So what's the final verdict on Heroes V?

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

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23266
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Feb 3 2008, 20:59

Right... i bet that's why you're stopping...



And i wasn't using it as "like some absolute reference" (the poster is anti-MBS, "pro-players know everything" with a vengeance), just thought it was funny, seeing the posters name and all... and the post you so graciously quoted didn't disagree about how SC is more about clicking then strategy, but about how adding more strategy and less click-iness won't destroy SC's gameplay as the OP claimed...

yes, RTS require speed and fast reaction, but it also needs strategic thinking.


I never said it didn't. You just never cared enough to hear that... that's why i felt the need to repeat it and a few other things...

Also, you are obviously better at strategy than someone if you can make up the same strategies as he can in a shorter time.


Of course... but that's not the same thing as executing the strategy with high APM's (which is what RTS's require and TBS not so much, as coming up with a good strategy a few turns faster gives you an advantage too... no one's going to stay in the game if you take 10 min per turn).
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

ProMeTheus112
Peasant
Peasant
Posts: 51
Joined: 26 Sep 2006

Postby ProMeTheus112 » Feb 4 2008, 0:04

Keep it up dude ^^ Going back and forth around your starting point. You're hilarious.

Oh and just so you know, some progamers play with low apm =)

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23266
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Feb 4 2008, 14:56

well my whole argument is that what you call strategy actually involves plenty of other skills besides strategy... if you fail to grasp that concept any new arguments i bring have no relevance.

some progamers play with low apm


Really? Show me... coz the impression i got from the Blizz SC2 forum (i don't really concern myself with counting apm's when watching replays) is that having low apm results mostly in losing in pro-games (and amateur games too, from my experience).
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

ProMeTheus112
Peasant
Peasant
Posts: 51
Joined: 26 Sep 2006

Postby ProMeTheus112 » Feb 4 2008, 22:42

There is nothing I fail to grasp in what you said but what makes no sense at all. Of course RTS require strategy skills AND other skills, and you certainly never pointed out what exactly in the things I said to describe strategy was in fact not strategy. Alternatively, I did point out what in the things you said to describe strategy in Heroes was in fact not strategy.

Yes, some progamers play with low apm (around 150). They're mostly either zerg or protoss. Terran normally requires more apm because of a specific matchup that takes a lot of control skills (vs zerg) and forces you to play faster. In any case, more apm certainly won't make you a better player, unless you are particularly slow. It really isn't a factor to learn how to click faster, but rather to learn how to think faster so as to be able to act more in a shorter time frame.

Speed is not really a determining factor between good players. It is mainly one of the large gaps you find between a noob and a decent player. It is not the main skill that good RTS such as Starcraft focus on.

PS : most of the people who post on the Blizzard forums are very bad players and really don't know what they are talking about. Competitive players gather around sites such as Teamliquid.net or Gosugamers.net. You will also find noobs on those two sites as well, but at least there are a lot of good ones too.

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23266
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Feb 5 2008, 13:22

There is nothing I fail to grasp in what you said but what makes no sense at all.


You actually know what failing to grasp or not understanding means, right? Because you know you can actually understand something that's illogical... understanding it is actually quite useful in refuting it.

ProMeTheus112 wrote:There is nothing I fail to grasp in what you said but what makes no sense at all. Of course RTS require strategy skills AND other skills, and you certainly never pointed out what exactly in the things I said to describe strategy was in fact not strategy.


No, i never ever said over 100 times that reaction time (what RTS require that TBS don't) isn't strategy... ain't selective memory great?

You're whole point was that SC is better because you have to react in real time while in a TBS you don't (that and that you can just use one build order over and over to win no matter what, which is a pretty n00bish idea, one other have about SC too btw, and still counts as a strategy, albeit a very bad one).


Alternatively, I did point out what in the things you said to describe strategy in Heroes was in fact not strategy.


:lolu:
You mean using exploits.... sure, i bet in a real combat situation everyone obeys the rules.
And all those military classes where they teach strategies used through out history aren't really teaching strategy...

