Conceptiually best heroes game?

The old Heroes games developed by New World Computing. Please specify which game you are referring to in your post.

Moderator: Moderators

Which is the conceptually best Heroes game?

Heroes I
2
2%
Heroes II
25
27%
Heroes III
26
28%
Heroes IV
35
38%
Heroes V
5
5%
 
Total votes: 93

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

Postby Jolly Joker » Jan 10 2007, 12:18

igoraki wrote:
Jolly Joker wrote:Why Homm IV's HoBF didn't work as well as the others? Because Odysseus didn't fight a hundred Medusae at the same time, but just one, to answer on some people's points here. And Siegfried didn't beat a DOZEN Wyverns, but just ONE. And so on. A hero may beat a dozen thugs, but not a dozen Wyverns in one battle. That doesn't make sense.


this is really interesting

if i recall correct,we did argue about simultaneous retaliation once long time ago and my argument was that it makes no sense that defending unit in real battle will wait for attacker to strike it first and then retaliate, and you said that games dont have to follow real life logic and give me good example with single peasant defending stack of archers,in real life no army(stack in games language) will stop to kill single peasant and then in the next turn attack archers,they would simple walk over it...and that is the truth and good example that in-game logic dont need to be exactly as the one in real life

however i still think sim-retaliation makes more sense in game

so you where the one who didnt want reality in game back then,so am suprised you are using it as an argument against heroes on battlefield

This is not QUITE what I said. I did say, that a game is modelling something and the main aim of the model doesn't have to be real life similarity. This is true especially when real life similarity clashes with the inherent logic of the model (which was the case for the example). I mean, no one would want to make chess a rts-strategy game to make it more similar to real life, right?
In the case of heroes the stacking model has a simplifying effect and you can easily fight large battles.

The problem is, that having single heroes on the battlefield is exactly against the strength of the initial model (fighting battles with lots of creatures in a simple way.

The initial Master of Orion has the same stack-based combat system.
In Master of Orion II things got more personal (Heroes!) and THEY abandoned the stack based combat for that because the model wasn't the best for it.

And that's what the concept is. Having Heroes 1-3 stack-based combat model isn't that compatible with having single creature hero stacks on the same bf, a conceptional flaw.

User avatar
igoraki
Scout
Scout
Posts: 151
Joined: 30 Nov 2005

Postby igoraki » Jan 10 2007, 13:46

am glad you remember our discussion

however i still find concept of untouchable hero weird,since i see assassination of hero or general as a valid tactic and realistic concept

nival and ubi have try to find solution acceptable for both sides and fail,imho,since we now have heroes that attack through walls and other nonsense,if hero is out of the combat,then leave it there,dont give him direct damage while he or she cant be damaged

i dont know how did you,JJ,played heroes 4,but to me it looks like you have try just campains,since heroes in there are like the ones you describe,too powerfull and godlike

i play heroes 4 in hotseat with my friend and you dont always have time or enough experience to build that kind of hero,depending on the map,of course,and you find yourself making choices,will i add fighter or another mage to my army or tactician or thief to speed your army or another stack of creatures in the slot...so you never know what kind of army will you meet even if you know your opponents aligment,and i believe the opposite is true for h5,it does you no good to have hero from other town since you cant use your racial ability in that case,you cant have more then one hero per army and in most cases you will take all your creatures with you,since you have 7 creatures per castle and same number of slots in the army,so only variation will be are the creatures upgraded or not...compare that to number of variations in h4

to me,that proves that concept itself is good and work,but additional rebalansing would make it even better
"You cannot make a baby in a month with nine women."

