The Best And The Worst

The new Heroes games produced by Ubisoft. Please specify which game you are referring to in your post.

Moderator: Moderators

MattII
Demon
Demon
Posts: 309
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: New Zealand

The Best And The Worst

Postby MattII » Oct 21 2010, 21:55

Simply, list what you consider to be the three biggest improvements made by Blackhole, and the three worst issues:
Best
1. No longer having to send a hero around map dwellings to collect creatures.
2. You can control the development path of your hero much more closely.
3. Bigger battlefields.

Worst
1. Reducing the resource count to 4.
2. Auto-gaining any mine in your AoC, regardless of who flagged it, but not gaining unguarded mines.
3. Not fixing the abysmal, totally unepic scale.

User avatar
Zenofex
Scout
Scout
Posts: 151
Joined: 09 Sep 2010
Location: Dark Balkans

Postby Zenofex » Oct 21 2010, 22:44

Nice topic, it could be used to give the devs some direction if they are really checking these boards.

Best 3:
1. More detailed and customizable hero development.
2. More variegated battles.
3. New creatures per faction, enhanced faction uniqueness.

Worst 3:
1. Nearly the same immature art style of the creatures, stupid anime pseudo-epicness.
2. Simplified town and adventure map management, could result in dumbed down quality of the strategical part of the game.
3. Reduced number of factions compared to all previous installments after HoMM I.
Beware Kreegans bearing gifts.

User avatar
wimfrits
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 2030
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands

Postby wimfrits » Oct 22 2010, 6:59

Best:
- significant change in atmosphere
- number of resources down to 4
- hero development path

Doubt:
- bigger battlefield (shift from tactics to exploits?)

Before I play a demo I can't really note bad things.
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

User avatar
Variol
Pit Lord
Pit Lord
Posts: 1249
Joined: 05 Sep 2008

Postby Variol » Oct 22 2010, 9:24

If someone could provide a link with all changes, that would be helpful.

User avatar
Tress
Raider
Raider
Posts: 797
Joined: 05 Dec 2007

Postby Tress » Oct 22 2010, 9:29

Best
- 2 Hero classes/faction, but that with condition that they are diverse between faction as they were in homm5.
- More unique faction abilities.

Worst - 4 resources, even if it somewhat balances game play it will make maps look poor and it is somewhat disregard to first 4 parts.
Dynamic battlefield - I dont believe that it will add to balance or AI will be able to utilize it.

MattII
Demon
Demon
Posts: 309
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: New Zealand

Postby MattII » Oct 22 2010, 10:27

Variol wrote:If someone could provide a link with all changes, that would be helpful.

Check out the stickied thread that doesn't have 'wishlist' in the title.

User avatar
Pitsu
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 1823
Joined: 22 Nov 2005

Postby Pitsu » Oct 22 2010, 17:53

Oh a new topic in H6 subforum? Feeling like shouting in desert?

best (random order):
1. more variety in battlefields
2. weather effects (if i am not mistaken)
3. the fact that they admit that H5 had shortcomings (not that i believe them fixing all it)

worst (random order):
1. the map is apparently still neither strategic nor adventure. (bad overview and besides non-interactable "eye candies" little to explore)
2. wish to make factions different but still applying general format to all of them (e.g all units have an upgrade, all towns have female and male heroes, same resources for each town etc).
3. miserable managment of communications with fans.
Avatar image credit: N Lüdimois

User avatar
LongDarkBlues
Pixie
Pixie
Posts: 103
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby LongDarkBlues » Oct 25 2010, 21:51

Zenofex wrote:1. Nearly the same immature art style of the creatures, stupid anime pseudo-epicness.

I've seen this a few times on here (perhaps by you?) and I can't see that at all. Clash of Heroes? That's definitely anime-inspired. This? I don't even see a vague hint of anime inspiration in the art design. It all seems straight-up standard Western Fantasy to me.

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23265
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Oct 26 2010, 9:57

wimfrits wrote:Doubt:
- bigger battlefield (shift from tactics to exploits?)


