|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 05, 2014 11:00 AM |
|
|
Planning 7 days ahead is harder than 1 day ahead, nuf said.
I've never been bothered by micromanagement, but I understand others since that's tedious and takes some skill, not in a TBS as much as in a RTS but meh... Well, I guess recruiting daily becomes boring after a while. You'll just start recruiting in intervals again (at least that's how it happened in my case), so then why even bother with daily?
Wouldn't a compromise work better maybe? Like you get 50 skeletons weekly, 25 of which come dispersed in 6 days and the other 25 at the beggining of the week. Blah, that'll probably make things even worse... Weekly over daily if nothing else.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted February 05, 2014 11:00 AM |
|
|
It's funny, but the creature pool they introduced in HoMM6 actually reduces the overall effect of day 1 conquests. After all, the creatures get added to the pool at the start of day 1 each week, so even if Player X managed to steal a town / castle from Player Y before Player Y's turn, Player Y is still guaranteed to get all creatures from that town - simply because they're already in his pool.
With regards to daily growth, I can only say that it completely nullifies the weekly transitions. If they introduce daily growth, the only thing that still benefits from Weekly (or Monthly) transitions would be things like Water Wheels, Wind Mills and Artifact Merchants. And you could even mechanize them in a Daily accumulation way; simply let them accumulate their resources over time and whoever visits gets what's in store at that point. Or if the building is flagged, it adds its daily contribution to the kingdom's coffers without further interaction.
Of course, Artifact Merchants are the oddball in this situation. It can be reworked to simply have a cooldown since the previous artifact in that merchant slot has been bought. Low level artifacts may have a short cooldown, Relic artifacts may take a lot longer to replenish.
With such a system in place, the game can safely discard the Weekly / Monthly thing as it doesn't contribute anything useful anymore and simply count the game in "turns", where no turn is mechanically distinct from any other turn.
I hope you realise the game also loses some of its glimmer when they do.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2014 11:12 AM |
|
|
Well said, Maurice.
Weeks act as reset buttons. If you change that in regards to troops you might as well change it in regards to everything else. Because if JJ's points stand for troops then obviously they stand for external dwellings, windmills, watermills, dungeons, etc.
I really enjoy when ppl disagree with JJ, it's an unique feeling I'm experiencing right now  
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2014 11:40 AM |
|
|
Stevie said:
Planning 7 days ahead is harder than 1 day ahead, nuf said.
Of course it would be utter foolishness to assume weekly growth would force to plan ahead 7 days while with daily growth you'd need to and could plan ahead only 1 day.
Weekly growth simply sets a DEADLINE that makes it generally advisable to roughly calculate what will be possible at all and at best, and what you will need in addition to get it done.
The deadline has a certain charme because it LIMITS YOUR OPTIONS (in much the same way than random pre-picked skills to pick from versus free pick).
With Daily Growth a much more fundamental plan is needed, since you cannot plan ONLY for the remaining days of the week. With each build you have to check the resource expenditure with the gain and the delay for everything else, which makes building optimization a lot more demanding - at least in a game like HoMM 6, where you will always have a lot of alternative builds, and as opposed to HoMM 4, where daily growth is actually somewhat wasted (or even misplaced), because, as mentioned, most of the time you have only 3 creature dwellings to go for, and since they have different prerequisites the decision what to buy when is more or less automatical.
I repeat: do not make wrong conclusions from HoMM 4. Try to imagine how HoMM 6 would have been with daily growth, and imagine yourself playing and considering what to build the first couple of days.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted February 05, 2014 12:41 PM |
|
|
Maurice said:
It's funny, but the creature pool they introduced in HoMM6 actually reduces the overall effect of day 1 conquests. After all, the creatures get added to the pool at the start of day 1 each week, so even if Player X managed to steal a town / castle from Player Y before Player Y's turn, Player Y is still guaranteed to get all creatures from that town - simply because they're already in his pool.
As far as I recall, the troops are not available in his pool, they are now part of Player X's pool...
@JJ: Your daily growth explanation here still seems like a lot of micro-managing involved.
