|
| Thread: Heroes taken off battlefield in HOMM5? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · NEXT» |
|
shaowei
Adventuring Hero
|
posted November 01, 2002 10:26 AM |
|
|
Heroes taken off battlefield in HOMM5?
According to the Christian Vanover interview at M&M guild, there are ideas to do just that with HOMM5.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that it would be a huge improvement. If they do this, it will already be better than HOMM4.
I can't believe people care so much about heroes being on the battlefield - it's what ruined HOMM4, together with the lame and unpredictable battlefield + no battle log.
I hope NWC takes into account the comments of their fans, but when considering heroes on the battlefield, they should trust their own professionalism and NOT INCLUDE THEM AGAIN. Sorry for disagreeing with most of this board (and many more), but that would lead to a more balanced game.
I am sure most fans will buy this game just to see how it plays, so it doesn't matter in the financial sense for 3DO. But what matters is that if the game is on the level of HOMM4 (with no balance and easily killed mages w/o combat skill), people will not believe 3DO is capable of releasing a good game anymore.
You yourselves will be disappointed if there's no balance. Balance is hard/next to impossible to achieve with multiple creatures in stacks and single heroes on the battlefield at the same time. Even if they balance it for the most obvious development paths, there are always specific cases where imbalances occur.
I sure hope NWC make the right decision and look into the future, not just short-term profits.
|
|
Juulcesaar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 12:24 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
I do not agree in taking these heroes back to the god-status they used to be. Others also don't, look at the results of this poll http://www.forumplanet.com/strategyplanet/homm/topic.asp?fid=3653&tid=861709.
Why?
-In heroes of might and magic 1-2-3 the heroes had a GOD state: they weren't killable, and the only thing they could do was using some magic. This isn't good, if you see eg the conflux strategy with Armageddon. The hero was untouchable, so you lost a great deal of troops. Now you only have to kill the hero, not his troops
-The heroes skills don't add to the skills of his sublings. In prolonged campaigns you can notice that your wyvern has so much skill points added he can beat a bone dragon or something like it. Now, a level 70 hero won't make his troops unbeatable. He himself will be difficult to beat, but it isn't as impossible as in the previous HOMM versions.
-Our might hero finally has something to do. In older versions, even the barbarian would cast a spell (I don't want to say there's something on it that doesn't fit). A sort of extra combat creature is nicer than something untouchable.
Flaws?
-Yes there are some. Your magic heroes used to be safe, but now they aren't anymore. Their chances of survival are too much dependant on combat skill.
Can it be better?
-I suggest a built-in combat skill per level, and the genuine combat skill as a fast advancement in skill points. Alos the bonuses per level are dependant on skills...
eg.
A thief gets +10 HP, +3 DMG +3 attack, +3.5 defence, +.25 speed, +.25 movement per level
A combat hero +10 HP, +4DMG +4 attack, +4 defence, +.2 speed, +.2 movement.
A tactician +10 HP, +2.5 DMG +3 att, +4 def, +.2 speed, +.2 movement
A lord +15 HP, +2.5DMG +2 att, +3 def +.2 speed, +.1 movement
A magician +10HP,+1 DMG +1att, +5Defence +.3 speed, +.1 movement.
(highest skill counts.)
(a level 9 mage eg, would have 200HP, do 25-34 damage, having 19 attack, 55 defence, ...)
By the way, I think getting heroes of the battlefield will result in a forge type boycot...
____________
I do no longer exist...
Check 'reynaert' if you want to see me...
|
|
DonGio
Promising
Famous Hero
of Clear Water Mountain Clan
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 12:40 PM |
|
|
This will be a short reply, due to lack of time to go through my opinions thoroughly:
I don't think they should switch back to Untouchable heroes. They should perhaps make some changes from what it's like now (although I don't have any particular complaints concerning this specific issue), but the hero should definitely be able to die/fight. But it should perhaps be harder to get to him.
Fight well
DonGio
____________
There are 10 types of people: Those who read binary, and those who don't.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 01:03 PM |
|
|
I'd agree with JululCeasar. There are a lot of good points in taking heroes onto the battle-field. Some balancing issues needs to be addressed but much better to let the hero to be a unit than a bystander.
I don't see the vulnerability of a magic hero as a flaw. They have to be more vulnerable than the combat related hero.
Improvements:
I've suggested a revised system for skills where not every combat related skill is mixed together.
