ToH Goes Old School

[Angelspit]

<img src="/http://www.toheroes.com/clans/clan3.jpg" align=right vspace=10 hspace=10>The <a href="/http://www.toheroes.com/">Tournament of Honor</a> announced that it will now accept reports of Heroes of Might and Magic III games, by popular demand. Veterans and rookies who are interested should contact <a href="mailto:admin@toheroes.com?subject=Heroes III Icon">Vesuvius</a> to request a Heroes III icon for their profile. <i>"Win/loss reports are done in the same manner as for homm5 players, but select Heroes III Map or Heroes III Random Map for map selection, and Heroes III Game for Subtournament option."</i>



The ToH site had been supporting Heroes III since its release, but dropped the game shortly before the release of Heroes V. The multiplayer scene is doing better with the release of the patches, but we're still far from the activity of the golden years. Will any Heroes game ever defeat Heroes III for the multiplayer throne? Talk about a difficult challenge.

If you would like to take a look at the original page visit this link:
https://www.celestialheavens.com/1171398126

[CloudRiderX]

"Will any Heroes game ever defeat Heroes III for the multiplayer throne?"



NEVER. But IV is very close, I feel.

[Vision]

IV will NEVER be anywhere close to what H3 was for multiplayer. The running isn't even close... its like a marathon runner racing against a jet, it just doesnt compare.



Good call for ToH. With the lack of activity in Heroes 5, and almost no activity now at Oracle, its a damn good move.

[CloudRiderX]

I have to disagree, IV has a good multiplayer. Definitely not better than III, but good nonetheless. I think all it needed was a better balance between the factions (i.e. Death Magic being weaker than the others) to be complete. That's what H3 multiplayer is all about: balance. IV was also nice because you could choose different units each time you played.



Nice touch with capitalizing your 'never' just like I did with mine.

[ByteBandit]

I've never played the tournaments. But H3 is still one of the most balanced games ever, even though some still try to say it is'nt.

[Avalon-Eternal]

H5 would have better multiplayer if they actually had some towns on the maps. Seriously, is their one official map where there is neutral towns to capture and build up? I like H3 because they have a good number of towns on the maps (and can find maps with more towns) its just no fun when you have your town, their town, and each have the same strength armies.



Remember Heroes 1? Towns everywhere! And it was about building those towns up and getting bigger and better armies then the enemy, not just leveling one hero getting a big army and then fighting the opposing side.



Love H3 multi after WOG, got my best heroes skirmish game out of that. H4 had much better campaigns though.

[Akul]

When talking about multiplayer, it dependsw on style you like the most. H3&5 is for those who like army clashing while H4 is for those who like that by smaller size but more important hero developing.

Talking about factions, Equilibrius does a great job here and all factions are balanced.

[hammerofoz]

Hello again everyone. Now allow me to be cynical. My one great problem with H5 (among others), is the obsession of the developers (and the multiplayer crowd) to produce a "balanced game". I have always felt that Heroes is a single player game, yet the developers seem to have ignored this. Yes there were campaigns but the maps were predominantly multi. Given the complexity of the map editor I have doubts that there will be many of the great single player maps of the H2-H3 era. And the wonderful thing about H2 was how totally unbalanced it was. There is a saying. " The squeaky wheel gets the oil." I personally feel that the multiplayer group have been generating much of the change/development in the game. Please Nival and Ubisoft make a decent game and forget about the balance. The tragedy is that everyone goes back to H3 anyway. I am back playing H2 at the moment, when Im not playing total war. Comments anyone?

[Avalon-Eternal]

*Hammerofoz*



I am in total non-agreement with you! What's the point if they make factions useless because they are weaker then the rest? Or one or two who are so much stronger no one will play any other? Balance is needed, but Nival must not "clone" the factions, as in making them so balanced they are clones and thus lame.



That is my comment.

[CloudRiderX]

Yeah Avalon-Eternal has pretty much wrapped it up.



Also, H5's map system is too technical. For some reason, Ubi split up all maps into Singleplayer and Multiplayer maps. I don't know why...all the previous games had one map type, but you could choose whether to play it multiplayer or singleplayer. In addition, H5 multiplayer maps all feel the same. I get bored of playing them lightning-quick.



I wouldn't call it an "obsession" to achieve balance, but in every case it is something important to consider. I think that makes it perfectly okay to be obsessed with it. It's an important part of the Heroes series.

[Akul]

Ilike the spliting. When choosing scenarios, I no longer need to concern myself with is that map mulyplayer or not.



To: hammerofoz

I totally disagree for you. Balance is, IMO, the most important factor in every game, not just HoMM! Was that singleplayer or multiplayer.

[hammerofoz]

My point is that the developers should focus on making a great single player game and forget balancing. At present they are catering for a minority of multiplayer fanatics who are choosing to ignore the game anyway. There lies the reason I posted. Have any of you ever played HOMM 2?

[hammerofoz]

I shouldnt say "fanatics" rather "lobbyists".

[CloudRiderX]

@hammerofoz

1. I highly doubt that all people who like to play HoMM multiplayer are a minority.



2. If they made a great singleplayer, but a horrible multiplayer:

- Multiplayer-preferring fans(like me) would be discouraged to buy it

- Everyone would be asking "If they made such a good singleplayer, how come they can't make a multiplayer that good?"



3. The most experienced HoMM players are the ones who play multiplayer, whether online or against their friends.



4. You keep bringing up the point that Nival needs to balance the singleplayer and multiplayer games, but that's not the case. They need to balance the actual factions out - that will make the multiplayer successful on its own.



5. There's no point in sacrificing the multiplayer for a great singleplayer, because singleplayer campaigns are the same every time (Take Dark Messiah for example, it had a great singleplayer, but once you play it one time, it's boring. So I play the multiplayer all the time now, even though, on its own, it's not as good as the singleplayer, it's different every time, so is more fun and more of a challenge). Multiplayer games are always different depending on the factions used, who is playing, and how good the players are. Playing against the computer is lame, because it always knows where your heroes are, how strong your heroes are, and it has predictable patterns that it uses repeatedly that can be caught on to and beaten. Increasing the difficulty of a singlepayer map just gives the computer player more resources - and that will help ANYONE win a map easier.

[Artas1984]

"Will any Heroes game ever defeat Heroes III for the multiplayer throne?"





Actualy this should have sounded this way:



"Will any Heroes game ever will come even close to Heroes III at all?"



And of course the asnwer is NO.

[Avalon-Eternal]

CloudRiderX has pretty much wrapped it up



Singleplayer is just multi with different objectives and bad cut scenes. If they *make* a good single player game it would... what? Wouldn't Multi have the same features? Or are you talking Story, More Fun Objectives, Special Features?



Making one side of the game good will make the other good too. Because Multi is a single player map with no special objectives and/or events. If the factions/core gameplay is good then its a win/win case.



And heroes has been a multi player game since the start man, that's why I love it. Playing a game of heroes with my friends is great, just as good as the campaign. Kudos CloudRider your exactly right, I have no desire to play my favorite H4 campaigns again, but I would play a multi map right about now... and the main problem... the A.I is *BORING* in every game ever made today.



Ok I am finished. Sorry I'm a bit long winded...

[Akul]

Ballancing has totally NOTHING to do with multiplayer. I don't like MP much so I rather play SP fan-made maps and even make maps for myself. Ballanced game make easier for mapmaker to create a great SP map without wasting half oh his time to make a proper ballance. So, please, stop saying thet ballance is ONLY important for MP.



And, hammerofoz , H2 certanly was never succesful for its un-ballance. And yes, I have played it. And I still do!

[hammerofoz]

To Sauron. "H2 certanly was never succesful for its un-ballance." I understand that English is most likely your second language but I am getting a brain strain trying to understand your point here.



To Avalon-Eternal. I agree about H4 campaigns. They were all totally poor. But so was the game as a whole. XL maps were practically unplayable. The reason? Because they removed town portal and Dimension door from the game. It made the end game of single player maps completely tedious.



To CRX.

"I highly doubt that all people who like to play HoMM multiplayer are a minority." And I highly doubt they are a majority. And my real point is that the developers should focus first on making a great SP game.



"The most experienced HoMM players are the ones who play multiplayer, whether online or against their friends." Rubbish. They may be the best players but not the most experienced.

Look you obviously love Mp but I dont so we can agree to disagree on that point.

Your point 4 seems to show that you dont understand what I am saying at all. I dont want balanced factions. I dont care. I want a game that I can play against the AI and have a good adventure.

[hammerofoz]

Sorry. I have no idea why this has posted 4 times. I hereby retire.

[Pol]

I rectified the situation, such I also think that once it was fully sufficent.