Those where meant to show you that strategy isn't what you think, not to show that Heroes is more strategic then SC... remember that my original statement was that Civilization is more strategic (way more options), with HoMM not being clearly one way or the other because in the end better tactics on the Battlefield can make up for a weaker strategy (same thing with SC, better micro makes up for having less units etc.).

I do recall giving credit to the idea that SC might be considered better strategically on the point that it's better balanced then most games (like chess compared to certain real life "wars"), so i most certainly not saying SC has no strategy...

Speed is not really a determining factor between good players. It is mainly one of the large gaps you find between a noob and a decent player. It is not the main skill that good RTS such as Starcraft focus on.


Then why is every pro-gamer comment i heard is against MBS (true, not that many, but no pro MBS ones either)?

You sure it's not just that most pro-players have close enough apm/speed that it doesn't really shows that much?!

And if you're really arguing that a player that micro's his units faster in battle (not overall apm, that one is skewed by the warming up they do in the beginning that doesn't affect gameplay, some players might warm up faster etc) isn't better at SC then you're the one that should check out those replays on teamliquid.net some more.


Competitive players gather around sites such as Teamliquid.net or Gosugamers.net. You will also find noobs on those two sites as well, but at least there are a lot of good ones too.


Sure, coz obviously the OP of that thread didn't use to spam the forum with teamliquid links... but hey, let's just brand anyone you don't agree with a n00b without bother checking.


Plus, you're assuming that playing a video game well makes you an authority on what is strategy... someone that only plays Diablo for example wouldn't know much about Role-playing because despite the game's classification as an RPG it's a pure hack-and-slash with mininal role playing... heck, even the best computer RPG has little role playing options when compared to pure combat options (try finishing them using high Charisma with a character who doesn't use it for combat effects).
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

ProMeTheus112
Peasant
Peasant
Posts: 51
Joined: 26 Sep 2006

Postby ProMeTheus112 » Feb 6 2008, 1:29

Then why is every pro-gamer comment i heard is against MBS (true, not that many, but no pro MBS ones either)?


Pro-gamer comments on MBS ? Show ? ^^;;
Anyway, I already answered that. (speed is a necessary skill, removing MBS could decrease its need, some people think it's not cool. dunno what the pros think about that)

You sure it's not just that most pro-players have close enough apm/speed that it doesn't really shows that much?!

Indeed. Did you read what you were quoting ? Actually, and I think I have said it before, some pros focus on mechanical perfection and some on other aspects of the game like economy or whatever. All of those aspects involve strategy to a higher or lesser degree, but this is irrelevant to the one-sided argument here.

And if you're really arguing that a player that micro's his units faster in battle (not overall apm, that one is skewed by the warming up they do in the beginning that doesn't affect gameplay, some players might warm up faster etc) isn't better at SC then you're the one that should check out those replays on teamliquid.net some more.

Maybe you want to check out who knows more by playing a match ?

The rest of what you said is rubbish I couldn't be arsed to answer (again, in some cases). Since you either never understood what my point was or don't remember it (ain't selective memory great? because indeed reaction time is not strategy and I never said so), I will remind you or sum it up to you here : SC is better strategically because you have to adapt to what your opponent is doing (it happens to be in real time), whereas heroes lets you play the same way a lot and offers a lot less possibilities of strategic reactions between players.

I'm not checking this forum again btw since I'm done with my map thing on H5, so have a good life and try to get a little better at arguing. And at RTS ;)

User avatar
Ya5MieL
Marksman
Marksman
Posts: 428
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Kutjevo, Croatia

Postby Ya5MieL » Feb 6 2008, 1:49

I happened to be quite good at some RTS games (mostly AoE), and I asure you, the speed of reaction is vital when two good players met. Battling on few fronts with sneak attacks requires constant attention and extremely fast reaction to it.
TBS will always be more strategic game than RTS since it includes more long term planing (and that is the definition of strategy in a way). So, in TBS strategy generally means more. In RTS tactics, not strategy, are most important (along with before mentioned reaction speed, and even precision in clicking).

asuka
Leprechaun
Leprechaun
Posts: 28
Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Postby asuka » Feb 6 2008, 7:27

Ya5MieL wrote:I happened to be quite good at some RTS games (mostly AoE), and I asure you, the speed of reaction is vital when two good players met. Battling on few fronts with sneak attacks requires constant attention and extremely fast reaction to it.
TBS will always be more strategic game than RTS since it includes more long term planing (and that is the definition of strategy in a way). So, in TBS strategy generally means more. In RTS tactics, not strategy, are most important (along with before mentioned reaction speed, and even precision in clicking).


I agree. TBS should have more strategy than RTS. Imagine converting SC to TBS, and you would need a lot more strategy & planning. Just like in chess (i love chess), a 2hour clocked game would be played with better strategy than a 10 min blitz game.

But as for comparing SC with HoMM5, I think SC is more strategic. Not because of the RTS/ TBS genre but mainly because HoMM contains lots of luck factors (imagine opening a treasure chest with 500xp against a 2000xp or fighting lots of peasants against lots of assasins for the same mine). Due to this, winning in HoMM not only requires strategy but also requires good luck. Unlike in SC or chess, there is no luck- the winner is always the better player.

Personally, I do not play HoMM mainly because of strategy but rather because of the fun it brings being an adventure game.

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23266
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Feb 6 2008, 13:07

ProMeTheus112 wrote:Pro-gamer comments on MBS ? Show ? ^^;;


That guy from the blizz forum you said was a n00b posted a link a while back... but i think sclegacy or starcraft-source also has it in the archives somewhere...


Maybe you want to check out who knows more by playing a match?


You think a marksmen knows more about the physics of a bullet then a physicist because he can beat him at a sharpshooting contest?!

I haven't played SC in almost 3 years... and even then i'm pretty sure that those guys that didn't even managed to get into highschool but spent most of their day at the game parlour would have creamed me... doesn't make their opinions about SC any less incoherent.

But hey, why not, at least i can find out if you're really any good...

ain't selective memory great? because indeed reaction time is not strategy and I never said so), I will remind you or sum it up to you here : SC is better strategically because you have to adapt to what your opponent is doing (it happens to be in real time), whereas heroes lets you play the same way a lot and offers a lot less possibilities of strategic reactions between players.


And as i said, it's only because it happens in real time and you played it way more that it seems you react more in SC then in a TBS (not necessarily Heroes).

I'm not checking this forum again btw since I'm done with my map thing on H5, so have a good life and try to get a little better at arguing. And at RTS ;)


Gee... how nice... do you also end your games with "u guys r n00bz, im out a here!!11111111"
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
Mlai
Scout
Scout
Posts: 152
Joined: 08 Dec 2007

Postby Mlai » Feb 6 2008, 14:48

The game you should play vs him shouldn't be SC, it should be H5. Since he's all about "SC uuuuber strategy H5 checkers LOLOLOL," it stands to reason that he should be unrivaled in a simple game like H5.

User avatar
Warmonger
Pixie
Pixie
Posts: 125
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Contact:

Postby Warmonger » Feb 9 2008, 15:53

After getting familiar with TotE I may say this one is finally playable. Still, loading times, avaliable map pool and general problem with running any mod makes this game daunting.
VCMI : the future of Heroes 3!
People just don't care.

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23266
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Feb 12 2008, 11:45

Mlai wrote:The game you should play vs him shouldn't be SC, it should be H5. Since he's all about "SC uuuuber strategy H5 checkers LOLOLOL," it stands to reason that he should be unrivaled in a simple game like H5.


Yeah, but then i'd have to play myself... instead of getting someone that played SC more then me (as in missed a whole week of school once)... now that's strategy...
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: Google [Bot] and 16 guests