|
|
mwll-Vlaad
Tavern Dweller
|
posted January 14, 2014 11:19 AM |
bonus applied by Elvin on 14 Jan 2014. |
|
Heroes 7 Mechanics
To be able to see what we expect from future of Heroes I would first like to tun back and see after six games is
considered to be a good game mechanics in general and explore what each game did right. Id like to apologize (and give a warning)
for upcoming wall of text.
Heroes 1 and 2 (1995 and 1996 respectively) is more or less the same game but with updated features and new story line.
Game making at that time did not have such big expectations and 2 games defined HOMM franchise for what it is: a turn based fantasy strategy game.
HOMM
HOMM2
Heroes 3 expanded upon concepts set in stone by previous 2 games and added new fractions, newer graphic, sounds but it did
not actually expand upon previous 2 games mechanics in any other significant way nor did it leave much space to expand upon the
franchise in any meaningful way. Mind you, I am not talking about what the game did right since its success and popularity
said enough and so that I am talking about it, as a fact, that H3 was a good game. It has to be mentioned though since many people
started going into this universe because of H3 and since its their first game many audience members will cry because newer installments
are not more like H3. The fact of the matter is the only thing that its future installment needs to have like H3 is the thing what H3 above all else is and that's a complete bug free neatly packed complete software product that offers fun, fluid gameplay (animations, movement, general game pace, fluid storry telling) and a high value of replayability and high degree of modding accesability. Above all else, I value this. H3 had one more thing I like nearly that it made game more than a good game but rather epic piece of art: It knew how to finish itself before getting old. Epic end for perfection that was build through 3 games.
HOMM3
Rather than talk what before mentioned game has ill try to be short and underline mechanics that could be used in future installments that we can call legacy of H3.
The good:
-Bug free (self explanatory)
-Community oriented (Excellent editor, high replay value)
-number of fractions (its not just the number, its "consistency" and charisma of each fraction)
-Fluid, intuitive
-Excellent and practical storytelling (no over the top cheap in-game animations)
-"Believable" characters (Characters seem plausible and belong to the world)
-Great and challenging campaign
-Satisfactory end. (I would like to say again: Anything self respecting knows how to end.)
-game sounds, music (discreet unit sounds)
-Random map generator for maximum replayability
The bad:
-Conflux (if you like it you are ... probably dead inside. period.)
-Game ended (Not really a bad thing.)
-too many generic units needed to fulfill factions cannon fodder with no charisma (dwarves, wraith, basilisk)
Heroes 4... left Erathia and Enroth to create a new world upon the epicness that is H3. Decision of developer of the game was to distance itself
from previous installments game has resulted in moderately successful product and starter of something that I consider a plague of next
instalements: clunkuness and unintuitive gameplay and somewhat ever present feeling of not being complete. With that said it was FAR from a game bad and people or,
more accuretly said, rabid fans of H3 have labeled it. It was a fresh product, and attempt that, granted, it could have been done much better but it DID above all have a good direction. Inventive, specialized skill tree for heroes making your armies customisable in never before seen ways, real danger since your heroes were present on the battlefield and excellent units witch did have soul and individuality, units that meant something on the battlefield and specialization of your army to tailor unit type that one is going to use. Every unit meant something and had something that if used correctly could mean something. I will say this out loud and completely shamelessly: HEROES 4 IS AWESOME, far better game than H3-3d err H5.
Concept of giving individuality to armies, castles and heroes and atmosphere created with Paul Romero's masterpieces was just.. Inspiring. Innovations aside for now there is a lot what heroes 4 did wrong. Ill correct myself here, wrong is not really a word that i'm looking for. Did not do right is a bit closer. Confusing adventure map with forcibly too many colors, complexity that did not appeal to everyone, clunky movements... List could go on, but for sake of discussion ill summarize it.
HOMM4
The good:
-Innovation build on still air (near-stale air of H3).
-Epic beginning of new world. (attribute it to H3 if you wish)
-Quality over quantity of units. (No unit was left obsolete and no unit was there for cannon fodder)
-Hero specialization and their "chosen path" bonuses.
-Retaliation before attack ability. (anyone getting ripped by white tigers stack knows to appreciate reflexes)
-"battle heroes" (heroes on the battlefield).
-Black dragons are force of nature again. (since H2, h3 ones were in the middle line with most other tear 7 things)
-Atmosphere. (Real danger of hero dying, biblical epicness of music, tough battles)
The bad:
-Clunky movement of heroes, units.
-Low budged "quasi 3d" animations of units.
-Over colored and inefficient graphic design (to the point of seizure, game is played on 50% of screen)
-Small number of fractions and units per fraction (7 was too much but 4 is a bit small... One more could do the trick)
-Bad editor.
-Generally it did lack polish.
