|
| Thread: Heroes V: A New Beginning |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
posted April 29, 2003 02:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I believe it is done quite well, as you say, it is your opinion, and it may look a bit cluttered to you. Although, in my opinion, I think that some great detail was placed into the town to make it unique and realistically concurrent with what maybe Necromancers would have actually built.
i also like that you don't see something extremely stupid in this screensot.
the contradiction that i see is that while e.g. the new phoenix looks weird in a nice way (although it's not a classical medieval style phoenix, it does seem to have the touch of medieval atmosphere in it's distortion from photorealism), the necro castle looks more like standard computer game castle drawn by moden people.
http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/zgothic/miniatur/1351-400/french/04f_1350.jpg might be a bit extreme example, but it looks so nicely retarded with it's distorted perspective. something not completely like this, but something in that direction might suit the retarded phoenix much better imho.
lol, now i'm probably one of the few people who have said that the phoenix looks retarded, but imho it looks retarded in a suitable way so that it might contribute to the mythological atmosphere.
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
|
TheSentinel
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 30, 2003 03:13 PM |
|
|
Combat screen animation
Just a few thoughts about combat screen. Altough it runs a little slow when I have many stacks of highly animated creatures (e.g. sprites), if they improve it then there is place for more  . More animation should be activated when you are idle, i.e. thinking on the battle approach. It would be like the army is getting bored and they start chatting around, or behaves funny. Or, if the morale is low, and two creatures from opposite alignments are located nearby they can start a small quarrel or fight (of course, damage not counted).
____________
|
|
Magus
Hired Hero
Warper of Time-Space
|
|
posted April 30, 2003 09:52 PM |
|
|
Why shouldn't damage be counted? maybe it would have to be things that really hate each other, like angels and devils
____________
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.
|
|
TheSentinel
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 30, 2003 10:37 PM |
|
|
Combat screen animation
Quote:
Why shouldn't damage be counted? maybe it would have to be things that really hate each other, like angels and devils
Well, it should be just for fun, and I would be upset if my precious soldiers would die because of this. They should still be under the hero's command, shouldn't they ?
____________
|
|
WaY2HeLL
Adventuring Hero
Grandmaster Wizard of HOMM3.5
|
|
posted April 30, 2003 11:00 PM |
|
|
all towns should have mage guild.
6 type of units but every unit have 2 upgrades (that will be good)
____________
------------------------
I just wanna taste ADRENALINE rush through my body
-------------------------
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
|
posted May 02, 2003 10:25 AM |
|
|
More Battle Orientated Elaborating
An interesting aspect of Heroes IV that was improved upon immensly, and did not receive too much praise, in my opinion, were the changes implemented to the way in which the creatures and heroes went about battles. Obviously this was dwarfed by the inclusion of Heroes in combat, but several changes were made to the battle engine to make it more enjoyable and strategic.
One of these, which I have actually failed to mention (because it is small) in my initial post is the disability to fire ranged attacks if a unit is directly next to you. I'm sure many have noticed, but if another creature attacks the unit next to you, disabling you to fire your arrow, it can in fact turn the unit around and you regain the ability. However, it has to be at the right angle, or else they don't turn around. This never happened in Heroes III, because the battlefield was only 2D, and didn't allow for much vision in strategy. This was a benefit of the Heroes IV battlefield 'isometric' layout.
Another is the Line of Sight, which I have talked about in my intial post. Therefore, I will try to expand my views on this issue. Line of sight was effective in Heroes IV, but it could have been better. A way in which to accomplish this task is to have an option if you'd like to turn LoS on or off. By this I mean, an option where you can actually see it projected on the battle field, like a movement shadow, except it is a line. Simple move the cursor across, and the line will move, straight, from the ranged attacker. As an extra prohibition for the sight of a ranged unit,I believe a tree or a large rock should render the unit unable to see the enemy directly behind it, and therefore not fire the arrow.
Any thoughts on those ideas? And I see you have already concocted some ideas of your own.
Mklthrkngl:
"I personaly would love to see more depth in the towns."
I would agree on this point. The towns use can be expended too easily, and an army could just go and capture another town. There need to be other major features that make a town really worth possessing. More depth is a solution, since it increases the importance by offering more structures, dwellings, etc.
"I agree that all creatures should be available, but why not have those creatures follow a variable development path?"
I have uttered this message many times, I believe that not all creatures should be able to be chosen. For one, it detracts from the strategy, since you are given a set path to which you must abide, and that is too structured for me. The Heroes IV method allows for more freedom and choice, as you must make the decision to which creature you would prefer. However, I would say that it is a bit shallow, only 5 creatures are chosen, whereas we may need 6 or 7, more likely 6.
"You build your first level peasent, as you gain the resources and needed improvements in the town you can then upgrade them to, and then at this point you make a choice, to maybe an infantry unit or an archery unit?"
I do infact like that idea very much, it was initially put forward to the community by the one God_Boy in this thread: New Upgrade System.. While I do indeed believe that this is a commendable idea, I don't see NWC changing the formula so drastically compared to what they used to utilise. My upgrade system, I have mentioned this before, but I will say it again: Quoting myself here:
“One decides on a creature for that level (like Heroes IV), and that creature may or may not have an upgrade. It would change for every level, for example, there must be one creature every level with an upgrade. This points to structure and freedom at the same time.” I believe that NWC could use this, since it is a mixture of two previous games.
"such as armourers who upgarde troops armour or trainig facilities that upgrade troops fighting skills."
One flaw I see with this is that all creatures aren't knights, and they don't wear armour. However, I am favourable towards this idea, and a possible solution to overcome this is that each town have their own defense enhancing armoury, or whatever it can be called, so that it suits the towns creatures. For example, the Chaos town has
metal plates attached. Another problem is that it may not be unique, and it would be too universal for every creature in the town wearing armour.
"The mage guild should not be a random affair, Players should have the choice to research whatever spells they want as long as they gather the needed resources and build the right town structures."
Quite intriguing, actually. I would also like to see this occur, however, I believe the other structures should be quite pricey, since this is quite important, maybe 4,000 gold to choose one level of spells. The buildings correspond with the number of mage guilds you have.
"Maybe your mage could even take part, they would have to gain the right skills at the needed levels and then they would have to go to the actual guild in the town to research the spell!"
Do you mean the magic hero? Since creatures cannot gain levels and skills. It could be possible, however, I am not really sure on this matter. Maybe too much importance would rest with the hero and not the town? I am actually undecided on this topic. It may work, it may not.
"I think homm4 was actually step backwards in some areas and a step forward in others."
I would agree with you on this point, although, I believe Heroes IV was more of a step forward than a step back. Aspects that were beneficiaries were the inclusion of heroes, even if they were poorly implemented, LoS, creature system, battlefield, and others. If they could carry on these characteristics to Heroes V, add some old features, and include some totally ones, provided they fit well together, they game should be excellent.
"Right now on too many maps you quickly build a super barby and run over and wack the other guy."
On ToH maps, yes, but on single player maps, not a chance. Instead, it is more like the 'Super Blackie' who comes along and rules the battlefield. Usually, the maps aren't rich enough to provide the creatures to go alongside the heroes in combat. Generally, the hero is forced to go into battle for resources without sufficient forces, and gets broadsided. By the way, this is only for single player. The immortality potions must be removed, it just creates an illusion that the hero is stronger than it really is.
Gerdash:
"necro castle looks more like standard computer game castle drawn by moden people."
To me, the castle does kind of look modern, especially with the large spire on the left hand side. But, I believe it suits the Necropolis theme very well, and it may be drawn by people, but then in reality, wouldn't it also have been built by people? It does have an unnatural feel to it in some places, and it some places it looks like a real castle, that kind of misapprehension of a classic death castle and a realistically built castle. It actually looks great in my opinion. It appears, you are quite the art expert, though.
"but something in that direction might suit the retarded phoenix much better imho. now i'm probably one of the few people who have said that the phoenix looks retarded, but imho it looks retarded in a suitable way so that it might contribute to the mythological atmosphere."