I want the defensive skills to be grouped together (combat, defence and one new defensive skill), and the offensive skills to be grouped together (melee and offence and one new offensive skill or archery). The archery skills could also be split out as a separate group and affect (hero's ranged attack, creatures ranged attack, and a special ranged attack.)
As you can see I've three skills per skill-group. I believe four is too much and it takes too high level to level up even a single primary skill. I'd like 16 skill groups with 3 skills in each and the hero being able to select 8 of these. (I've posted a more detailed suggestion in Sikmar's thread about amn impossible dream.)
That way mages are likely to develope only the defensive skills and not the offensive ones.
I also suggest to reduce the importance of the Combat skill by including most of into level-up.
If you start with defense of 15 and get +1 defense per level then all Heroes will get a decent defence. Since all Heroes must have defence then give enough of it to give a decent durability.
Another way to improve mages survivability is to allow heroes to precast certain spells on themselves. So that they start combat with spells already applied. (To make it balanced I would not extend this abilities to the rest of the army, the mage can only enchance the own person.)
Quote:
(a level 9 mage eg, would have 200HP, do 25-34 damage, having 19 attack, 55 defence, ...)
55 defence is way too powerful for such a low level character (if we assume normal H4 stats). And why would a mage have higher defence than say a tactician or a thief?
|
|
Zutus_evil_p...
Hired Hero
Flaming bird
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 02:01 PM |
|
|
Another reason why I don't want the heroes to leave the battle field is because if your hero is a high level spellcaster and you've lost all of your army during a siege, most of the time, the hero is still capable of winning that battle, because that slow stack of fifty golems can reach that sprite and the army of golems get slaugthered by the magic of the hero.
I really hope they add horses to the battle field in homm5. A hero sitting on his horse would benefit from higher defence (+25 maybe), further movement and charge bonus. The mount could be for sale in town and cost a considerable amount of resources (buy at stables perhaps). I know mounts have been brought up a lot of times, but this time I see it as a way to improve your defence.
____________
Meet you at TeaNY's...
|
|
Juulcesaar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 02:04 PM |
|
|
It was just a propositions, you can always change it.
But for combat, let's say
-combat
-magic Resistance
-body builing (Hit Points)
-... (maybe blocking?)
-Offence : increasing attack+damage
-... : dividing enemy defence
-Archery: increasing attack & specialtys+damage
-snipery: decreasing enemy defence
juulcesaar
____________
I do no longer exist...
Check 'reynaert' if you want to see me...
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 02:08 PM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 2 Nov 2002
|
I really like the fact that heroes have joined the BF. But very much left to do to get it right. Now it is too unbalanced.
As for NWC, I guess their only wish is to gain money. I don't think they are up to making a better game. I hope I am wrong, but Heroes IV proves me right.
|
|
Odvin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 05:44 PM |
|
|
I like the way it's done in H4. In fact, this was the main change in H4 - heroes that take part in battle themselves! Putting them out of the battlefield once again, leaving only tactics + spellcasting for them, would be very cruel  . But if 3DO wants to stop all those negative reactions on the changes in HMM4, this step back will probably help them.
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 06:20 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 1 Nov 2002
|
I like the ability to have heroes with no troops and troops with no hero. Balance is tricky but not impossible. The staff just has to put a lot of thought into it. I agree with weaving current "combat" skills into normal level up. Having to resurrect your hero every other battle is not only a nuisance, it slows down the already molasses-pace leveling.
Splitting defence and offence also sounds like a good idea. A high-level mage's defence could take the form (animation) of some sort of in-built blocking spell, while if you tried to put 'em in melee, they'd still punch like a cream puff. There'd still be motivation to go after/protect the mages, since they wouldn't deal much retaliation, but at least they wouldn't die so quickly.
|
|
HeyYou
Known Hero
and beloved food provider.
|
posted November 01, 2002 09:49 PM |
|
|
On balance . . .
I think a good idea for balance is to limit the number of creatures in a stack, and in an army. I mean, can a single hero "realistically" control 5,000 creatures?
Also, maybe make some creatures "incompatible," meaning some creatures simply will not travel in an army with certain other creatures (a good example of this would be Black Dragons and Titans).