-Horrid castle tower system. (Ranged units aside melee on towers could wreck)
Heroes 5... Not sure what to say. Part of me died that day that european-bully-EA-games-a-like publisher decided to go for HOMM... First of Ubi is a publisher and IP holder. Little regard to developer companies, tight deadlines and a lot of miscommunication are sure to happen as it is the case with most instances of separated development (imho). Product that we welcomed was persistently less inventive since release of HOMM. Basically it was an attempt to make profits on tested H3 formula... It inherited clunkiness of H4, granted, transition to true 3d environment was to have some consequences but
Going for 7 unit castles with 7 (in some instances meaningless) upgrades and therefore creating overcrowded one castle armies with little individuality was unnecessary step back. 3d castles were unneeded, clunky movement was there in feel (twitchy units, horrid animation transitions). I can not give unbiased opinion of this game since it was obvious dumbing down attempt to sell it to younger audiences (in 3d!) and I relived vanilla H5 the same way I did
survive (or did I?) SW: phantom menace. In my book, not even trying to be original yet selling oneself as one is class one crime punishable by mental deletion.
HOWEVER! Game kept getting better: Tribes of the East brought the best barbarian play out there that shadowed all other fractions. There were sinergies
but a rabid band of bloodthirsty orcs who just cant wait is just plain awesome. Thy found a way to reward and encourage thing that orcs in this story should do best: CHARGE angrily. Hammers of fate didn't bring the amount of awesome as H5:ToE but it did well to expand on universe and create lore, something I came to appreciate and it made me reunite with HOMM franchise after rage quitting H5 because of sheer nonsense and insult that it created by selling itself as something it is not: original full-blooded HOMM. H5 (not equal) H5. H5=HoF+ToE.
HOMM5
The good:
-Relatively painless 3d transition.
-Beginning of same army synergy.
-Artifacts for units, runes.
-Some good designs.
-More accessible for general audiences than its predecessor. (-+)
-Persistently best nation gameplay wise, faithful to its description. (Stronghold from H5 in gameplay and description is exactly like they play: charge first think later)
-Lots of different fractions.
-Tendency to be improved by patches.
The bad:
-Uninventive, dumbed down product (initially)
-Clunky design, horrid animation transitions.
-7 tier castle design. (back to overcrowded obsolete filled armies, more cannon fodder than ever)
-Horridly slow AI.
-Next to 0 replayability.
-Boring campaigns.
-They managed to improve horror that is h4 editor. (to the point where its would scare Freddy Krueger)
-Yet undefined direction of future developments.
-Unit design. (BLADE WIELDING HOVERING LEONARDO DI CAPRIOS ARE NOT REPLACEMENT FOR MANLYMEN ARCHANGELS from a game that they tried to copy. PERIOD.)
-Unit role. (A lot of useless purposeless units obsolete after first week. Farmers. For the love of god.)
-Compared to its predecessors it had least ambitions.
-More accessible than its predecessor. (-+)
-Buggy
Here we are, at the end. What can I say about H6... lets go with obvious: Its buggy as hell... (I have to launch it 6+ times per day for christ sake) and hope that it does not do something stupid like black out my screen, chancel my ability to use TP, forget about first 2 rounds of retaliate first on some heroes and the list could go on.
Mind you, list only hods THE BUGS. Lets do a quick calculation imaginary game witch is identical to H6 but abstract of bugs.
Inventive, logical, with individual units, more sense when upgrading the unit than random increase to stats and fun castles. (needs more academy though).
Units can inflict elemental stats effect, secondary damage, they have synergy and their design is mostly flushed out as are animations, in game behavior I now have a reason to use some units as part of my strategy. Combat depends on utilizing unit abilities as part of ones strategy. Sanctuary is number 2 on my list of awesome additions to HOMM, first being stronghold from H5. It brought in innovations like spell separating spell attack damage from physical as well as separating defense... Now wizards can utilize their power through units something that is PERSISTENTLY no.1 innovation. I love this heroes as I do H4 on ambition, additions innovation. Now Considering the ban wagon that exists in community, mostly in those portions that cry more H3 I feel kind of better that I love this game. Love and appreciate. There is a wagon of bad things that cannot be ignored however and I admit that much.
MMH6HOMM6
The good.
-Unit synergy. (still "7" tiers but at lest much more flushed out, wizards now have their own units that benefit for them)
-Fluid animations/transition. (Strike and return still takes too much and feels clunky)
-Flow of the game is satisfactory (major improvement to H5)
-Separating attack power and defense from magic attack and defense. (it needed to exist)
-Best heroes since first one in being inventive and fairly well received. (Innovation wise, H4 was the first that tried to be inventive and got crucified for it)
-Building upon H5.
-Hero sub classes/reputation (nice system, should be expanded upon).
-Unit individuality (most units actually have purpose now)
-Sanctuary (and kirins. Kirins, kenshi/kensei are awesome)
-Lore (Unit descriptions, amount of detail dedicated to each one of them)
-Ability to convert dwellings
The bad.
-Bugs
-Bugs
-bugs
-Editor ("My mommy always said there were no monsters... no real ones... but there are..)
-Convert castle system, recruit all units from 1 castle. (monopoly of 1 army is kind of boring).
-Skill tree. Not really bright point of this game.
-1 advanced resource.
