|
| Thread: Heroes V - Down with the conventions! |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
insaneroach
Tavern Dweller
|
posted April 09, 2003 12:34 AM |
bonus applied. |
|
Heroes V - Down with the conventions!
I've played all four games in the series, but liked H1 and 2 most. 3 and 4 failed to evolve in a major positive way. I hope that 5 will modify or get rid of most of the dysfunctional and arbitrary conventions and ideas which have plagued the series. Here are some of them and suggestions for improvement and innovation.
Why have the 4 redundant resourses persisted unchanged through all four games? They should have been removed, or at least integrated into the game more.
Why have 400 different structures on the adventure map? Why are most of them so insignificant and useless? Just to make the map pretty?
Pretty maps are bad maps. The more clutter, the less strategy. I looked for nice open maps with not too much clutter, but found only a few out of hundreds.
Don't forget the game is supposed to be a strategy. A strategy that is dependent on thinking for success. Many of you are fooled that the game has strategic depth, by the numerous highly effective tactics and magic tricks which can be learned and applied automatically. Well, having one castle all game, and going down a narrow path killing monsters and gatherisng stuff, with 1 superarmy, does not leave much room for strategy. It is more similiar to an RPG. There should be numerous castles and important sites for which the players should fight.
The best heroes map that I remember was The Lost Continent from Heroes 2. It was an XL land map with 6 players and numerous towns and cities scattered throughout the continent. It was open and there was little clutter. The players would fight each other for the castles so that if 1 is taken, a player does not suffer defeat, but a mere setback. And it was so much fun watching the comps kill eah other. Those were the times...
I never liked the game's RPG part. I hated having superheroes with high stats and thus, invulnerable armies, just going around clearing the map and then fighting final battles with the enemy superheroes.
Combat without risk of attrition is simply mindless repetition of the same tactics. Shooters vs non-shooter creatures can make it so. So can can magic. These can easily be solved by slightly modifying neutral armies. However, heroes should certainly not improve their armies' statistics(attack, defense) as was in the first 3 games and partially in the 4th.
Here is my suggestion for heroes in Heroes V. Make them expensive, maybe 5000. Remove them from combat, but make them able to move alone(captureable for example). In no way are they to directly improve the strength of their army(increasing attack skill, defense skill, etc.), but the way it is used, instead. They should use magic and tactical skills to overcome the enemy. Not statistics.
Creatures should not be able to move alone in my opinion. They should have a hero with them at all times. This simplifies the gameplay and removes annoying little quirks like single creatures going around scouting and gathering stuff until they are killed, or creatures not getting experience after combat. Exploring and fighting should be done by heroes.
Avoid arbitrary little things which sound cool, but just complicate the gameplay, like giving every creature a unique ability. Or having really neat little heroes with lots of cool little artifacts and high stats. Nonsense in my opinion.
Overall, there should be a definite emphasis on having to make many choices that matter, not lots of little ones that don't. There should be lots of depth, not complexity.
|
|
nasty
Known Hero
castor nebun si orb pe cinste
|
posted April 10, 2003 11:44 PM |
|
|
thinking about heroes 3 and their special abilities ...reminds me of gelu...Gelu should be resurected in heroes V.This could be a marvelous campaign..or maybe two.
The elves should in one campaign search some artifacts to resurect him.
BUT when they resurect him they make a huge mistake and Gelu becomes undead
(think about it:gelu undead,upgrading undead sharpshooters,it would be a great help for the undead kind to have a skeleton dressed as a sharpshooter that could shoot through anything).And a second campaign where gelu conquers the world.
There should definetly be upgrades to any creature(i liked the ideea of 3 upgrades to any creature).
Upgrades where very interesting....i remember i used to sell every resource i had just to upgrade the giants so i can defend my castle with the titans thunders.
The 1,2,3 level should have maybe 3 upgrades so they would get stronger.in that way they could defeat 4 ,5,6 level cretures(with 2 upgrades).
there should be many castles(i mean many nations);it would be great to have at least 9-10 types of castles.
There should be movies after every scenario,it would make it more captivating.
there should be more creatures than the cretures from h3 and h4(the more the merrier).
the spells on the battlefield should be more animated(like those in disciples 2 on the map).
the creatures should talk...they should say simple sentences(ex:crusader...when he attacks...he says "eat steel").
the creatures should be more personalized(i mean for example..the crusader should stick his sword in earth until his is selected to move-thats when he is away from the battle..when he is in the middle of the battle he should keep his sword up..prepared for any surprise attack or the cyclop..when he is away from battle he should sit down and count rocs...but when he is surrounded by enemies he should pick a stone a keep it above his head prepared to strike or the devil ..after he strikes he licks his weapon which is full of blood);
the dendroid must be put back in the game(seeing lord of the rings :the two towers reminded me of them).that's it for now...more opinions next time..bye
____________
You can trick me with food.Possesions mean nothing to a navajo.
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
posted April 13, 2003 09:51 AM |
|
|
Your post is certainly interesting, Insaneroach
While it is interesting, I do not agree with all parts of your posts. If Heroes V strays to far from its roots, then we won't have Heroes V, but just a game, which is compiled from experiences of other games, and lost some of its old Heroes origins, that were present in Heroes I and II which you said were you favourite. If that is true, then Heroes V would have to stick close to the conventions, and use many of the features in Heroes I and II which made the game so popular.
I like Heroes II the most, followed by IV. Heroes I was too simple for my liking, and I'm really not sure why I was attached to Heroes III as I was Heroes II. Heroes II was special because it was very strategic, it had differeing towns with not all creatures having upgrades, and the maps were top class. Some of these were Broken Alliance, Lost Continent, Winterlands, Who am I?, Pyramid, and more. I was young when I started playing Heroes II, probably 8, and I still play it from time to time nowadays. It is an excellent game.
"Why have the 4 redundant resourses persisted unchanged through all four games? They should have been removed, or at least integrated into the game more."
This is not a real time strategy game like AOE where resources are everything, this is Heroes, where resources play a minor role, and take second place behind castles, heroes and armies. I think that the 6 resources that we have work very, very well with the game, and they are not too significant, neither are they too minor in the grand scheme of things.
"Why have 400 different structures on the adventure map? Why are most of them so insignificant and useless? Just to make the map pretty?"
The more the better in this case - if they can become unique. I partially agree here, some of them are insignificant, but not useless. Some are quite redundant, but they are not to make the map pretty. They all have their own little differences and purpose. I would rather see 400 structures than 50. One wouldn't want the adventure structures to be clones of themselves, but I would rather less to have a whole map become a clone of itself with redundant objects.
"The more clutter, the less strategy. I looked for nice open maps with not too much clutter, but found only a few out of hundreds."