Well, the Phoenix looks marvellous, in my opinion.The majestic wings and the protruding chest. Great to look at. But, if you would like to apply that out of proportion drawing to one of the two, I think it will indeed suit the Phoenix better than the Necropolis castle, but I believe they are better as they are right now.
TheSentinel:
"Altough it runs a little slow when I have many stacks of highly animated creatures (e.g. sprites), if they improve it then there is place for more."
Yes, but to give a round maximum figure, I would say that around 16 creatures on the battlefield at any given time should be enough. We had 14 in Heroes IV, and 14 + 2 heroes in Heroes III. I believe sixteen should be the maximum, or else the battlefield will get too crowded, and it would, in my opinion, demote the effects of some strategies.
"More animation should be activated when you are idle, i.e. thinking on the battle approach."
I agree, on this issue. It would indeed be pleasurable to have the creatures (and heroes) performing more animations, instead of the odd one here and there. NWC have done an admirable job of at least having some pretty cool actions for idle creatures. (Hydra heads attacking each other, Ice Demon's ice spout, and the Fire Elemental's exhale)
"Or, if the morale is low, and two creatures from opposite alignments are located nearby they can start a small quarrel or fight (of course, damage not counted)."
Well this is quite a topical subject. In my opinion, the damage should be counted. But, it should be a very low amount. My theory for working this damage out is as follows:
-1 morale: Maximum of 1 damage
-2 morale: Maximum of 2 damage
-3 morale: Maximum of 3 damage, and so on.
An exception here is, that if the morale is -10, and a sprite attacks a Black Dragon, then it would only do 1, since 10 is the maximum. Similar to attacking a castle gate. Another thing, for creatures that are enemies to each other, like BD and Titan, the damage would be doubled.
To determine when the stacks attack each other, I believe it should be when that stack gets bad morale, and there is a creature nearby, so it doesn't have to move. It would look asine if a creature moved to the other side of the battlefield to attack another.
Also, I believe that the creatures should attack each other, not just one attacking another. Does this seem like a good compromise to you, TheSentinel?
To expand this, a possibility is to have creatures with good morale gain HP, again with the same system, but only the one creature which has received the good morale obtains the HP. (This may seem too much of a bonus for good and bad morale. By this I mean, they are already a defining element in an army's battle.)
WaY2HeLL:
"all towns should have mage guild.
6 type of units but every unit have 2 upgrades (that will be good)"
Yes, I agree with your first sentence, however, I believe it should be done like Heroes III, where the Stronghold would have three levels, and the tower have 5. I believe that this should be in effect for Heroes V, because a town without magic is too much of a defecit.
6 types of units being recruitable, yes, and half of the 12 creatures in the town having upgrades, not both, and not two. Two upgrades is OK, maybe too many creatures though.
Once again, thanks for the replies, and I hope that you are looking forward to Heroes V as much as I am. 
____________
"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.”
|
|
TheSentinel
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted May 02, 2003 02:21 PM |
|
|
Combat screen animation
Quote:
Yes, but to give a round maximum figure, I would say that around 16 creatures on the battlefield at any given time should be enough. We had 14 in Heroes IV, and 14 + 2 heroes in Heroes III. I believe sixteen should be the maximum, or else the battlefield will get too crowded, and it would, in my opinion, demote the effects of some strategies.
You didn't counted the illusions or the summoned creatures. Which will "theoreticaly" increase this number. In practice, some stacks will be killed while you summon another.
Quote:
Well this is quite a topical subject. In my opinion, the damage should be counted. But, it should be a very low amount. My theory for working this damage out is as follows:
-1 morale: Maximum of 1 damage
-2 morale: Maximum of 2 damage
-3 morale: Maximum of 3 damage, and so on.
An exception here is, that if the morale is -10, and a sprite attacks a Black Dragon, then it would only do 1, since 10 is the maximum. Similar to attacking a castle gate. Another thing, for creatures that are enemies to each other, like BD and Titan, the damage would be doubled.
[...]
To expand this, a possibility is to have creatures with good morale gain HP, again with the same system, but only the one creature which has received the good morale obtains the HP. (This may seem too much of a bonus for good and bad morale)
I think it's becoming too complicated and with not much gain, on the contrary. "Morale" is enough as a positive/negative bonus. My idea was to give it a graphical and funny look, of course where possible (nearby creatures - is a must, opposite alignments - it's not really a necessary thing, friends can also fight for nothing, it can have an increased probability when using opposite alingnments).
Quote:
To determine when the stacks attack each other, I believe it should be when that stack gets bad morale, and there is a creature nearby, so it doesn't have to move. It would look asine if a creature moved to the other side of the battlefield to attack another.
Of course, that was the idea.
Quote:
Also, I believe that the creatures should attack each other, not just one attacking another.
Well, to make it more realistic and also to not inflict damage, it would have to be more like a quarrel than a fight. So I vote for "spitting" and "cursing" .
____________
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted May 05, 2003 03:11 PM |
|
|
hydra:
that was fun, except that it makes me suspect we were talking about entirely different things. of course the castle in the computer game has to be drawn by people (lol).
but in medieval times people did not draw like people draw in modern times. it's most likely that most medieval artists just didn't know much about geometry and perspective before renaissance age. but this gives the medieval drawings a special kind of atmosphere.
modern artists could of course try to imitate the skill (or the lack of knowlidge of perspective, etc) of the medieval artists, but instead the designers of homm seem to look at a standard computer game, and what they get is the standard computer game style. what they don't get is the atmosphere of the medieval paintings.
it's like medieval people probably believed in the existence of dragons, but modern people "probably" don't.
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
posted May 06, 2003 09:43 AM |
|
|
A New Beginning in Art, Comedy and Strategy
First off, I would like to congratulate NWC providing me with nearly 7 years of fun throughout the Heroes Series. The art has always been great, and the laughs interwoven in the maps, and especially campaings, and of course, the hundreds of hours of strategy, the heart of the game. The series have been excellent to play, and I am going to give my thoughts on these 3 topics that have played a vital part in the series (one more than the two others )
Concerning Art:
I will give my individual comments to you, Gerdash (as expected) but as a precursor I believe that the art of the Heroes series needs to be given recognition in previous games and my hopes for Heroes V.
In Heroes I, the art was quite simple, but attractive, and it emitted quite a warm feel, in its gentle, hand-drawn perspective, it was obvious that it was executed in this fashion. Since the game was made in 1995, not too much more could be expected, since it wasn't the most advanced and '3D', but it suited the game exceptionally well.
Heroes II was drawn in a similar fashion, all be it slighlty better, especially on the adventure map, but the castles, and town screen were quite similar. The battlefield was the main change, and the creatures looked very realistic, and the animation of the Dragon Trio in the Warlock was particularly pleasing. Heroes II, was the last of the obviously hand-drawn creatures, as we moved on to Heroes III.....
Heroes III's art was certainly more modern, and would lighten the eyes of players new to the series, but possibly veteran players of the game would have been slighlty disappointed, but glad about the advanced look. It really depended on tastes. I did like the classic feel of Heroes II graphics compared to Heroes III, but they were still good to look at.
Heroes IV's graphics were, in a modern sense, a huge step forward from Heroes III's. The art within the town were, individually sound, but as a combined town, looked quite bland, with no signs of life, like Heroes III produced. I expected to see sprawling jungles in the Preseve castle, instead, I saw a cliff with a dead tree and a nest on it. Everything was in the same position = bad mistake. The art was great on the adventure map, the immobile water the only surrealism. The battlefield was one of the best, most creatures drawn very well, and great animation....
My Hopes for Heroes V art:
At the moment, it appears to be a Heroes II style battlefield, with a Heroes IV style adventure map. I have no problems with this, since they were both the best in their respective class. I am hoping the adventure map has slightly more detail appplied to it. The battlefield should have many obstables, like its Heroes IV counterpart, but more hand-drawn, but still realistic. A section we have heard nothing of is the town screen. I am sincerely hoping for something similar to Heroes III, especially the Order town was fantastic to look at. Many moving objects, and even though it seemed quite busy at completion, it still gave a great and effervescent feeling. However, I don't believe it should be totally like Heroes III, because graphical and animatical updates need to be administered.