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

Postby Jolly Joker » Jan 10 2007, 14:30

I actually played only two H 4 campaigns, but lots of hot-seat and single-player.
Don't forget that I'm not saying Heroes IV really sucked and is a bad game. I just say I can't understand how 50% take it to be the conceptually best Heroes game. Which means I DID play it a lot, but it didn't kept me fascinated the way the others all did.
As I said, the decision of what army to keep or have in reality is none, because the level 1 creatures have no value in any late fight. Even the level 2 creatures won't do that much damage due to the dividing of attack/defense as modifier for damage.
That means you can actually have up to 5 heroes in an army, but 4 is a safe bet and 3 in many cases already not enough.
Of course this is a bit of an oversimplification, but it's just to show that there isn't that much to decide really. In theory you don't need more than one killer stack and as many boosters for it as possible to shred an opponent into pieces. There are enough ways to bring in additional stacks via Summoning, Raising and Illusions to make up for a shortness in troops provided you have maxed out your initiative. An Illusionary stack of Dragon Golems is a much better stack than a couple hundred Dwarves.

Which is another thing I don't like: Too many heroes, too much spell-casting, too many ways to render creatures useless. However, that's probably a matter of taste.

More to the point, the god-like hero is just one aspect. The interaction of single heroes and creature stacks means that the game is combining oranges and apples. Which is a heavy burden on the model of the game as such and leads to even more imbalances, warpings and strange effects, not only when heroes get too strong (in campaigns), but when creature numbers get too big (in snormal maps) Which is a conceptual weakness.

User avatar
Metathron
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 2704
Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere deep in the Caribbean...
Contact:

Postby Metathron » Jan 10 2007, 14:58

Mytical wrote:I certainly do not mind the concept of a hero on the battlefield, and yes they can be powerful beings. However, there is a limit (baring demi-gods or gods) to what even the strongest heroes should be able to do.


And there is a limit. A hero can do only so much, according to both the level and the nature of his/her development. No hero, no matter how skilled and powerful, is omnipotent.

Also, the course of development of a hero seems pretty natural to me: In the beginning of a game, a hero may well prove to be more of a hindrance than an asset, and you take measures to protect and "groom" him, in order to be able to reap the fruits of your labour later, to put it a bit poetically. :)

Can you actually picture a single hero fighting say 10 dragons and surviving? 1 dragon sure, 2 possibly, but the more their are the less sense it makes. Even with a horde of protectors arround him, there is a limit to what a hero should be able to add to combat. So while I have no problem with the concept of a hero on the battlefield, I do have a slight problem on how powerful they could become in H4.


The black dragon versus a single hero scenario seems to pop up a lot. Frankly, I don't have a problem with it. For example, let's say we're playing a map that'll only let you develop your hero to level 20 max, so there is no chance of grandmastering in two skills, let alone more. If I develop my hero to be a warrior, I give up any other skills that could vastly benefit my troops; For example: one of the magic schools, tactics to increase stats and make the army sturdier, even scouting to make my army move faster on the adventure map and thus achieve more or cover more terrain, or nobility to grant me superiority in numbers and resources,etc...Consequently, I expect said hero to show quite some prowess on the field of battle. In contrast, if I shunned combat altogether (something I do quite often), I will of course harbour no illusions about single-handedly battling a rather strong army, but will rely on the bonuses of whichever skill I picked to provide me with the upper hand. Such a hero will understandably be more exposed and vulnerable to enemy attacks and I will therefore go to great lengths to protect him/her from harm.

Also, the game is rooted in fantasy and is called Heroes of Might and Magic for a reason. A hero can thus augment some or any of his/her shortcomings by drinking magical potions or equipping magical artifacts that aid him against overwhelming odds. And like I said, there is a limit to even that, because no matter how well-versed a hero is in combat, and no matter how many magical trinkets he has equipped, he will inevitably fail after a certain point, i.e. going against an army that is simply too strong, and will have to enlist creatures into his ranks, be he Hercules or not. So in light of that, I don't find those notorious hero-winning-against-blackies (or another powerful stack) battles that far fetched or incredible.

Jolly Joker wrote:As I said, the decision of what army to keep or have in reality is none, because the level 1 creatures have no value in any late fight. Even the level 2 creatures won't do that much damage due to the dividing of attack/defense as modifier for damage.


But why this compulsion to make everything "politically correct", in the vein of "All creatures must be equally useful at all stages of the game"? I say nonsense!, ditch what you don't need, provided that each creature has at least some use at a given time or for different tactics embraced by different players.

However, that's probably a matter of taste.