-Certain designs. (fluorescent purple elves, glowing green necros, bright orange glowing demons... They all glow that they make me wanna drown a baby)
-Horrid and unbelievable campaign flow and characters. (emo crying glowing green teen necromancer, more one liner action hero punchlines than real dialogues)
-Yelling YEAAAA! when enemy stack is destroyed. (Cheers are worst than on high profile football match but with crowd replaced by horny teens)
-Helium influenced dark elf combat voices.
-Online heroes. Conflux. 4 registrations required to start the damn game (Cracked version did not crash once my original copy cant even start below 6-12 attempts)
SO... If someone is alive still, lets talk H7. Lets marry some things from previous heroes while being inventive at the same time.
In short, 2 predecessors defined ashan. We can only imagine that theyll not let confused teenagers with identity crysis write campaigns any more *shakes fist angrily*.
Lets say in punchlines that from above mentioned we hope for.
What it should have.
-Bug free.
-Bug free.
-Fluid, solidly designed game that is intuitive.
That means solid hero movements solid creature movements and fluid, animations. H6 griffin has solid and fast land and take off animations, harpy does, not and strike and return of glories is most annoying thing ever. Unit plays once per round, respecting its initiative and speed.
-Units that are not just generic mass of numbers and have their own abilities. H6 is a step in right direction, even if there is a lot of abilities.
-Castle Tier system more similar to H6. Some people dont like it but its a good idea to move away from generic cannon fodder. We can say what we want but
units are arguably most well defined as is their role since H4, every onit means something.
-Might-magic relationship from H6, unit wise and hero wise.
-Some degree of personalization to units: artifacts from H5, slight unit progression, much less drastic than one in WOG.
-Skill tree specialization from H4 and their associated benefits. It basically is way improved than one from H3, its also very clear and self explanatory. H5 had good skill system as well its a competition between h4-h5 skills.
-Classic 2d castle view. No need to go for H5 and its a bit cheaper to produce.
-H5 Like stronghold. Orcs with much less self control and a lot less like in warcraft. Seriously, stahp portraying them like PETA, they are ruled by strength, impatience and aggression witch can make the quite destructive and dangerous as allies. Orcs in H6 have as much raw free spirit as a pair of slippers.
-Random maps are guaranteed to be difficult to make (3d and all) but it would mean a lot.
-Hire some real voice actors. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD don't ever try to be funny again, 1 out out 100 generic jokes make people smile. H6, looking at you.
-Believable characters for campaigns. Hire some writers, comb the community for story talents.
-Comic book style cutscenes rather than cheap in game animations cutscenes. Thy are both cheaper and more convincing.
-Fractions: Dungeon, Necro, Human, Sanctuary, Academy, stronghold as a core. Sylvian, Inferno as addons.
-Paul Romero is a must (as is tradition), H4 still has best OST followed closely by H3.
-More discreet, classic unit design. Some units in h5 and h6 are so over the top pimped out that it would put Pimp-my-Ride to shame
What it should not have.
-Traditional bugs established in H5 and "improved" by H6. Do not release for 5 years but do it properly.
-7tier castles (h3,h5)
-Online heroes.
-DIE CONFLUX, die (CASTLE AND H6 online).
-Horridly slow and buggy AI.
-New redefining universe.
-Glowing units/fractions.
-Castle convert system from H6. It was a bad idea. Dwellings yes, castles, just no.
-Story driving bad jokes and action hero catchphrase. Its not funny to anyone with IQ higher than that of a peach.
-Powerful demon of destruction "azzy", 3 hour selfish lord of naga, crying, horny and insecure lord of the dead in love.
-Less racial stereotypes. Its not funny.
Personal Wish list:
Units that can receive levels via XP (subtle not drastic)
Time of day in some sense. On ashan it can be week of darkness/2 weeks of light or something along those lines.
Ability to choose if hero wants to be on the field *dream mode on* Could be interesting ig hero is not exactly normal (remember Mutare from H3AB?)
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
posted January 14, 2014 02:43 PM |
bonus applied by alcibiades on 31 Jan 2014. |
|
I'm just commenting on a few things with regards to HoMM4, I'm fairly neutral about the rest of your post (though I can see and appreciate the effort you've taken to compile it).
mwll-Vlaad said:
HOMM4
The good:
-Retaliation before attack ability. (anyone getting ripped by white tigers stack knows to appreciate reflexes)
-"battle heroes" (heroes on the battlefield).
I would consider these "bad" changes. While the concept of reflexes is a nice one, allowing a stack with that ability to retaliate before they received combat damage, the fact that all units could do it was overkill. The fact that ranged units would also retaliate other ranged units was - in my eyes - retarded to say the least.
I also disliked the way they brought Heroes to the battlefield. Initially, you had to protect them because they would die from a slap in the face, but eventually they became one-man armies, capable of wrestling with a pack of Black Dragons and coming out victorious.
There were three more things that I disliked and considered bad game design. First thing that I considered a bad thing with regards to Heroes 4 was that the battle lines were mis-aligned. The core of each line was directly opposite one of the wings of the opposing battle line, leaving the other wing dangling in the open.