Comedy:
The Heroes series has always been famous for the comedy NWC can produce, and this is something that should not have 'A New Beginning'. I think the little tibdits and comments that NWC have provided through the ages of Heroes are taken for granted, unfortunately. In any other game I've played, no game has been as funny as Heroes. The stories connected to every artifact are often humourous, aswell as the events that have been pre-set. One of the more funny occassions which has been given more publicity is the Mongo campaign in Winds of War. For those who have seen the movie, Mongo is a huge, burly character in the movie 'Blazing Saddles'. Also, (don't read if you haven't played the campaign) he says at the end 'Mongo only pawn, in game of life'. Which is a line from the movie. It came as quite a surprise to me, and all you could do was laugh.
Strategy:
Strategy has always been the premier element in the Heroes of Might and Magic games. And in my opinion, the most strategic non-fantasy game. For all battles and adventure map conquests are extremely well planned, and it adds to this strategy. Everything has been executed blissfully for its time. I cannot hope to re-design a whole battle or adventure, but I have commented on them already. What I have not done so upon is siege combat:
Concerning the gate, I am planning for the ranged attackers to be able to attack the gate, but only at 1/4 of their damage. All other elements are the same as Heroes IV.
I'm hoping for there to be three towers, however, they will not be in the Heroes IV position, instead, in the Heroes III formation, but the computer controlled creatures do not occupy those areas. Nothing does until you place them there during combat. The central tower deals more damage, and less damage is dealt to it since it is further away. It takes one turn to enter the tower/s.
Also, I believe that every castle should be unique, not only in the styling of the castle, but each castle has their special bonus, which is beneficial to the defender. These are not intrinsic, instead a structure is built, adding to the depth.
Chaos: All spells do 25% more
Death: 10% Necromancy is in effect
Life: Morale of all creatures heightens by 2
Order: Spells cost 2 points less
Nature: Summoned creatures are retained after battles
Might: Walls, Gate, are 25% stronger
TheSentinel:
I would just like to re-iterate that this was only a theory based upon your idea, so ultimately, it is your choice on how you would prefer the idea to operate.
"You didn't counted the illusions or the summoned creatures. Which will "theoreticaly" increase this number. In practice, some stacks will be killed while you summon another."
Yes, I had forgotten about them. It would in fact increase this number, however, this doesn't occur in every battle, and if it were to, I would say that it would become a bit crowded. I do think that one or two summoned creatures are fine, bringing this number to 18, but any more than 18 creatures on one battlefield is too much at one time. Ideally, I would like to have 14 or 16 on the battlefield at one time, depending on the orientation of the battlefield, of course.
""Morale" is enough as a positive/negative bonus."
Yes, I did indeed mention that at the foot of my post on that topic. I do also feel that morale has enough of an effect on the combat without it dealing damage, too. Morale can certainly be the defining difference in an army that, seemingly, is of equal strength. It is also possible for a weaker army to triumph over a stronger army if the former has high morale. Also, it does not come to much gain, because I believe it shouldn't. As you said, morale is strong by itself, and by this having a small alteration upon the stats, it won't make a huge difference.
"My idea was to give it a graphical and funny look, of course where possible (nearby creatures - is a must, opposite alignments - it's not really a necessary thing"
Yes, and I can support your opinion on this. I don't mind if it was just for fun, or if it actually did deal some damage to the creatures. I take it that you are referring to the chance of attacking only if the morale is low? Nerby creatures is only a must if the morale is low. I think that opposite alignment's creatures who are close to each other can be provoked by maybe -1 morale.
"Well, to make it more realistic and also to not inflict damage, it would have to be more like a quarrel than a fight. So I vote for "spitting" and "cursing" ."
That is fine with me. In your first post, I thought you meant that the creatures actually fought with each other, not spat and cursed. I would also like to see a bit of competetive squabbling, too.
Gerdash:
"that was fun, except that it makes me suspect we were talking about entirely different things. of course the castle in the computer game has to be drawn by people (lol)."
LOL, maybe. I was talking about the perspective of the Necropolis castle, and how it looked commendable in the context of Heroes, and saying that it appears truthful to its (imaginary) creators (the necromancers) you?
"but in medieval times people did not draw like people draw in modern times. it's most likely that most medieval artists just didn't know much about geometry and perspective before renaissance age. but this gives the medieval drawings a special kind of atmosphere."
You are right on this point. The medieval artists probably would have drawn what they saw, and if the people were up close, they would draw them the same size as the castle, not trying to make it look realistic. And, as you say, it does induce a special aura, and the picture doesn't seem too silly. The Necropolis castle, in the screenshot, seems like a mixture of medieval and modern art, since it possesses both of those aspects. A monstrous step forward from the Heroes IV castles, no doubt.
"but instead the designers of homm seem to look at a standard computer game, and what they get is the standard computer game style. what they don't get is the atmosphere of the medieval paintings."
You could be correct here. But I believe it is more safe to reserve our judgement for when all castles are drawn, and we can see the style of all the castles. The Necropolis castle doesn't have the turrets or the medieval towers, but it does emit that kind of 'churchy' feel, with its spires and oddly shaped walls (inner and outer). Maybe a medieval church infused with a modern castle?
Nice relation at the end there, Gerdash. This discussion here has certainly been interesting, and unique.
All comments are welcome, as always, and keep checking back. (Also at Celestial Heavens for Heroes V news.
____________
"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.”
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 07, 2003 04:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
All comments are welcome, as always, and keep checking back. (Also at Celestial Heavens for Heroes V news.
Thanks for being a major part of our Homm5 readiness, and thanks for using time to explain details about the others.
|
|
Planeswalker
Famous Hero
Chaotic Good
|
|
posted May 07, 2003 11:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Concerning the gate, I am planning for the ranged attackers to be able to attack the gate, but only at 1/4 of their damage. All other elements are the same as Heroes IV.
A good idea. (It doesn't matter but I think that was my idea in the first place... good to see that you like it)
You're thinking about 1/4 of their damage but still max is
50 per attack, right?
Quote:
I'm hoping for there to be three towers, however, they will not be in the Heroes IV position, instead, in the Heroes III formation, but the computer controlled creatures do not occupy those areas. Nothing does until you place them there during combat. The central tower deals more damage, and less damage is dealt to it since it is further away. It takes one turn to enter the tower/s.
A very good idea if I understand you rightly: Creatures don't start combat in the towers, but have to waste some rounds to get there. This is a good thing, since the combat will be more balanced. As it is now, the defender has a
great advantage -- too great actually.
Quote:
Chaos: All spells do 25% more
Death: 10% Necromancy is in effect
Life: Morale of all creatures heightens by 2
Order: Spells cost 2 points less
Nature: Summoned creatures are retained after battles
Might: Walls, Gate, are 25% stronger
Hmm... this is a good thought,but it means that the defender will have even a greater advantage on the attacker.
Perhaps we should bring the "Earthquake" spell back. it's great.
____________
Like 2D RPGs? Download Everestia! everestiagame.com
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted May 07, 2003 03:02 PM |
|
|
hehe, nice that it seems i finally could explain my views about how homm could possibly have a somewhat unique style, at least what concerns graphics, no matter if i am agreed with or not.
about shooters destroying buildings like walls or gate.
i think armor might work like this:
1) there is armor that works like it did in previous homms, or something similar. as far as i understand, it at least partially corresponds to the skill of the defender.
2) there should be armor that determines the minimum damage (done by attacker) needed to inflict any damage to the victim. it should work like subtracting a certain constant amount of damage from the attack damage. and the constant amount of damage would be subtracted from damage done by every creature.
example:
if the black dragon has 5 points of this second type of armor, and a stack of 100 creatures attacks black dragons for 7 points each, i.e. 100*7=700 damage, 100*5=500 damage would be subtracted and the dragons would receive 700-500=200 damage. or in a bit different way: 100*(7-5)=200 damage.
if a stack of 10 creatures attacks black dragons for 25 points of damage each, they would do 10*(25-5)=200 damage.
havn't thought it over yet, the situation might get a little more complicated when every creature in the attacker stack does different damage (creature damage e.g. 2-8).
also, maybe this armor could be affected by luck, e.g. some creatures in the attacker stack might have a small chance to negate this armor if they are more lucky than the defender.
so, some monsters and buildings would have this second type of armor, e.g. dragons, armored knights, castle walls. imho it is natural that you cannot harm them if the damage per attacking creature is too low. this armor has relatively little effect against attacking creatures with sufficiently high damage (or maybe suitable damage type, e.g. cyclops). and maybe stone skin and steelskin could give this kind of armor.
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
|
Nasty
Known Hero
castor nebun si orb pe cinste
|
|
posted May 08, 2003 09:25 PM |
|
|
i was thinking that some heroes should have some pet animals...that maybe could help the hero in battle(maybe even a specialty)...like the knight should have a dog..that evolves while the hero gaigns levels...so it helps the hero bitting the enemy who attacks the hero...like a second retaliating.it would be nice to see the animal moving around the hero..barking at the enemy...the hero from the preserve should have a wolf..but a different one not like the creature...the necromancer could have a hellhound...
the barbarian...a jackal or something...the mages could have a white tigger but a smaller one..or some magical creature that could be a pet...how does it sound?
____________
You can trick me with food.Possesions mean nothing to a navajo.
|
|
whinie_the_b...
Adventuring Hero
grrrrr!
|
posted May 09, 2003 05:57 PM |
|
|
hi there
I`ve been thinking a lot, how heroes 5 would be like, and it`s nice to see there are quite a few suggestions. I like the blend of rpg and strategy in the series and i think they work really good with the turn based engine, especially in heroes 4 where the heroes are actually in the battle. I see some of you people dislike it, at least some seem to, but to me, it makes the gameplay great, as your efforts to gain a level have actuall results. And i also see nothing wrong with the creatures moving on the map on their own, though i don`t like it that sometimes you have to eliminate them all to win a scenario, killing the heroes and taking their castles should be enough. I doubt anyone wants to seek them after playing for hours.
Now about the game engine, i think there is some room for improvement. Sure, the latest heroes game is great, but there are some serious flaws in it. First of all, the code should be more efficient. For exaple, the latest populous game was in 3d AND realtime, still it run fine on a pII computer with a tnt2 card and hundreds of units moving on the map. The fallout series run fine on the same machine, with just as many modifiers and on a more modern system, comand and conquer general's and neverwinter nights run beatifully, both complex realtime 3d games.. So there is really no excuse left for a heroes game to be jerkish, no matter how many the modifiers and players, it`s still a turn based pre-rendered game.
Maps:
The maps could get improved, more realistic terain and maybe passable mountains and trees. It sometimes feels a bit silly to move in corridors made by hills, or having to move in circles because there is a tree blocking your way. There should be a big penalty for such moves, but it could make the map more involving.
I think the maps should be more open to give you the impression you are actually traveling, while containing all the important buildings and artifacts. Maybe add more strategic points such as bridges and garrisons. Towns should be spread some more in my opinion. I really like the idea of small, scripted villages like some of you have suggested, they could fill in the gap between castles and less important structures. Again, give the map some more space, why do maps have to be so cluttered? I also think you should be able to progress without visiting every single site on a map, it`s tedious and makes the game repeat itself.
Castles:
It`s a tough area. maybe they could be categorised into 2 or 3 classes. Villages(nice suggestion)towns and capitals. A capital would be a unique castle that wouldn`t be repeated on the map. Maybe different graphics for each, it can`t be that hard to model a few more town buildings for the map makers to choose, can it? A town would be simpler, less buildings to build, and maybe producing less creatures and spells. There could be several in a map. I don`t know about adding more buildings to a town, again, it makes the game repeat itself, having to build all those aructures again and again. That`s why I suggested a town-capital structure, in a single capital there can be room for more unique buildings, while towns provide the basics.
Units:
In general, i like the current structure. A couple of extra levels would be nice as well as choosing between upgradable and non upgradable creatures. Nice suggestion actually. There`s another interesting possibility though, in the likes of disciples 2 and warlords battlecry: units could upgrade using their own experience points, and they could even choose between 2 or 3 special abilities. It might fill the gap between troops and superheroes and provide the player with more choices. Consider that there will be no need for an extra building or the hussle of going back to the town to upgrade older units, nore will they need a separate slot in the army. So far so good.
Battle:
Again, i think the terain should interact more with the army, especially in battle. There could be hills and obstacles that offer protection from ranged attacks. On the other hand, there could be spells to counteract for that, or archers able to overcome this by firing at a differewnt angle. Trees could be destroyed like the town gate in sieges like you people have suggested. I would also like the battlefield to be the actual part of the map you`re fighting in, a close up that you can scroll with your mouse so you have some space between you and your opponend. It doesn`t have to look like chess just because it`s a turn based game, things are moving on.. Of course many will prefer a chess like approach, but my opinion is that what makes heroes4 unique is that it goes beyond that. Any of you played fallout? I think it`s(turned based) combat system would work very well in heroes.
As far as special abilities and spells: maybe there could be more unique and less in quantity: all players end up using the good ol' spells like mass bless, inferno and dragon strenght, so maybe there`s no need for so many, just enough to make each tribe unique. Fewer abilities for the troops too, until they upgrade and pick an ability or 2. By the way, i think you should be able to choose spells, a preffesional mage or druid would do that, they wouldn`t let the guild randomly research spells would they? Of course the choice between available spells should be tough, making the process more involving.
I have been thinking of another modification: units stop coming in stacks anymore, instead they have their own slot. I know that might sound a bit too carried away, you`ll either need many many slots or fewer units. But this has already been implemented on many games, mostly real time strategy, so it shouldn`t be a real problem on a turn based game. They could move in a formation, simplifying things a bit, or the user can separate them as long as they have free slots. It`s basically stacks taking more space depending on the number and size of creatures while you can see each one of them, bringing a sense of scale that`s been missing from the game. 30 black dragons taking the same space as 3 nomads is just too surreal, even for a fantasy game. In our age, computers can do mcuh better than that, even in realtime. It would make the battlefield more lively, while reducing the number of units the player can fit in their army. I don`t know what you think, but having an army with hundreds of top level creatures is a bit silly for me.
visuals: i feel quite optimistic here, i love the phoenix, and there are some quite nice suggestions from you, here`s what i like the most: towns that get deserted after hiring troops, weather effects (imagine being in the sea with storming weather while an opponent with gm seamanship is after you!). It`s obvious by now that most people would like wore life in the cities, and i`m one of those, just don`t make them too cluttered. Another thing is that they shouldn`t be full of special buildings (where did all the inhabitants go?) but look more like real cities, nicely spread over the ground. No really, how can a tiny tower produce hundreds of creatures a week? It`s not about realism, it`s just about making the game more convincing so that special ambience of the heroes series gets to you even more. I`d like fewer, randomly placed buildings given more space, except in capitals (see castle paragraph) which can be allowed to be more crowded.
I loved the phoenix screenshot, but i was somehow dissapointed but the necropolis tower. It looks fine, it`s just that a game like this deserves a slightly more convincing feel. I don`t remember who mentioned the stuff about the medieval paintings, but i tottaly agree. Like tottaly! The buildings HAVE to feel like they belong to an old, natural world. I know it`s not easy, hey i`m a 3d designer myself, but those sharp textures, strong lighting and almost industrial looks (i can easily imagine marilyn manson doing a concert in there) don`t do the game justice. It`s also true of heroes 4, to a less extent though, as most of the buildings and structures look more natural, if a bit plastic sometimes. I`m not saying they should go back to hand drawn visuals, just make things look like they`re really made of stone and wood by someone religious, chaotic or dead and mostly ANCIENT. I agree to the pal saying they look made by modern people. In fact the look like they`re made by the ones who built the Lloyd`s building. Researching some older architecture would help some(and they probably have done so already). I`m not criticising the designers, just think they can do better in this context to convey the feel of an ancient civilisation!