Indeed. How refreshing of you to finally say so.
Jesus saves, Allah forgives, Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.

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

Postby Jolly Joker » Jan 10 2007, 15:27

Metathron wrote: For example, let's say we're playing a map that'll only let you develop your hero to level 20 max, so there is no chance of grandmastering in two skills, let alone more. If I develop my hero to be a warrior, I give up any other skills that could vastly benefit my troops; For example: one of the magic schools, tactics to increase stats and make the army sturdier, even scouting to make my army move faster on the adventure map and thus achieve more or cover more terrain, or nobility to grant me superiority in numbers and resources,etc... .


Grandmaster Combat is 5 levels and gives your hero a base defense of 60. Even if you put in a couple levels of MR for good measure that leaves enough levels to excel in one magical area. Combine that with some Life Potions and voila. This is rather basic stuff which should be obvious.

Jolly Joker wrote:As I said, the decision of what army to keep or have in reality is none, because the level 1 creatures have no value in any late fight. Even the level 2 creatures won't do that much damage due to the dividing of attack/defense as modifier for damage.

Metathron wrote:But why this compulsion to make everything "politically correct", in the vein of "All creatures must be equally useful at all stages of the game"? I say nonsense!, ditch what you don't need, provided that each creature has at least some use at a given time or for different tactics embraced by different players.

Sorry, but that's not what I said at all. Why always warping things? All creatures must be equally useful at all stages of the game? Who said that? Not me, that's for sure. Anyway, what YOU say is basically an ode to having all kinds of generally useless things in a game provided there is a given time where they might not be useless at all. That doesn't sound like a good concept at all, but that's again probably only me.
Even though, considering how many people are against what is called "mandatory upgrading"...

User avatar
pepak
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 195
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby pepak » Jan 10 2007, 15:38

Jolly Joker wrote:Grandmaster Combat is 5 levels and gives your hero a base defense of 60. Even if you put in a couple levels of MR for good measure that leaves enough levels to excel in one magical area. Combine that with some Life Potions and voila. This is rather basic stuff which should be obvious.

No, it is not. First, you need at least 14 levels to become a grandmaster magician (we are not talking altars and similar bonuses, because if you want to control the heroes in your map, you have to be very careful with these things). Second, even if you DO become GM Combat, one lightning bolt will kill you, so you need at least 3-4 (5 is better, of course) levels in Magic Resistance as well. That leaves 10 advances for mastering magic. But let's say you do master it. That will leave you with 60 spell points, not exactly the number needed for overcoming great armies.

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

Postby Jolly Joker » Jan 10 2007, 16:00

It is. You don't need to be Grandmaster. Master is more than enough and you need only 10 levels for that. That leaves even 10 for full Combat and MR.
Anyway, it makes no sense to discuss whether a level 20 hero is already godlike or not and whether 10 weekly level 4 creature productions are enough to kill every hero no matter what or how many Vampires a Necro must raise to conquer a map. All beside the point. The CONCEPT is what matters.

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23263
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Jan 10 2007, 16:14

Jolly Joker wrote:All beside the point. The CONCEPT is what matters.


And having heroes fight and die beside his troops is a prety nifty concept, it just need to be 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
Metathron
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 2704
Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere deep in the Caribbean...
Contact:

Postby Metathron » Jan 10 2007, 16:19

Jolly Joker wrote:This is rather basic stuff which should be obvious.


How adorable.

Grandmaster Combat is 5 levels and gives your hero a base defense of 60. Even if you put in a couple levels of MR for good measure that leaves enough levels to excel in one magical area. Combine that with some Life Potions and voila.


Taking things out of context. I was talking about a hero defeating overwhelming odds - I meant a fully developed hero, and that means GM Melee, if not Archery, if the hero intends to do some damage, rather than just defend, which would be to little avail in a scenario like this. That, at least, should be "obvious".

Sorry, but that's not what I said at all. Why always warping things? All creatures must be equally useful at all stages of the game? Who said that? Not me, that's for sure. Anyway, what YOU say is basically an ode to having all kinds of generally useless things in a game provided there is a given time where they might not be useless at all. That doesn't sound like a good concept at all, but that's again probably only me.
Even though, considering how many people are against what is called "mandatory upgrading"...


