|
|
mwll-Vlaad
Tavern Dweller
|
posted January 21, 2014 08:42 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Not wanting to spoil the fun, but the thread has not much to do with game MECHANICS.
...
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.
A lot of it does not, ill admit. But way units/heroes work does however, ill try to sum it up some time in future. Got way expanded on what I wanted to talk about but its heroes. Its hard to stay focused 
Good read on game economy though, awesome sum up.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted January 27, 2014 01:49 PM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 13:51, 27 Jan 2014.
|
Simpelicity said:
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.
That's your playstyle and quite frankly, I think there are as many playstyles as there are players. That being said, I don't think I've ever left *anything* on a campaign map, unless one of the campaign objectives was pressing me for time. I guess I'm just a sucker for clean maps before I finish the final objective (I usually also scan as much as I can, leave nothing uncovered if I can help it).
MattII said:
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.
I would consider your suggestions to be almost mandatory in a design that would require resources (besides gold) to buy creatures. The market all by itself has a horrible conversion ratio, especially when you have few of them. Of course, this could be balanced out, but I am looking at the conversion rates as they have been in previous games.
MattII said:
Maurice said:
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?
What I meant was that if you needed a rare resource for more than just one or two things in your town, you can't limit it as easily. Designing a map which restricts that particular resource then not only limits the intended creature type or town structure, but also everything else that depends on it. I think Stronghold from Heroes3 is a good example here with regards to Crystal. It forces the player to choose between Cyclops and Behemoths in the early game. Now suppose you also needed Crystals to get Thunderbirds and Ogre Magi; then if you artifically reduce the amount of Crystals on the map because you want to force the player to not field as many Behemoths, you also hamper his ability to purchase Ogre Magi and Thunderbirds. If you give some slack in it, the player may purchase a larger number of Behemoths than the map designer wanted.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 12:11 AM |
|
|
I would like to crawl out of my hole for a moment to post a few thoughts here. First of all, I would like thank OP for making this thread which has brought some good and relevant discussions about game sequels up again, a couple of unnecessary offensive remarks aside.
I do agree that this discussion is very subjective, but that's the point in posting one's personal opinion. What brings me out of the bush here is one of my pet peeves, namely the notion that in order for a game sequel to be merited, it has to be different from previous versions of the game. That is, imo., as serious misunderstanding, and I think the Heroes franchise is a prime example of this.
Heroes 3 was a fantastic game - one of the truly great games of gaming history imo. Its stability was one element, certainly, but only one part of the key. One thing that recently made me (re)realize how great H3 really is was experiencing my students in high school enthusiastically playing H3 in their breaks, and not just one or two students, but a very large group. This was as recent as this school year, 15 years after the game was released. That IS pretty amazing if you ask me!
I think the success of Heroes 3 comes from many things, but one key part of it is that Heroes 3 was just the crowning achievement of the Heroes 1-2-3 development. With each chapter during this development, the developers were not afraid to make a game that stayed very close to the former game, pretty much including every single thing that was in that game, but tweaking features that could be improved and adding new features. Heroes 1 was a good game, and Heroes 2 was a great game, but Heroes 3 was a fantastic game.
Now I think it's a pretty well establish fact that you very rarely hit perfect in first try. This is why I think this obsession with "change" every part a new version of an old game comes out is very unhealthy. "People don't want to pay for the same game again" is what I often here, but actually I think that's untrue, I think often people do want to pay for the same game once again, if the new version is updated and expanded.
Heroes 4 and 6 are imo. crown examples of how things go wrong when you want to radically change - or "reboot" as I often see it described - a popular game series. Heroes 4 might have been more innovative than Heroes 3, compared to what new features it added to the game, but problem is when I like Heroes (3) and I go buy a new Heroes game, I want something that plays and feels like Heroes, I don't want a completely different game. If I wanted a completely different game, I would buy that, a different game, *not* something that presents itself as something I already have.
Heroes 4, and probably Heroes 6, were not bad games in their own right, and they might even have been great games, had they been honed and polished with newer versions, similar to how Heroes 1 was improved through Heroes 2 and 3. But they were not great games as they were presented - simply because it's almost impossible to get things right in first go, and that was what they essentially were - first goes at a new game, in the sense that their key focus was to change the existing game rather than to add to the existing game.