How are exploits about BF size?! Archers being able to run away from low movement units works fine as a strategy (and won't be op with heroes having melee attacks), especially since you can actually work for getting to it by taking out the units with high movement and the enemy can try to counter you. And like everything it all depends on how well it's balanced.
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!
I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €

Image

User avatar
wimfrits
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 2030
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands

Postby wimfrits » Oct 26 2010, 22:12

I agree, it all depends on balance.
I'm just worried about a larger difference between slower melee units and ranged or hit-and-run units.
Imo a size like H5 creates a tight battle where every piece can be dangerous, though even in H5 creatures like blood furies are horribly exploitable.

I consider archers being able to run away from slow melee units an exploit btw ;)
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23265
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Oct 27 2010, 8:16

Limited ammo should be able to help with that (and destroying the ammo cart earlier). And like i said, it's not really an exploit when you can easily plan for it on both sides most of the time. Sure, you can make it unfair by not giving the other unit any chance to catch up by making the difference between their movements so much that the archer can move and shoot every other turn, but that's another problem, which could apply for all creatures (like running around with one unit while having your hero hit the slow enemy etc.) And the fact that heroes get unlimited normal attacks will help with it too.

You should go to the wish thread and demand that movement is balanced enough so that the archer kiting thing won't be so OP/abusable.
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!

I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €


Image

User avatar
wimfrits
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 2030
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands

Postby wimfrits » Oct 27 2010, 19:54

ThunderTitan wrote: You should go to the wish thread and demand that movement is balanced enough so that the archer kiting thing won't be so OP/abusable.


Well, what other point does a bigger battlefield have if not to emphasize differences in movement? I doubt that all units will get +6 movement if the battlefield size is increased by 6 squares to balance things correctly.

If my unlimited attacking hero with 1 fast unit can win against an unlimited amount of slower units then I feel something is wrong. If this will be the case in more H6 battles than in H5, then I consider that a shift from tactics to exploits.
Archer tactics, use of retaliation triggers, luring enemy stacks away, strength of strike-and-return will all be emphasized by a larger battlefield.
Again, I think H5 got the size just about right.
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

Bugle
Leprechaun
Leprechaun
Posts: 14
Joined: 27 Oct 2010

Postby Bugle » Oct 27 2010, 21:26

I'd say the size accounts for more than that, honestly. Primarily: room for combatants to maneuver. In V, too often did I feel like the small space made maneuvering more difficult than normal as did the rather large large units). I never really had this problem with sieges, aside from inside the castle walls, but it made sense to be claustrophobic there.

Another factor is "can we get 7 large units in one battle?" which was an annoyance I had with V as well. Sure, 7 large units may or may not be the optimal strategy, but the fact that it was just impossible just seems like poor design, honestly. Why restrict what units a hero can have at his disposal?

And what's wrong with emphasizing those tactics? If they're tactics, as you say, why shouldn't they be viable? I'll admit, if they're too powerful, they should be changed, but I never noticed them as being stronger in III or IV with their large maps, than in V (granted, I've never really been in the competitive scene, so I could very well be missing something you're not), and all three would let you do them to some extent.

Personally, I don't see why being able to use speed to your advantage is a bad thing. I've noticed that a strong but slow unit will take out medium strength and speed units which will take out low strength high speed units which will take out strong but slow units. Seems like a fine Rock Paper Scissors triangle to me...

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23265
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Oct 28 2010, 7:28

wimfrits wrote:
ThunderTitan wrote: You should go to the wish thread and demand that movement is balanced enough so that the archer kiting thing won't be so OP/abusable.


Well, what other point does a bigger battlefield have if not to emphasize differences in movement? I doubt that all units will get +6 movement if the battlefield size is increased by 6 squares to balance things correctly.


How about being able to split up enemy forces so they won't be able to reach the other side of the BF in one go?! The ability to have more obstacles on the BF? Allowing for more positioning during the first turns instead of simply attacking as soon as possible (which also made sitting back on the first turn to let the enemy be the one that gets into range so you can be the first to do dmg the best strategy).