What evidence do you have of this? How is more adventure objects and more towns, mines, etc. constitute less strategy? I'm not saying it doesn't, but I am optimistic of whether your experiences follow your statement up. From my personal experiences, I think that fairly busy maps mean more strategy, maps with hardly anything on them constitute less.
"There should be numerous castles and important sites for which the players should fight."
I believe there are already. Places such as castles, mines, unupgraded castles, quests, quest gates, and magic shrines. You are right that there could me room for a few more, and I think the game would benefit from that. However, there seem to be sufficient supplies of structures and objects to fight for in the game to have the player engaging in long pursuits for supremacy, especially in large maps.
"The players would fight each other for the castles so that if 1 is taken, a player does not suffer defeat, but a mere setback. And it was so much fun watching the comps kill eah other. Those were the times..."
Those were certainly the days. However, it may come to mind that the openess and lack of clutter in the map had little to do with the strategic playing of the map? I actually remember playing it, and the mines throughout the land were extremely important, otherwise you would lose touch with the rest of the pack. While you are right that losing your castle did not mean losing the game, if you did not have a strong supply of resources, you were pretty much finished. It wasn't so much the openess of the map as much as the strategy of controlling the mainland, not so much with towns, but with mines.
"I hated having superheroes with high stats and thus, invulnerable armies"
Yes, I would have loathed that too if that ever occurred in Heroes IV. Thankfully, it did not, but in fact, the opposite happened, the heroes were too weak, which was also not a good thing. Having a strong hero in Heroes III had about the same repercussions as having a strong one in Heroes IV. However, possessing a weak hero in Heroes IV was disastrous, while a weak hero in III was not. This was because of the invulnerability that the heroes had acquired in Heroes I-III. That changed in IV and they were no longer the 'kings' but heroes fighting for a cause.
"heroes should certainly not improve their armies' statistics(attack, defense) as was in the first 3 games and partially in the 4th."
Yes, a very valid point on which I agree wholeheartedly with. There is no possible way that a hero could do such a thing, and it seemed just proposterous in the first place. It did, however balance might and magic Heroes in Heroes I-III. This was a partial reason for why might heroes are quite weak in IV.
"Make them expensive, maybe 5000. Remove them from combat, but make them able to move alone(captureable for example)."
I agree with the first sentence, although I disagree on the second. The key to making heroes successful in battles are to balance them and their strengths with the creatures at the time. Predominantly, heroes would be falling behind the strength of creatures in Heroes IV, this lead to the downfall of heroes in battlefield, and consequently, some people being unhappy with them. But, I believe most fans would like heroes to remain in battle, as long as they can be balanced to assimilate.
"This simplifies the gameplay and removes annoying little quirks like single creatures going around scouting and gathering stuff until they are killed"
What? How does it simplify the game? How are creatures roaming around the map until they are defeated a complication? It makes things more difficult if creatures need a hero. This means buying a hero everytime you need to transport upgraded creatures, or creatures themselves. Other complications are:
+>Hero may be unavailable to transport them
+>Garrison is full
+>Heroes cost money $5,000 in our cases
+>Caravans cost nearly as much
There are more, but I believe I've proved my point enough.
"Maybe creature stacks should have experience as well."
Not experience, medals.  http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?FID=5&TID=8451
"like giving every creature a unique ability."
This is good in my opinion. Isn't this giving the game depth? By having each creature with special ability, wouldnt they be all the same except with different statistics and looks? Come on, special abilties are a must!
"Overall, there should be a definite emphasis on having to make many choices that matter, not lots of little ones that don't. There should be lots of depth, not complexity."
I agree with you on your summary on al accounts except that there should be depth and complexity. You really can't avoid one without the other.
Your thread is quite interesting, I am looking forward to your reply.
____________
"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.”
|
|
streetfire
Hired Hero
slang junky
|
|
posted April 13, 2003 07:25 PM |
|
|
Marelt_ekrian had an idea about single lvl 1 or 2 creatures roaming around that sounds good to me
(quote) Another point to eliminate a bit of the excessive scouting. Have small packs of animals like wolves (forest), snakes (desert), vultures (lava), boars (dirt), basilisks (swamp) roam the countryside like neutral armies, but with high movement. They are not strong creatures and always low in numbers (don't grow). Your armies cannot attack them and they do not block any road. They will only attack a player stack, if they think they can win. On higher levels of the game, they are no more than decoration, since they will never attack large armies. Their only purpose is to clear the countryside of scouts. Any artifact that the scout carried would be dropped in an artifact pile.(quote)
___________________________________________________________
____________
it depends on whether u really wanna toss a salad
|
|
insaneroach
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 13, 2003 10:22 PM |
|
|
Just to be heard, I posted this thread on two HoMM forums. The other copy fired up and has 20 replies already. If you are interested, you can find it here:
http://www.forumplanet.com/strategyplanet/homm/topic.asp?fid=5292&tid=1011780&p=2
Quote:
While it is interesting, I do not agree with all parts of your posts. If Heroes V strays to far from its roots, then we won't have Heroes V, but just a game, which is compiled from experiences of other games, and lost some of its old Heroes origins, that were present in Heroes I and II which you said were you favourite. If that is true, then Heroes V would have to stick close to the conventions, and use many of the features in Heroes I and II which made the game so popular.
I understand your concern. But your last sentance is very wrong. I certainly wouldn't buy a remake of H3 with new graphics a few new features and different cosmetic details. What is needed is selective change. As I explained some things need to change because they have been dysfunctional. You should not make the mistake of considering HoMM games as carefully thought out, balanced, and unified pieces of software, because in reality, they are crawling with arbitrary ideas and pointless conventions. Only some of them benefit the gameplay. Many hurt it. You have to realize that. What I want is H5 to routinely play as well as I ever remember playing a HoMM game. Regardless of what has to be changed.
Quote:
I like Heroes II the most, followed by IV. Heroes I was too simple for my liking, and I'm really not sure why I was attached to Heroes III as I was Heroes II. Heroes II was special because it was very strategic, it had differeing towns with not all creatures having upgrades, and the maps were top class. Some of these were Broken Alliance, Lost Continent, Winterlands, Who am I?, Pyramid, and more. I was young when I started playing Heroes II, probably 8, and I still play it from time to time nowadays. It is an excellent game.
I agree. It was the best sequel yet.
Quote:
This is not a real time strategy game like AOE where resources are everything, this is Heroes, where resources play a minor role, and take second place behind castles, heroes and armies. I think that the 6 resources that we have work very, very well with the game, and they are not too significant, neither are they too minor in the grand scheme of things.
I really don't understand this. Why do you insist on imitating the existing HoMM games? Do you think that resourses should have little significance?
Quote:
The more the better in this case - if they can become unique. I partially agree here, some of them are insignificant, but not useless. Some are quite redundant, but they are not to make the map pretty. They all have their own little differences and purpose. I would rather see 400 structures than 50. One wouldn't want the adventure structures to be clones of themselves, but I would rather less to have a whole map become a clone of itself with redundant objects.
You are making a fundamental mistake. Why is more better? What is the point of all these structures. They inhibit strategy by being insignificant, numerous, and too many to memorize. They consume lots of developmental effort which could be redirected to troops instead. How does their benefit outweight this? You like taking strolls around the map just going from place to place seeking goodies? You shouldn't. Thats one of the weakest parts of the game. Prettiness is certainly not be a factor. It is the artists' job.
Quote:
What evidence do you have of this? How is more adventure objects and more towns, mines, etc. constitute less strategy? I'm not saying it doesn't, but I am optimistic of whether your experiences follow your statement up. From my personal experiences, I think that fairly busy maps mean more strategy, maps with hardly anything on them constitute less.
I am afraid it is the other way around. Ill even explain to you why. First, in an open map a player has freedom of movement and can choose out of many paths. Second, the less goodies there are, the more valuable they are. Going from object to object and clearing a stuffed map is stupid and hardly entertaining.
Overall, I have much better memories of going through open maps than through labyrinths.
Quote:
I believe there are already. Places such as castles, mines, unupgraded castles, quests, quest gates, and magic shrines. You are right that there could me room for a few more, and I think the game would benefit from that. However, there seem to be sufficient supplies of structures and objects to fight for in the game to have the player engaging in long pursuits for supremacy, especially in large maps.
That was a mapmaking suggestion. The game is somewhat capable of it as you say, but only castles and sometimes gold mines are really significant. In any case, the vast majority of maps are poorly made. They are stuffed, with little room for movement, and no sites of strategic significance.
Quote:
Those were certainly the days. However, it may come to mind that the openess and lack of clutter in the map had little to do with the strategic playing of the map? I actually remember playing it, and the mines throughout the land were extremely important, otherwise you would lose touch with the rest of the pack. While you are right that losing your castle did not mean losing the game, if you did not have a strong supply of resources, you were pretty much finished. It wasn't so much the openess of the map as much as the strategy of controlling the mainland, not so much with towns, but with mines.
Yes, you are right. I do not consider mines clutter. I think they should be highly valuable. Openness has a little strategic significance, but it mostly made me feel good. I really hate the epidemic of tunnels and corridors in H3 and 4.
Quote:
What? How does it simplify the game? How are creatures roaming around the map until they are defeated a complication? It makes things more difficult if creatures need a hero. This means buying a hero everytime you need to transport upgraded creatures, or creatures themselves. Other complications are:
+>Hero may be unavailable to transport them
+>Garrison is full
+>Heroes cost money $5,000 in our cases
+>Caravans cost nearly as much
There are more, but I believe I've proved my point enough.
I just think that heroes should be commanders of creature armies and the armies should not go around the map independently. I suppose it is just a preference. However, your argument that it would complicate things is that is would inhibit the old super-army strategy. That is a good thing in my opinion. It would encourrage the formation of multiple armies and combined with better maps could make a big positive difference.
"like giving every creature a unique ability."
Quote:
This is good in my opinion. Isn't this giving the game depth? By having each creature with special ability, wouldnt they be all the same except with different statistics and looks? Come on, special abilties are a must!
Special abilities are a needless complication which does not increase depth but complexity. To be used a player has to either memorize them or check them constantly. Sometimes they do provide a little more tactical depth, but that could be done better by general combat rules and the different types of monsters. Instead of complicating creatures, the designers should modify the combat system and the types of creatures to increase tactical depth. For example, hitting an enemy stack from the rear could provide first strike instead of being a creature-specific special ability. Another example is dividing melee creatures into several types such as infantry, cavalry, and skirmishers and making their defensive and offensive skills unique or making a rock/paper/scissors system. Shooters could be divided into classes such as light artillery, heavy artillery, armor piercing. All this would be much better than numerous individual special abilities. BTW, I am not denouncing all special abilities. Just the idea of every creature having one or more of them. Harpies for example could keep their hit and run attack.
Quote:
I agree with you on your summary on al accounts except that there should be depth and complexity. You really can't avoid one without the other.
You are mistaken. They are two different things. I will give you an example. Chess. It is a simple game with a simple mechanism and simple rules. But is it shallow?
____________
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted April 13, 2003 10:56 PM |
|
|
Qoute:
"Special abilities are a needless complication which does not increase depth but complexity. To be used a player has to either memorize them or check them constantly. Sometimes they do provide a little more tactical depth, but that could be done better by general combat rules and the different types of monsters."
Your post was rather interesting, but I have to disagree here. Taking away the special abilities would be a huge mistake and I cannot see this happening. Special abilities are what makes creatures what they are. Otherwise, as it was already said, they'd be just figures with different animations. I wish every creature had a unique ability!
You mentioned chess as an example yourself.
____________
|
|
Zutus_evil_p...
Hired Hero
Flaming bird
|
|
posted April 13, 2003 11:29 PM |
|
|
With much respect for your opinion, but I think you are so wrong on most parts.
What does it matter how many adventure objects there are? The map maker is not forced to use them is he? But the more options he gets, the better. So I say there can never be enough adventure objects.
Taking out special abilities?! What gives more strategic depth than those abilities? Taking them out because they are 'complex' would be a huge mistake. They are what makes a battle fun. eg. Casting first strike on your griffins, and watch all the attackers die, without a single blow to your griffins.
Overall, when reading your post, I had a feeling of 'if you would make him choose between four or ten different alignments, he's gonna say four, because ten is too complex'
|
|
insaneroach
Tavern Dweller
|
posted April 14, 2003 12:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What does it matter how many adventure objects there are? The map maker is not forced to use them is he? But the more options he gets, the better. So I say there can never be enough adventure objects.
It might be so. But do you consider them more important than creatures for example? Just like in all other choices, there is a tradeoff here, one that few seem to notice. Designing, drawing and implementing 400 adventure map structures in no small task. Most of the effort put in could have easily been directed toward doubling the available creatures, for example, or including a few more alignments.
Quote:
Overall, when reading your post, I had a feeling of 'if you would make him choose between four or ten different alignments, he's gonna say four, because ten is too complex'
Feelings are rarelly an accurate source of information.
I actually would welcome a large number of alignments. 10 would be lovely. They don't have to be perfectly balanced. Just lacking any big unbalancing advantages.
____________
|
|
insaneroach
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 14, 2003 12:32 AM |
|
|
There are better ways than special abilities of achieving the same thing.