One of my most exciting moments in Heroes was always building a much needed dwelling just before the end of the week!
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted February 05, 2014 06:08 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
That's not a correct analysis.
The considerations you mention have nothing to do with weekly or daily growth, but just with
a) the considerably more dwellings to build in every game except HoMM 4 and
b) the significant PERCENTAGE growth of the Castle in HoMM 3 and HoMM 5.
It's no function of the weekly/daily growth.
If you consider this a few second more and envision daily growth for HoMM 3 and 5, your considerations will not be, will I build Liches or Castle THIS WEEK, but instead be will I build Liches or Castle FIRST, the main difference being, that with weekly growth it is absolutely clear what you will be missing, while with daily growth, this is only a MAXIMUM calculation, since freeing resources and building both in quicker succession will lessen the trade-off.
Maybe we should just let this rest with a "we don't agree", but there are some very objective numbers behind this which I just don't understand that you disagree with. Let me try to make an example to show what I mean.
We make a (somewhat fictual) example of a town which can build skeletons (base growth 21/week), zombies (14/week) and ghosts (7/week). We are at day 7 and can build either liches (3.5/week) or a castle which will double growth of all creatures present. Now I would like to evaluate two cases: H3/H5 case with weekly growth vs. H4 case with daily growth. In each case, we'll look at the amount of creatures present if we build either the liches or the castle on day 7 and the other building at start of next week.
Case 1: Weekly growth, build liches on day 7:
Day 8 15
Skeletons 21 63
Zombies 14 42
Ghosts 7 21
Liches 3.5 10.5
Case 2: Weekly growth, build castle on day 7:
Day 8 15
Skeletons 42 84
Zombies 28 56
Ghosts 14 28
Liches 0 7
Case 3: Daily growth, build liches on day 7:
Day 14 21
Skeletons 39 81
Zombies 26 54
Ghosts 13 27
Liches 6.5 13.5
Case 4: Daily growth, build castle on day 7:
Day 14 21
Skeletons 42 84
Zombies 28 56
Ghosts 14 28
Liches 6 13
Notice that I've shifted days for case 3 and 4 by a week to accomodate for the fact that daily growth means accumulation is essentially behind with a week, because the creatures you get as a lump on day 1 with weekly growth is now distributed over the next 7 days.
Now the point I wanted to make is that with weekly growth, we see a quite significant difference in day 8 army and, to a lesser extent, in day 15 army, because the difference between 0 liches and 3 liches can be very big on gameplay. On the other hand, with weekly growth, there is essentially no difference between which choice you make on day 7, assuming you make the other choice on day 8. Also worth noting is the fact that daily growth seems to offer an overall slower army growth but favoring higherlevel creatures, again assuming you buy the castle immediate on day 8 (essentially, the castly effect kicks in earlier).
Now I know the two cases are not completely comparable. In weekly growth, you'll put off buying the castle until end of next week because you don't get the benefit til turn of week. On the other hand, in daily growth, you'll get immediate benefit of any building you build. You may say that the latter is more "strategic", but for me it doesn't make for a more fun game, because it also seems to mean that the choices I make have less immediate effect on the game.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2014 08:43 PM |
|
|
Alci, the example is flawed - and massively - because there are a couple of wrong assumptions.
Weekly/daily growth is independent from the amount of creatures that appear when a dwelling is built; in HoMM 4, a freshly built dwelling is populated with half their weekly growth rate, for example; regular HoMM games do the same.
It is also independent from how growth multiplier work; in HoMM 4 Citadel and Castle have no such effect at all, while in HoMM 1, 2 and 6 these building add a FLAT bonus instead a percentage.
You have to realize that the decisions are completely different from each other; for example, with daily growth the question isn't whether to build Castle or Liches ON DAY 7, because day 7 has no meaning with daily growth. Instead, with daily growth and 17 growth-related builds like in HoMM VI, the question is, which BUILD-ORDER do I follow (over the time that it takes to build the town up). Differences being determined with foraged resources (build order may change due to a profitable general acceleration in the general building process).