Secondly, since you had to choose your higher level creature dwellings, you had a fair chance that when you captured an enemy town, you ended up with creature dwellings that didn't fit your strategy. With no way to tear them down, the usefulness of such a city might be reduced as a result.
Thirdly, having a daily creature growth meant that you could buy troops every day, instead of having them available just once each week. For me, the result was that I usually waited more days than required in a given town, 'just to get 1 more of creature X', essentially wasting time, instead of realising that I had a full week to take my army on a stroll, before new recruits were available. But perhaps that's a bit of OCD behaviour, I don't know.
With regards to the campaign maps, something that I found irritating (especially in the base game) was that a lot of them had the player fight an uphill battle (on a muddy road against the wind) towards the enemy capital, while the enemy had a one-way portal downhill next to your main city (that you of course couldn't lose or you lost the game). That's just poor map design in my opinion. At least, that's the remaining impression I have of when I played that game, which I admit has been a while.
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted January 14, 2014 03:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
-Conflux (if you like it you are ... probably dead inside. period.)
That's awfully harsh. Conflux > Your opinion.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted January 14, 2014 03:52 PM |
|
|
Very nice thread, a lot of effort put into it  I had made a similar topic back in the day if you are interested. We have a few disagreements but I think we understand each other's view. Heroes has a lot to learn from the past if it is to rise again but there is hope as long as there are people who know its origins and evolution  And I can tell you that there are such people in the ubi team. Fingers crossed!
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
BurntPhoenix
Hired Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2014 04:59 AM |
|
|
A Heroes game with H2's storybook atmosphere and aesthetics, H3's replayability and fluidity, and H4's and H6's attention to individualization and customability + some new elements that are integral to gameplay would be a video game experience for the AGES, albeit 'pie in the sky' at this point.
At the moment, I can't contribute much specific ideas that haven't already been stated here or elsewhere, but being a supporter of making the units and creatures much more personalized and purposeful, I'd like to see a return of H2's approach to upgrades: fewer and spread out as opposed to universal. Perhaps throw in some H4-style choices to the creatures or upgrades, but make it so the choices blend in with the town's general strategy. There shouldn't be a choice at every tier, but only some select ones. Also, make it so that the choices are both beneficial and not a 'no-brainer' (most of you would ALWAYS take the Cyclops over the Ogre Mage in H4, for instance).
Avirosb said:
Quote:
-Conflux (if you like it you are ... probably dead inside. period.)
That's awfully harsh. Conflux > Your opinion.
The Conflux deserves some praise. Conceptually and aesthetically-speaking, it's AMAZING. Gives me similar feelings from H2's Sorceress town and H3 Tower town without exactly feeling like either/or, if that makes sense.
But yeah, otherwise, on the strategic level and balance scale, it's a rushed, overpowered DISASTER, without question.
|
|
Simpelicity
Promising
Famous Hero
Video maker
|
|
posted January 15, 2014 06:28 AM |
bonus applied by alcibiades on 31 Jan 2014. |
|
Really interesting post, thx. If you don't mind I'll comment a few things.
Generally speaking a lot of what you mention is rather subjective, I'm not gonna go over all of them, I'm sure you can tell yourself, I'm just saying to keep that in mind. I could over all of it saying I disagree, but in the end it doesn't get anyone anywhere.
On H3, not much to add, except maybe to the bad. You say it ended, but I'll say that with Chronicles it didn't want to at all. It kept going for way longer than it needed to or should have. And you give a nod to that in H4 with your near-stale air of H3. It's like they knew they had something good and were afraid to let it go.
As for H4, your good points are good overall, but if you're going to mention lore and storytelling, H4 took storytelling a step further than H3. I enjoyed reading through all of it. Part of the design of the storytelling back then is also that was very easily and very quickly skippable, should you want to. It does require a little bit of an attention span. And as for the innovation, I'll that it was good, and that the game was good, but I think I can understand why so many people hated it. Basically they changed so many things the gameplay didn't really feel the same at all. As you say, the game was still good. I think its downfall was that gameplay-wise, while still good, the game wasn't better. It changed almost everything, the gameplay was completely changed, and while it still held up as a good game, it wasn't a better Heroes game, it was a completely different game. At least I bet it must have felt like that. Add to that movement mechanics and siege mechanics, which both get a lot of getting used to to use properly, and they (those huge fans you don't like) probably didn't want to bother with this stranger of a game... kinda like the effect bugs had on H6.
Onto H5, I have little will to defend it from your wrath, but there's a certain logic to it, a very understandable one. That was an attempt at the resurrection of a game series. Ask yourself, how would you perform a resurrection? The simplest answer is to take the best one and make it better. This is what H5 is an attempt at. They took the most popular game of the series (H3), gave it a whole new story (world even), and more importantly a major graphics update. All of this you have noted (H3 3D, painless 3D transition, etc...). While the game is by no means spectacularly good, the goal was to bring it back to life, and it accomplished that. I'll also add that I hated the story as well, but it accomplishes the job it's given. They are building a new world here (Ashan), so they need to establish it with a clear, simple picture, so that people can recognize it when you come back to it later. While the story was annoying, by the end you knew who was who, where, and what, at least on a faction scale. It isn't good, but again, it accomplished its objective.