I added this to my explanation:
Instead of complicating creatures, the designers should modify the combat system and the types of creatures to increase tactical depth. For example, hitting an enemy stack from the rear could provide first strike instead of being a creature-specific special ability. Another example is dividing melee creatures into several types such as infantry, cavalry, and skirmishers and making their defensive and offensive skills unique or making a rock/paper/scissors system. Shooters could be divided into classes such as light artillery, heavy artillery, armor piercing. All this would be much better than numerous individual special abilities. BTW, I am not denouncing all special abilities. Just the idea of every creature having one or more of them. Harpies for example could keep their hit and run attack.
____________
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted April 18, 2003 01:17 PM |
|
|
Redundant Resources?
You've not played the game. If it were not for the fact that you had a Marketplace with cheap exchange rate in H4, you would find that you would build the dwellings you had the resources for and nothing else. Trading say 25 Sulphur to get a Black Dragon dwelling if you had to pay say 2500 Gold per Sulphur is not really an option. But if you can trade 100 surplus wood for those 25 sulphur then you might do so just to get the dragons instead of hydra.
The gain to ditch the resources is just about zero. There's not more complex programming involved if you have three or six resources, so keep the variety. What should be ditched here is the global Marketplace.
The resources is to be seen as a tool for the Mapmaker to make more interesting maps, by giving or denying access to certain resources.
On the different structures. I profoundly disagree that they are insignificant and useless. Give the Map Makers a wide selection of structures to pick from.
For several of the objects you need more than one version or they would look bad if placed in different terrain.
Compared to many other things, I believe structures are cheap to make. Though, if you want to take away the animations from most of the structures I'd agree with you. They are overall useless IMO, and adds very little to the game.
Pretty is subjective. I mean it's entirely possible for a person to think an "open map" is pretty isn't it?
I'd say that taste varies here, and they should accomodate both those who likes open maps and those who like closed maps. Both those who places a lot of objects and those that don't.
The clutter or not is a wish for you to direct towards Mapmakers and not NWC. After all, it's the Mapmaker that places all the "clutter" on the Map. (And most Maps are fan-made.)
When it comes to insignificant and useless, then I like that. It's better to have many small structures with small bonuses rather than potentially unbalancing structures with huge bonuses. (Heroes 4 have both of these types.)
Most maps I've seen doesn't emply just one type of castle. Rather, they have a varied selection of castles. The number of castles on the Map is up to the Map Maker and not to the game designers.
If you want to dissuade the 1 super army approach, then you should have more sites to visit rather than less. The one super army can't be everywhere at once. But if you just have a few sites, then yes. If you want a multitude of sites to be important then you need a multitude of Adventure Map objects.
Myself I don't use the 1 super army approach at all. Expect in campaigns where you are (unfortunately) stuck with it, because after your first campaigns the hero is more powerful than your army for the first X weeks. But in single player I use quite different tactics, and I do not rely on one super army. Otherwise, H4 has a potential to steer players away from the 1 super army approach.
Heroes should improve the values of their creatures. Perhaps not as much as in previous installments, but you need to have an increase of stats and battle capability. On the other hand, I want the Hero to stop being a 1-person army. It's just plain stupid that a single Hero can defeat a Legion of Peasants, Pikmen etcetera. It's another issue HOW you improve creature abilities. For instance improving the army's Luck and Morale is a way to improve an army without improving their stats. (But the corresponding spells are way too powerful in comparison to what the tactician pays to have his measly bonuses.)
The most difficult is to balance the the Mage's spell and the Tactician's bonuses. If you just reduce the Tactician's skills then all will play Mages. And if you reduce the effects of spells too much, then players will wonder why you have Heroes at all. (In other words you have abandonded the spirit of the game, and you would perhaps be better of trying another game where heroes have a less central role.)
I don't think giving Heroes tactical skills will suffice at all. Because it is the PLAYER who must give the Hero the intelligence he supposedly has, and make the correct manouevers with the troops. You can't get that through skills.
It might work, but then I think you should not hide behind a simple "Give heroes tactical skills", but give a handful of suggestions on skills you want and how they work!
On creatures not moving alone. I agree on that one.
I don't like most XP ideas on creatures, because all the suggestions I've seen have been seriously flawed and increases micromanagement (because stacks of many creatures and XP doesn't go along). But look at my "Leaders" thread for a better way of improving creatures. (IMO)
Creatures need to have abilities and most of them should be unique for a creature. Otherwise, you dumb down gameplay and reduce playability.
But the Heroes advanced classes can be removed in the form they have in H4.
You should make many choices that matter. If you just make a few choices that matter then the game is probably highly unbalanced.
|
|
insaneroach
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 21, 2003 07:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Redundant Resources?
You've not played the game. If it were not for the fact that you had a Marketplace with cheap exchange rate in H4, you would find that you would build the dwellings you had the resources for and nothing else. Trading say 25 Sulphur to get a Black Dragon dwelling if you had to pay say 2500 Gold per Sulphur is not really an option. But if you can trade 100 surplus wood for those 25 sulphur then you might do so just to get the dragons instead of hydra.
Yes, the marketplace badly messed up resourse management in H4. However, 7 resourses are too many to implement well and deeply into the game. Its too much for both designers and mapmakers to implement well. About 4 would be much more effective. H1 had no marketplace and I have played it a hell of a lot. It had the same resourses as H4. Yet, you rarelly targeted a particular mine of the four tetriary resourses. You just did the best you could with what you had and hoped to come across a particular resourse. BTW, a good alternative to mines should be large quantities of resourses, not just small piles scattered around. There is no reason to delay the player's reward with mines and in the long term mines flood the players with resourses. Instead, provide mostly accumulations of resourses instead of mines, and make them hard to get.
Quote:
The gain to ditch the resources is just about zero. There's not more complex programming involved if you have three or six resources, so keep the variety. What should be ditched here is the global Marketplace.
The gain depends. If the designers aim for little change, then yes, the resourses should be the same. But if not, the game's whole design could become more sensible and coherent, and easier. Same for mapmaking.
Quote:
The resources is to be seen as a tool for the Mapmaker to make more interesting maps, by giving or denying access to certain resources.
Depends on the game design. In any case, the vast majority of mapmakers make poor maps and they more than even the designers are to blame for poor gameplay(especially true for H3).
Quote:
On the different structures. I profoundly disagree that they are insignificant and useless. Give the Map Makers a wide selection of structures to pick from.
For several of the objects you need more than one version or they would look bad if placed in different terrain.
Compared to many other things, I believe structures are cheap to make. Though, if you want to take away the animations from most of the structures I'd agree with you. They are overall useless IMO, and adds very little to the game.
Mapmakers are better off with a low selection because that way they will at least think of what to put on the map. Why provide a large selection if the maps don't get any better? Expensive complications like different terrain versions and animations are simply a waste of developmental resourses.
Quote:
Pretty is subjective. I mean it's entirely possible for a person to think an "open map" is pretty isn't it?
You are correct. But people in general find more objects and more visual variety prettier. The more stuffed the map with all kinds of objects, the prettier it seems to them.
Quote:
I'd say that taste varies here, and they should accomodate both those who likes open maps and those who like closed maps. Both those who places a lot of objects and those that don't.
I agree. They provide different kinds of enjoyment. However, from my extensive experience, the linear type is much inferior. It consists of going aimlessly(usually through a narrow path), killing monsters, gathering resourses, experience, artifacts, strengthening hero, army, and castle, until it is time for a final confrontation. The HoMM4 campaigns tended to be this way. It is a poor gameplay mode forced on players by a lot of maps.
Quote:
The clutter or not is a wish for you to direct towards Mapmakers and not NWC. After all, it's the Mapmaker that places all the "clutter" on the Map. (And most Maps are fan-made.)
Not NWC? You mean NWC don't make maps? The game comes with its own maps. They are the primary ones and should be good.
Quote:
When it comes to insignificant and useless, then I like that. It's better to have many small structures with small bonuses rather than potentially unbalancing structures with huge bonuses. (Heroes 4 have both of these types.)
Either small and useless or unbalancing with huge bonuses? You don't think there could be anything in between? Most structures should be desireable enough to justify going for them specifically.
Quote:
If you want to dissuade the 1 super army approach, then you should have more sites to visit rather than less. The one super army can't be everywhere at once. But if you just have a few sites, then yes. If you want a multitude of sites to be important then you need a multitude of Adventure Map objects.
You are partially correct. It could be simply said that 1 strong army should not be enough to dominate the map. That could be accomplished through strong defenses, through limited movement, or as you imply, lots of important sites. The key factor is the density of strategic sites on the map. The higher it is, the more effective a strong army is, as it has limited movement.
Quote:
Myself I don't use the 1 super army approach at all. Expect in campaigns where you are (unfortunately) stuck with it, because after your first campaigns the hero is more powerful than your army for the first X weeks. But in single player I use quite different tactics, and I do not rely on one super army. Otherwise, H4 has a potential to steer players away from the 1 super army approach.
In some cases a superarmy is not required, but it usually is. More importantly, it is the best strategy for almost all current maps.
Quote:
Heroes should improve the values of their creatures. Perhaps not as much as in previous installments, but you need to have an increase of stats and battle capability.
Maybe to a very limited extent.
Quote:
On the other hand, I want the Hero to stop being a 1-person army. It's just plain stupid that a single Hero can defeat a Legion of Peasants, Pikmen etcetera. It's another issue HOW you improve creature abilities. For instance improving the army's Luck and Morale is a way to improve an army without improving their stats. (But the corresponding spells are way too powerful in comparison to what the tactician pays to have his measly bonuses.)
Yes, luck and morale are fine. I also hate the new superheroes. I just lost an 8 hour game to a barbarian superhero.
Quote:
The most difficult is to balance the the Mage's spell and the Tactician's bonuses. If you just reduce the Tactician's skills then all will play Mages. And if you reduce the effects of spells too much, then players will wonder why you have Heroes at all. (In other words you have abandonded the spirit of the game, and you would perhaps be better of trying another game where heroes have a less central role.)
The spirit of the game? What's that?? If you mean the title, it is a pretty stupid to design gameplay based on it. In any case, I dont advocate making heroes insignificant. If tacticians are falling behind mages, reduce the effectiveness of the strongest spells or increase the usefullness of tacticians. Perfect balancing is not required.
Quote:
I don't think giving Heroes tactical skills will suffice at all. Because it is the PLAYER who must give the Hero the intelligence he supposedly has, and make the correct manouevers with the troops. You can't get that through skills.
Just give the heroes skills, abilities, or even peculiarities, which affect gameplay. Limited boosts would also be acceptable, like slightly raising stack speed and movement, or allowing for a stubborn defense of a stack at the expense of its attack.
Quote:
It might work, but then I think you should not hide behind a simple "Give heroes tactical skills", but give a handful of suggestions on skills you want and how they work!
The skills should affect gameplay, not just its outcome. For example, in H3, there was a skill called tactics I think, with which a player could rearrange his troops in the beginning of a battle. Another one could allow more than one stack in the same space. Or, the ability to flank your opponents upon attack. Or being able to attack stacks from the side and rear with increased effect(maybe first strike) A restriction could be being unable to move right along an enemy stack. Some creativity is required here.
Quote:
I don't like most XP ideas on creatures, because all the suggestions I've seen have been seriously flawed and increases micromanagement (because stacks of many creatures and XP doesn't go along). But look at my "Leaders" thread for a better way of improving creatures. (IMO)
Creature XP is not important.
Quote:
Creatures need to have abilities and most of them should be unique for a creature. Otherwise, you dumb down gameplay and reduce playability.
I don't agree at all. Read what I have written in my previous posts about this. I'd love to see your argument for this convention.
____________
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted April 21, 2003 09:12 PM |
|
|
I'd say the amount of resources are just right. It's subjective, but you are restricted if you just have two precious resources. You will not be able to make a Map with good resource strategy even if you want to. Not that resources are the main focus of the game, but I don't see the need to remove what is already there.
Perhaps, there should be some more difference between the resources to begin with. Doing as goood as you can with what you get sounds like you get severe imbalance on Maps lacking the resources you need.
In H4 some creature banks serves as huge resource supplies. However, if they keep the Fog of War, you need flaggable objects like the mines. And you will need about the same amount of mines. I can't say I like say 30 Mines of four types better than 30 Mines of six different types. The latter gives more variety in the scenery.
Quote:
The gain depends. If the designers aim for little change, then yes, the resourses should be the same. But if not, the game's whole design could become more sensible and coherent, and easier. Same for mapmaking.
No. I don't think so. I want more flexibility and tools if I was going to make a map. Not less. The game doesn't become more coherent and sensible if you ditch a couple of resources. On the other hand it doesn't become less either. It becomes less flexible for the Mapmaker, but not necessarily so for the player.
Quote:
Mapmakers are better off with a low selection because that way they will at least think of what to put on the map. Why provide a large selection if the maps don't get any better? Expensive complications like different terrain versions and animations are simply a waste of developmental resourses.
Quality doesn't always come with simplicity. Sometimes it's the other way around. I don't say you are right or wrong, but you need to add some replay value into the game, and you don't further this aim by reducing the number of objects available. Of course, some of the best games are also the simplest.
Quote:
I agree. They provide different kinds of enjoyment. However, from my extensive experience, the linear type is much inferior. It consists of going aimlessly(usually through a narrow path), killing monsters, gathering resourses, experience, artifacts, strengthening hero, army, and castle, until it is time for a final confrontation. The HoMM4 campaigns tended to be this way. It is a poor gameplay mode forced on players by a lot of maps.
You need different mechanics for Single Player and Multi Player. For Campaigns and Single Player games, there can be a lot of enjoyment to strengthening a hero or two the way you describe. For some players this is waht they want to get out of the game.
In Multi Player & Hot Seat, I'd expect an entirely different sort of Maps.
Quote:
Not NWC? You mean NWC don't make maps? The game comes with its own maps. They are the primary ones and should be good.
Hmmm.... but isn't 90% or more of all maps fan-made?
I haven't played all that many of the SP Maps, but they were fairly few to begin with.
Quote:
Either small and useless or unbalancing with huge bonuses? You don't think there could be anything in between? Most structures should be desireable enough to justify going for them specifically.
Hmmm... Well, aren't they already? A bit better description on some Map Objects would be nice. Some of the movement modifier objects in H4, I still don't know how they work.
Which Map Objects do you never visit?
Quote:
The spirit of the game? What's that?? If you mean the title, it is a pretty stupid to design gameplay based on it. In any case, I dont advocate making heroes insignificant. If tacticians are falling behind mages, reduce the effectiveness of the strongest spells or increase the usefullness of tacticians. Perfect balancing is not required.
Heroes plays a very important game in what is the essence of the game. I don't think it's a good idea to allow imbalances between the main Hero types. All Hero types must be very well balanced. Not necessarily for every situation on every Map, but a basic balance between the classes need to exist so you don't always win because you pick a Mage when I pick a Tactician.
Quote:
Just give the heroes skills, abilities, or even peculiarities, which affect gameplay. Limited boosts would also be acceptable, like slightly raising stack speed and movement, or allowing for a stubborn defense of a stack at the expense of its attack.
You already have the Defend buttom on the combat menu. I don't think it's a good idea to make a skill to be able to press it.
Tactics skill is one way to have a might skill give an advantage ad I can think of a few others also. However, these skills falls short when compared to what many Magic skills can do and with greater flexibility. Spells adds direct bonuses to creature stats and to be competitive Might must also give bonuses of the same rate.
Usually you can't compensate for say 30% reduced damage by rearranging your troops before battle. The layout of the battlefield in H3 made that somewhat possible, but in H4 it is near impossible to shield any unit from damage.
Overall, the idea of having might heroes boost creatures when they do specific actions is interesting, but it doesn't necessarily lead to better game-play or more strategy in combat. It will lead to seemingly strange things happening in combat, and will incur a lot of additional play-testing.
Quote:
I don't agree at all. Read what I have written in my previous posts about this. I'd love to see your argument for this convention.
If you make creatures too alike, players will just get bored with the game and play something else instead. A lot of the spirit of the game comes from the creature being different perspective.
Besides, I don't see what abilities you want to take away from the creatures. Most of the abilites are quite natural for the creatures to begin with, so I don't see the benefit or need to remove them.
If the creatures and heroes are all the same (to a large degree) then what difference is it in what town I choose to play? Haven't I seen this exact beore? Hmm... Those heroes are they not almost identical to some other heroes I've seen?
It seems you want to remove most of the flexibility of the game, and suggesting very little to replace it.
|
|
Magus
Hired Hero
Warper of Time-Space
|
|
posted April 21, 2003 10:18 PM |
|
|
Insaneroach, I disagree with most of your ideas but I agree that there are a few too many adventure map structures that are reduntant. So a solution to this is allow as a new adventure map object the hamlet.
Hamlets are small little villages with their effects completly defined the mapmaker. You could have a Hamlet on a Ley-Line Nexus that will act like a Mana vortex, or one that is inhabited by legions of the undead guarding a powerful artifact, or one on the edge of a forest inhabited by simple woodcutters which would at as a sawmill. They could also be designed combining several functions, like a elf creature generator plus a mini-gold mine (like 250). These could be used to inhance strategy by having maps with several hamlet mini-towns, it would also add the potential for RPG like things, and would reduce some of the redundancy of the map.
Tell me what you think of this
____________
So was the land riven by Chaos and Destruction, and so it was cleansed from existence. I did this, the Magus of Ly'kail, Magus of the Sylvan Kingdoms.
|
|
insaneroach
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 12:10 AM |
|
|
Most who disagree seem to have a firm belief that unless there is a problem, things should be as they are. Or, dont change it if it isnt broken. I wonder why people favor past practices and disapprove of alternatives.
Quote:
I'd say the amount of resources are just right. It's subjective, but you are restricted if you just have two precious resources. You will not be able to make a Map with good resource strategy even if you want to. Not that resources are the main focus of the game, but I don't see the need to remove what is already there.
Perhaps, there should be some more difference between the resources to begin with. Doing as goood as you can with what you get sounds like you get severe imbalance on Maps lacking the resources you need.
Why is the amount of resourses just right?
There is no need for change, just an opportunity for evolution.
And, yes, the resourses should be more distincs. Meaning, allowing for different structures and monsters, instead of complementing each other. For example, instead of most buildings requiring a little of several resourses, they should require a lot of 1 or 2 resourses.
Quote:
In H4 some creature banks serves as huge resource supplies. However, if they keep the Fog of War, you need flaggable objects like the mines. And you will need about the same amount of mines. I can't say I like say 30 Mines of four types better than 30 Mines of six different types. The latter gives more variety in the scenery.
There you go sticking to convention again. Creature banks are just one of the 400 structures. Most often you dont even know what you will find in them. Fog of War could improve the game if it can be overcome with captureable guarded posts and towers. Mines are not necessary for this.
Also, if you want to give mapmakers more tools, structures could be flexible. All mines dont have to be the same and provide 1 resourse point daily.
Quote:
No. I don't think so. I want more flexibility and tools if I was going to make a map. Not less. The game doesn't become more coherent and sensible if you ditch a couple of resources. On the other hand it doesn't become less either. It becomes less flexible for the Mapmaker, but not necessarily so for the player.
I wouldnt mind even 10 resourses if they improved gameplay. However, the more resourses there are, the poorer they are implemented into the game and the maps. 7 are a few too many for the designers and mapmakers to handle. The resourse management could become more coherent and sensible with say 4 resourses because they would be easier to implement in the game and in maps.
Quote:
Quality doesn't always come with simplicity. Sometimes it's the other way around. I don't say you are right or wrong, but you need to add some replay value into the game, and you don't further this aim by reducing the number of objects available. Of course, some of the best games are also the simplest.