And then what about Heroes 5? Yes, it was a continuation of Heroes 3. Imo. Heroes 5 was a really good attempt. A great attempt, even. The game design (imo.) was fantastic, as were the graphics. If they game had been stable and run as smoothly as Heroes 3, I think it would have reached the same level. In the end, the game was bugged down by technical performance, but what it did right, it did right: It went back to the Heroes 3 formula, and then added to that: A new and better skill system, improved creature system with focus on different creatures, improved heroes class specialization, improved graphics. What it did wrong was very clearly when it took things away that was in Heroes 3: It had less factions, it didn't have dual heroes classes - and it didn't run smoothly, particularly on larger maps.
On the bottom line, I really hope that if and when Heroes 7 comes, they won't be afraid to look back to Heroes 5 and pick up where that left. Take Heroes 5, and evaluate what the weaknesses of that game was, and improve those. Don't remove or change things just for the sake of being different. If one wants to ask the question whether a game can run successfully over five instalments without changing major game elements, one needs to look no further than to the civilization series: Civ 5 is coming to it's final chapter, and the game is imo. better than ever - and that in spite of some 90 % of what was in the original Civ 1 game still being present in the newest version. Some things have been changed along the way, yes, and a lot of new things have been added along the way, yet the core of the game is the same. And one thing is certain: I will be ordering Civ 6 on the very day that pre-order becomes available!
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 12:53 AM |
|
|
Yo Alcy, you really nailed it  Like heck, those are my exact thoughts. My motto about this is: Don't change for the sake of changing, change for the better! And your example of Civ 5 was perfect, because I myself am an aficionado of the series and played 3-4 and 5, and each of them was better and better. Keep the good things -> add more good things on the next installment, that's the key in having a great series. So far Heroes suffered 2 "reboots" as you named them, namely H4 and H6. If this franchise wants to stay alive, they'd better not screw things up again with H7.
|
|
odium
Known Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 01:28 AM |
|
|
|
Totally agree with you Alci.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 07:53 AM |
|
Edited by MattII at 09:05, 01 Feb 2014.
|
|
IMO, mechanics wise, Heroes 5 was most of what Heroes 4 should have been, particularly the perks.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 02:43 PM |
|
|
Wise words, Alci
Taking the H3/H5 formula and improving seems the right way to me too. I wish Ubi realize of that too
____________
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 03:23 PM |
|
|
Storm-Giant said:
Taking the H3/H5 formula and improving seems the right way to me too. I wish Ubi realize of that too
Spam Elvin and JJ with PMs to tell them that
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 07:26 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
Storm-Giant said:
Taking the H3/H5 formula and improving seems the right way to me too. I wish Ubi realize of that too
Spam Elvin and JJ with PMs to tell them that
I don't want to have 50+ PMs of grumpy JJ, thank you.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 09:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Taking the H3/H5 formula and improving seems the right way to me too. I wish Ubi realize of that too
Does not compute.
What's the Homm 3/5 formula?
And how can you improve them, if a big part of the HoMM 3 formula is this magic word "more"?
By the way, I completely disagree with Alci. Wjy? because it's awfully superficial. For one thing, HoMM IV is one hell of a game - I really wonder what would have been possible if it hadn't been such a rush.
I also don't agree with him about CIV. CIV 5 is a completely different game from CiV 4, so much so, that my wife isn't playing V.
Anyway. The problem isn't making a different game. The problem is, that people think they can change A FEW things AND LEAVE THE REST.
Isn't working. Forget it.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 10:10 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:14, 01 Feb 2014.
|
There were just as many changes between H3 and H5 as between H5 and H6. The problem is not change. The problem is bad changes. One of the things the H6 developers didn't get was the importance of replayability, particulary through randomness and variety. To much randomness risks screwing you over but the H6 philosophy of nearly removing it completely, most notably in the skill and magic system, was a very bad move. The skill system also has lack of variety where there are no racial perks. Variety also suffered from a clunky editor aswell due to the small amount of towns and having nothing like alternate upgrades or the H4 system to make up for that.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 10:24 PM |
|
|
See Stevie? You just stirred the nest
____________
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 10:26 PM |
|
Edited by MattII at 22:32, 01 Feb 2014.
|
Quote:
By the way, I completely disagree with Alci. Wjy? because it's awfully superficial. For one thing, HoMM IV is one hell of a game - I really wonder what would have been possible if it hadn't been such a rush.
It might have been a good game, but it would have been a good game anyway if all they'd done was introduce perks and rework the spell schools. Revolution gets you little further than progress, and requires much more testing.
Quote:
Anyway. The problem isn't making a different game. The problem is, that people think they can change A FEW things AND LEAVE THE REST.
This was how we progressed from Heroes 2 to Heroes 3, slightly more skills, two classes of heroes, one more tier and a new spell system, but the entire economic system, the entire recruitment system, the skill system, all were left virtually identical.
xerox said:
There were just as many changes between H3 and H5 as between H5 and H6.
Was there? H5 left the economic system right alone, left us with 7 tiers, reworked only the spell schools, and only enhanced the skill system.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 10:38 PM |
|
|
MattII said:
Quote:
Anyway. The problem isn't making a different game. The problem is, that people think they can change A FEW things AND LEAVE THE REST.
This was how we progressed from Heroes 2 to Heroes 3, slightly more skills, two classes of heroes, one more tier and a new spell system, but the entire economic system, the entire recruitment system, the skill system, all were left virtually identical.
inb4 JJ replies: the economy was different in H3 compared to H2. Production too.
MattII said:
xerox said:
There were just as many changes between H3 and H5 as between H5 and H6.
Was there? H5 left the economic system right alone, left us with 7 tiers, reworked only the spell schools, and only enhanced the skill system.
Combat system (ini bar) was brutally different, and there were more changes too. But still I believe H5 and H3 share A LOT.
____________
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 10:47 PM |
|
|
Oh boy, just... I feel like killing something.
JollyJoker said:
What's the Homm 3/5 formula?
For starters:
1. The ability tree, preferably the one in H5 with its randomness and depth, as opposed to the H6 one.
2. The Magic system with: a) Magic Guilds; b) Spells dependable on Magic Schools; - as opposed to the hideous system in H6
3. Heroes in battles acting like bonuses providers for creatures and specific actions like abilities and spells, as opposed to the H4 system where your hero was a unit that could actually die, or kill 10 dragons with 1 hit. Just terrible.
4. The tavern system like in H3/H5, not as in H6.
5. Creatures with upgrades as in H3 and even better if it's like H5. Not like H4, though a mix of alternative creatures + alternative upgrades would be ideal to me. But JUST alternative creatures is a no-no!
Just some that I came up with right on the spot.
JollyJoker said:
By the way, I completely disagree with Alci. Wjy? because it's awfully superficial. For one thing, HoMM IV is one hell of a game - I really wonder what would have been possible if it hadn't been such a rush.
By the way, I completely disagree with you. Why? Because you're plain wrong, that's why. I played H4 for a very short period of time (maybe not even 6 months), and ya know what? I returned to H3, and some of the reasons why I did that can be found above. And just keep in mind one thing, if that game would have been a spin-off that would've been fine, and maybe even appreciated more. But the game's name was Heroes of Might and Magic 4! And as far as it was presented as part of the series we can fairly compare it to it's predecessors, and you know fully well what the community thought about it, and what the majority still thinks: that H4 was a REBOOT! And if you don't believe me look at the posts above yours and tell me what they say. The game didn't continue in the spirit of H1, H2 and H3. And that's exactly what you DON'T want to do in a series!
JollyJoker said:
I also don't agree with him about CIV. CIV 5 is a completely different game from CiV 4, so much so, that my wife isn't playing V.
This is simply outrageous! Have you even played Civ?! This is the strategy series with the most success right now! They didn't change the game completely. They tweaked and added! Tell me ONE single freakin thing that you don't like in Civ 5. You or your wife, just a single one that made it worse than Civ 4.
I'm playing a pirated version of Brave New World, with sucky texts that I can't make any sense of, no voices for some civs and other bugs, and I STILL appreciate it! Finished a lot of maps with over 1000 days on Marathon, Giant, Emperor (Deity is simply..... I'll do it one day!), and I can't even begging to imagine what multiplayer would be like. And you ppl have the money and buy it just to dismiss a piece of art like that?! Unfair world we live in!
JollyJoker said:
Anyway. The problem isn't making a different game. The problem is, that people think they can change A FEW things AND LEAVE THE REST.
Isn't working. Forget it.
Heroes 5 Tribes, nuf said.
Storm-Giant said:
See Stevie? You just stirred the nest
You've seen nothing yet. All hell'll brake loose now.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 10:52 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:53, 01 Feb 2014.
|
Differences between H3 and H5:
- Intitative system.
- Racial skills.
- Skill system.
- Magic system.
- Hero system.
- Creatures actually having abilites that are not "lol hates black dragons for whatever reason"
- Alternate upgrades (TotE).
It's totally the same game!
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 11:03 PM |
|
|
Goddamit, it was never about being or not being the same game. It was about continuity and improvement!
Best example: Creature upgrades in H3. Then H5 started with upgrades too AND THEN it ADDED secondary upgrades! That's what I'm talking about. Continue something good, rather than remove it just to try something horrible like what H4 did. The hell is so hard to understand...
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2014 11:53 PM |
|
|
I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against people saying there was a greater similarity/continuity between H3 and H5 than between H5 and H6. There was not. But the changes H5 made to H3 were better than the changes H6 made to H5.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted February 02, 2014 12:21 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
Differences between H3 and H5:
- Intitative system.
- Racial skills.
- Skill system.
- Magic system.
- Hero system.
- Creatures actually having abilites that are not "lol hates black dragons for whatever reason"
- Alternate upgrades (TotE).
It's totally the same game!
I DO think that the core game IS the same game if you compare Heroes 5 to Heroes 3. With regards to the things you list:
- Initiative system: Arguably the biggest change of Heroes 5 to Heroes 3.
- Racial skills: This was a natural extension of each hero class starting with a native skill in H3. H5 wanted more difference between factions, this was the logical solution. Count this as "expanding" heroes 3 skill system.
- Skill system: Core skill system is identical. Logistics, Offence, Defence, Sorcery, Leadership, Luck ... most of the skills are exactly the same. Three levels of mastery is the same. New thing are the perks, which is what I would file again as "expanding" existing system.
- Magic system: Essentially the same. 4 schools, most spells are the same. The grouping is different, by theme rather than the arbitrary by element, which makes sense, because it makes specializing in a spell school actually have a profile rather than just be superficial flavour. Adventure spells are separate, which is the logical solution to the imbalanced problem of having Town Portal and Fly/Dimension door sit in spell schools in H3. I'd label this as "same but improved".
- Hero system: H5 had only one hero class, which was a step back compared to H3. One of the weaknesses of H5, it removed a feature from H3, namely might and magic heroes from each faction.
- Creature abilities: This was the logical solution to wanting to make each creature unique and not just being different skins on dummy creatures. Core creature system is identical to H3, I'd label this as "expanding" existing system.
- Alternative upgrades: A new feature, which added a new level of depth and specialization. This is what I'm asking for when I say take what's good about old system and expand it.
On bottom line, of all those you mention, only the Initiative system for me is an example of an actual change in Heroes 5 compared to Heroes 3. Coincidentally, it was also one of the features of H5 that caused most controversy. Personally, I think it was a step in the correct direction (albeit some tweaking was needed), but I respect others to differ from that opinion.
JollyJoker said:
By the way, I completely disagree with Alci. Wjy? because it's awfully superficial. For one thing, HoMM IV is one hell of a game - I really wonder what would have been possible if it hadn't been such a rush.
I also don't agree with him about CIV. CIV 5 is a completely different game from CiV 4, so much so, that my wife isn't playing V.
Anyway. The problem isn't making a different game. The problem is, that people think they can change A FEW things AND LEAVE THE REST.
Isn't working. Forget it.