Last but not least is the scale like I mentioned before. Actually i think that the series always lacked a sense of scale. Now, computers are faster, resolutions are higher, and programmers themselves more experienced. It doesn`t have to be in 3d, but the map should be given much more space, even in heroes4 it reminds me of a tiny, early ninetie's strategy map. Don`t get me wrong, this is tricky if not impossible in such a game. You`ll either have to scroll a LOT or the hero will be tiny. But there are possibilities to make things better: the viewing area could be made quite bigger if not fullscreen with an auto-hide menu. Then there is zoom, which should be easy to implement in 2d. It also depends on the relative size of things. In my opinion, mountains are too small, and structures too big. And except for the castles, there are no towns anywhere else, just isolated sites. Buildings could be made smaller and make up settlements covering a wider surface, instead of having huge single buildings spread all over. The same could apply to the main towns. Smaller, but taking up more surface so they can be immediatelly recognisable. Nice so far which leaves as qith a little problem: the heroes will look tiny. Again, there is the possibility of making all of the army visible(could be spectacular to see all your troops on the map!), thus taking more surface and being easily visible, and if you really want too look at your hero riding proud in the wind, then the zoom could kick in to make you happy. In the case of a battle, the game could zoom to that area of the map, maybe loading more detailed textures, and switching to the combat system. All that combined with each troop having his own slot. Now if you look at games like command and conquer maybe you can see what i`m talking about: the size of things looks right, while the maps are large enough with nice terain details. In red alert 2 that was true too, and could be a good example since it was a 2d game.
Well, there are many ideas i have read in this thread, but my post is long enough already so i won`t comment them now. I wanted to cover the most basic areas of the game, mostly it`s engine and layout. I`m going to post again later after i have thought about other aspects of the game and those neat little details that make good games better.
So, i look forward to hearing more suggestion or comments on mine. I hope programmers occasionally read such threads in order to make their games more attractive.
laters
____________
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 08:33 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
Quote:
The maps could get improved, more realistic terain and maybe passable mountains and trees. It sometimes feels a bit silly to move in corridors made by hills, or having to move in circles because there is a tree blocking your way. There should be a big penalty for such moves, but it could make the map more involving.
i think there should be some type of impassable terrain, and mountains are imho the best candidate i can think of atm. maybe there could be some lower hills that are passable, something similar to civ. what i would appreciate though, is passable forest. i am a bit doubtful about it, but it might also be nice if terrain affected your sight range.
well, people could say that you could build a tunnel through a mountain, or a shipyard to cross some water. as far as i have understood, a single game takes place in a rather short time, short enough not to be able to build something into wilderness without infrastructure. and water walk to cross some water seems a lot more appropriate than building a shipyard, imho. as you can already guess, i don't think that the ability to build mines was a good idea.
well, the building in towns does seem to happen a bit too fast, and the rate at which creatures multiply in buildings would be completely absurd if you couldn't think of them as training places rather than dwellings.
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
|
whinie_the_b...
Adventuring Hero
grrrrr!
|
posted May 09, 2003 09:08 PM |
|
|
Building is happening too quickly indeed, maybe bigger structures should take a few days to build. And i have to agree about the growing rate: where are all those creatures living in? A player could either build dwellings like in warcraft, so there can be more creatures, or their number should be limited.
About terain: some hills and mountains could be passable, some taller mountains, deeper rivers or canyons not. Passable forests is not a bad idea either, you could use them to hide your army while having a scouting penalty yourself. I don`t know how all this would fit into an already complex game, but at least the best of such ideas can be used to take the game a step further.
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 06:05 AM |
|
|
The Strategy-RPG Beginning?
Arguably one of the best changes in Heroes IV was the inclusion of Heroes on the battlefield. This is an RPG element that has been (poorly) instigated into the game of Heroes. I would say that around 70% of people like this change, and 30% don’t. If it was implemented to a near flawless standard, it could have been a massive success, but it wasn’t, and now they’re likely to be gone. However, other RPG elements can be put to into practice. The free movement of creatures was great. No need to buy a hero in order to transport them. The strategy elements still need to be upheld, such as a complex battlefield, as close to realism as it can be (a step forward was taken when LoS was introduced). But we still need more, such as undulations, trees as obstacles, escarpments and bushes as natural hindrances.
Celfious:
“Thanks for being a major part of our Homm5 readiness, and thanks for using time to explain details about the others.”
That is fine. I try to help out, it is great to see someone knows that threads on Heroes V actually exist. (Unlike some other ‘Tavern Dwellers’.)
Planeswalker:
“A good idea. (It doesn't matter but I think that was my idea in the first place... good to see that you like it)
You're thinking about 1/4 of their damage but still max is
50 per attack, right?”
Sorry, I didn’t know you had thought of it. The max is still 50 damage per attack, yes.
If it weren’t it would defeat the purpose of having ¼ damage, since 280 medusas are capable of doing over 100 damage, even if their damage has been cut down by 75%.
“Creatures don't start combat in the towers, but have to waste some rounds to get there. This is a good thing, since the combat will be more balanced. As it is now, the defender has a
great advantage -- too great actually.”
Indeed, that is the idea. There are towers available, in the same spots as Heroes III (So the middle tower gets more of a benefit than the front two) but all creatures (and heroes) begin on level ground in their castle. They must take time to get there, and once the do reach the tower, it is another turn until they can attack. So, it is not like Heroes IV where they get up and attack.
Yes, the defender does have a too great advantage, and the inclusion of the towers benefited them, they were untouchable until you were able to penetrate the gate and infiltrate the castle. This is an attempt to remove the advantage, but still have this features available.
“Hmm... this is a good thought,but it means that the defender will have even a greater advantage on the attacker.
Perhaps we should bring the "Earthquake" spell back. it's great.”
You are correct in saying that this will cause the defender to be advantaged by this change. Although, this structure comes at a price, which would be around 5,000 gold, and would not be available unless you have the castle built. So, in essence, it will help the defender when built, but that defender must be very rich to afford all these enhancements. Thus, it may not have such a large effect until further on.
I agree, the earthquake spell was an excellent weapon to have against a siege. And now that the styles of magic are changing (no nature, chaos, order, etc.) it could be apart of the classic ‘Earth Magic’.
Gerdash I:
“Hehe, nice that it seems i finally could explain my views about how homm could possibly have a somewhat unique style, at least what concerns graphics, no matter if i am agreed with or not.”
I must admit, it has been quite different discussing perspectives of medieval and modern art with you. It has given me a bit of an insight into what castles could be like in Heroes if they research their look. (Which they have done admirable with the Necropolis castle)
“1) there is armor that works like it did in previous homms, or something similar. as far as i understand, it at least partially corresponds to the skill of the defender.”
When was their armour in previous heroes, except for the heroes themselves? The creatures never had armour, just defence.
“2) there should be armor that determines the minimum damage (done by attacker) needed to inflict any damage to the victim.”
Is this ‘armour’ a real physical object? Or is it just a theoretical object that the creatures don’t actually wear? Armour that determines minimum damage, like the curse spell?
“if the black dragon has 5 points of this second type of armor, and a stack of 100 creatures attacks black dragons for 7 points each, i.e. 100*7=700 damage, 100*5=500 damage would be subtracted and the dragons would receive 700-500=200 damage.”
Too much of an advantage, and it may be too difficult to work out, as you mention below that. I think that if this were to occur, armour would become too much of a figure in battles. And the creatures individual statistics would be much less important than they are. I am aiming for unique creatures, not ones with armour.
“Maybe this armor could be affected by luck, e.g. some creatures in the attacker stack might have a small chance to negate this armor if they are more lucky than the defender.”
Again, it is too much of a defining element. If it didn’t have as much of an effect as you say it could, then maybe it could work. But I feel that we have enough by the creatures defence statistics, which are already altered by defensive spells, etc. A less effective version of armour could almost be seen as the ‘might hero’s spell’. The idea is good, but I believe it needs to be tuned down.
Nasty:
“I was thinking that some heroes should have some pet animals...that maybe could help the hero in battle(maybe even a specialty)...”
Well, the heroes with animals could work, but I don’t think it should be with ‘animals’ as such. It should affect creatures that are already with them in their town, such as a might hero could have a specialty toward a Lich when he reaches level 5 or something. Like in Heroes III.