I dont think replay value is dependent on the variety of structures. It is dependent on their effects on the game. For example, H1 had less than 50 adventure map structures. Yet, I estimate I have played it about 600 hours, more than any other game except Starcraft. Few of those structures were of little use and many were key to the game.
Quote:
You need different mechanics for Single Player and Multi Player. For Campaigns and Single Player games, there can be a lot of enjoyment to strengthening a hero or two the way you describe. For some players this is waht they want to get out of the game.
You are unfortunately right. But then again, they will play whatever 3DO gives them. So why not encourage a better gameplay mode?
Quote:
Hmmm... Well, aren't they already? A bit better description on some Map Objects would be nice. Some of the movement modifier objects in H4, I still don't know how they work.
I meant specifically for them. Going out of your way to visit them. Using an extra turn or two. Not merelly moving a few steps to get a minor boost.
I prefer fewer and more important structures over more and less important. That prevents clutter and forces more choices.
Quote:
You already have the Defend buttom on the combat menu. I don't think it's a good idea to make a skill to be able to press it.
The defend button makes little difference. I suggested a more distinct tactical option. Stubborn defense seems like a good tactical skill to have.
Quote:
Tactics skill is one way to have a might skill give an advantage ad I can think of a few others also. However, these skills falls short when compared to what many Magic skills can do and with greater flexibility. Spells adds direct bonuses to creature stats and to be competitive Might must also give bonuses of the same rate.
Usually you can't compensate for say 30% reduced damage by rearranging your troops before battle. The layout of the battlefield in H3 made that somewhat possible, but in H4 it is near impossible to shield any unit from damage.
Why must spells be more effective than tactics? Is there some hidden perfection and balance to them? I dont think so. What is so sacred about the most powerful spells? Spells are just arbitrary ideas, thats all. They should be subjected primarily to balance.
Quote:
, the idea of having might heroes boost creatures when they do specific actions is interesting, but it doesn't necessarily lead to better game-play or more strategy in combat. It will lead to seemingly strange things happening in combat, and will incur a lot of additional play-testing.
There is no strategy in combat. There are only tactics. And they are directly dependent on combat options. The wait option, the depend option, the attack mode option, all increased and in my opinion improved the game's tactical value.
Quote:
If you make creatures too alike, players will just get bored with the game and play something else instead. A lot of the spirit of the game comes from the creature being different perspective.
I dont think so. H1 and H2 both had few unique creature skills. In spite of that, they made the series famous and successful. So, no, the game is not dependent on unique creature skills.
Quote:
Besides, I don't see what abilities you want to take away from the creatures. Most of the abilites are quite natural for the creatures to begin with, so I don't see the benefit or need to remove them.
I dont understand natural in HoMM. I agreed that the harpies can keep their attack. But most creatures have received forced, unnecessary abilities, which just complicate the gameplay, like the various magic school characteristics and melee peculiarities. A creature's ability should be integral to its performance, as shooting is to shooters.
Quote:
If the creatures and heroes are all the same (to a large degree) then what difference is it in what town I choose to play? Haven't I seen this exact beore? Hmm... Those heroes are they not almost identical to some other heroes I've seen?
Your argument seems to be that creatures would be too similiar or almost the same if they didnt have unique special abilities. Here is a paragraph from a previous post of mine. You dont seem to have read it.
"Special abilities are a needless complication which does not increase depth but complexity. To be used a player has to either memorize them or check them constantly. Sometimes they do provide a little more tactical depth, but that could be done better by general combat rules and the different types of monsters. Instead of complicating creatures, the designers should modify the combat system and the types of creatures to increase tactical depth. For example, hitting an enemy stack from the rear could provide first strike instead of being a creature-specific special ability. Another example is dividing melee creatures into several types such as infantry, cavalry, and skirmishers and making their defensive and offensive skills unique or making a rock/paper/scissors system. Shooters could be divided into classes such as light artillery, heavy artillery, armor piercing. All this would be much better than numerous individual special abilities. BTW, I am not denouncing all special abilities. Just the idea of every creature having one or more of them. Harpies for example could keep their hit and run attack. "
Quote:
It seems you want to remove most of the flexibility of the game, and suggesting very little to replace it.
Quite the opposite. I am suggesting methods to increase it significantly.
Magus, why do you disagree with most of ideas?
Your hamlet idea could shorten and simplify the game development, but all hamlets looking the same could be confusing for the player.
____________
|
|
Magus
Hired Hero
Warper of Time-Space
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 02:09 AM |
|
|
The hamlets would have to have several different, unanimated versions. Maybe some for the major races in the game, like a tree town for elves(kelethin for those who play eq), a burrow/underground town for dwarves, a human settlement,or a ruined town for undead.
____________
So was the land riven by Chaos and Destruction, and so it was cleansed from existence. I did this, the Magus of Ly'kail, Magus of the Sylvan Kingdoms.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 07:46 PM |
|
Edited By: Djive on 25 Apr 2003
|
Why is the amount of resourses just right?
There is no need for change, just an opportunity for evolution.
And, yes, the resourses should be more distincs. Meaning, allowing for different structures and monsters, instead of complementing each other. For example, instead of most buildings requiring a little of several resourses, they should require a lot of 1 or 2 resourses.
=> To have a strategy in resources you need several. The strategy simply doesn't exist if you have too few. What is missing is a unique use for each of the precious resources. Something which only that precious resource can be used for.
There you go sticking to convention again. Creature banks are just one of the 400 structures. Most often you dont even know what you will find in them.
=> You know most things. Though, if they give artifacts or spells then you don't know which artifacts and spell. But resources you always acquire the same sort of.
=> And there are nearly fifteen different creature banks so it's 15 out of 400 structures.
Fog of War could improve the game if it can be overcome with captureable guarded posts and towers. Mines are not necessary for this.
=> Perhaps, but currently these buildings are way too big and bulky to serve this purpose.
Also, if you want to give mapmakers more tools, structures could be flexible. All mines dont have to be the same and provide 1 resourse point daily.
=> They don't provide the same benefit. There are several different sorts of mines of each type (one which provides 1 resource daily, and one which provides 5 resources or 500 Gold weekly, and each Mine also appear with different terrain background, and in different stages. (Undeveloped, inhabited by monsters, developed.)
I dont think replay value is dependent on the variety of structures. It is dependent on their effects on the game. For example, H1 had less than 50 adventure map structures. Yet, I estimate I have played it about 600 hours, more than any other game except Starcraft. Few of those structures were of little use and many were key to the game.
=> I believe you're complaining on the wrong structures then. Weren't a much large part of the H1 structures Mines, than is the case in H3/H4?
You are unfortunately right. But then again, they will play whatever 3DO gives them. So why not encourage a better gameplay mode?