And then came H6. After re-establishing the series they wanted to get moving again. That means innovations for gameplay and a better story, supported by an expansive lore. While the story was iffy for some, I enjoyed at least parts of it (parts). Lore they nailed. Gameplay-wise, they mostly nailed it, although I see why some people are a lot more equivocal about it. Bugs shot it out of the sky though, and it could never get back to the sky afterwards, no matter how much it fixed itself. Which was a little sad to me.
I'm not gonna go over your wishlist, a lot of it I agree, some I don't. I'd say that I'd like to see a system where alternatives come with choosing groups of units instead of a choice between 2 units multiple times, but I'm not gonna get into too much detail on it. It has been spoken of before.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2014 09:12 AM |
bonus applied by alcibiades on 31 Jan 2014. |
|
Not wanting to spoil the fun, but the thread has not much to do with game MECHANICS.
Game mechanics, for example, would be to analyze the game's monetary economy in the course of the different incarnations.
To give this a little more substance, I will do an analysis with a view on what has been LOST (and should come back) with regard to this.
We have two completely different economy and army structures in HoMM, one is marked by I, II and IV, the other by III, V and VI.
HoMM I and II introduce the town/castle with an income of 1000 gold/day as opposed to the village with an income of 250/day. (HoMM 2 allows the building of a monetary structure for an additional income of 250 and 750 respectively, for the Warlock faction only.) The difference between a village and a castle is the FORT which costs 5000 gold + 20 W + 20 Ore; this build gains 750 more income plus the ability to build dwellings. Considering a regular income of 1250 gold per day per castle, the requirements to grade a village up are MASSIVE.
The other factor is the fact that a hero has 5 army slots, but we can build SIX creature tiers.
For HoMM I we have a weekly income of 7000 gold, 8750 if you manage to get a village (but keep in mind that a gold mine brings 1000 gold as well).
We have a "hiring span", that is, we have a minimum build (creatures 1-5) and a maximum build (best 5 creatures) the cost are:
Knight: 6180 – 8300
Barbarian: 8080 – 10600
Sorceress: 7350 – 10250 + 3 M
Warlock: 9200 – 17600 + 3 S
For HoMM 2 this develops to: (first number in brackets: maximum income per Castle; 2nd and 3rd, creature cost with upgrade)
Knight (8750): 6340 (7865) – 8300 (11425)
Barbarian (8750): 8400 (10450) – 10600 + 4C (12650 + 4C)
Sorceress (8750): 7750 (8700) – 10650 + 3 M (11200 + 3M) Alternative: 11350 + 3M (12300 + 3M)
Warlock (12250): 9680 (10180) – 17600 + 3 S (21100 + 6S)
Wizard (8750): 8300 (9000) – 11150 + 3G (23100 + 6G)
Necromancer (8750): 9550 (11600) – 13150 (14500)
If you look at this tables, you'll see, that while Warlock and Wizard have great top creatures, they can't buy them. , at least not without a massive income boost.
Bottom line is, that HoMM started out as a game that balances massively via money shortage: towns as such are extremely different, the limiter being the economy (building costs are quite stunning as well). Consequently, the maps feature a lot of villages, which are needed as additional income sources (and not as additional hiring places; the cheap towns have a resource problem, since they need massive amounts of Wood or Ore); we have a fluid dynamic.
There is another important thing to note, and this is the relation between Hit Points and Magic Damage. Castles produce a lot less HPs per week as in HoMM 3, so the magic damage part is relatively stronger, since the spell effects are the same.
In comes HoMM 3 with a completely changed economy. We now have as many slots as tiers, and a fully built town can support itself and buy the town production (which means, factions are not limited by economy anymore; instead towns are more or less equally strong). While Capitol income quadruples, the upgrade cost for villages (which bring now a base income of 500) are left unchanged (Fort still costs 5000 Gold + 20/20 res).
This means, additional towns are much more likely to be upgraded, which in turn (and in combination with the introduction of outside dwellings), lead to the strong possibility of low level creature rushes.
This changes game dynamics completely. In HoMM 2 your highest level creatures are absolutely dominating. A weekly production of Titans or Black Dragons is so much better than the low level rabble (one reason being the flat addition of the growth structure in HoMM 2 and the percentage additions of HoMM 3. The difference is still there, but not so massive.
Generally, having more town structures is much more awkward in HoMM 3, since upgrading them is an option now. While this seems to increase the options (with more than one town you have to decide whether to go for rabble masses or class), but of course this has downsides.
Bottom line is - the general game dynamic is much lower, differences between towns/players decrease, and there are a lot of stalemate situations compared to the predecessor.
HoMM 4 basically goes back again to HoMM 2 economy - and with a vengeance. Basic income of town structures is a mere 500 gold, two upgrades for 250 additional gold each are extremely expensive. In practice the game goes back to having more creatures than army slots (you can have 5 creatures per town, but there is a tendency to go for 3 heroes in any 7 slot army).
There is a very symmetrical economy, in that the first 3 creature tiers (4 creatures) will deplete the towns income, with the 4th costing roughly the same again to hire. Tier differences are significant, the village/town difference is back to HoMM 2, although the village income is doubled to 500.
Building up one town is expensive. The Barbarian towns costs 77000 gold to completely build. Considering an income of 1000 max this is THREE TIMES as much in comparison of what you need in HoMM 3. Add to that the fact that you can spend a fortune on buying stuff for your Heroes (skills, artifacts, potions), the economy and its managing is a pretty decisive factor in the game, and I won't make a secret of it, that in my opinion HoMM IV BY FAR has the best economic model of all HoMM games.
HoMM 5 and 6 go back to the HoMM 3 model, but one difference is, that you don't need the Fort anymore to start building dwellings, which makes things a lot easier. HoMM 6 dumbs this further down with the creature pool and the fact that every build gains numbers.
In HoMM 6 the limiter are the 3 resources; one game aspect is, that piles contain few resources forcing you to have endless fights over 1 Crystal and 2 Wood kind of caches, which means, the game is fracturing things down in a meaningless way.
There is a very serious and important bottom line with a view on balance - if you keep money and resources to a certain limit, you can have quite different towns in strength, provided they are different in cost as well, AND it pays to make a significant difference between a "village" and a "town", because IF you do, you can place a lot of villages on any given map, without changing the character of the game.
Clearly, the economy of HoMM I, II and IV, money shortage plus less army slots than possible creature builds makes for a much more dynamic game, allowing more different towns and forcing players to make much more critical decisions; it also allows the placement of more varied and interesting map objects: HoMM IV may have had its problems, but there is one aspect the game clearly and decisively beats all the others and that's MAP OBJECTS (to go to).
Obviously, the more interesting map objects there are, the more options a player has where to move to and in which order to flagg stuff. In HoMM 4 it's definitely not only the mines that are interesting. Power ups, skill givers, caches, flaggable once-a-week income sources, outside creature dwellings, a village (practically standard on each map), schools and academies to buy skills from, powerful artifacts - the map is FULL of different objects, and what a difference that is compared to the boring HoMM VI (and not that much better HoMM V) map layouts.
With regard to the economy, we are in a dead end with HoMM 3, 5 and 6, and it would be advisable to go back to the more dynamic ways of 2 and 4. I have a nagging feeling that won't happen, though.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2014 09:22 AM |
|
Edited by MattII at 09:25, 15 Jan 2014.
|
I see no mention of either the skill or spell systems in H5, which were, IMO, miles ahead of those in H3.
Also, the Battlefield Heroes of H4 is controversial, it was, again IMO, a good idea, but horribly implemented. Also, the fact that you could never fill your ranks from a single town was endlessly aggravating for me.
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted January 15, 2014 09:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But yeah, otherwise, on the strategic level and balance scale, it's a rushed, overpowered DISASTER, without question.
Can't argue with you there. Still though, it's no reason for name-calling.
Quote:
On H3, not much to add, except maybe to the bad. You say it ended, but I'll say that with Chronicles it didn't want to at all. It kept going for way longer than it needed to or should have. And you give a nod to that in H4 with your near-stale air of H3. It's like they knew they had something good and were afraid to let it go.
As far as I know, this was largely 3DO's fault.
They may not have been good, but the standalone campaigns are relatively obscure today and completely optional,
so I won't say H3 suffered from it, rather the developers.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted January 15, 2014 09:56 AM |
|
|
@JJ: I liked your post about economy, good insight
Elvin, that post deserves a QP imo
BurntPhoenix said:
But yeah, otherwise, on the strategic level and balance scale, it's a rushed, overpowered DISASTER, without question.
Thank God we didn't get Forge - I can't imagine all the rage that would still produce even after 15 years 
____________
|
|
mwll-vlaad
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted January 15, 2014 10:19 AM |
|
|
Thanks for taking time to read through
I did open separate thread from Elvin's so we could have productive discussions on game mechanics what we as a community think that H7 should contain.
Reason why my post is wall-ish is to see where i'm coming from with the ideas and to maybe inspire replies on H7 game mechanics. As an ex-dev on a mod/game I understand complexity of adding ideas after development is in full swing and game mechanics solidly defined game mechanics is key to that process. Who knows, maybe someone from Ubi will notice discussions here and pick up some ideas before actual development starts.
@Maurice
I didn't mean simultaneous attack and retaliation but rather specific units ability to be able to retaliate before being attacked. Once per round, once per combat and similar but as an inherited expansion on punch-retaliate mechanics that was previously set in stone. Units ability to retaliate differently than classic is what I did consider a good mechanics.
Bear with me on heroes on the filed idea please
OBLIGATORY heroes on the field are really... Well not to everyone's taste ill give you that. But his ability to participate as a unit opened up new possibilities to personalize your army and more feeling of having special unit, like the avatar of your army. Leveling up hero so he could beat 10 black dragons guaranteed that that hero will not be a leader. No tactics meant no units could benefit from stats and were essentially a neutral army as far as hero influence goes, and leveling hero to grandmaster combat levels did require quite a bit of effort, much more than 10 black dragons did. Were not even counting a scenario where tactics hero was present in witch case dragons would level that hero with the ground.