Yes, I believe the idea sounds fair here, but I believe the hero should not have an ‘animal bodyguard’ as such, but a statistic enhancing effect on their creature. Possibly a +1 morale boost is in order, also.
Whinie_the_behemoth:
“I like the blend of rpg and strategy in the series and i think they work really good with the turn based engine, especially in heroes 4 where the heroes are actually in the battle.”
I would have to agree. It makes the series more like Heroes of Might and Magic, instead of Creatures and Heroes of Might and Magic. The creatures once ruled the battlefield, now heroes joined them. Creatures can now roam the adventure map, but not to as great extent as heroes (flagging privileges).
“i don`t like it that sometimes you have to eliminate them all to win a scenario, killing the heroes and taking their castles should be enough.”
Well, I would have to say that this should be removed, and change the ‘army’ definition to army with a hero. Because an army with creatures can only defeat other armies, not take castles. And yes, it is quite annoying, easily fixed, though.
Engine:
“So there is really no excuse left for a heroes game to be jerkish, no matter how many the modifiers and players, it`s still a turn based pre-rendered game.”
I can’t really comment on this one, since it plays very well indeed on my state-of-the-art PII 266MhZ. The only drawback is that adventure map animation must be turned off, otherwise it gets quite slow. I have played it on faster computers than my own, and it seems to run fine. But if many people have said this, then the engine needs to be more efficient.
“The maps could get improved, more realistic terain and maybe passable mountains and trees.”
Maps:
Passable trees (forests)? - yes. Passable mountains? Probably not. The only way I can see passable mountains happening is only if the is a cave in it, and that would be considered as an adventure map object, not a landscape object. I would like to see the mountains remain as a barrier. Concerning trees, I think it depends on how the trees are laid out. If you can place them on the map like in Heroes I-III (in groups) then you can select scattered, or dense. Scattered would be passable but half movement would apply. Dense would be impassable.
“I think the maps should be more open to give you the impression you are actually travelling”
That decision is really up to the mapmaker. Changing the map editor would not have an effect. If the mapmaker chooses it to be open, so be it.
“Maybe add more strategic points such as bridges and garrisons.”
Yes, I would agree here. Also, some bridges should have the capability to become an adventure map object, like a garrison so one could control the bridge, and not let anyone through (unless they defeat the garrison).
“Towns should be spread some more in my opinion. I really like the idea of small, scripted villages like some of you have suggested, they could fill in the gap between castles and less important structures.”
As do I. The towns in Heroes IV were quite large, much larger than III or IV, but they still need to be bigger, and the Necropolis castle is a near perfect example of their size and sense of dominion over the land. Indeed, small villages, Hamlets, as Magus calls them need to fill in the gap between castles and garrisons, being in between the two. Maybe they could provide a random spell and a random creature? Also maybe one hero?
Casltes:
“maybe they could be categorised into 2 or 3 classes. Villages(nice suggestion)towns and capitals.”
Well, that is basically what they are now? The capital is unique castle, and wouldn’t be reproduced on the map by the same player. I think that there should be 1 capital per player, like in Heroes III. Are you suggesting that a town would be separate from a capital? The town would not be able to construct a capital? If so, I would have to disagree. Villages, towns and capitals should be developmental stages, and can all upgrade Village -> Town -> Capital. The next category can be hamlets, then garrisons (bridge and normal). If they were all separate, it would be too much of a change, and there would be too many important structures.
Units:
“In general, i like the current structure. A couple of extra levels would be nice as well as choosing between upgradable and non upgradable creatures. Nice suggestion actually.”
Thankyou, I quite like it, too. In my opinion, 6 levels, with one upgradeable and one non-upgradeable creature for every level. Of course, the non-upgradeable creature would be stronger than the first stage of the upgradeable creature, but weaker than the upgrade of that creature.
“units could upgrade using their own experience points, and they could even choose between 2 or 3 special abilities.”
Thankfully, creatures don’t have experience points as such in Heroes. Also, the special abilities have to be intrinsic to that creature. In other words, I would like to see a pikeman have long range pike ability in one game, and double attack in another game.
“Consider that there will be no need for an extra building or the hussle of going back to the town to upgrade older units”
This problem can be eliminated, since the creatures should be able to move on their own and only the creatures that need to be upgraded can take the trip back, or take a caravan back, too. It wouldn’t be as much trouble as it was in Heroes III where the whole army had to return to the castle to have a creature upgraded, unless you didn’t want to have them upgraded, of course.
Battle:
“On the other hand, there could be spells to counteract for that, or archers able to overcome this by firing at a differewnt angle.”
This has been accomplished in Heroes IV, and I have said before that trees and other obstacles need to block the LoS. Trees being destroyed is OK, but only by the spell, not by a creature attacking it.
“to be the actual part of the map you`re fighting in,”
Nope, they have implemented it well in Heroes IV. Even having a river if there is one in the spot you fought. The battlefield was almost perfect in Heroes IV, and it reproduced the adventure map objects in close proximity very well.
It may not have to be like chess, but I don’t mind if it is – just in an isometric perspective, like Heroes IV ,or something similar to this. I haven’t played fallout, sorry.
“Fewer abilities for the troops too, until they upgrade and pick an ability or 2.”
Disagree here, all creatures must be unique, and have their own abilities without having to choose them No offence here, but I would dislike it very much if the creatures chose their special abilities.
“wouldn`t let the guild randomly research spells would they?”
I agree, someone has already mentioned this. It is a good idea. The random spell system should not be used, but they mage can’t choose all the spells. There has to be a way of regulating it.
“units stop coming in stacks anymore, instead they have their own slot.”
There’s a bombshell. This would mean that 60 hydras would take up 60 slots, and how on earth can this function in battle? I think Real Time strategy should stay as far away as it can from turn-based strategy. This would just not work in a game like heroes. Stacks are imperative to regulate the numbers of creatures actually seen, and also for the battlefield method that is in place here to work. This idea could have more repercussions than it seems.
“30 black dragons taking the same space as 3 nomads is just too surreal, even for a fantasy game.”
You may have a point, however, they are merely representatives of the stack. If we were to split them up, you would see that there are many more black dragons. The RTS idea causes a myriad of complications that would force the NWC team to totally revamp. Also, how would the classic Heroes battlefield work in a situation such as this? I vote for the ‘stacks’ method.
“It`s obvious by now that most people would like wore life in the cities, and i`m one of those, just don`t make them too cluttered.”
Yes, but I think that it should be well set out, not cluttered, but quite full, not like the empty Heroes IV, but not like the crowded Heroes III towns. More like Heroes I or II. There was a great sensation when you entered those towns. I liked the Barbarian town of Heroes I, and the Warlock town of Heroes II.
Sometimes, one has to sacrifice size for a bit of surrealism. In this case, you can’t have both, uncluttered towns and large buildings. There is only so much space you can utilise. The ambience of the Heroes series hasn’t come from large buildings, but more with beautiful architecture and great town layouts, which emits a vibrant yet serene quality. If this could continue in Heroes V, it would be excellent.
Also, more unique buildings in towns would add to the individual feel and characteristics the town should have in Heroes V.
“I don`t remember who mentioned the stuff about the medieval paintings, but i tottaly agree. Like tottaly! The buildings HAVE to feel like they belong to an old, natural world.”
It was Gerdash. Yes, they do need a medieval feel indeed, and I believe it emanates one. A very nice mixture of the old and the new is displayed in the Necropolis town. If all towns could be quite similar, with their own feel like Nature is writhing with plants, and chaos’ buildings are all misaligned. Maybe for the Knight and Order castles they could use very medieval templates, but for others they should have their own feel.
Plastic, yes. Christian did actually mention them as “Plastic Toy Models”. They were definitely too much alike, with all taking up a square, and all the same basic idea. This included a large ornament in the middle, a tower, and fortified walls.
Indeed, ancient, wood, minerals, rocks, etc. Whatever suits the town. I agree wholeheartedly on this matter.
“the viewing area could be made quite bigger if not fullscreen with an auto-hide menu.”
Yes, the menu was indeed too large for the game, it needs to be shortened, and made to be a thin margin like in Heroes III. However, it did give a great heads-up display in Heroes IV. Just not worth it for the space of the map we lost because of it.
“In my opinion, mountains are too small, and structures too big.”
You are correct here. Mountains do need to be bigger, but the structures can stay the same size that they are already.
“Buildings could be made smaller and make up settlements covering a wider surface, instead of having huge single buildings spread all over.”
I would agree here. More settlements that are of fair size, and smaller miscellaneous adventure map objects. I found it hard to believe that the Hydra Pond was so huge on the adventure map view, as big as a castle, and in the castle screen, it could fit very snugly into the town screen. A misapprehension of the perspectives, in my opinion. The dwellings need to be the size of a level 2 dwelling.
Interesting ideas about the zoom and the hero size, but I disagree with creatures on the map.
Your ideas are certainly very welcome, thanks for the reply.
Gerdash II:
“think there should be some type of impassable terrain, and mountains are imho the best candidate i can think of atm”
Yep, spot on there. Apart from walls, if mountains are no longer with us in terms of passability, what will we have to do their jobs?
Yes, lower hills would be more of a better solution. So there are mountains and hills, and the latter are by and large, passable. Good idea there. (They had this sort of distinction in Heroes II)
Quite a true statement concerning tunnels in mountains, there, Gerdash. I doubt they would have developed the kind of materials needed to accomplish such a task, except for if it was a natural cavern. I would in fact like to see a natural cavern as an adventure map object, and that would be passable. Building mines seems O.K. and it fits in well. They’re not too prominent, so I wouldn’t worry.
Indeed, the creatures rate does not comply with the structure rate. But who’s to say what is right or not? You never know, Dragons could have multiplied just as quickly as the cane toad. (Impregnation: 70,000) !
Thankyou for your replies. There appears to be growing interest in this topic. All ideas a very much welcome.
____________
"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.”
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 06:14 PM |
|
|
When it comes to invisible and hidden creatures, it would be better if they were hidden on the Adventure Map, so you find yourself facing a bigger force than you expected when entering combat.
Having invisible creatures in combat could give nasty engine problem. Say, you have 100 Thieves left who are invisible to their clearly superior opponents. You clearly DON'T want to make any further attack with them. But the game won't allow you to continue until the combat is resolved. So you need Retreat options in combat which might be a problem in itself, since once the creatures are back on the Adventure Map they may be visible to the stack again.
Allowing defenders to retreat can give even worse problems, because you're NOT guranteed that there are any empty spot on the Map for you to place them, and the place you place them on could be under attack from Independents or so.
I guess you could try to solve this by respawning the creatures if they're independents on a free tile. And if the defender is a player, then the Retreat Option could be available only if you have a free route to a Town with a Caravan.
(The flee option is H4 is b.t.w. ridiculous. You can flee to nearest town with Hero-only cost at no cost. That's just plain insane for game-play.)
Of course a high scouting skill will allow you to see more hidden creatures, and Thieves Guild in Towns can also provide some Map information.
AoW2 has Concealment skill and also special Concealment skill which works only when the creature is on certain terrain. (And I believe you need True Seeing to see them, which would likely translate to master Scouting or a Visions spell in HoMM.)
As for town structures it's not difficult to come up with more which are not in H4 and which could be in nearly every town:
1. Prison (could be buildable)
2. Turrets/Towers. (Populate these with citizens from the town. They are free of charge and grows over time. But any citizens lost in Battle are gone forever.)
3. Magic Tower (Casting a random spell from the Mage Guild each turn.)
4. Moat.
5. Marketplace (plus upgrades: artifact merchant, freelancer's guild, resource silo and so on)
6. Every Town should offer some Tuition.
7. Every Town should offer creature growth bonuses for some selected creatures. (1-3)
8. Traps (Each city has some form of protection that does damage and which the attacker doesn't know the exact position of when combat starts.)
9. Enchantment (Each City could pre-cast a spell on all the troops in the city. This spell cannot be dispelled.)
10. More Tavern upgrades.
11. Watch Tower (To remove more FoW around the Town)
12. Special Siege Defence Say for:
- Necropolis 10% of all killed creatures could animate as Skeletons at start of next round.
- Nature town: Dryads could be summoning X Dendroids to town defence each round. (X-depending on built town structures.)
- Chaos towns: Random Fireballs are cast in areas outside the castle.
And so on...
On why you are not allowed to have 14 slots. Because, it reduces cheap shot retaliation. (use one creature to eat retaliation and then attack with the main force without retaliation.) The 7 stack and 8 army slots limits are meant to limit players reasonable levels. I wuldn't mind a Hero skill that allowed more slots, or increased number of slots in a town, but I wouldn't want an increase of number of wandering armies or the default number of slots in army. (in fact, they might even want to reduce this to 5 or 6 to make the hero skill more worthwhile.)
On Heroes having Pet creatures:
You might want to re-awake my Hirelings Thread.
On Map passability:
Generally, I'd say. If a Map Maker places a tree or mountain obstacle then they DON'T Want that terrain to be PASSABLE. (Not by any means.) The Map maker really needs unpassable terrain to make single scenarios. And anyway, walking around the Tree on the highway might actually be a lot faster than walking through a dense forest. In orderfor your suggestion to work you need single-unit stacks (AoW) style which each can follow their own path. In Heroes series the same feature simply doesn't work all that well.
On creature XP:
The same thing really. It simply doesn't work well on stacks. Just on single creatures. Do look at my "Leaders" suggestion for a way to get around this, though.
While changing creatures from stacks into individuals is possible, this change is a lot greater than the change of introducing heroes into the battlefield, and all the other changes which occurred in H4 together. Besides, as you've mentioned. There ARE many other games with such a system while I believe the system used for Heroes is more or less unique to this game.
Sure, it's not realistic but the Heroes game is fantasy. Not a combat simulator.
Life in cities.
There IS actually some life around the structures in H4 if you stop and look at it. I feel it's overall distracting, the purpose of the game. I'm not adverse to animations as long as there is a "NO ANIMATIONS" button to check on options. (And preferably selectable so you can select degree of animations from Towns, Combat, and Adventure screens separately.
Off-topic: Applied some bonuses in this topic. More may be coming if the disucssion is kept up.
|
|
Magus
Hired Hero
Warper of Time-Space
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 09:51 PM |
|
|
On passable terrain:
In several of my maps, I have passable forests, and they dont look they they have a path through them. You just need to use big looking trees, and check the passability grid. It can be done with mountains, its just harder. HyDrA's scattered and dense forests would work as well
On Battles/Sieges:
I think only certian ranged units should be able to damage a gate. No matter how skilled the archers, swarms of arrows could not bring down a gate. Just give certian archers a special ability: Siege Missile: Can Damage gates, walls (cyclops, titans for example) I agree with bringing back anti-castle spells like earthquake. A graphical addition to combat would be to make creature stacks actually look like multiple creatures(not the actual number you have), but have like a group of 1-9 in a small squad representing the stack. They would obviously have to be smaller. Armour(i.e. damage reduction) should only belong to incredibly powerful creatures and have a value in the single digits(Azure dragons 8... maybe). Maybe spells can create it as well.
On Hamlets:
Though the hamlet idea was a response to insaneroach(down with the conventions) to cut down on structure redundancy by having one structure that could be whatever the mapmaker made it, the "mini town" function is probably its greatest strength. However, hamlets are very small villages. I think that there should be this hierarchy of towns
Towns-As we all know and love
Villages-"Mini Town" Idea, mapmaker can set income in gold and resources, creature rate(if applicable, can have more than one type of creatures), defense(do they get fort walls or not?), and specials(like bonuses to the first player who takes it, morale or luck bonuses, etc.)
Hamlets-Adventure map object/structures. Can be set to act like any other existing structure with custom messages.
____________
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.
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
|
posted May 11, 2003 09:16 AM |
|
|
Town and Adventure Map Structures
Heroes IV took a step forward when it introduced scripting for many of the adventure map objects-especially quest huts. They made Heroes IV diverse and customisable in such a way that even if you play the same map, you can modify it by having a different sequence of quests, and it will play very differently. Along with the versatility of Quest Huts, you also had the numerous adventure map objects that had an influence on the conquest of the adventure map. With the increased numbers of these objects, there were many modifiers, especially to movement and to heroes, which made exploring with a hero more significant.