=> Unfortuantely, I don't think you can accomplish this by offering less graphics to the Map makers.
I meant specifically for them. Going out of your way to visit them. Using an extra turn or two. Not merelly moving a few steps to get a minor boost.
I prefer fewer and more important structures over more and less important. That prevents clutter and forces more choices.
=> When it comes to movemet modifiers and morale modifiers I'd agree with you. Fewer and more powerful structures are needed. And come to think of it, I wouldn't mind removing some of the Magic Well structures also. One configurable structure would work a lot better than what is offered at the moment.
Why must spells be more effective than tactics? Is there some hidden perfection and balance to them? I dont think so. What is so sacred about the most powerful spells? Spells are just arbitrary ideas, thats all. They should be subjected primarily to balance.
=> You are right about spells not having to be so powerful, but the price of toning them down is greatly reduced effect of heroes on the game. I wouldn't mind seeing some tuning down of hero power. But as noted. The problem is not the spells themselves. It's coming up with marital abilities that have the same value as the spells (whatever the spell's value is).
I dont think so. H1 and H2 both had few unique creature skills. In spite of that, they made the series famous and successful. So, no, the game is not dependent on unique creature skills.
=> While you probably haven't considered this so much... But didn't almost every creature in H2 have one or more special abilities? My guess would be perhaps 1:2 or 2:3 a little depending on what you would call special ability.
=> Chaos Ward, they can take away again. Though protection against Undead (or Death Ward) might be kept if they give it to te correct creatures.
|
|
insaneroach
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 27, 2003 12:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
=> To have a strategy in resources you need several. The strategy simply doesn't exist if you have too few. What is missing is a unique use for each of the precious resources. Something which only that precious resource can be used for.
Yes, that is basically what I wrote.
The player should choose what resourses to go for.
Quote:
=> You know most things. Though, if they give artifacts or spells then you don't know which artifacts and spell. But resources you always acquire the same sort of.
=> And there are nearly fifteen different creature banks so it's 15 out of 400 structures.
I still dont have them memorized.
Quote:
=> Perhaps, but currently these buildings are way too big and bulky to serve this purpose.
H5 is at question.
Quote:
=> They don't provide the same benefit. There are several different sorts of mines of each type (one which provides 1 resource daily, and one which provides 5 resources or 500 Gold weekly, and each Mine also appear with different terrain background, and in different stages. (Undeveloped, inhabited by monsters, developed.)
Redundancy is unnecessary.
Quote:
=> I believe you're complaining on the wrong structures then. Weren't a much large part of the H1 structures Mines, than is the case in H3/H4?
I am not complaining about mines. I would just rather have them partially replaced by large caches of resourses.
Quote:
=> Unfortuantely, I don't think you can accomplish this by offering less graphics to the Map makers.
Actually, you just might. But what is important is for a map to be strategically made. The rest is trivial.
Quote:
=> When it comes to movemet modifiers and morale modifiers I'd agree with you. Fewer and more powerful structures are needed. And come to think of it, I wouldn't mind removing some of the Magic Well structures also. One configurable structure would work a lot better than what is offered at the moment.
yEP
Quote:
=> You are right about spells not having to be so powerful, but the price of toning them down is greatly reduced effect of heroes on the game. I wouldn't mind seeing some tuning down of hero power. But as noted. The problem is not the spells themselves. It's coming up with marital abilities that have the same value as the spells (whatever the spell's value is).
Thats not as difficult as you make it seem. A little common sense and testing is all that is required.
I want both spells and tactics to be moderately powerful. Not powerful enough to be able to defeat 2x stronger forces, but enough to defeat a 50% stronger army without spells and with limited tactics for example.
Quote:
=> While you probably haven't considered this so much... But didn't almost every creature in H2 have one or more special abilities? My guess would be perhaps 1:2 or 2:3 a little depending on what you would call special ability.
I dont think so. Special abilities are just that-special. I am talking about unique special abilities.
____________
|
|
Magus
Hired Hero
Warper of Time-Space
|
|
posted April 27, 2003 03:04 AM |
|
|
I actually wasted the time looking through H1 and H2 to see how many creatures have specials
For H1(Includes ranged units)
18 out of 28
14 out of 28 if not counting ranged alone
H2
38 out of 66(not counting ranged or undead, upgrades counted in total and in specials)
H3(no AB creatures, elementals included)
86 out of 116
Don't hold me to the H3 numbers, doing it from year old memory and the reference card
____________
So was the land riven by Chaos and Destruction, and so it was cleansed from existence. I did this, the Magus of Ly'kail, Magus of the Sylvan Kingdoms.
|
|
insaneroach
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 27, 2003 08:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I actually wasted the time looking through H1 and H2 to see how many creatures have specials
For H1(Includes ranged units)
18 out of 28
14 out of 28 if not counting ranged alone
H2
38 out of 66(not counting ranged or undead, upgrades counted in total and in specials)
H3(no AB creatures, elementals included)
86 out of 116
Don't hold me to the H3 numbers, doing it from year old memory and the reference card
Your estimate is wrong.
____________
|
|
Magus
Hired Hero
Warper of Time-Space
|
|
posted April 27, 2003 04:09 PM |
|
Edited By: Magus on 27 Apr 2003
|
I got those from the heroes reference cards, and how many abilities in H4 are completely unique?
And if your talking about the H3 ones, i could be wrong
And in H1, they only special abilities that appear more than once are no retaliation(sprites,rogues,hydras), attack 2 spaces(dragons,cyclops,phoenix), 2 attacks(wolf, paladin)
Here is the actual list of creatures if you don't believe me
Peasant(no special)
Archer(ranged)
Pikeman(no special)
Swordsman(no special)
Cavalry(no special)
Paladin(2 attacks)
Sprite(no retaliation)
Dwarf(20% magic resist)
Elf(2 shots, ranged)
Druid(ranged)
Unicorn(20% blind)
Phoenix(Attack 2 spaces)
Goblin(no special)
Orc(ranged)
Wolf(two attacks)
Ogre(no special)
Troll(ranged, regeneration)
Cyclops(Attack 2 spaces, 20% paralyze)
Centaur(ranged)
Gargoyle(No special)
Griffin(unlimited retaliation)
Minotaur(no special)
Hydra(no retaliation, attack all adj. spaces)
Dragon(Magic immunity, attack 2 spaces)
Rogue(No retaliation)
Nomad(No special)
Ghost(Kills=more ghosts)
Genie(10% halve enemy unit)
I would do it for heroes 2 and 3, but that would be a major pain and take up way to much space
____________
So was the land riven by Chaos and Destruction, and so it was cleansed from existence. I did this, the Magus of Ly'kail, Magus of the Sylvan Kingdoms.
|
| |
|
|