Example: In HoMM 6, daily growth, your building plan may be set on building the Market this turn and dwelling X two turns later, but a lucky find may allow you to build dwelling X now and the Market ONE turn later, which would exchange 500 Gold for 2 days more growth for X plus a chance to finish faster (have more advantages along the line, since I build one day sooner).
In weekly growth, you would still go for the Market, because it would gain Gold, period, provided you could still build X this week and wouldn't gain another build that week due to the find.
I've no idea what your tables are intended to show, actually.
|
|
odium
Known Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2014 09:21 PM |
|
Edited by odium at 23:23, 05 Feb 2014.
|
Weekly growth has the "benefit" of the fact that it penalizes you more. With daily growth, despite the more variations that it offers, it has a very small variance between these options. Delaying a creature building for 2 days will make you loose very few units. Not a having a creature building before the end of the week (in the weekly growth case) will make you loose an entire population. So, in an intuitive way, daily growth provides for more paths but with lesser variance, while weekly growth provides for less but more diverse paths.
I am not against daily growth, but I tend to prefer the system as is because I fail to see a clear benefit from changing it.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2014 09:35 PM |
|
|
Okay now I'll be one of the people insisting about "core game" features. I believe the significance of weeks are one of these and they'd be diminished, as they were in H4, if weekly growth was removed. I always prefered weekly growth to daily so you get the feeling of having something to look forward too.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted February 05, 2014 10:47 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
You have to realize that the decisions are completely different from each other; for example, with daily growth the question isn't whether to build Castle or Liches ON DAY 7, because day 7 has no meaning with daily growth.
Maybe the numbers in the example are flawed, but what I want to show is exactly what you say here: With daily growth, the significance of weeks are lost. That's something being taken away from the game which I felt added a unique charm and some fun elements.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 06, 2014 03:09 AM |
|
Edited by JoonasTo at 03:12, 06 Feb 2014.
|
JollyJoker said:
Differences being determined with foraged resources (build order may change due to a profitable general acceleration in the general building process).
Same is true for weekly growth as well and the negative is also possible if you are lacking resources.
JollyJoker said:
Alci, the example is flawed - and massively - because there are a couple of wrong assumptions.
Weekly/daily growth is independent from the amount of creatures that appear when a dwelling is built; in HoMM 4, a freshly built dwelling is populated with half their weekly growth rate, for example; regular HoMM games do the same.
This is wrong. Freshly built dwelling is populated by it's weekly growth in H3, H2, H1 and H5. The bonus growth just isn't added to it.
But that aside, week and daily economy are completely different and play completely differently.
Weekly economy is significantly faster but also phases the game because what you can do first week is significantly different than what you can do second week. Thus you build your strategies to break out of your zone day 8, into treasure zone day 15 and killing the opponent by day 23 at the latest(assuming you did get into the treasure zone first).
Daily economy you plan for breaking out of your zone as soon as you can muster the needed power, probably around day 11, into treasure zone day 19 and killing the opponent when you think you have a clear advantage, which is probably around day 21-30 depending on your artie luck and who got what first.
What must be noticed about weekly growth, as can be seen from alci's numbers, is that building creature growth applies "retroactively" to the accumulated pool of recruitable creatures from the week it was built. This means you get about a half-a-week of lead on daily growth in terms of creatures(because that's what it averages to).
Oh and alci, your numbers are flawed as the liches would still get "extra" growth day of the purchase if we stick to H4 style daily growth as JJ pointed out.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted February 06, 2014 06:54 AM |
|
|
Minute growth -> Starcraft
Daily growth -> Age of Wonders
Weekly growth -> Heroes
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2014 08:51 AM |
|
|
Isn't the growth different?
Let's assume, in both examples we start with Skeletons already built, giving 21 Skeletons on weekly growth on day 1 and 10 on daily growth on day 1. We then get Zombies on day 3 (14/7) and Ghosts (7/3) on day 5. Question on day 7: Citadel or Liches (3/1). Day 15 isn't interesting at this point, since we have a lot more buildings to consider
Day 8: HoMM 3, Liches:
Skel: 42
Zombies: 28
Ghosts: 14
Liches: 6
Day 8: HoMM 3, Citadel:
Skel: 52
Zombies: 35
Ghosts: 17
Liches: 0
Day 8: HoMM 4, Liches:
Skel: 31
Zombies: 17
Ghosts: 6
Liches: 1
Day 6: HoMM 4, Citadel (provided it gave the same bonus)
Skel: 32
Zombies: 18
Ghosts: 6
Liches: 0
Now, of course the numbers are different, but they are also pretty deceptive: in the HoMM 3 case, if Liches were built, building Citadel at any point will not change things before day 15, while for HoMM 4 it will.