I don't have 4 yet, so if they already did that, then just ignore me and I'll quietly slink off to a corner.
|
|
Juulcesaar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2002 10:15 PM |
|
|
I kinda reworked the level based extras
So, adding a bonus/level, based on highest primary skills (first skill to reach grandmastery wins, switch when other skill has more skill points.)
stealth heroes
att 15+ 2/level
def 15+ 2/level
HP 100+ 10/level
dmg 16-24 + 2/level
speed: (?)+ .3/level for the first 10 levels
movement: (?)+ .3/level for the first 10 levels
Nobility Heroes
att 15+ 1.5/level
def 15+ 1.5/level
HP 100+12.5/level
dmg 16-24 + 1.5/level
Speed: (?)+ .3level (first 10 only)
movement: (?)+ .15/level (idem)
Combat Heroes
att 15+ 3/level
def 15+ 3/level
HP 100+ 10/level
dmg 16-24 +2.5/level
speed (?)+ .2/level (stops on level 11)
movement (?)+ .2/level (you got it)
Tactician Heroes
att 15+ 1.5/level
def 15+ 3/level
HP 100+10/level
dmg 16-24+ 1.5/level
speed (?)+ .2/level (do I have to repeat myself?)
movement (?)+ .2/level (...)
Magician heroes
att 15+1/level
defence 15+ 3/level
HP 100+ 10/level
dmg 16/24+ .5/level
speed (?)+ .15/level (saw it too late, edited it (only 10 first levels))
movement (?)+ .15/level (ahem?)
____________
I do no longer exist...
Check 'reynaert' if you want to see me...
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
posted November 02, 2002 02:27 AM |
|
|
Heroes in Combat vs. No Heroes in Combat
It obviously appears that the majority of Heroes of Might and Magic IV fans are very much against removing the heroes from combat. I too, am with the majority of about 85% of people around the world who want to keep heroes in battle, whether it be in a new fashion, or the way it is now, in Heroes IV.
Shaowei:
"I can't believe people care so much about heroes being on the battlefield - it's what ruined HOMM4, together with the lame and unpredictable battlefield + no battle log."
Well, you may now believe it. In my opinion, it isn't what ruined Heroes IV. Nothing ruined Heroes IV in my mind. It was an enjoyable game and still is for me, after 7 months. I admit, Heroes IV has kept me hooked for longer than Heroes III.
"I hope NWC takes into account the comments of their fans, but when considering heroes on the battlefield, they should trust their own professionalism and NOT INCLUDE THEM AGAIN."
I have every confidence that NWC can and will produce a great game in any respect. But the difference between a great and an excellent game is the excitement, and how long you play it for without being bored.
Anyone can see that the NWC staff aren't going to make up the largest portion of people who play Heroes, but it is the fans, who decide whether Heroes V is going to be good or not.
When the idea of 'Heroes in Combat' was tossed around last year, many people liked the idea of it, but according to the thread I created, cared more about the 'Dragon Golem' instead of Heroes in Combat. Now, times have changed. This is now the forefront of discussion and many things need to be said before anything is done.
Heroes V is in the early process of being designed and nothing is set in stone, and nor shall it be for quite some time. These are the ideas being tossed around at NWC.
We have the opportunity to change it, but we can't if we don't speak out, so I encourage more of you to post here to voice your opinions.
My Opinion:
Balance
Might and Magic:
A long time ago, I saw that Heroes of Might and Magic should be named more aptly. Something like: Creatures of Might and Heroes of Magic. This is mainly because creatures fought, and heroes cast spells. It was that simple for battle purposes. There was almost no might aspect to the heroes. All might heroes did was increase the attack and defence of their creatures. This was too simple in my mind. It was also too one sided. The magic heroes ruled the battlefield.
In Heroes IV, much has changed. Might heroes, at high levels, are able to out gun magic heroes, depending on what level of magic resistance the might hero has. In conjunction to this, they battled it out, themselves. It wasn't the creatures, it was them. That added an element of fun-and balance-and strategy. The Hero in Heroes I, II and III didn't serve as much purpose as they do now.
Might and Magic heroes are much more balanced, and ultimately, that is what fans want. With balance comes everything that it is good in a game.
Immortal Heroes:
I also don't relish the idea of the hero being immortal. It is too unrealistic that creatures only fight creatures, since a hero is just there, on the sidelines, casting spells, and cheering for his army. Normally, a creature would just go out and attack the hero, but that isn't possible.
Skills and Sophistications:
The heroes series is moulded better around a hero being directly involved in combat. Skills makemuch more of a difference, and there can be many,many more created in order to suit the needs of the hero in combat and out of combat.