In conclusion mechanics was self-balancing and hero was essentially interactive unit far more logical than say, generic expendable units such as ones from 7tier h3 and h5 system.
Making it non obligatory seems like an awesome mechanics to be since I find no reason why it could not happen: Heroes are animated, completed unit/entity anyway, having an option to put them on a field should not be challenging. I could go on to describe mechanics I had in mind but ill wait if someone is up for this discussion.
@Avirosb
It is harsh, but it's meant as a joke not RL description. Fact is it did not really benefit to gameplay/universe/faction expansion.
@Elvin
Will do!
BurntPhoenix said:
A Heroes game with H2's storybook atmosphere and aesthetics, H3's replayability and fluidity, and H4's and H6's attention to individualization and customability + some new elements that are integral to gameplay would be a video game experience for the AGES, albeit 'pie in the sky' at this point.
...
Indeed.
@Simpelicity
Thanks for taking time to read. It is subjective, it is inherit thing is it not 
For H3 I tend to be very careful.. But yea, correction stands.
H4, wall is big enough and again, your point is taken. H4 above all had awesome story telling. I would take it as a must to be a model for H7.
H5&H6. Cant hide the bitterness. There is a lot of ways they/you/I could if we had the means. New world (h4) was not explored enough. Ignoring everything evolution did right in homm. Not putting effort in resurrecting but rather attempt of money grab. But yes it did whats meant to do: checked if the fans are still there, are they still waiting and I cant do anything but name it for what it is.
Yes it did accomplish its goal, its a fact set in stone. Did it need to do it like that (h3 copy rant), my opinion is no. Next installment did a lot more and had right ideas. If you look at it chronologically H6 in its core, expanded not on H5 but rather on H3/H4.
Simpelicity said:
I'm not gonna go over your wishlist, a lot of it I agree, some I don't. I'd say that I'd like to see a system where alternatives come with choosing groups of units instead of a choice between 2 units multiple times, but I'm not gonna get into too much detail on it. It has been spoken of before.
Please go in more detail.
Idea is not to create my own wishlist but rather discuss and expand upon ideas until we get something usable as a core mechanics. Again, who knows, maybe neatly compacted community expectations would be found and maybe benefit future of HOMM MHH *oopsie*.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted January 15, 2014 11:22 AM |
|
|
Simpelicity said:
On H3, not much to add, except maybe to the bad. You say it ended, but I'll say that with Chronicles it didn't want to at all. It kept going for way longer than it needed to or should have.
Story-wise, the Chronicles games were done very well. One thing I always disliked about it, though, is how small most of the maps were. I can understand small maps in the beginning of a campaign, where the level cap is reached easily, but at higher levels having larger maps is in my opinion better. I realise that requires more detailed development, however, time they probably didn't have.
Yet, I think it's one of the most important aspects of the single-player campaigns: the story. Tarnum's story was well done and for H7, I would really like the campaigns to give good stories to the players. Argue what you want, but one of the things H3 did very well, in my opinion, was all the pop-ups with texts detailing what the heroes and villains were thinking and feeling as you played through a map and why they did some of the things they did. I missed that - a lot - in H5 and H6.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2014 01:58 PM |
|
|
After 2 hours of reading, my first reaction to this was a veeery long /faceplam. Where should I even start...
First off, let me make clear one thing, I respect your opinion but I don't agree with it at all. I know this is overly blunt of me but I just can't help it, and I'm being very subjective right now. Sure, there are many things that I agree with, but there are a lot with which I don't. And that in itself is not a problem, what is bothering me is the reason behind what you say.
My first impression after reading all that is, that as far as H4, H5 and H6 goes you're completely against the current. H4 sucked, H5 was cool, H6 was simply a disaster, a catastrophe, that's what I sincerely think. You're opinion on those is exactly the opposite, that H4 was cool, that H5 sucked and that H6, without considering the bugs, was overall a good game.
Frankly, I don't even have the mental state to have an argument with you and motivate my position. I think you already know what I'm going to say anyway. It would take me another kilometrical post to debate each of your "good" and "bad" subsections, but I'd rather not, I just feel tired and... disgusted. Probably because the thought that you might do some little lip service for Ubi crossed my mind for a moment. Meh, doesn't even matter...
@JJ: See how well your economy is keeping up with building secondaries in H3 and H5. Then try to recruit all troops. I never found enough money to do that. And I don't want it to be any different, just that I think you're debating a false idea. The economy in H5 especially is very much on my liking. And trust me, it's not because is at easy as you portray it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2014 03:24 PM |
|
|
Stevie, in HoMM V, building secondaries is AUTOMATIC. You WANT to get them to City Hall - at least if you are reasonable sure the game will take a while - at least as long as it takes to gain your investments back -, and for that you have to go to town level 9, without needing a base building like the Fort, which means, you produce additional - and important - low level troops automatically.
You will take the opportunity for Sylvans to produce more Elves, for example. Gladly. Because they have a lot more power - and the higher levels a lot less - than the comparable heavyweights in HoMM 2 and 4.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted January 16, 2014 06:50 PM |
|
|
Nice post Vlaad! Those pics bring back nice memories.
H5 had 0 replayability? I think it did....random generated maps and especially Elvin's duel maps gave us hours of playing over and over again...I haven't played any other games over and over like this one.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted January 16, 2014 06:52 PM |
|
|
DoubleDeck said:
Nice post Vlaad! Those pics bring back nice memories.
H5 had 0 replayability? I think it did....random generated maps and especially Elvin's duel maps gave us hours of playing over and over again...I haven't played any other games over and over like this one.
The skill system offers also a lot of replayability, imo.
However, the **** campaigns didn't, and without campaigns you are left with user maps and online games...and not everyone plays online games.
____________
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted January 16, 2014 08:59 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 23:43, 16 Jan 2014.
|
Is there even a slight chance for Heroes of Might and Magic VII?... Sorry, Might & Magic: Heroes VII that is.
I don't think Ubi will invest more resources into this series. At least that's how it looks like after many months without even a single hint... Maybe HVI didn't earn them enough $ to even consider a sequel...
And frankly I don't even care. I mean I would like to see another entry in the series, but I'm okay with it ending at VI.
Recently, the release of English HotA made me more hyped then any possible news on a sequel.
It seems I'm one of the old guys who lives in the past with his archaic Heroes III and IV
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 16, 2014 09:13 PM |
|
|
I don't even know why we're talking about H7. They should try and fix H6 first. Besides, I don't think the story is even finished.
And I guess Elvin is the most qualified to give us a hint whether there will be any future MMHs, being an "insider" at Ubi and stuff...
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted January 16, 2014 10:40 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
I don't even know why we're talking about H7. They should try and fix H6 first. Besides, I don't think the story is even finished.
Fixing Heroes 6 has been proved several times to be an impossible task.
____________
|
|
Simpelicity
Promising
Famous Hero
Video maker
|
|
posted January 16, 2014 11:49 PM |
|
|
mwll-vlaad said:
H4, wall is big enough and again, your point is taken. H4 above all had awesome story telling. I would take it as a must to be a model for H7.
Taking it as a model would be extremely bold of them, and since we're talking about Ubisoft, that's not gonna happen. Gonna pull my studies on here for a sec, but currently I'm ending a master's in information sciences, and here's the thing : research is showing that numeric immersion, such as we're seeing more and more, is creating a habit of fragmented reading. People reading things online too often will tend towards a shorter attention span. That itself isn't negative btw, they'll just get a habit of jumping straight to the point, which you do relatively well on the Internet, and not so much in books. They'll get a little impatient when a read requires then to stay concentrated for terribly too long. In any case, you'll note that the delivery format for the story (short scenes) is actually much more adapted to such a crowd than the large texts older games propose. While I did enjoy those reads as much as you, they've got scientific papers telling them they're on the right path, and can easily discard us as forum elitists. That being said, they don't necessarily have to move away from cutscenes. Your main complaints seemed to sit with the writing, and to some extent the cheapness of the animation. They'd certainly need to improve on both areas, but I don't think they'd need to go back to large texts. There's a few things to think about though. Firstly you can tell all you want they need better animation during the cutscenes, but how far do you want them to take that? If you have a game with as many cutscenes as H5, the effort required to make quality stuff for all of them would be ridiculous. H6 I think presents a nice compromise. You've got text in the form of the no cutscene dialogs, and the few cutscenes here and there. That creates a nice balance, where you have relatively few cutscenes, on which you can put a lot of effort, and dialogs to carry the rest. We lose the lyrism present in the H4-style storytelling, but a compromise is a compromise. They really do need to improve their writing though to make it work.
Sure I can expand a little on my one wish, but I have already done so in another thread (a mostly unread wall of text, too). The basic idea was that the last 3 (out of 7) creatures would vary depending on a choice of yours. Basically you'd make a choice between 2-3 sets of these last 3 units. The main appeal is to make it much easier to give a role/identity to each choice. Alternatives play is often plagued by some choices being completely one-sided. Grouping the choice makes it easier to avoid that. Sure a creature might be plain better than its counterpart(s), but you need to take into account everything else that comes with it. There was also talks of tying your hero class to that choice (adding to the depth of it). I don't really feel like putting down a full explanation though, I've already written a wall of text on it before. [url=http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=39636&pagenumber=18]It's around here somewhere.[/url] It's not the best written thing I've done here, but it's better than having to re-write it here. EDIT not sure why the URL isn't working but you can copy-paste it if you wanna see the post I'm talking about.
If I may, I'd like to ask you why a single rare ressource is in the bads list for H6. You mention it with no explanation, but I'm curious as to why you put it there. I imagine it goes further than simply because it's always been 4 ressources in Heroes and 1 feels wrong?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 1 
