Heroes on battlefield

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

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
DaemianLucifer
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 11282
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: City 17

Heroes on battlefield

Postby DaemianLucifer » Feb 3 2006, 17:25

I felt necessary to open this topic,since the way it is in beta is far worse than in any of the previous games.In HIV heroes were fully on the battlefield,and it was imbalanced,since they eventually became stronger than any unit.But now,heroes arent just able to attack and cast spells,but they are immortal and their stats dont determine just their strenght but boost their creatures as well.How is this more balanced than in HIV I ask you?

User avatar
Suleman
Demon
Demon
Posts: 323
Joined: 24 Dec 2005

Postby Suleman » Feb 3 2006, 18:20

Tactics isn't imba, is it? That's about it.
"Yes, but what about David Beckham and the magic mushroom?"

I'm baaaaaack!

User avatar
RK
Peasant
Peasant
Posts: 63
Joined: 28 Jan 2006

Postby RK » Feb 3 2006, 18:42

From the duel point of view, yes it is insane when u consider Lucky Casting changing the outcome of big battles hence I made that brainless pic of the day duel result by simply spamming armageddon over n over ^^

However, I think results will be different in actual build up play from early till late game. Early game, the hero barely does more dmg than a lvl 2 stack and he'd rather just cast support spells than whacking something.

My current issue with the game now is the strange way the size of the stack affects the dmg of a spell cast. The smaller the number the more efficient the casting. This really bugs me.

User avatar
Bad Wolf
Leprechaun
Leprechaun
Posts: 37
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Location: Israel

Postby Bad Wolf » Feb 4 2006, 2:18

Actually heroes appearing on battlefield as normal units was one of the most hated feauters in HoMMIV since they weren't normal units in I II and III (they couldn't die), people got used to them being just a tactical part and getting stat bonus from them and being able to cast spells, that was the way 'we' liked it.
And when the heroes started to act out in HoMMIV it was really to many (including me) a very bad issue that just seemed wrong...
Now in HoMMV they're trying to reach a compromise, the heroes ARENT in the battle actively (thank god for that) but they can attack a single unit whenever they wish instead of casting a spell.
To me that's compleatly as it should be and is balanced from a technical point of view, off course how much damage should a hero inflict, that's totally up for rebalancing...
The world is full of insanity, that has no cure. Labour to keep yourself stable, and your mind pure.
- Mid-Night Paladin

User avatar
jeff
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3713
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby jeff » Feb 4 2006, 2:45

Bad Wolf wrote:Actually heroes appearing on battlefield as normal units was one of the most hated feauters in HoMMIV


By some perhaps but there were as many who were just as empathetic about leaving them on the battlefield. It certainly was one of the most debated features with both side represented by very passionate people.
Mala Ipsa Nova :bugsquash:

User avatar
Bandobras Took
Archmage
Archmage
Posts: 997
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby Bandobras Took » Feb 4 2006, 2:45

Personally, I think that it's a wonderful thing to not have to choose Combat as a skill just to ensure that your main spellcaster will not be prohibited from casting spells for the rest of combat. :)

Seriously, though. In Heroes 5 (as in three out of the other four Heroes games), a Heroes ability to act relies directly on his army -- once you're out of creatures, you're out of luck. What I do appreciate is that Heroes have options for affecting combat outside of magic -- the Heroes 5 method seems to me to be a splendid hybrid of Heroes IV and the other three games.
Far too many people speak their minds without first verifying the quality of their source material.

User avatar
DaemianLucifer
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 11282
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: City 17

Postby DaemianLucifer » Feb 4 2006, 11:16

So,having immortal heroes that can attack anything,cast spells and boost their creatures is balanced,while having heroes that can attack and cast spells,but are also vulnerable,and have to have a special skill in order to boost their creatures is imbalanced?Hmmm...I think Ive learned some faulty logic then.

Isnt it much better to put heroes in a stack with some creatures?So in order to kill the hero youd have to kill the entire stack.And hero coul be either a mage(casting spells,but that consumes the whole turn of the stack),tactician(boosting all of the creatures stats just by its presence),fighter(boosting just the stack he is in,but very highly),or a mix of these.

User avatar
Bad Wolf
Leprechaun
Leprechaun
Posts: 37
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Location: Israel

Postby Bad Wolf » Feb 4 2006, 11:31

Look you should play Heroes I II and III and then talk about balancing with heroes as not in battle... cause it worked really well in those games and the fans loved that classic way, and I am one of those that love it that way, and it worked in 3 games and they were GREAT and so i'm really glad they went back to the better (in my oppinion way).
But that's just what some people think you can NOT like it, it's not that I'm saying it's the ONLY way to do it, but as long as they are, I'm adding it to a plus feature that will make me get this game :)
The world is full of insanity, that has no cure. Labour to keep yourself stable, and your mind pure.