There also can be a great deal more specialties, and classes, which will make the heroes tapestry more ornate and sophisticated, which can undoubtedly add strategy to the game. Heroes (or human like beings) are more intelligent than the creatures, and therefore should have more options in terms of skills, classes, specialties, active biograhpies and strengths and weaknesses available to them.
I have seen threads where people have tried to make the creatures become more sophisticated, and more skills be open to them. But the truth is, we should be trying to do this for the heroes in the game, which have the capacity to become more sophisticated without altering the pattern of the game too much.
Experience points:
I believe that, like many others, the hero level up system needs to be reworked. Perhaps more than others may think. This is the way I see it:
Firstly, the main problem with the hero level up system is that it is slightly tooslow in the beginning, and much too slow in the endgame. I think that NWC overestimated how many armies we are able to defeat in the beginning, and in the end. So, this is my 'theory' if you like.
If they are to keep heroes on the battlefield for Heroes V, they have to change the heor level up system for each difficulty of gameplay the map has been set to, and the size of the map. Say a hero playing a small map on intermediate setting, it would be able to gain experience quicker than a hero playing large map on champion difficulty. This is why I believe they should slow it down for the smaller, easier maps, and speed it up for the larger, harder maps. Of course, both ways, the system will be faster in the beginning and end than it is in Heroes IV.
Enjoyment
I believe that it is more enjoyable to have heroes present on the battelfield. It gives the game, not to mention the battles more depth and challenge. Now not only having to worry about the creatures, but also the hero. This adds an element of strategy and fun to the game.
I can safely say that Heroes in combat are a contributor, in my mind to making Heroes IV a better game, they grant you more interaction and make you moe concerned about the skills and classes the hero will be...
Strategy
Artifacts and skills:
Having heroes in combat allows for more things to be done and achieved with him. The artifacts acquired, especially the might ones, have an impact on the hero instead of the army. The hero will have a chance to use some of the artillery he acquires, instead of passing on their benefits to the army. This also puts the hero more into the spotlight, so many more things may be done or learnt with the hero.
Focusing on Heroes and Creatrures:
Since the hero is now more in the spotlight and the creatures no longer are the only point of melee or ranged attack, their role is slightly different in combat.
Previously, they didn't have to worry about protecting the hero, they only had to worry about winning the battle so the hero could stay alive.
Now it is different, they must find way to protect the hero, and also defeat the opponent. This requires more thinking and strategy when in a battle cirumstance.
Summary
I don't believe NWC should revert back to the old ways of an immortal hero. All of the facts that other people and myself have outline point firmly against allowing 'The God' back into the game.
The only way I see that NWC will be able to include it and have a positive effect on the rest of the Heroes playing community is, only if they drastically alter the combat mechanism, which would see the Heroes series going off the tracks of its original glory.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
posted November 02, 2002 02:54 AM |
|
|
...heroes in battle was a good innovation!
I guess everyone has their opinions on this heroes in battle question, but this is my opinion.
HEROES IN BATTLE OR NOT
The decision of taking heroes into battle by 3DO was a great idea - it allowed you to kill enemy heroes whom would otherwise be likely to flee from combat - something that the AI kept doing in Heroes 1-3. So the idea of putting heroes into battle got rid of the annoyance of fighting the same hero again and again, and seeing him/her flee continuously. Also, that 1 hero per week was also good... it prevents the AI from continually hiring them.
But there is room for improvement...
I don't like the way the Combat skill was handeled in Heroes 4. Maybe in Heroes 5 it should look like this:
COMBAT SKILL - Increases the melee attack and defense rating of the hero. At Grandmaster the hero gets a +50 in melee and defense rating, reduces enemy target's defense to 0 and has first strike and second strike.
The Melee Secondary Skill will be replaced by the Vitality skill.
Basic Vitality - hero has +20% to HP and gets +1 to speed ans +3 to movement.
Advanced Vitality - hero has +40% to HP and gets +2 to speed and +6 to movement.
Expert Vitality - hero has +60% to HP and gets +3 to speed and +8 to movement.
Master Vitality - hero has +80% to HP and gets +4 to speed and +10 to movement.
Grandmaster Vitality - hero has double HP and gets +5 to speed and +12 to movement. Hero also self heals 10 HP + 10% for level of hero each round.
Archery and resistance skills are as normal.
Also, if you read my response on the HOMM5, the Vision Thread you will notice I had an idea on the introduction of the Siege Skill. Well, here it is:
SIEGE PRIMARY SKILL - allows the hero's army to attack towns more effectively. At Grandmaster Level the attacker's army can ignore all wall and moat penalties when fighting through walls (i.e. defending units don't get defense bonuses when attacked).
FORTIFY SKILL - when defending, the army gets extra bonuses. At Grandmaster the defending army gets a +50% to their defense bonus when defending against a siege. Ranged units on top of towers get double.
BALLISTICS SKILL - allows hero's army to attack the wall itself. When a hero studies this skill, his army receives a catapult. The catapult can attack the walls, towers or the gate but not armies. At Grandmaster level the catapult gets two shots, can destroy the gate and towers in one turn and
has an area effect (multiple pieces of wall can be destroyed simultaneously).
ARTILLERY SKILL - increases the effectiveness of the hero's army's ranged units on the battlefield and on the siege. At Grandmaster level the units gain double damage, plus they also can ignore all range, obstacle and wall penalties (in other words, they can shoot anywhere they like).
Other than that, heroes were paid a lot of attention in the development of the game.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
kerberos_gr
Hired Hero
|
posted November 02, 2002 04:37 AM |
|
|
Hello there
Although most of the people around here seem to support the idea of heroes participating actively in the battlefield ,i have to say that this new feature proved to be completely catastrophic for the balance of the game.
quote "Balance is hard/next to impossible to achieve with multiple creatures in stacks and single heroes on the battlefield at the same time. Even if they balance it for the most obvious development paths, there are always specific cases where imbalances occur."
Well shaowei,what i can say man about your comment,i guess i couldnt agree more ,i think you captured in a phrase one of the biggest weaknesses of this game.
In my opinion,heroes 4 compared to the previous versions of the game is A) seriously imbalanced ,and B)has become more "random ",more "chaotic" .I think that was inevitable considering that some heroes are quite easily killed even during the first round of the battle ,and also because of multiple spell casting during one turn .I mean when you have 3 or 4 powerfull spellcasters(lets say 2 for each side) casting alltogether powerfull spells (maybe too powerfull),and when these spellcasters have different speeds(due to various speed modifiers like crystals artifacts e.t.c)and when they are also fairly fragile and die easily ,well... the result is interesting (i have to admit it),but its also extremely unpredictable.
.Unpredictable huh,...hmmm and whats wrong with that? unpredictable its good !!!!,you could replie .Well yeah normally yeah unpredictable is normally good (afterall nobody wants boring battles),but on the other hand when a strategy game becomes too unpredictable, too random ,to the point that you cannot predict the outcome of a battle (especially the final battle)even when you have a much better army,well then it STOPS TO BE A STRATEGY GAME ANYMORE,it may be a very enjoyable game but its no more a strategy game,in other words it doesnt give you the same feeling of accomplishment as before (at least not to me).
.The idea of heroes participating to battle seems even to me very attractive ,but in one condition ,the implementation has to be PERFECT ,not good ,not very good but PERFECT in order to have a balanced gameplay .
.The big question is, do you honestly think that NWC can accomplish such achievement especially when we all know that 2/3 of the stuff are already fired ,and when it took 6 months to deliver the multiplayer patch ?
.Lets face it guys ,NWC is the shadow of what it used to be (thanks to 3do),asking so much from a company like NWC,its just not realistic.I think we all have to admit that heroes 4 wasnt a succesfull product there are some very serious problems that almost destroyed the gameplay of the game, and in my opinion HEROES 3 was the best heroes game ever made(heroes 2 was good too),so lets stick to that, its the only way to save the heroes series .
____________
|
|
Juulcesaar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2002 11:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
heroes 4 compared to the previous versions of the game is A) seriously imbalanced
I agree and disagree with you.
-the skill system has becomed unstable due the dependence on combat for defence (My solution: make defence dependant on level)
-The towns were never as balanced are they are now (partially also thanks to the new siege system, that provides less advantage for shooters and flyers). Now every town should be able to match every town. There are some balance issues (death), but in general, this is more blalanced.
Quote:
,and B)has become more "random ",more "chaotic" .I think that was inevitable considering that some heroes are quite easily killed even during the first round of the battle ,and also because of multiple spell casting during one turn .I mean when you have 3 or 4 powerfull spellcasters(lets say 2 for each side) casting alltogether powerfull spells (maybe too powerfull),and when these spellcasters have different speeds(due to various speed modifiers like crystals artifacts e.t.c)and when they are also fairly fragile and die easily ,well... the result is interesting (i have to admit it),but its also extremely unpredictable.