An area that Heroes V must take a step forward is in the number of more essential adventure map structures, taking second place behind castles. We have mines in Heroes IV, which are the next important object, probably slightly behind garrisons. We then have creature dwellings, which are following mines. What we need is something to slot in between garrisons and castles. ‘Hamlets’ have been one suggestion (I’ll address that in due course.) and Bridge Garrisons has been another of my suggestions. A proposition by Whinie_the_Behemoth has been to split towns up in their existing stages. This is unfavourable, in my opinion, because it would be too difficult to execute. We need something like a hamlet, but of slightly larger importance. It is imperative that Heroes V includes a ‘Bastion’ of some kind where a couple of low-level creatures dwell, a few heroes are present and provides a small resource boost (like a loose resource). It can also be flagged, and it can be seen as a ‘refugee camp’ from Heroes III, however the creatures are not random.
Regarding town structures, I believe they need to compliment the town’s individuality and theme. So necropolis, while it has ‘deadly-looking’ buildings, also needs to have bonuses that would benefit its troops specifically. The Necromancy amplifier and transformer are a good example of what I would like to see more of. Of course, there should still be structures that apply to all towns. (Like fortifications, turrets, etc).
Djive:
“When it comes to invisible and hidden creatures, it would be better if they were hidden on the Adventure Map, so you find yourself facing a bigger force than you expected when entering combat.”
I have to agree with you on both respects. Hidden creatures on the adventure map have the gift of the element of surprise, and shock. However, on the combat map, you can be overwhelmed to an unfair advantage, because you don’t know what hit you. It is too risky and all creatures should be visible in battle, because they are so close to you that you should be able to see them, anyway. The only way in which I’d like to see them invisible is if there was an invisibility spell cast on them during combat.
“And if the defender is a player, then the Retreat Option could be available only if you have a free route to a Town with a Caravan.”
I believe this will be the most advantageous solution to the problem. There is too much inconclusiveness and random decisions to let them retreat in any circumstances. It is therefore apparent that the defender must have a route to retreat by. Just retreating and appearing in the town is not enough. How did hey get there and what if a creature is blocking the way?) These questions must be asked.
“As for town structures it's not difficult to come up with more which are not in H4 and which could be in nearly every town:”
Your list is quite laudable. Including the best part of 6 or 7 new suggestions that weren’t there in Heroes IV. The Magic tower is a good idea, however I would like to change it slightly. Instead of casting a random spell, a creature spellcaster or hero could climb it, and then all spells are 25% stronger. If that idea is not favourable, then if the creature/hero climbs the tower, a chosen spell can be cast, if the tower is unoccupied, a random spell will be cast from the mage guild.
Indeed, every town should offer tuition, this is of course, relative to what town it is, so they all won’t offer the same thing. Traps seem like a good idea, adds a bit of flair and a random element to siege combat. Maybe enchantment is providing too much of an advantage to the defending force. The watch tower is an excellent idea, it could also be seen as a separate addition to the view of the town in the adventure map. (The town would still remove FoW, but the tower increases it). As you know, I have also have my special siege defence properties.
“(use one creature to eat retaliation and then attack with the main force without retaliation.)”
This is still prevalent in Heroes IV, and this is a reason why I strive to recruit griffins. Their unlimited retaliation ability is so useful and it really gives the griffin the edge. No retaliation and first strike are good, but in battles where there are many creature involved, unlimited retaliation reigns supreme.
“(in fact, they might even want to reduce this to 5 or 6 to make the hero skill more worthwhile.)”
Well, I’m not in accordance with this proposal, I’m sorry to say. It just gives your proposed skill too much of an importance factor. However I am favouring the skill, but one problem is that how will it fulfil 5 levels of advancement. 7 + 5 equals 12, and that is too much.
“If a Map Maker places a tree or mountain obstacle then they DON'T Want that terrain to be PASSABLE.”
Hmmmm. It really depends. I sometimes make maps where the trees are used as a decoy to make the player feel that they can’t pass, but in actuality, they can. When placing mountains, yes, about 95% of the time they want it to be impassable.
“And anyway, walking around the Tree on the highway might actually be a lot faster than walking through a dense forest.”
Well, the way I see it, a dense forest would be impassable. And having scattered forests would add to strategy, because it may be the only way to go, and it may uncover secrets that couldn’t have been found if you stuck to the road. ‘The Road to Losing’, in this case.
It would still work in Heroes, even though it may be a bit harder because you may have to navigate yourself, but it is still possible. However, they may follow their own path in Heroes V, so it may work.
“The same thing really. It simply doesn't work well on stacks. Just on single creatures.”
Exactly. It only functions on heroes and single stacks, but never on multiple creatures. Again, it is too difficult to execute such a manoeuvre. It was hard to balance just one hero for the battle – imagine 50 Hydras. It would be too difficult. However, if you focus on the ‘leader’ of that stack, it can be found to be easier, especially if experience isn’t the parameter.
“There IS actually some life around the structures in H4 if you stop and look at it.”
From what I can see in towns, there are the occasional lights flashing, but the actual structures move, like the Golem Factory and Dwarf Mine. This is good, and should be retained. But I can’t name one structure where the creatures themselves are moving.
“I feel it's overall distracting, the purpose of the game.”
Well, the quandary I see here is that it may detract from further developments of other more important areas of the game. I wouldn’t like this development to take priority of balancing heroes in combat or the creature/upgrade system. But if there is spare time, life in towns is appreciated, and I at least hope for more life than in Heroes IV.
Magus:
On passable objects:
It is indeed possible, and I do as you suggest, too. If I want my trees to be passable, I make sure there is a small path and turn passibility on in the adventure map options. The reason I suggested scattered and dense options are in case of if the Heroes IV method of placing single trees is done away with. If it is, the best solution, in my opinion, is dense and scattered trees.
Battles/Sieges:
“I think only certian ranged units should be able to damage a gate. No matter how skilled the archers, swarms of arrows could not bring down a gate.”
Well, no they couldn’t bring down a gate by themselves, and they wouldn’t deal as much damage as a hand-to-hand opponent (Thus ¼) but repeated attacking of the gate would force it to collapse after a while. So I believe ¼ to the gate by ranged attackers is entirely justified. Are you sure swarms of arrows won’t bring down a gate?
“but have like a group of 1-9 in a small squad representing the stack.”
In all honesty, I believe that the current system works very well as it is. Also, I don’t see what benefit having a small number of creatures instead of one representing the stack of creatures.
“Maybe spells can create it as well.”
If armour were to be used, then I believe that spells should be able to create this kind of ‘might spellcasting’. But I believe armour is too beneficial to the recipient of this ‘armour’.
Hamlets:
“However, hamlets are very small villages. I think that there should be this hierarchy of towns”
So hamlets would not be a worthy replacement of a miniature castle. Possibly my ‘Bastion’ or ‘Battlement’ suggestion could be of some assistance to this issue. It is also possible that towns each have their own settlement. Such as the ‘Warlock Village’ is a smaller Warlock fort that cannot be upgraded into one, and it would have a different adventure map representation than a Warlock Fort. Each town would have their own individual settlement, supplying creatures that are not available in the town (e.g. pirate, troglodyte, evil eyes) 1 resource per week of their most needed one (like resource pile) and it contains a miniature version of a tavern (to supply heroes) and thieves guild (not as advanced as a castle’s version). Thoughts on that idea?
“Villages-"Mini Town" Idea,”
This idea seems good, especially if it can be scripted in the way you suggest. In answer to your question, I don’t believe they should have fort walls, otherwise it may have too many elements that a major town structure would have. And I would take it that this ‘Village’ is able to be flagged?
If any one else would like to voice their opinion on Heroes V, you are very much welcome to do so. Thanks again for your replies, and I hope that Heroes V turns out to be for the best, and re-unite the Heroes Community.
____________
"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.”
|
| |
|
|