Plus, there's no reason why archers (and no retal units, but without H5 init they shouldn't be a problem) should have that much more movement then the lowest movement unit, you can just leave that to flyers and cavalry etc. while balancing archers vs low move units. And in order for the tactic to be OP the archer would need enough extra movement to be able to move once or twice and shoot the next turn without getting caught, and that would have to be a pretty big difference in movement, unless the player is better at positioning and taking advantage of obstacles, but then it's simply being better at it then the other player...
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!

I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €


Image

User avatar
Thelonious
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 1336
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: right behind the next one

Postby Thelonious » Oct 28 2010, 10:17

@ ThunderTitan:
You are aware that you are discussing with wimfrits? You know, the guy who can defeat a black dragon using a lvl 1 hero and 5 lvl 1 units (sorta :P)?

back on topic:

Best:
Changes. Changes are always good because sticking to the same concept becomes boring. Thus I applaude all changes and I will judge them when I play the game. (I'm very positive by nature :devious:)
That means: fewer recources, fewer factions to begin with (if they are balanced correctly this is a really really good thing) other creature system, AoC, turning towns. I hope that those turn out to be a good things.

Worst:
No apparent depth in the story (same story again)
Probably no creative change in factions and creatures
Grah!

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23265
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Oct 28 2010, 11:56

Thelonious wrote:@ ThunderTitan:
You are aware that you are discussing with wimfrits? You know, the guy who can defeat a black dragon using a lvl 1 hero and 5 lvl 1 units (sorta :P)?


Well it's always nice to talk to someone who knows what he's talking about actually...

And the actual question is "can anyone do that once you tell them the method", which is an exploit, or does it take careful movement that depends on carefully assessing(sp?) the current situation and variables. It's a fine line indeed, but i'd rather have bigger BF's and them pester them about balance then somewhat balance (H5 had it just as much, but it was more about init then movement) at the cost of the BF size.
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!

I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €


Image

User avatar
wimfrits
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 2030
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands

Postby wimfrits » Oct 28 2010, 19:27

ThunderTitan wrote: How about being able to split up enemy forces so they won't be able to reach the other side of the BF in one go?! The ability to have more obstacles on the BF? Allowing for more positioning during the first turns instead of simply attacking as soon as possible (which also made sitting back on the first turn to let the enemy be the one that gets into range so you can be the first to do dmg the best strategy).


I agree completely that a larger battlefield also allows more tactical play. I just fear the effect will be more profound on exploits.

Consider H4 where exploits are a much larger factor than in H5. Even though H5 has the invulnerable hero that allows for a whole new dimension of exploits.
In H4 basic summoning or better yet, a wand of summon leprechaun increased your hero's potential at least tenfold. Why? Primarily because the battlefield was a lot larger. It wouldn't have worked in a H5 size. Summon elementals is hardly used in H5. Retal stealing with fodder units is used only once or twice in combat. Which I think is a good thing!
Enough to allow a cunning player to win against high odds; but not so much to win insane battles.

Then again; it's a big concern for me, but before I actually play the game I won't condemn the change. :)
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23265
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Oct 29 2010, 6:12

Wait, how did the larger BF play more of a role then the heroes being on the BF? Is it because you couldn't reach the enemy in 1 turn like in H5?
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!

I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €


Image

User avatar
wimfrits
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 2030
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands

Postby wimfrits » Oct 29 2010, 7:36

Heroes on the battlefield didn't really make a difference. Replace the hero with a key stack and you get the same situation. The difference is that in H4 the battlefield offers plenty of room to cycle through wait, attack and retreat to a safe spot. And still have the opportunity to summon new fodder units in the process. H5 field is too small to do that more than once or twice (with some exceptions ofcourse).
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23265
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Nov 3 2010, 10:02

Dude, easy answer is to not move your units in the area the other guy can attack you... and make the AI be able to understand that too...
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!

I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €


Image


Return to “Heroes V-VI”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests