Gedankenexperiments of Might and Magic: Part I - The Races

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

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 2568
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Nowhereland

Postby Muszka » Jan 21 2008, 5:35

Nice thread

New world again? I liked the M&M one. Than it took me some time, but I'd got to like the H4's world also. Than the developers killed everybody again, and they created the a new universe... again. Yet again? I don't like habits, I don't like rules, and I don't like Systems either because they kill individuality, but this continous change is tiresome (just like Nelgirith wrote), plus I don't change things to what I'm connected emotionally, just like I don't change the people who are close to me every year.
Pitsu wrote:
So the first thing is, that mixing, for example, Tower and Haven, Dungeon and Stronghold, Necropolis and Inferno for absolutely no reason is a very bad design decision. There is no arguing around that either.

With such mixes the town lineup comes truly unpredictable. If your opponent plays Infernopolis, you do not know from start whether in decisive battle you are against vampires or succubi. To prepare yourself for conflict, you must spy and adopt to your opponent much more than in e.g. H3, where a Castle player is going to have angels, not titans. Sure, the mix of nations should make sense, or better keep the well defined factions separate and introduce new creatures to them.
Diversity is good indeed, and making things unpredictable is great also, it could add the much needed spice to the game's strategy and tactic side. But I agree with JJ and Nelgirith that mixing factions in such manner is not the right way to achieve diversity.
Castle and Tower?
Like mixing believers with realists. Churh was no friend with Science from the begining of their existance.
Dungeon and Stronhold?
(I don't see this in Tobius' post)
Magic with Magic denying? Hmm...
Inferno and Necropolis?
Somebody wrote here that they are both evil, so they can be combined. Evil is of different types. Demons have souls, be it corrupted or dark, while Necro doesn't have any kind of feelings. Necromancers use (as the name's meaning say), the Dead, while Demons use Evil beings.

As for balance... I do not care, with time it can be adjusted.

In an end, it's nice that people have so many ideas and that's admirable, because even if there are some that are 'not that good', there must be some that are great, mainly because of the rules of randomness. But the question goes: how many of these ideas actually end up in realization?
"Rage against the system, the system, what kills the human spirit."

User avatar
Posts: 27
Joined: 20 Nov 2007
Location: Earth >> Europe >> Germany

Postby Tobius » Jan 22 2008, 15:34

Hey everyone,

As you can see, I've heavily edited my first post, so there are no suggested line-ups anymore. Why did I do this? Well, I read your rejections of a so called "Infernopolis", etc. I think the problem was that I somehow steamrolled you with the exact line-ups which prescined from the basics of the concept.

What I want is a discussion about the concept itself and not the line-ups like it happend before. I hope for more fair comments and suggestions for improvements. The reason for doing this step is, because I don't want to draw the curtain over this concept before there was any real discussion of it. So far just the line-ups were assessed, but not the concept itself.

Well, I hope now can start a real discussion.


User avatar
Jolly Joker
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Re: Gedankenexperiments of Might and Magic: Part I - The Rac

Postby Jolly Joker » Jan 22 2008, 16:05

Tobius wrote:
1.1 We probably leave the old world and enter a completely new one.
1.2 In this new world the old 'factions' are replaced by new 'races'.
1.3 These factions could be: Humans, Elves, Orcs, etc.
1.4 Each of the races has an unique town.
1.5 Every town has an unique build-tree so there are no fixed towns anymore.
1.6 The build-tree enables various possibilties to develop the town.
1.7 The towns themselves have several tiers.
1.8 You cannot build every possible town structure because the build-place is limited ( might be more build-place available the higher the twon tier is).
1.9 There are different general directions for town structures imaginable.

2. Creature development:
2.1 There are several creature-tiers
2.2 There are different creatures to choose from
2.3 So you decide which creatures you want to recruit for your game youself
2.4 The traditional upgrades are replaced by add-ons for the armies to provide the enhancements which are available in specific town structures.

1.1-1.3 I think, it would be folly to yet again leave a just created world. We have race-based towns now, so why destroy everything?
1.4-1.9 What *I* would like is TRULY individual towns. No matter the system, picking between units, upgrades, no upgrades, what I really want are completely INDIVIDUAL towns so that no town is like the other. That includes the number of tiers as well as the number of allowed pickings from any tier if there was such a system, and so on. It may even include the number of stacks available in battle for one town and so on (which could be another racial special, by the way).

What I don't understand is point 1.5, though. What do you mean here?

2.1-2.4 This falls under what I've already said. I want different rules for each town, not the same for each.
Point 2.3 is a difficult one. There must be no "fillers" (which is one reason why I want towns to be individual. However, the ratio between creatures possible to build for a town to creatures usable in principal for that same town in any one game must not be too small, i.e., it makes no sense to build potentially 24 units in a town, but having 7 at most in any one game: the ratio 7/24 is much too small.
Last edited by Jolly Joker on Jan 23 2008, 6:26, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 2568
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Nowhereland

Re: Gedankenexperiments of Might and Magic: Part I - The Rac

Postby Muszka » Jan 22 2008, 20:04

Jolly Joker wrote:Okay.
1.1-1.3 I think, it would be folly to yet again leave a just created world. We have race-based towns now, so why destroy everything?
Fully agreed.
The rest? Individuality is good, I agree, that it should be part of the game. Just like
-the Stronghold's system in H5,
-the runic magic of the dwarves in H5
-the creature choises of Preserve in H4
-the extra money in Dungeon in H1 & H2
-the presence of treasury.
-the levels of the mage guild like in H3
And many more.
But where is the limit between the goodness of the individuality and destroying the game?
"Rage against the system, the system, what kills the human spirit."

User avatar
Posts: 83
Joined: 05 Nov 2007

Postby Dacarnix_ » Jan 22 2008, 21:52

One thing that I'd really like to see in HoMM VI is a more fluid tier system than the current one. With a small handful of exceptions, upgrades typically conform to their own tier. There are a few equations here and there where they are treated as being in their tier +1, but a Conscript is no Archer, and we all know that.

From a new player's perspective, it seems rather silly that the most trained Archer possible still isn't as good of a shooter as a neophyte priest or that an elite melee elf can't take a hit like an elder druid.

I think this change would still appeal to existing fans but would make the game a little bit more accessible for new players. Here is an example lineup of what I mean:
Peasant (T1) -> Conscript (T2) -> Guardsman (T3) -> Elite Guard (T4)
Archer (T2) -> Bowman (T3) -> Marksman (T4) -> Sniper (T5)
Footman (T3) -> Squire (T4) -> Knight (T5) -> Paladin (T6)
Neophyte (T4) -> Priest (T5) -> Inquisitor (T6) -> Prophet (T7)
Angel Guide (T5) -> Angel Warrior (T6) -> Seraph (T7) -> Archangel (T8)

It would require some changes to the way things work with regard to #-per-week, upgrading, and so forth, but I think it would be an interesting new direction for HoMM VI to take. Just a thought...

User avatar
Posts: 1027
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby soupnazii » Jan 22 2008, 23:56

i really like that idea, but i think it would be a little too big a change to be implemented in H6. all in all, ubis still pretty new to the series and wouldnt wanna make any radical changes just now. maybe in H7, i think.

but i have my own idea that ive been posting here for the past 2 years i think. its not so radical anymore now that alt upgrades are out but still a nice idea i think..
after the first upgrade, you get to choose one of two alternate second upgrades. this way, you have a chance to upgrade your creatures without worrying in early game, and then after seeing what kind of opponent you are facing and maybe which upgrades he has chosen you can decide which of two more powerful upgrades to choose. example:

1 Conscript
1+ Militiaman
1++a Pikeman (High defense, average attack, +1.5% defense/attack per unit in stack when vs. cavalry)
1++b Swordsman (Average defense, high attack)

2 Archer
2+ Marksman
2++a Crossbowman (High damage, increased range penalty)
2++b Sharpshooter (Average damage, no range penalty)

3 Footman
3+ Knight
3++a Swordsmaster (Low damage, high defense, slow, double attack)
3++b Infiltrator (High damage, low defense, fast, unlimited retaliation)

4 Cavalier
4+ Champion
4++a Imperial Guard (High damage, average defense, magic resistant)
4++b Paladin (Low damage, high defense, casts beneficial spells)

5 Wild Gryphon
5+ Battle Gryphon
5++a Imperial Gryphon (High attack, very high defense)
5++b Gryphon Mount (Average attack, average defense, fast, battle dive ability, ranged {no melee penalty})

6 Priest
6+ Zealot
6++a Monk (Average damage, low defense, fast, casts beneficial spells)
6++b Inquisitor (Average damage, high defense, slow, casts harmful spells)

7 Spirit
7+ Angel
7++a Archangel (High attack, high defense, casts harmful spells)
7++b Guardian Angel (Average attack, very high defense, casts beneficial spells, resurrect once per battle)

User avatar
Posts: 8
Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Location: Bergen, Norway

Postby Geo » Jan 23 2008, 12:39

I agree with others here that it's not a good idea to create a new world yet again. That time is better spent on improving AI, balance issues or even creature names.

I do agree with your emphasis on diversity and freedom of choice concerning creatures, but I disagree on a couple of points. First of all, I don't think it's a good idea to balance creatures only form the standpoint of tier. In my opinion a faction must be balanced as a whole. If you decide that the factions can be completely different from one another in every way you want them to, you are giving yourself much greater freedom. I.e. you don't need 7 tiers for every faction; some creatures can have more upgrades than others; some may use artifacts; one faction might have no shooters.. You get the point.

I understand the way you're going with your idea, but I agree with many others here that you are simply creating factions with lots of redundant creatures. There will always be some creature lineups that are better than others. If you merge traditional factions (like HIV) people won't like it, because you are forcing them to make choices they don't want. And people won't choose one side of a faction for RPG-reasons - they'll choose the best creature lineup.

I'm not against having to choose between creatures of the same tier, but I think there should be either an option to demolish buildings and rebuild, or to build every creature building, but maybe the second of the same tier costs twice as much or something to that extent. I do believe, however, that the most important thing in making the creatures for a faction is to make them so that you are free to choose several viable strategies (and to switch between them). And I think fewer but more thought through creatures (and upgrades) are better than a multitude out of which the same ones will (almost) always be picked.

Return to “Heroes V-VI”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 6 guests