First of all, let me be clear: I don't want to argue whether Heroes 4 was a good or bad game. That was not the point I wanted to make. What I wanted to say is that H4 disappointed the majority of H3 fans (and I think I can state that as a fact). As such, I think it was a bad sequel. I wouldn't object to Heroes 4 being launched as a separate game, or even as a related-but-different spin-off, but for me Heroes 4 was not a real continuation of Heroes 3. Too many core features were changed.
Valid point about Civ5 - I know some fans were so put off by the 1UPT that they refused to play it. I am also very aware that the concept of "core features" is fluid, ie. I would say Civ5 is in core the same game as Civ4, but for others, that doesn't hold true courtesy of the introduction of 1UPT. I guess you could argue the same about H3 and H5 - you could say that introducing initiative was so intruding on the core of the game that it was radically changed. In my optics I would say it was a minor change, but on the bottom line I will admit that it's hard to avoid changing some core features - and I even think that is fine, as long as one has a clear intention of what one wants to accomplish. You say my argumentation is superficial, I would say I painted things more black and white than they are irl., but I do think there is a meaningful if not necessarily 100 % exact distinction between features that are core to the game and features that are not.
Anyway, I have one major question for you. You say:
Quote:
The problem is, that people think they can change A FEW things AND LEAVE THE REST.
Isn't working. Forget it.
And I have to ask: Why not? Because I truly and honestly don't understand why that ISN'T working, because to me, history has shown that to work just fine.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 02, 2014 01:12 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 01:14, 02 Feb 2014.
|
alcibiades said:
I DO think that the core game IS the same game if you compare Heroes 5 to Heroes 3. With regards to the things you list:
- Initiative system: Arguably the biggest change of Heroes 5 to Heroes 3.
- Racial skills: This was a natural extension of each hero class starting with a native skill in H3. H5 wanted more difference between factions, this was the logical solution. Count this as "expanding" heroes 3 skill system.
- Skill system: Core skill system is identical. Logistics, Offence, Defence, Sorcery, Leadership, Luck ... most of the skills are exactly the same. Three levels of mastery is the same. New thing are the perks, which is what I would file again as "expanding" existing system.
- Magic system: Essentially the same. 4 schools, most spells are the same. The grouping is different, by theme rather than the arbitrary by element, which makes sense, because it makes specializing in a spell school actually have a profile rather than just be superficial flavour. Adventure spells are separate, which is the logical solution to the imbalanced problem of having Town Portal and Fly/Dimension door sit in spell schools in H3. I'd label this as "same but improved".
- Hero system: H5 had only one hero class, which was a step back compared to H3. One of the weaknesses of H5, it removed a feature from H3, namely might and magic heroes from each faction.
- Creature abilities: This was the logical solution to wanting to make each creature unique and not just being different skins on dummy creatures. Core creature system is identical to H3, I'd label this as "expanding" existing system.
- Alternative upgrades: A new feature, which added a new level of depth and specialization. This is what I'm asking for when I say take what's good about old system and expand it.
On bottom line, of all those you mention, only the Initiative system for me is an example of an actual change in Heroes 5 compared to Heroes 3. Coincidentally, it was also one of the features of H5 that caused most controversy. Personally, I think it was a step in the correct direction (albeit some tweaking was needed), but I respect others to differ from that opinion.
Yes, the core game is the same. Otherwise Heroes V would have been a spin-off (like King's Bounty) and not part of a series. The same is true for H6. Still, there were significant changes between H3 and H5 that were just as drastic as those between H5 and H6.
Racial skills fundamentally changed the way factions are diversified between each other and play. There's a big difference between something starting with "Basic Attack" as a Barbarian in H3 and having the Blood Rage mechanic in H5. The first doesn't alter the gameplay of an entire faction, the latter does. The idea of racial skills also significantly altered the skill and Hero system, were unlike H3, there was a great deal of difference between a Ranger and a Knight.
Otherwise, core mechanics were indeed mostly expanded upon. Heroes still cast spells from various schools of magic. They improve themselves and their armies through skills. Creatures still have abilities and upgrade. Yet there are significant differences between how all this worked in H3 compared to H5. And these were no greater than the differences between H5 and H6, whose only real change in core mechanics was the removal of randomness in the skill and magic system.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