It would also seem obvious that you would go for the 6 Liches in HoMM 3 example (and not for 10 Skels, 7 Zombies and 3 Ghosts instead). In HoMM 4 the difference with a view on day 8 is marginal, obviously, (which is, as obviously, what people like with weekly growth: you see immediately what you get, and I agree, that this is fun.
However: I was talking about HoMM SIX becoming a better game. So the question is first and foremost, what would happen in HoMM SIX.
In HoMM 6, if we start on highest difficulty, we begin with 5000 Gold, 5 Wood, 5 Ore and no Crystal (we earn 500 Gold on day 1). Week 1 builds generally are: Tavern, Market, Town Hall, 3 Cores plus 1 costing Crystal. There may be differences depending on the number of Crystals you have liberated at that point, but it's fairly clear that your main decision is basically, whether to start with a Tavern and a second hero or not. Normally, a 2nd hero almost always pays, so that's that, and since that will give you enough troops to solve all immediate problems one way or another (or even allows you to expand in two directions) you will then try to add Market and Town Hall to increase your income. Then, on day 4 you will build a Core dwelling. On day 5 you will have an idea of what may be possible and what not, but on many maps Crystal is fairly elusive, and with a Core external dwelling (3/2/2 growth addition), you simply do well to build all 3 Cores plus one upgrade or one Elite. If you CAN get your hands on enough Crystals, there is also a chance to go for 2 Cores, 1 upgrade (usually the most important) and one Elite.
For the Inferno this may net you 20 Lilims, a good dozen Dogs and 20 Maniacs in the Creature Pool on day 8.
Now, for week 2, you have to build City Hall (ASAP), then look what present itself in terms of res and maybe get in the Fort as well.
With DAILY growth, however, things present themselves slightly different - and it starts already with the Tavern! Tavern plus 2nd hero is pretty much depleting your starting money, so with said 2 heroes you MUST concentrate on economy, otherwise progress will stall sooner or later AND the weekly mechanic supports that building order. But with daily growth, this order is somewhat not so good: what you would like a lot more here is: build 3 Cores on days 1-3 and hire out. Better: Build Cores 1-3, AND grade one up on day 4 AND hire out, then go for economy and build your most important elite ASAP.
With FLAGGING it's essentially the same: Weekly growth gives the rhythm: first the mines in combination with foraging, outside dwelling on day 7.
Daily growth, though, makes you wonder. The target has the same priority.
So the bottom line is this: weekly growth basically dictate priorities: economy (daily growth) before troops. DAILY growth, however, evens things out, and you must adjust your strategy basically from the start (what general setup do we have, how does the map present itself, what do we need to get rolling, what's the layout - may we come back to town without loss of time or is the town at a dead end, and so on), to find the one that is serving you best.
Now, obviously, with lower difficulty and higher amount of starting resources the differences blur, since with money not being a problem and more resources available, you have more options anyway to proceed, no matter whether you have daily or weekly growth - still, you have to build the Town Halls anyway to unlock the higher tier buildings, which makes sure you HAVE to build them, and if that is the case, the same mechanism says, if I HAVE to build them anyway, I can damn well make sure I build them ASAP, because I'm profiting from it.
So that was what I'm saying: That HoMM SIX would work better with Daily growth. I was also saying, that I think that daily growth without the creature pool doesn't seem to make a lot of sense due to the ensuing micro management and that the creature pool has been compromised by now.
Bottom line is that we might have a different discussion here, if HoMM SIX HAD HAD daily growth, and that I hate the fact that the chance was wasted, because as it is, trying creature pool plus daily growth for the next HoMM would be pretty bold (and other words come to mind as well).
That I would personally like to see Daily growth, and be it only to make sure a Caravan mechanism gets proper use in the game and make the map look like a road map or something, is not something I can make any defendable point of. 
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted February 06, 2014 06:17 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Now, of course the numbers are different, but they are also pretty deceptive: in the HoMM 3 case, if Liches were built, building Citadel at any point will not change things before day 15, while for HoMM 4 it will.
It would also seem obvious that you would go for the 6 Liches in HoMM 3 example (and not for 10 Skels, 7 Zombies and 3 Ghosts instead). In HoMM 4 the difference with a view on day 8 is marginal, obviously, (which is, as obviously, what people like with weekly growth: you see immediately what you get, and I agree, that this is fun).
However: I was talking about HoMM SIX becoming a better game ...
Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about, but I can also see why we are talking somewhat past each other.
JollyJoker said:
Bottom line is that we might have a different discussion here, if HoMM SIX HAD HAD daily growth, and that I hate the fact that the chance was wasted, because as it is, trying creature pool plus daily growth for the next HoMM would be pretty bold (and other words come to mind as well).
Yes, I would probably use another word than bold, but let's just leave it at that ... However, if daily growth and creature pools were features that were now considered tested and left at that for future installments, I wouldn't mind at all!
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
disturbed-gnu
Supreme Hero
Pro Bacon Vodka Brewer
|
|
posted February 13, 2014 04:02 PM |
|
|
I agree with you in everything, but your opinion about the level editor.
Level Editor in H2 & H3 where the same. Easy to use, just, click and drag, Copy and Paste. Simple. Too simple if you ask me.
When you get to know the H4 editor, you will hate every level editor created before and after.
Heroes IV Editor is the BEST!
You can through the "Events" create masterpieces.
You can make RPG style single player maps. Allmost endless possibilities when combining Script's, level design look and Immagination.
I created a Multiplayer map based on the Elder Scrolls world.
You could't choose allignment or heroes in the menu.
But when the map starts, you'll ge to choose between being Female or Male, then Spellcaster or Warrior, then you get to choose between 5 heroes (if you chose spellcaster. Its 6 if warrior is chosen).
Then you get to chose your starting artifact or potion.
Every single house on the map has difrent story and quest.
You can make your hero become a creature, take control of buildings if you defeat a specific target or complete a certain quest..
ITS ENDLESS..
Too bad such awesomeness belongs to H4..
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted February 13, 2014 05:00 PM |
|
|
disturbed-gnu said:
Level Editor in H2 & H3 where the same. Easy to use, just, click and drag, Copy and Paste. Simple. Too simple if you ask me.
H3 had pre-made events on map, on towns and on global players too, which created some possibilities. It wasn't that simple.
H4 events were triggers like StarCraft editor had (WC3 too, or that was more complex?). Giving many more possibilities than those "pre-made" events of H2-3, having a reasonable learning curve (but not as easy like H2-3 though!) but not as many possibilities like an scripting language (H5).
Of course, H4 map editor was the best of the series. But that isn't something special of H4 alone, it just happens that NWC team improved the map editor release after release. Ubisoft doesn't, and we all know the state of the mapmaking community 
____________
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted February 14, 2014 06:50 AM |
|
|
Map making is important, all you need is time.
I liked H5 for it's Random Map Generator...simple and quick! Especially with 3.1 where you could refine certain variables.
|
|
Sarcyan
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 10, 2014 11:18 PM |
|
Edited by Sarcyan at 23:39, 10 Mar 2014.
|
I must say that this thread is an awesome, great read, lots of intelligent comments here. Thanks people. It took me quite a while to read it through though, it was a calm, slow couple of days reading it. I don't even know what to say right now I just feel very newbie and kinda surreal. Powerful thread.
My experience with the series, to me the discovery of my life in videogaming terms, is quite limited, and I am torn between HoMM3 and HoMM5 as my favourite Heroes of Might and Magic games ever. Still HoMM2 is untouchable for me, an incunable in history, and that's the first game of the series that fascinated me when the person who discovered the series to me played it.