Also, it's quite good you can kill the GODs now. Every powerfull spell has a countereffect, and it ads to the game that you must protect your heavy equipment. But sometimes you must protect it too much. Some balance issues are needed, but nothing radical
Quote:
.Lets face it guys ,NWC is the shadow of what it used to be (thanks to 3do),asking so much from a company like NWC,its just not realistic.I think we all have to admit that heroes 4 wasnt a succesfull product there are some very serious problems that almost destroyed the gameplay of the game, and in my opinion HEROES 3 was the best heroes game ever made(heroes 2 was good too),so lets stick to that, its the only way to save the heroes series .
Heroes 4 was beta testing and I think, given proper time and resources (where's microsoft when you need it), and based on HOMM4, HOMM5 could be real good. Liking the 1-2-3 more is your own opinion (I like 4 more). But I do NOT want to see a situation again where heroes were gods and all casted spells (barbarians?)
____________
I do no longer exist...
Check 'reynaert' if you want to see me...
|
|
Darion
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2002 03:37 AM |
|
|
Making the heroes "immortal" and untouchable was part of what was Heroes of Might and Magic. Now HOMM is just like any other turn-based fantasy strategy game.
____________
|
|
Xenophanes
Promising
Famous Hero
Chief Consul to Queen Mutare
|
posted November 03, 2002 07:00 AM |
|
|
My solution...
When I read the line of text on the Might and Magic Guild a few days ago that said that Heroes would be taken off the battlefield in Heroes V, I must say that quite a few thoughts whirled through my head.
First came disbelief. Then amazement. Then denial. I am sure that many people went through the same thing. However, through it all, I began to ponder the pros and cons of such a change.
Now, I believe that I have the perfect solution to the problem of Heroes in combat vs. no Heroes in combat.
Personally, I like having Heroes on the battlefield in Heroes IV. Heroes I, II, and III were more aptly called "Creatures of Might and Magic." The Heroes just didn't have a big enough role. Sure, Heroes III helped by introducing Hero specialties, but the Heroes were still too intangible.
Some have said that the Heroes in previous Heroes games were too godlike as a result of their staying out of the fray of battle. My solution, however, looks at all of this from a historical point of view.
Great leaders and commanders of military forces, let's face it, never really did or do fight with their troops in combat. They sat a safe distance away, giving the commands for their legions to mobilize. However, there were some figures in history who did lead their troops in to battle and fight with them, such as Richard the Lion Heart, which greatly increased troop morale.
Have you guessed what my solution is already? Heroes should be, as a default, removed from the battlefield, staying safely on their horses to sling the occasional spell. However, the Hero should have the option of charging into the battle to fight as a unit and as they do in Heroes IV, an action that would increase troop morale by a considerable amount. Heroes could then return to the safety of their horse if they so desired, or remain on the battlefield, with the risk of being slain.
For anyone at New World who happens to be reading this, please take this idea into consideration.
____________
<Dragons rule, Titans drool!>
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 03, 2002 07:42 PM |
|
|
To HeyYou: Heroes is a fantasy game. Sometimes realism spoils things. Putting limits on stack sizes is one of those things. Btw. 1 reasonably developed hero can kill several thousand peasants in H4.
In Heroes 4 morale can make the difference in the battle. Good morale is 25% extra damage, poor morale means doing 20% less damage. In a tight battle this is the difference between success and failure. Opposite alignments means -5 morale, which is huge. (Grand master leadership just gives you +5 morale.) I think morale and alignments works well in Heroes 4. I'm a bit against the 'pentagram' but viewing alignments as factions that penalties to mix with each other is a good idea.
To JuulCeasar: How are you going to decide the type of the Hero? Is it always start class no matter which secondary skills that hero takes?
Anyway, the failure of heroes 4 are related to two things. First, Combat is made much too important and essesential so all must take it. I agree with JuulCeasar here. Place the defence increase in level-up.
Myself, I'd prefer to give all heroes the same defence boost per level. All heroes needs to develope their defences when they level-up.
The second failure is to put all the hero might skill into one primary skill. I'd like three Might skills, to dissuade mages to take them all (because they would seriously fall behind in their magic developement if they did.)
