|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
posted January 17, 2014 01:16 AM |
|
|
|
Narrated cutscenes > Dialogue cutscenes
|
|
Simpelicity
Promising
Famous Hero
Video maker
|
|
posted January 17, 2014 01:20 AM |
|
|
Narrated as in text?
____________
"You r the shakespeare of heroes vi, in every single battle i say: "he is gonna to loss"." - Cumulo88
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted January 17, 2014 01:32 AM |
|
|
Simpelicity said:
Narrated as in text?
No, narrated as in voice-over. If you gotta have cutscenes, it's better to do them like H2-3, I believe.
By dialogue I mean interaction between two or more characters.
|
|
Simpelicity
Promising
Famous Hero
Video maker
|
|
posted January 17, 2014 05:46 AM |
|
|
I dunno, the dialog can be fine, especially if the writing gets a little better. Having a narrator for some parts might be a very good idea as well though. Maybe all parts, but I imagine the story would be slightly harder to adapt this way.
____________
"You r the shakespeare of heroes vi, in every single battle i say: "he is gonna to loss"." - Cumulo88
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted January 17, 2014 06:49 AM |
|
|
blob2 said:
Is there even a slight chance for Heroes of Might and Magic VII?... Sorry, Might & Magic: Heroes VII that is.
I think they should go back to calling it "Heroes of might & magic" and I only ask for one thing: keep it simple but strategic (like DoC)
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2014 08:15 AM |
|
|
Simpelicity said:
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?
Right.
First thing is (the way it was done; that is important because you may have done it better and then we'd not have this discussion) the effect, that a "complete set" of mines wont't give the equivalent of 6 precious (8 in all) resources per day anymore, but only 3 (5).
That has the following effects:
1) Marketplace's function reduced (in practice into buying 1 or 2 dearly needed resources for money maybe once or twice per game and later convert stuff)
2) Missing strategic targets on the map - instead of 6 or 7 (gold) mines in the vicinity of a town, there will be only 3 (this could have been avoided by a somewhat different building cost structure and the necessity to place a second set of mines in a second "ring" around your starting town),
3) Less dependable income in resources compared with the building needs which makes "foraging" for resources necessary which in turn leads to a lot of silly and unnecessary skirmishes for 1 or 2 resources (some campaign maps are an example of that and how NOT to make a map and a game) [It was me who changed the building costs in the last patch of the vanilla game, for a couple of reasons, one being that the economy wasn't working, because at BH no one seemed to have a clue what their changes did to the game in that regard.]
4) No options of "building in passing": what I mean here, that typically, with the old set-up a town would need generally 3 of the 6 resources in (really) large quantities, the rest being objects of bartering on the Market and being needed for the odd "filler" building for the player to be able to slip in a building once in a while that allows to hoard the important stuff and still advance the town.
5) More strategy = less options: The main idea behind this was to increase the necessity to fight for mines because they all were meant to be equally necessary for everyone, but if you need ALL available resources for ALL buildings, instead of trying to formulate a plan (I need to get 5 of Res X, 5 of Res Y and 10 of Res Z until the end of the week to reach my building goals), which would require you to set priorities in resource gathering, the plan is: get as many of everything you can, which means, it's a logistic exercise in finding the path that allows you to gather the most stuff up.
6) No town differences
Bottom line is, that it's not the 2+4 structure that is holy; instead you need as many resources on each level that are necessary to make a difference and to allow different resource needs for towns. Other setups would be possible.
Examples: 2+2+1 This would actually mean there are 3 levels of resources instead 2, for example, Wood, Ore (mines producing 3 or 4 per day (one could produce 3, the other 4)), Sulfur and Mercury on level 2 (production 2), and Crystals, production 1.
3+2+1: New mine: Quarry. Wood, Stone, Ore on level 1, producing basically the same way as above.
3+3: Like we used to have it, but instead of Gems Stone.
2+3: Like we used to have it, but without Gems.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2014 10:23 AM |
|
|
There were, IMO, two problems with the old resource system:
1. Lack of utilisation
2. Lack of production
These points are interlinked, because resources got used in so few places, beyond building towns, production wasn't needed, and thus the formula wasn't changed, but at the same time, due to the limited amount of resources generally available, there were limitations on what they could be used for.
Thing is though, this isn't a hard problem to solve, even just doubling the production of mines gives huge advantages in the ability to utilise it. Doubling production for example gives a weekly production from a crystal mine. This is plenty fe. to allow Monks to have 1 crystal added to their cost, and Zealots 2 crystal. Adding non-gold resources to creature costs for creatures below the 7th tier could have some interesting consequences, would people go for a fully built town, or for a slow late-game build in exchange for a larger army?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2014 10:28 AM |
|
|
No idea what you are talking about, Matt. 
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted January 17, 2014 12:22 PM |
|
|
MattII said:
There were, IMO, two problems with the old resource system:
1. Lack of utilisation
2. Lack of production
These points are interlinked, because resources got used in so few places, beyond building towns, production wasn't needed, and thus the formula wasn't changed, but at the same time, due to the limited amount of resources generally available, there were limitations on what they could be used for.
Thing is though, this isn't a hard problem to solve, even just doubling the production of mines gives huge advantages in the ability to utilise it. Doubling production for example gives a weekly production from a crystal mine. This is plenty fe. to allow Monks to have 1 crystal added to their cost, and Zealots 2 crystal. Adding non-gold resources to creature costs for creatures below the 7th tier could have some interesting consequences, would people go for a fully built town, or for a slow late-game build in exchange for a larger army?
Interesting idea, but keep in mind that if you solve point 2 by increasing production, you trivialise its acquisition (and also, it impacts the amount of random resources around the map). If you increase 1, you increase a potential achilles heel for a player, especially in Random maps. What if you require Crystals for a specific creature tier, but you lack the proper mines in the vicinity?
Also keep in mind that, especially for scenario's and campaigns, increasing its utilisation will automatically reduce it as an option for designed limitations (take for example Sir Michaels' campaign in HoMM3, where he is stranded and in the first mission he loses a load of Wood every week or so).
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted January 17, 2014 12:38 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 12:40, 17 Jan 2014.
|
The old resource system from Heroes III was better for various reasons:
1) More variety on maps, additional objects, stockpiles, resource piles or even artifacts that produce resources. We are talking about Ubi purposely resigning from at least 20 objects which make a map more colorful/interesting.
2) Maybe it's me, but managing resources is one of the most fun elements of economy in this game. I don't like the idea of making lower tier units cost additional resources, they are already expensive. And like I said managing resources is fun, especially in first few week of a game. There is no single week in which I won't exchange surplus resources for additional gold. But it's not that easy! With fewer Marketplaces the exchange cost are not in your favor, so it all comes down to careful resource management. "Will I sell all my crystals to buy more units, or keep them to build that Pegasi Spring?", "There's a Market on the other side of the river, I must move my secondary hero there (and loose a chance to visit a Windmill this week)!" and such. It's deeper then one can think...
No, I definitely like the older systems, those (Dragon) crystals was a bad idea to begin with...
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2014 01:26 PM |
|
|
|
Damn straight, old resource system was the best. This one with only 1 rare resource bores me to tears. It's only natural that a system less complex is less challenging. And all that zone control thing in H6 didn't make things any better either, on the contrary. Ubi made things so easy regarding economy that the game lost some of it's shine - just another thing why H6 sucks ballz.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted January 17, 2014 01:38 PM |
|
|
Yeah, I don't understand what the hell they were thinking when they decided to reduce resources...I'll be a bad boy and think they wanted to reduce mines and such so it'd take less effort
They better change their minds for H7...
____________
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted January 17, 2014 02:11 PM |
|
|
|
I believe the official statement said something about making the online multiplayer aspects more fluid. Or something like that.
|
|
Simpelicity
Promising
Famous Hero
Video maker
|
|
posted January 18, 2014 01:56 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
1) Marketplace's function reduced (in practice into buying 1 or 2 dearly needed resources for money maybe once or twice per game and later convert stuff)
2) Missing strategic targets on the map - instead of 6 or 7 (gold) mines in the vicinity of a town, there will be only 3 (this could have been avoided by a somewhat different building cost structure and the necessity to place a second set of mines in a second "ring" around your starting town),
3) Less dependable income in resources compared with the building needs which makes "foraging" for resources necessary which in turn leads to a lot of silly and unnecessary skirmishes for 1 or 2 resources (some campaign maps are an example of that and how NOT to make a map and a game) [It was me who changed the building costs in the last patch of the vanilla game, for a couple of reasons, one being that the economy wasn't working, because at BH no one seemed to have a clue what their changes did to the game in that regard.]
4) No options of "building in passing": what I mean here, that typically, with the old set-up a town would need generally 3 of the 6 resources in (really) large quantities, the rest being objects of bartering on the Market and being needed for the odd "filler" building for the player to be able to slip in a building once in a while that allows to hoard the important stuff and still advance the town.
5) More strategy = less options: The main idea behind this was to increase the necessity to fight for mines because they all were meant to be equally necessary for everyone, but if you need ALL available resources for ALL buildings, instead of trying to formulate a plan (I need to get 5 of Res X, 5 of Res Y and 10 of Res Z until the end of the week to reach my building goals), which would require you to set priorities in resource gathering, the plan is: get as many of everything you can, which means, it's a logistic exercise in finding the path that allows you to gather the most stuff up.
6) No town differences
Right. Point by point then, at least for starters.
1)Not in my experience, no. Back to that in a couple points.
2)"Targets" would imply things the enemy can attack you on. In H6 that is completely irrelevant, with the control zones system there's only the center of a zone that'll get attacked. Assuming we go without control zones, having more rare ressources (mines) only gives an illusion of having more strategic points. As you point out in a point below, a lot of what you get is marketplace food. Those ressources have little strategic value at best.
If you meant by that that it makes you need to flag less things to get the basics, then I'd have to ask you to explain exactly how that's a problem. That's about as boorish a process as the scavenging you hold in such high esteem.
3) That's pretty much why the marketplace isn't less used for me. Also I don't think I've ever gotten close to 50% completion on any campaign map. There was waaay too much useless crap lying around.
Well maybe the one time.
4) Not having marketplace food makes the economy a little harder to manage. That's not in itself a bad point. Not necessarily the best way to do it, but neither is it bad I think.
5) Quite true, but I don't think you identify the real problem here. The problem comes from your point 3 : over-reliance on scavenging for your economy. Of course players aren't fighting over mines, the mines barely give them what they need. It's a scavenging hunt, and the most efficient one wins. However... this would actually work great on small maps, where the scavengeable ressources are somewhat limited. Then it's a question of how far and how aggressively you can/want to push out your scavenging. Push out too far (for what troops you have) and you may well hit a wall, or a bigger enemy army. Don't go out enough and he'll win the scavenging race by a landslide.
See, this'd work great if the maps were thought to get the players to effectively fight over the scavengeable ressources, because really, that's what the economy is based on. Most of them are too big or have too much stuff in them to do that effectively though.
6) I fail to care, either way. No really, every town having a difference in terms of what they spend (not even how much... just what) isn't anywhere on my priorities list. Or my wishlist. I just can't care much. I will say though, every town needing the same ressources feels like it'd make that ressource so much more important/precious.
My bottom line on this? I'm not particularly attached to any model, I'd try on any of your suggestions anytime. I don't agree to the necessity of giving every faction a worthless ressource or two, or that every faction needs to be spending something different, but it's not like 1 rare ressource is such a wonder either. I was asking though, because I know a lot of people take 1 ressource being bad for granted, but I don't think a lot of them actually took the time to think it through and actually come up with reasons why... which kind of irks me. You've got good arguments going, whether I agree with them or not. And other models would work just fine. Cheers! 
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2014 02:18 AM |
|
|
Avirosb said:
I believe the official statement said something about making the online multiplayer aspects more fluid. Or something like that.
That doesn't help when you make the multiplayer completely unplayable anyway without having sim turns or a decent, officially supported duel mode. But yeah, they said they were going for Starcraft. >.>
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
jhb
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2014 03:58 AM |
|
|
mwll-Vlaad said:
The bad:
-Conflux (if you like it you are gay and probably dead inside. period.)
Oh my.. I didn't know I was an undead gay.. thanks for clarifying!
Btw, I also liked h4, maybe that makes me... hmm.. jewish?
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2014 09:51 AM |
|
|
Maurice said:
Interesting idea, but keep in mind that if you solve point 2 by increasing production, you trivialise its acquisition (and also, it impacts the amount of random resources around the map). If you increase 1, you increase a potential achilles heel for a player, especially in Random maps. What if you require Crystals for a specific creature tier, but you lack the proper mines in the vicinity?
That's what markets are for. Also, some town types might conceivably be able to get a 'converter' building, which allows conversion to one rare resource (of other rare resources) at a more efficient rate than normal trading, but would only allow you to convert to that one resource. There's also nothing preventing some towns having a second resource generation building.
You don't have to start with all the mines built either, H4 allowed you to place resource veins on the map, so that you could get more mines, but at a cost. Taking this a step further, you could have both obvious resource veins and hidden ones that could only be discovered with scouting, or something like that.
Quote:
Also keep in mind that, especially for scenario's and campaigns, increasing its utilisation will automatically reduce it as an option for designed limitations (take for example Sir Michaels' campaign in HoMM3, where he is stranded and in the first mission he loses a load of Wood every week or so).
How does that work? surely if you have more need of resources that makes them a bigger target?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2014 10:07 AM |
|
|
@ Simpelicity
To be fair, most of my points are not against the system as such, but the way it was implemented.
What IS the bottom line, though, is that you need a certain, that is DEPENDABLE (STRATEGY game) income of resources, that must get to a certain AMOUNT, because you need a certain minimum amount of resources allaround to be able to make differences in the difficulty of building something and to "tune" the foraging part, that is: how many RESOURCE PILES will you have to fight for on any given map.
This is also linked with the amount of MAP OBJECTS, that is, MEANINGFUL targets to fight for (and in HoMM 6 there are not enough).
So cutting ressources cuts map objects, which is generally not good.
I repeat, that "the economy" - and I count number of resources and resource SOURCES to that - of HOMM IV is everything the economy should be and map objects should be. In terms of play that means - in HoMM IV there is no shortage of important targets when you start a map; in factz, you don't know what to do first, and it's not happenstance that you can have single creatures of yours picking up stuff: your heroes have more pressing business there.
Which means, the resource reduction is basically a branch of a whole tree here that cries: not enough meaningful map objects and too simple economy and town building plan.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted January 18, 2014 12:39 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Avirosb said:
I believe the official statement said something about making the online multiplayer aspects more fluid. Or something like that.
That doesn't help when you make the multiplayer completely unplayable anyway without having sim turns or a decent, officially supported duel mode. But yeah, they said they were going for Starcraft. >.>
Totally forgetting that StarCraft is a Real Time Strategy game, where 99% of the time you have to spend your resources once you get them, otherwise you are doing a bad use of your resources...right?
Justifying the resource reduction in a TBS because a RTS does that is so stupid
____________
|
|
mwll-Vlaad
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted January 21, 2014 08:35 AM |
|
|
Simpelicity said:
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.
...
When defining "cheap":
We can see that they are using models lifted from the game. Before you say "well that's quite obvious" well notice that they are using same texture resolution for those animations as in game (normally one would put much higher resolution). I do think that battlefield creatures are awesome, just not for close ups in animation...
No ambient sounds, there is no immersion and no atmosphere.
Most of the scenes are using in game creature animations that get looped over and over (and that dramatic fist shake used by characters).
Combined, they really add feeling that makes one go in "awww come on" rather than *generic stare when reading/listening* mode. For me personally there should be no place for action cinematic with close ups for this type game. It just breaks immersion.
There is a type of a game where straight to the point approach is more appropriate when narrating. Heroes is not one of them...
Again its not above all me complaining about quality but rather the way it was done. Narrations from third person, comic style first person narrations just would be more appropriate and more fluid story telling. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrW4jkQdmjI]Homeworld did it right[/url], I think this style would go a long way in bringing world closer to player.
Not to expand on this one (how in this date mmo, f2p are way to go and how making a game like Heroes is ungrateful) heroes 3 and 4 had all the right stuff immersion and story vise.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