It's been less than a month ever since and I still have to play the HoMM series thoroughly. But I've played enough to know the basics, and tried all the game, more or less, but I did.
From what I've gathered on here, you told me a lot about the games, the whole process has been drawn in my mind, to some extent and I kinda created the whole picture in my mind after reading your words.
I wrote in detail what Heroes of Might and Magic means to me here;
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=40005
Now having a retrospective on the series, I'm actually interested in the future of Heroes of Might and Magic, and would have a couple of suggestions. I shall be brief 'cos I feel kinda sleepy, and it's time to goo to bed, but still....
Quite a few fellow forumers are actually concerned about the fact that Heroes of Might and Magic belongs to Ubisoft now, and how they royally screwed it up after how buggy Heroes VI is -I've recently skimmed through a 300+ pages Heroes IV thread only meant to talk about bugs, so you get the idea, not to mention how eager they are to shove Uplay down our throats and so on (best thing they did is allowing GoG to sell their HoMM games, save 5)-.
Then there is the question about what's the best role model to build a game which has the potential to keep the original legendary status of the series if the conditions are correct.
So in that sense, I think like most people in this thread that Heroes 3 and Heroes V should be the role models, with a touch of HoMM 2. The philosophy of Heroes of Might and Magic is so bloody brilliant that it speaks volumes for itself.
So for now I'd have a couple of suggestions for a future HoMM game, that shouldn't change the concept of the game, but build upon it.
Well... my most important suggestion is that, since the game has a lore and a world around that lore, Heroes belonging to a given faction in particular, should difference themselves from the other depending on the region they were born.
Gotta be brief but the point is... Say Xeen was the planet Earth, and a given hero was born in Syberia while another one was born in Minnesota. Let's also say that since they are from the same faction they share their units.
The difference should come from the fact that those creatures wouldn't be exactly the same, but one hero would command grey wolves, for example, and the other arctic wolves.
In real life arctic wolves are smaller than grey wolves, and have a slender build, while the grey wolves are larger, hence stronger.
So, how could this be translated into the game without deeply changing the gameplay mechanics for the worse?
Well, the arctic wolf could belong exclusively to the syberian guy or girl and it wouldn't be as strong as the grey wolf of the same faction but it would be nimbler thus having a superior speed, plus a bigger chance to evade an attack -although less defense- 'cos of nimbleness, and it would be more resistant to cold spells.
On the other hand, the grey wolf would be much stronger, have a greater defense and a stronger attack, at the cost of a slightly inferior speed and no specific resistance to cold spells.
Besides that, you could appoint one of your heroes as master of a castle, thus favouring the creation of units that are specific to him/her. Say, if you designate the guy from Minnesota as the master of a castle, you'd produce grey wolves in a weekly basis.
If the master of the castle is the syberian guy, arctic wolves would be favoured.
I think that along with individual biographies, having heroes from different parts of the world of Xeen with unique bonuses logical to the place your hero was born (Elder Scrolls has a world and their inhabitants aren't the same and the place where they were born makes a difference no only in their character but also the bonuses, which is like real life, btw) couldn't change the game mechanics but add to them.
Sorry for the rambling and the little thesis I wrote.
____________
Heroes of Might and Magic; They aren't only games, they are passions. And feelings. Laura Jackson is the most beautiful woman who has ever existed!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSBTC1HHN-E
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted March 10, 2014 11:22 PM |
|
|
Sarcyan, could you please edit the first image? being so big makes reading the comments of this page on my laptop an impossible task
Edit: Thank you, now it's much better.
I think the idea could work through heroes specialities, maybe.
____________
|
|
Sarcyan
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 10, 2014 11:41 PM |
|
|
Storm-Giant said:
Sarcyan, could you please edit the first image? being so big makes reading the comments of this page on my laptop an impossible task
Okay, fixed, sorry for the inconvenience. It is now 800x600 instead of 1600x1200, which is what it was before.
Good evening!
____________
Heroes of Might and Magic; They aren't only games, they are passions. And feelings. Laura Jackson is the most beautiful woman who has ever existed!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSBTC1HHN-E
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
