| ||||
shaowei  Adventuring Hero |
Heroes taken off battlefield in HOMM5? According to the Christian Vanover interview at M&M guild, there are ideas to do just that with HOMM5. The first thing that comes to my mind is that it would be a huge improvement. If they do this, it will already be better than HOMM4. I can't believe people care so much about heroes being on the battlefield - it's what ruined HOMM4, together with the lame and unpredictable battlefield + no battle log. I hope NWC takes into account the comments of their fans, but when considering heroes on the battlefield, they should trust their own professionalism and NOT INCLUDE THEM AGAIN. Sorry for disagreeing with most of this board (and many more), but that would lead to a more balanced game. I am sure most fans will buy this game just to see how it plays, so it doesn't matter in the financial sense for 3DO. But what matters is that if the game is on the level of HOMM4 (with no balance and easily killed mages w/o combat skill), people will not believe 3DO is capable of releasing a good game anymore. You yourselves will be disappointed if there's no balance. Balance is hard/next to impossible to achieve with multiple creatures in stacks and single heroes on the battlefield at the same time. Even if they balance it for the most obvious development paths, there are always specific cases where imbalances occur. I sure hope NWC make the right decision and look into the future, not just short-term profits. Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Juulcesaar Adventuring Hero |
I do not agree in taking these heroes back to the god-status they used to be. Others also don't, look at the results of this poll http://www.forumplanet.com/strategyplanet/homm/topic.asp?fid=3653&tid=861709. Why? Flaws? Can it be better? eg. By the way, I think getting heroes of the battlefield will result in a forge type boycot... Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| DonGio Promising Famous Hero of Clear Water Mountain Clan |
This will be a short reply, due to lack of time to go through my opinions thoroughly: I don't think they should switch back to Untouchable heroes. They should perhaps make some changes from what it's like now (although I don't have any particular complaints concerning this specific issue), but the hero should definitely be able to die/fight. But it should perhaps be harder to get to him. Fight well Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Djive Honorable Supreme Hero Zapper of Toads |
I'd agree with JululCeasar. There are a lot of good points in taking heroes onto the battle-field. Some balancing issues needs to be addressed but much better to let the hero to be a unit than a bystander. I don't see the vulnerability of a magic hero as a flaw. They have to be more vulnerable than the combat related hero. Improvements: I want the defensive skills to be grouped together (combat, defence and one new defensive skill), and the offensive skills to be grouped together (melee and offence and one new offensive skill or archery). The archery skills could also be split out as a separate group and affect (hero's ranged attack, creatures ranged attack, and a special ranged attack.) As you can see I've three skills per skill-group. I believe four is too much and it takes too high level to level up even a single primary skill. I'd like 16 skill groups with 3 skills in each and the hero being able to select 8 of these. (I've posted a more detailed suggestion in Sikmar's thread about amn impossible dream.) That way mages are likely to develope only the defensive skills and not the offensive ones. I also suggest to reduce the importance of the Combat skill by including most of into level-up. If you start with defense of 15 and get +1 defense per level then all Heroes will get a decent defence. Since all Heroes must have defence then give enough of it to give a decent durability. Another way to improve mages survivability is to allow heroes to precast certain spells on themselves. So that they start combat with spells already applied. (To make it balanced I would not extend this abilities to the rest of the army, the mage can only enchance the own person.) 55 defence is way too powerful for such a low level character (if we assume normal H4 stats). And why would a mage have higher defence than say a tactician or a thief? Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Zutus_evil_p... Hired Hero Flaming bird |
Another reason why I don't want the heroes to leave the battle field is because if your hero is a high level spellcaster and you've lost all of your army during a siege, most of the time, the hero is still capable of winning that battle, because that slow stack of fifty golems can reach that sprite and the army of golems get slaugthered by the magic of the hero. I really hope they add horses to the battle field in homm5. A hero sitting on his horse would benefit from higher defence (+25 maybe), further movement and charge bonus. The mount could be for sale in town and cost a considerable amount of resources (buy at stables perhaps). I know mounts have been brought up a lot of times, but this time I see it as a way to improve your defence. Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Juulcesaar Adventuring Hero |
It was just a propositions, you can always change it. But for combat, let's say -combat -Offence : increasing attack+damage juulcesaar Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| csarmi Supreme Hero gets back |
I really like the fact that heroes have joined the BF. But very much left to do to get it right. Now it is too unbalanced. Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Odvin Promising Famous Hero |
I like the way it's done in H4. In fact, this was the main change in H4 - heroes that take part in battle themselves! Putting them out of the battlefield once again, leaving only tactics + spellcasting for them, would be very cruel Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Khaelo Honorable Supreme Hero Underwater |
I like the ability to have heroes with no troops and troops with no hero. Balance is tricky but not impossible. The staff just has to put a lot of thought into it. I agree with weaving current "combat" skills into normal level up. Having to resurrect your hero every other battle is not only a nuisance, it slows down the already molasses-pace leveling. Splitting defence and offence also sounds like a good idea. A high-level mage's defence could take the form (animation) of some sort of in-built blocking spell, while if you tried to put 'em in melee, they'd still punch like a cream puff. There'd still be motivation to go after/protect the mages, since they wouldn't deal much retaliation, but at least they wouldn't die so quickly. Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| HeyYou Known Hero and beloved food provider. |
On balance . . . I think a good idea for balance is to limit the number of creatures in a stack, and in an army. I mean, can a single hero "realistically" control 5,000 creatures? Also, maybe make some creatures "incompatible," meaning some creatures simply will not travel in an army with certain other creatures (a good example of this would be Black Dragons and Titans). I don't have 4 yet, so if they already did that, then just ignore me and I'll quietly slink off to a corner. Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Juulcesaar Adventuring Hero |
I kinda reworked the level based extras So, adding a bonus/level, based on highest primary skills (first skill to reach grandmastery wins, switch when other skill has more skill points.) stealth heroes Nobility Heroes Combat Heroes Tactician Heroes Magician heroes Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| ThE_HyDrA Admirable Famous Hero The Leader of all Hydras |
Heroes in Combat vs. No Heroes in Combat It obviously appears that the majority of Heroes of Might and Magic IV fans are very much against removing the heroes from combat. I too, am with the majority of about 85% of people around the world who want to keep heroes in battle, whether it be in a new fashion, or the way it is now, in Heroes IV. Shaowei: "I can't believe people care so much about heroes being on the battlefield - it's what ruined HOMM4, together with the lame and unpredictable battlefield + no battle log." Well, you may now believe it. In my opinion, it isn't what ruined Heroes IV. Nothing ruined Heroes IV in my mind. It was an enjoyable game and still is for me, after 7 months. I admit, Heroes IV has kept me hooked for longer than Heroes III. "I hope NWC takes into account the comments of their fans, but when considering heroes on the battlefield, they should trust their own professionalism and NOT INCLUDE THEM AGAIN." I have every confidence that NWC can and will produce a great game in any respect. But the difference between a great and an excellent game is the excitement, and how long you play it for without being bored. When the idea of 'Heroes in Combat' was tossed around last year, many people liked the idea of it, but according to the thread I created, cared more about the 'Dragon Golem' instead of Heroes in Combat. Now, times have changed. This is now the forefront of discussion and many things need to be said before anything is done. Heroes V is in the early process of being designed and nothing is set in stone, and nor shall it be for quite some time. These are the ideas being tossed around at NWC. My Opinion: Balance Might and Magic: Immortal Heroes: Skills and Sophistications: Experience points: Enjoyment I believe that it is more enjoyable to have heroes present on the battelfield. It gives the game, not to mention the battles more depth and challenge. Now not only having to worry about the creatures, but also the hero. This adds an element of strategy and fun to the game. Strategy Artifacts and skills: Focusing on Heroes and Creatrures: Summary I don't believe NWC should revert back to the old ways of an immortal hero. All of the facts that other people and myself have outline point firmly against allowing 'The God' back into the game. Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Damacon_Ace Famous Hero Also known as Nobris Agni |
...heroes in battle was a good innovation! I guess everyone has their opinions on this heroes in battle question, but this is my opinion. HEROES IN BATTLE OR NOT The decision of taking heroes into battle by 3DO was a great idea - it allowed you to kill enemy heroes whom would otherwise be likely to flee from combat - something that the AI kept doing in Heroes 1-3. So the idea of putting heroes into battle got rid of the annoyance of fighting the same hero again and again, and seeing him/her flee continuously. Also, that 1 hero per week was also good... it prevents the AI from continually hiring them. But there is room for improvement... I don't like the way the Combat skill was handeled in Heroes 4. Maybe in Heroes 5 it should look like this: COMBAT SKILL - Increases the melee attack and defense rating of the hero. At Grandmaster the hero gets a +50 in melee and defense rating, reduces enemy target's defense to 0 and has first strike and second strike. The Melee Secondary Skill will be replaced by the Vitality skill. Basic Vitality - hero has +20% to HP and gets +1 to speed ans +3 to movement. Archery and resistance skills are as normal. Also, if you read my response on the HOMM5, the Vision Thread you will notice I had an idea on the introduction of the Siege Skill. Well, here it is: SIEGE PRIMARY SKILL - allows the hero's army to attack towns more effectively. At Grandmaster Level the attacker's army can ignore all wall and moat penalties when fighting through walls (i.e. defending units don't get defense bonuses when attacked). Other than that, heroes were paid a lot of attention in the development of the game. Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| kerberos_gr Hired Hero |
Hello there Although most of the people around here seem to support the idea of heroes participating actively in the battlefield ,i have to say that this new feature proved to be completely catastrophic for the balance of the game. quote "Balance is hard/next to impossible to achieve with multiple creatures in stacks and single heroes on the battlefield at the same time. Even if they balance it for the most obvious development paths, there are always specific cases where imbalances occur." Well shaowei,what i can say man about your comment,i guess i couldnt agree more ,i think you captured in a phrase one of the biggest weaknesses of this game. Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Juulcesaar Adventuring Hero |
Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Darion Promising Famous Hero |
Making the heroes "immortal" and untouchable was part of what was Heroes of Might and Magic. Now HOMM is just like any other turn-based fantasy strategy game. Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Xenophanes Promising Famous Hero Chief Consul to Queen Mutare |
My solution... When I read the line of text on the Might and Magic Guild a few days ago that said that Heroes would be taken off the battlefield in Heroes V, I must say that quite a few thoughts whirled through my head. First came disbelief. Then amazement. Then denial. I am sure that many people went through the same thing. However, through it all, I began to ponder the pros and cons of such a change. Now, I believe that I have the perfect solution to the problem of Heroes in combat vs. no Heroes in combat. Personally, I like having Heroes on the battlefield in Heroes IV. Heroes I, II, and III were more aptly called "Creatures of Might and Magic." The Heroes just didn't have a big enough role. Sure, Heroes III helped by introducing Hero specialties, but the Heroes were still too intangible. Some have said that the Heroes in previous Heroes games were too godlike as a result of their staying out of the fray of battle. My solution, however, looks at all of this from a historical point of view. Great leaders and commanders of military forces, let's face it, never really did or do fight with their troops in combat. They sat a safe distance away, giving the commands for their legions to mobilize. However, there were some figures in history who did lead their troops in to battle and fight with them, such as Richard the Lion Heart, which greatly increased troop morale. Have you guessed what my solution is already? Heroes should be, as a default, removed from the battlefield, staying safely on their horses to sling the occasional spell. However, the Hero should have the option of charging into the battle to fight as a unit and as they do in Heroes IV, an action that would increase troop morale by a considerable amount. Heroes could then return to the safety of their horse if they so desired, or remain on the battlefield, with the risk of being slain. For anyone at New World who happens to be reading this, please take this idea into consideration. Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Djive Honorable Supreme Hero Zapper of Toads |
To HeyYou: Heroes is a fantasy game. Sometimes realism spoils things. Putting limits on stack sizes is one of those things. Btw. 1 reasonably developed hero can kill several thousand peasants in H4. In Heroes 4 morale can make the difference in the battle. Good morale is 25% extra damage, poor morale means doing 20% less damage. In a tight battle this is the difference between success and failure. Opposite alignments means -5 morale, which is huge. (Grand master leadership just gives you +5 morale.) I think morale and alignments works well in Heroes 4. I'm a bit against the 'pentagram' but viewing alignments as factions that penalties to mix with each other is a good idea. To JuulCeasar: How are you going to decide the type of the Hero? Is it always start class no matter which secondary skills that hero takes? Anyway, the failure of heroes 4 are related to two things. First, Combat is made much too important and essesential so all must take it. I agree with JuulCeasar here. Place the defence increase in level-up. Myself, I'd prefer to give all heroes the same defence boost per level. All heroes needs to develope their defences when they level-up. The second failure is to put all the hero might skill into one primary skill. I'd like three Might skills, to dissuade mages to take them all (because they would seriously fall behind in their magic developement if they did.) Group 1. Attack Group 2. Defence Group 3. Archery. I'm also for letting the player tailor the character as far as possible. For instance by offering choices like: Alternatively, these bonuses could be selected in random by the computer depedning on the hero's starting class. (Working the same way as the primary skills did in Heroes 3.) I don't think the bonuses should be the same and automatic, because then all the heroes of a class will turn out exactly the same and I dislike that. @ThE_HyDrA: Yes, levelling up is dismally slow. My wish: let Hero level-up as the result of combat rather than requiring the Map maker to place dozens of tree of knowledge on the maps. Once, you get to a certain level it becomes a matter of.... How long until I get to the next tree of knowledge? @kerberos_gr: I don't see what you mean. How did heroes in combat create imbalance in the game? You already have the same problem for spellcasting creatures. One creature can curse, fortune, bloodlust, mirth, song of peace and so on a stack which is arbitrarily big. The problem has existed a long time in heroes. 1 genie could in H2 reduce any stack to half, even if that stack was 100 Titans. The unpredicitibility of a combat is a good thing. If you knew before hand that you will win you would not enjoy the game in the same way. If you lose the battle, it is either because your opponent had better strategy than you or because you overestimated your forces. If I know I'll win the final battle, then it's only half as fun to do it. Even in h2 and h3 you had a lot of unpredicitibility to the game, it's just that you have accepted it and rarely thinks about it. Battles may be won or lost because you get morale /luck for the right stack or because an ability like aging or stoning kicks in at the right time. I can agree with you that say Hypnotize probably should be allowed at all, but too powerful spells is an entirely different thing than Heroes in combat. If a spell is too poweful then it can be removed from the game or toned down. If you protect your Hero or place the hero in the correct slot, then the enemy has very limited choices to kill your hero in the first round, the choices vary a bit with the faction you face. @Xeno: Hmmm... If you go back a couple of hundred years, then most leaders were in their armies and leading them personally. In Swedish history many of the best known kings and rebels have met their deaths on the fields of battle. It's not that common that kings die, but it was common that they did battle things out themselves. In a game where you have ample oppurtunities for ressurrection Heroes can die. It's not a big deal. If your hero dies learn from your mistake and hopefully you will improve your battle tactics the next time. ____________ Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Juulcesaar Adventuring Hero |
As I said, the skill with the most advancements wins (so let's say a GM life magic without ressurection =15 skill points for life, and he has GM combat and GM mR =10 skill points, so he has to increase stats as a magician. If he ads GM combat to it, but he first had 15 life skill points, he stays magician. One single archery would make him a combattant. If he maxed out ressurection, he stays magician for the rest of his life). I would keep it with 1 skill, and drop defence: what use is GM attack skill if you could have had GM order magic (and hypnotize in your town)? Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| Djive Honorable Supreme Hero Zapper of Toads |
My view is that since there are several pure Mage skills there should also be several pure Might skill. There should be at least 2 such skills and preferrably 3. As I said I like the "give player" control over developement. I don't like hard-coded bonuses per class, especially when these classes change when you level-up the character. It's then better to merge the bonuses into skills so the skills themselves are associated with bonuses, or as I proposed before let the basic class decide. As for the hypnotism. If I play a Warrior... Why would I consider developing a magic skill to Grand Master? Give warrior skills to warriors! Hypnotism is one of those spells which needs to be toned down or removed. It simply does too much. Attack skill of no use? The Melee attack skill is one of the more powerful skills in H4. Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link | |||
| ||||
This thread is pages long: 1 
. But if 3DO wants to stop all those negative reactions on the changes in HMM4, this step back will probably help them.