Group 1. Attack
- Melee
- Offence (Melee effect on allied creatures)
- (Insert suitable skill)
Group 2. Defence
- Toughness (Increases hitpoints of hero)
- Defence (Increases defence of allied creatures.)
- Blocking (An increasing chance for hero to block an attack.)
Group 3. Archery.
- Archery
- Archery effect on allied creatures.
- Ballistics (Allows the hero to control a war machine, and with increasing effiency. For instance a Catapult or a first Aid Tent. All War Machines must be purchased.)
I'm also for letting the player tailor the character as far as possible. For instance by offering choices like:
- +5 additional hitpoints.
- +1 additional damage.
- +2 spellpoints
- +2% efficiency to all spells.
- +1 overland movement
- +1 combat speed
Alternatively, these bonuses could be selected in random by the computer depedning on the hero's starting class. (Working the same way as the primary skills did in Heroes 3.)
I don't think the bonuses should be the same and automatic, because then all the heroes of a class will turn out exactly the same and I dislike that.
@ThE_HyDrA: Yes, levelling up is dismally slow. My wish: let Hero level-up as the result of combat rather than requiring the Map maker to place dozens of tree of knowledge on the maps. Once, you get to a certain level it becomes a matter of.... How long until I get to the next tree of knowledge?
@kerberos_gr: I don't see what you mean. How did heroes in combat create imbalance in the game? You already have the same problem for spellcasting creatures. One creature can curse, fortune, bloodlust, mirth, song of peace and so on a stack which is arbitrarily big. The problem has existed a long time in heroes. 1 genie could in H2 reduce any stack to half, even if that stack was 100 Titans.
The unpredicitibility of a combat is a good thing. If you knew before hand that you will win you would not enjoy the game in the same way. If you lose the battle, it is either because your opponent had better strategy than you or because you overestimated your forces. If I know I'll win the final battle, then it's only half as fun to do it.
Even in h2 and h3 you had a lot of unpredicitibility to the game, it's just that you have accepted it and rarely thinks about it. Battles may be won or lost because you get morale /luck for the right stack or because an ability like aging or stoning kicks in at the right time. I can agree with you that say Hypnotize probably should be allowed at all, but too powerful spells is an entirely different thing than Heroes in combat. If a spell is too poweful then it can be removed from the game or toned down.
If you protect your Hero or place the hero in the correct slot, then the enemy has very limited choices to kill your hero in the first round, the choices vary a bit with the faction you face.
@Xeno: Hmmm... If you go back a couple of hundred years, then most leaders were in their armies and leading them personally. In Swedish history many of the best known kings and rebels have met their deaths on the fields of battle. It's not that common that kings die, but it was common that they did battle things out themselves.
(The highest commander of the army is the player, so necessarily the heroes are one step under that (that is: heroes are usually not kings or queens, but generals, admirals, knights or similar.) Sometimes the hero is the leader as is the case for instance in some of the Campaigns, but this is an exception.)
In a game where you have ample oppurtunities for ressurrection Heroes can die. It's not a big deal. If your hero dies learn from your mistake and hopefully you will improve your battle tactics the next time.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
Juulcesaar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2002 07:57 PM |
|
|
As I said, the skill with the most advancements wins (so let's say a GM life magic without ressurection =15 skill points for life, and he has GM combat and GM mR =10 skill points, so he has to increase stats as a magician. If he ads GM combat to it, but he first had 15 life skill points, he stays magician. One single archery would make him a combattant. If he maxed out ressurection, he stays magician for the rest of his life).
I would keep it with 1 skill, and drop defence: what use is GM attack skill if you could have had GM order magic (and hypnotize in your town)?
____________
I do no longer exist...
Check 'reynaert' if you want to see me...
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted November 04, 2002 09:29 AM |
|
|
My view is that since there are several pure Mage skills there should also be several pure Might skill. There should be at least 2 such skills and preferrably 3.
As I said I like the "give player" control over developement. I don't like hard-coded bonuses per class, especially when these classes change when you level-up the character.
It's then better to merge the bonuses into skills so the skills themselves are associated with bonuses, or as I proposed before let the basic class decide.
As for the hypnotism. If I play a Warrior... Why would I consider developing a magic skill to Grand Master? Give warrior skills to warriors!
Hypnotism is one of those spells which needs to be toned down or removed. It simply does too much.
Attack skill of no use? The Melee attack skill is one of the more powerful skills in H4.
|
| |
|
|
