There would be only a matter of tastes, if those who "WERE NOT IN FAVOR" . Were not for the simple reason of WEAKNESS or SUPERPOWER heroes before the creatures, lack of balance or MORE for LESS ... depending on the type of map / campaign because the creators do not violate the match or sharpen the powers of every . Consequently . making failure within HOMM4 battles.
Unfortunately all I see are responses from people "arranging" issues ... subsidies to oppose a feature that was introduced evil . But it is interesting . solution exists! Really what happened was a bad setting levels of units produced by developer previous. Getting little use of resources created in its fourth version of HoMM!! Many who disagree , would love to assist, if there is better programming ...
|
| |
|
|