- Mid-Night Paladin

User avatar
DaemianLucifer
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 11282
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: City 17

Postby DaemianLucifer » Feb 4 2006, 11:39

Bad Wolf wrote:Look you should play Heroes I II and III and then talk about balancing with heroes as not in battle... cause it worked really well in those games and the fans loved that classic way, and I am one of those that love it that way, and it worked in 3 games and they were GREAT and so i'm really glad they went back to the better (in my oppinion way).
But that's just what some people think you can NOT like it, it's not that I'm saying it's the ONLY way to do it, but as long as they are, I'm adding it to a plus feature that will make me get this game :)


Ive played all of them.So may I talk about balance then?Thank you.

Its nice that finally you cannot buy just the fastest unit,then chainlightning or armaged your foe,and then just flee.That was stupid.But having an immortal spellcasting machine,that boosts all of your creatures by just its mere presence is even worse than this.Plus,this time it doesnt have to learn spells,it can attack as well.So basically we have heroes from HIV,but with tactics and combat as mandatory skills for each of them,that are immortal as well.They should remove the attack.So if you dont have a spell or special ability than your hero is there just for show.That would be just a small improvement,but an improvement nevertheless.

Being conservative gets you nowhere.Look what it gave us:Hero chaining,a feature that is way too imbalanced and illogical;weekly groth,a feature that is also very imbalanced and easy to exploit and illogical;no dwling flaging,this one strikes me as extremly odd.Why?Why would anyone do such an idiotic thing?;Mandatory upgrades,this doesnt just kill the varity between towns,but is also the sorce of dumbest names ever.Plus it is very illogical as well.

I know what your going to say:But its a fantasy game,it doesnt have to be logical.Well thats were your so wrong!Just because its a fantasy doesnt mean that it can act without any logical rules.Besides,fantasy worlds are usually way more logical than the real one.

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

Re: Heroes on battlefield

Postby Thelonious » Feb 4 2006, 12:33

DaemianLucifer wrote:I felt necessary to open this topic,since the way it is in beta is far worse than in any of the previous games.In HIV heroes were fully on the battlefield,and it was imbalanced,since they eventually became stronger than any unit.But now,heroes arent just able to attack and cast spells,but they are immortal and their stats dont determine just their strenght but boost their creatures as well.How is this more balanced than in HIV I ask you?


Well heroes are now supremely uber powerfull! that's the bit that not all heroes had in HoMM IV and they now have that in HoMM V :devil:

I agree (reading this whole thread) that this way isn't really a good one either, but the HoMM IV one wasn't either. The HoMM IV idea wasn't bad, but it was imbalanced. The heroes were to strong at the end. But if you'd weaken them the potion of immortality would become even more powerfull.

So a hero on the battlefield on it's own isn't good, a hero off battlefield with attack possibility is not only illogical (heroes should fight with their unit's IMHO - if he attackes why hide behind his troops right after? - and in real battles, the leaders were hunted down ASAP as well) but imbalancing as well.

So the 'hero in a stack' possibility? Is that something? It's logical, a hero has body guards, is in battle and fights along. He doesn't need to be uber powerfull - his health and defence could slightly increase those of the stack he's in, he could cast spells out of that stack, attack along with it etc.

That could be a neat idea. But it's to late to incorperate that...
Grah!

User avatar
DaemianLucifer
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 11282
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: City 17

Re: Heroes on battlefield

Postby DaemianLucifer » Feb 4 2006, 12:39

Thelonious wrote:That could be a neat idea. But it's to late to incorperate that...


Well lots of people suggested it even before they started to work on HV.But did anybody listen?Noo,they have their own smart ideas.Why listen to the fans?Theyre here just to buy the game,and nothing more!

User avatar
jeff
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3713
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby jeff » Feb 4 2006, 18:59

I as I said a hotly debated issue, and many did like the heroes there, it was unfortunate that 3DO rushed H-IV out before the play balancing was improved. Alas the issue is settled for now, and I for one like take it either way. :proud:
Mala Ipsa Nova :bugsquash:

User avatar
Infiltrator
CH Staff
CH Staff
Posts: 1071
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby Infiltrator » Feb 4 2006, 19:37

Heroes were invulnerable, boosting stats, and casting spells before Heroes IV, you're acting as if there wasn't anything before that. And I think it's a good thing that concept is brought back. Why, because when they were vulnerable and godlike, you actually had to kill them, now they may be invulnerable but you don't need to focus anything onto them.

User avatar
DaemianLucifer
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 11282
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: City 17

Postby DaemianLucifer » Feb 4 2006, 19:47

Infiltrator wrote:Heroes were invulnerable, boosting stats, and casting spells before Heroes IV, you're acting as if there wasn't anything before that. And I think it's a good thing that concept is brought back. Why, because when they were vulnerable and godlike, you actually had to kill them, now they may be invulnerable but you don't need to focus anything onto them.


No,I never acted like "there was no heroes before HIV",but I also hate the "nothing from HIV must be implemented" law.Plenty of us hated the invulnerability of heroes before HIV was even thought of,and I was always among them.Even before heroes on battlefield came in HIV there was a suggestion to put a hero in a stack,I assure you.And so what if you had to kill the hero in HIV?There was one less creature stack to be slaughtered for every hero in the army.And you didnt need to focuse on the hero in every battle,but on the most treatening stack.Sure,the hero was the most threatening stack in most of the final battles,but theres a whole bunch of other battles that came before that one.
Last edited by DaemianLucifer on Feb 4 2006, 19:50, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23260
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Feb 4 2006, 19:49

Infiltrator wrote:Heroes were invulnerable, boosting stats, and casting spells before Heroes IV, you're acting as if there wasn't anything before that. And I think it's a good thing that concept is brought back. Why, because when they were vulnerable and godlike, you actually had to kill them, now they may be invulnerable but you don't need to focus anything onto them.


But now they get to act more that once during a full rotation of creatures! So they're even more powerful that anytime before.
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
Infiltrator
CH Staff
CH Staff
Posts: 1071
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby Infiltrator » Feb 4 2006, 20:35

DaemianLucifer wrote:No,I never acted like "there was no heroes before HIV",but I also hate the "nothing from HIV must be implemented" law.Plenty of us hated the invulnerability of heroes before HIV was even thought of,and I was always among them.Even before heroes on battlefield came in HIV there was a suggestion to put a hero in a stack,I assure you.And so what if you had to kill the hero in HIV?There was one less creature stack to be slaughtered for every hero in the army.And you didnt need to focuse on the hero in every battle,but on the most treatening stack.Sure,the hero was the most threatening stack in most of the final battles,but theres a whole bunch of other battles that came before that one.


Well, during the closed beta I certanly haven't seen anyone suggest to put heroes in combat, most people felt ok the way it was before, and so was I. You can be against it and that's your opinion, but the fact is that the heroes were stronger in Heroes IV then now.

But now they get to act more that once during a full rotation of creatures! So they're even more powerful that anytime before.


It depends on the creature, as faster creatures will act 2 or more times before heroes and slow ones will let the hero act twice before it's their turn. Also, there is a direct weakness to that - the heroes in H1-3 were able to cast spells whenever their creatures were and now they are restricted to cast them in one interval and the enemy knows exactly when you are going to act with him and can develop the proper counter based on what he knows about your town and playstyle.

User avatar
Gaidal Cain
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 6972
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Solna

Postby Gaidal Cain » Feb 4 2006, 20:59

ThunderTitan wrote: But now they get to act more that once during a full rotation of creatures! So they're even more powerful that anytime before.


Naah. THey still only have that one shot, which is a "mixed curse" of sorts. Besides, their initiative is average, so they will act about as many times as most other units. This would have been true even if they were put on the field though, so I don't see the problem with that.
You don't want to make enemies in Nuclear Engineering. -- T. Pratchett

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23260
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Feb 4 2006, 21:56

Gaidal Cain wrote:
ThunderTitan wrote: But now they get to act more that once during a full rotation of creatures! So they're even more powerful that anytime before.


Naah. THey still only have that one shot, which is a "mixed curse" of sorts. Besides, their initiative is average, so they will act about as many times as most other units. This would have been true even if they were put on the field though, so I don't see the problem with that.


So thir initiative doesn't go up with levels/skill? Whasn't there an initiative boosting skill?
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
chaosgorgon
Peasant
Peasant
Posts: 82
Joined: 02 Feb 2006

Postby chaosgorgon » Feb 5 2006, 0:29

the problem of all this was the lack of brain of some whinin fans, they thougth that the ideas were bad, but didnt notice that actually were bad implemented, so now we have this H3-3ds even with some classic issues B-)

and of course 3do, that rushed and didnt finished H4, cursing H5

User avatar
Gaidal Cain
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 6972
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Solna

Postby Gaidal Cain » Feb 5 2006, 8:28

ThunderTitan wrote: So thir initiative doesn't go up with levels/skill? Whasn't there an initiative boosting skill?


Sorcery seems to boost initiative, yes. I'm not avare of anything else doing that except for a couple of specials.
You don't want to make enemies in Nuclear Engineering. -- T. Pratchett


Return to “Heroes V-VI”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests