|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 18, 2013 03:11 PM |
|
|
DoubleDeck said:
Okay I hear you and good point.
Is unit size of 1x1 and 2x2 that bad anyway?
And the fact that you can exploit big creatures by blocking important creatures from them (like shooters) I would think is a good thing.
2x1 creatures can only work in 2D battlefields...
Wondering if the battleground changes diagonally (like in H4) if it would help...
There are other things to consider than just exploiting the blockiness of 2x2 creatures (and being able to give a 1x1 shooter cover with ONE 1x1 stack against them).
There is, for example TERRAIN to consider, battlefield size in proportion to unit coverage, and the necessity of a Tactics skill for everyone to be able to rearrange units.
Consider this: HoMM 3 had a 15x11 regular battlefield, for 165 hexes; the Fortress faction as the faction with the most 2x1 creatures came with 3 1x1 creatures and 4 2x1 creatures, so the faction took up 11 of those 165 hexes or 6.67 %. With a 12x10 square grid, the Inferno of HoMM 6 has 4 2x2 and 3 1x1 creatures, so the faction takes up 19 of 120 squares or 15.83%.
Now add to this that Inferno has GATING ability as well, and you see the problem.
Creatures being as they are, the BF would have to be something like 19x15 (not 12x10) to offer the same kind of space than HoMM 3 offered ...
Now, on a 19x15 BF, you won't see anything anymore, if you zoom out so much that you can actually view the WHOLE BF.
So, see, it's a matter of what you WANT, graphically, and IF you want something, you have to either make amends with gameplay - or be VERY creative, which in this situation is the same thing as INNOVATIVE. Innovation, however, is always a two-edged sword, especially in a game like HoMM and especially in the sctual situation the frenchise is in.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted November 18, 2013 03:42 PM |
|
|
That percentage of 15.83% for H6 Inferno is way higher than 6.67% for H3 Fortress occupying the battlefield...one did tend to get quite crowded on the battlefield in H6, even in H5 with gating...but would it be that detrimental to gameplay?
Consider this: It was more difficult to get rid of creatures in H6 than in H5. So like in chess, it was easy to "kill units" so the space never got too crowded. Maybe unit defense should be like it was in H5...
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2013 04:08 PM |
|
|
DoubleDeck said:
That percentage of 15.83% for H6 Inferno is way higher than 6.67% for H3 Fortress occupying the battlefield...one did tend to get quite crowded on the battlefield in H6, even in H5 with gating...but would it be that detrimental to gameplay?
Consider this: It was more difficult to get rid of creatures in H6 than in H5. So like in chess, it was easy to "kill units" so the space never got too crowded. Maybe unit defense should be like it was in H5...
Whether it's detrimental or not depends on whether the game is tailor-made for a small battlefield or not.
The more cramped a BF is the less important unit speed becomes, simply because you cannot make use of your speed advantage.
Think about a feature like "Flanking", something that seems to be en vogue currently: Heroes Online has it; AoW III has it. But to make use of it, you not only need units with good speed, you also need ROOM to maneuver a unit. Imagine the 12x10 BF we have now, with a couple of small obstacles in it, then imagine 4 stacks of 2x2 units plus a couple of 1x1s. What do you think, which units will be able to make more use of such a feature, the big ones or the small ones?
In chess, you start by occupying 25% of the available space. How would the game change, if you
a) had 2x2 pieces and
b) a couple random obstacles all over the place
c) pieces that could kill your own from a distance without the need to move
d) more units like the Knights, i.e. Flyers
You also don't want to have units that
a) can cross the BF in one turn,
b) have a devastating area-attack and
c) high initiative
On a wider BF you can disperse your units. On a cramped one you can't.
So the bottom line is that it is important to identify the elements in your game concept, that "force your hands" and to design the rest of the game ACCORDINGLY.
I didn't see this happen, neither in HoMM V nor in HoMM VI.
|
|
NamelessOrder
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2013 04:32 PM |
|
|
Raelag84 said:
....I like them to be so different from each other that it almost feels like playing a different game with each faction, even if it means balance is off. (...)
I totally agree. Something that worked 15 years ago might not work today. If we look at many different units in H3 the main difference were the arbitrary chosen stats of particular units.It was standard a decade ago, today i'd also like to a different play-style with each faction.
I had very distinctive mechanics and play-style in Starcraft 2 with (only) 3 factions. Of course in TBS there is no real mechanics but they should create races that will be really different. But this feature should limit the number of possible factions.
____________
Uplay: ZergRusher | H6: Thoughts on duels | DoC: Cassa
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted November 18, 2013 05:15 PM |
|
|
I'd say, in terms of approachability, Heroes 2 to 3 rank high on my list.
Easy to learn, hard to master (if you're a layperson like myself).
The modern installments - in spite of trying to "streamline" the whole experience (making for quicker gameplay) -
are more cumbersome to navigate, partly due to the somewhat perplexing graphical interfaces.
I'd also say that while versatility and variety is good, not *every* creature require arbitrarily assigned special abilities.
Even meat shields have their uses.
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2013 12:00 AM |
|
Edited by Raelag84 at 00:01, 19 Nov 2013.
|
Ok lets organize our thoughts so far.
So far we all agree that gameplay comes before graphics though we're are not exactly sure of the specifics of how making graphics worse improves game play, except to the extent that going 3D complicates how "big" units operate on the field. On a related note the size of the battle field would ideally affect units are made.
For the most part we agree that varied factions are good, but there is a trade off between amount of factions and variation between those factions. Furthermore, while I am willing to loose alot of balance for our variation, some of us are not.
Also not every unit needs a special ability.
Does that some sum up our trade off feelings so far? Also what's TBS?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2013 05:53 AM |
|
|
I want every unit to have a special ability.
As far as graphics go, it's a question of trade-offs. The developers can spend more money on artists or on designers. Depending on where they spend it, they can get better graphics or better gameplay.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted November 19, 2013 07:28 AM |
|
|
@Raelag84: Pretty much sums up what we discussing recently. TBS = Turn Based Strategy.
I don't think every unit should have a special ability, that would make the game very complicated. Although some specials in H6 were quite cool, the focus should still be on your hero build and your troops there to support it.
@JJ: Units crossing the BF in one turn is cool. If you have shooters, then you can have these units too for first attack meaning something. Area attacks and high initiative added to the randomness that I enjoyed about H5, especially Elvin's duel maps.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2013 07:55 AM |
|
|
Units crossing the BF in one turn are cool.
On a small BF with sparse deployment space units having high initiative, crossing the BF in one turn and having a massive area attack are not.
@ Mvass
Every unit having a special attack makes the special ability makes the ability fairly unspecial, because in that case each unit has one ability and the upgrade two.
That makes 21 special abilities for each faction.
It also reduces the hero function, because it's basically the task of the hero to slap "special abilities" onto units where it fits best.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted November 19, 2013 08:46 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Units crossing the BF in one turn are cool.
On a small BF with sparse deployment space units having high initiative, crossing the BF in one turn and having a massive area attack are not.
Man, but H5 Thanes and Emerald Dragons were so cool! And Rakshasas with speed and initiative arties were just awesome. There were counters to this though (eg. swift mind + frenzy), so as long as there are counters, it's okay in my opinion.
Maybe units that can cross the BF in one turn should have low/medium initiative forcing opponent to go for them first benefitting your other troops for example.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted November 19, 2013 02:37 PM |
|
|
Personally I'm not a fan of every creature having one or several special abilities. Creatures can be differentiated by stats or commom abilities like flying.
As we saw in H6, lots of abilities per creature + developer not in the better conditions = lots of bugs.
In H3 a good number of creatures didn't had special abilities, while in H5 (And H4 too) we saw nearly every creature with one special ability (although still not an overkill like H6 did). Maybe a balance, between H3 and H5 is the best call?
____________
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted November 19, 2013 02:43 PM |
|
|
I found H5 just right in that respect, wouldn't like to see less than that.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted November 19, 2013 03:01 PM |
|
|
|
A minor pet peeve of mine: Anyone else finding the 'Living' ability in H6 to be completely pointless?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2013 04:52 PM |
|
|
They simply treated "conditions" like abilities: Living, Demonic, Undead, (Construct), with consequences (like being immune against mind spells or not).
Added to the list, though.
At first it went like, WOW, Shark Guard, FIVE abilities, except that it was like, 4 were Living, Amphibian, Resistance to Water and Vulnerability to Air. 
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2013 07:40 PM |
|
|
I like alot of special abilities, but if loosing a few of them means gains in other areas that's fine with me.
Ok so far, amongst us at least, we can put graphics and special abilities on the list of things to sacrifice.
I am thinking this "Things to sacrifice" should be it's on topic, complete with a pol. What do you guys think?
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted November 19, 2013 08:01 PM |
|
|
Avirosb said:
A minor pet peeve of mine: Anyone else finding the 'Living' ability in H6 to be completely pointless?
Well certain abilities of Necro work against living creatures (ghost's resurrect ability, ghoul's +2 speed on living creatures, etc).
@Elvin: Agree. H5 was perfect ito creature abilities.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 01:25 PM |
|
|
|
If by abilities you mean actives then I myself wouldn't like every creature to have one. Passives are a must. So yea, I guess H5 was the best in this respect. H6 felt a bit overcrowded with all those actives, if I'm correct some creatures even had more than 1.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted November 21, 2013 02:34 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
If by abilities you mean actives then I myself wouldn't like every creature to have one. Passives are a must. So yea, I guess H5 was the best in this respect. H6 felt a bit overcrowded with all those actives, if I'm correct some creatures even had more than 1.
Pretty much this.
We all (here) strongly agree on this matter, cool
____________
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted November 22, 2013 11:37 PM |
|
|
|
I said it many times before, but Heroes 4 had the best unit "ability" system. There were four slots so max 4 abilities per unit (enough imo), each unit had a unique ability. Additionally, not only were those described in detail, the whole interface was transparent and easy-to-read. For me this should at least be a standard in any Heroes game...
|
|
Simpelicity
Promising
Famous Hero
Video maker
|
|
posted November 22, 2013 11:51 PM |
|
|
blob2 said:
I said it many times before, but Heroes 4 had the best unit "ability" system. There were four slots so max 4 abilities per unit (enough imo), each unit had a unique ability. Additionally, not only were those described in detail, the whole interface was transparent and easy-to-read. For me this should at least be a standard in any Heroes game...
Yes, and there was a clear strenght hierarchy going with that :
-spellcasters
-other
The number of abilities to give to anything depends on their impact. Every unit in H6 has an ability that has or could have a noticeable impact, with a few small exceptions (demented...), which I think were failed experiments that had the intention of being meaningful. You could still have that in H7 if you limit it to 4 abilities. Hell, even 3. You need to think of it not as how many abilities, but how much of an impact they have. And the consensus currently seems to be to have abilities have a little less of an impact on the battle, although personnally I don't mind how H6 did it. In any case, you can't think simply in term of numbers, that alone doesn't work (and is quite arbitrary to boot). H6 had a ton of abilities, but most of them are barely noticeable, it's always the 1-2 more important ones. The problem isn't the number, it's the potency of the abilities.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