There's no point to discussing this any further so this'll be my cue to exit the conversation. With you, at least. The majority of my post addressed Mytical anyhow. :)
Jesus saves, Allah forgives, Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.

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

Postby Jolly Joker » Jan 10 2007, 16:27

Metathron wrote:
Jolly Joker wrote:This is rather basic stuff which should be obvious.


How adorable.

Grandmaster Combat is 5 levels and gives your hero a base defense of 60. Even if you put in a couple levels of MR for good measure that leaves enough levels to excel in one magical area. Combine that with some Life Potions and voila.


Taking things out of context. I was talking about a hero defeating overwhelming odds - I meant a fully developed hero, and that means GM Melee, if not Archery, if the hero intends to do some damage, rather than just defend, which would be to little avail in a scenario like this. That, at least, should be "obvious".


I found it rather effective to combat opponents by phantom image them or summoning for example Griffins. No need to make your own hands dirty.

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

Postby Jolly Joker » Jan 10 2007, 16:32

ThunderTitan wrote:
Jolly Joker wrote:All beside the point. The CONCEPT is what matters.


And having heroes fight and die beside his troops is a prety nifty concept, it just need to be balanced.

Exactly. But the concept of having single heroes fight and die beside single troops is a lot better than the the concept of having single heroes fight and NOT die (heroes cannot die in H IV) beside THOUSANDS of troops

User avatar
gravyluvr
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 1489
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby gravyluvr » Jan 10 2007, 17:00

Jolly Joker wrote:But the concept of having single heroes fight and die beside single troops is a lot better than the the concept of having single heroes fight and NOT die (heroes cannot die in H IV) beside THOUSANDS of troops


Oh please... My heroes die all the time. The fun of HOMM4 for me was combining the Big Army Fights (War), with RPG elements in a turn-based strategy game. All of the HOMM games have that same appeal.

The main problem I had with HOMM3 is not HOMM3's fault. It is my own. HOMM and HOMM2 were my FAVORITE games. I played them almost every single day and I got very good at the game. By the time HOMM3 came around, I needed more of a challenge.

I fully understand why people who started with HOMM3 think it is the greatest game ever, although I still list HOMM2 as a better game. The one thing that HOMM4 did for me was to renew my interest in the series. It had enough of the HOMM elements but had changed a lot of things that I had been using to my advantage over the years. HOMM4 concepts were so "new" that they alienated fans like yourself. But they invigorated people like me to learn and master the new ways. I now find loading HOMM5 about as fun as when I fire up HOMM3 (actually HOMM3 is more of a friend to me than HOMM5) so I end up playing HOMM2 and HOMM3 more than the new game.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If I were a flower, I'd be a really big flame-throwing flower with five heads.

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

Postby DaemianLucifer » Jan 10 2007, 19:40

Jolly Joker wrote:Exactly. But the concept of having single heroes fight and die beside single troops is a lot better than the the concept of having single heroes fight and NOT die (heroes cannot die in H IV) beside THOUSANDS of troops


And thats where we come to the implementation of the concept.Bad implementation is that your hero takes a full stack slot,instead of it being asigned to one of the existing stacks.

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

Postby Jolly Joker » Jan 10 2007, 19:52

Would be a radically different game and a radically different concept as well, not another implementation. Because there is still a plethora of ways to implement Heroes assigned to stacks.
I never did read your essay on that. Can you show me a link? I'd be interested.

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

Postby DaemianLucifer » Jan 10 2007, 20:00

Actually I think you did,but you forgot :devil: Here.Its more a sketch than an essay though,but I can work on it.

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23263
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Jan 10 2007, 20:20

Jolly Joker wrote:Exactly. But the concept of having single heroes fight and die beside single troops is a lot better than the the concept of having single heroes fight and NOT die (heroes cannot die in H IV) beside THOUSANDS of troops


No, it's just easier to balance. And my problem with H4 has always been that the heroes start out too weak and end up too strong (if you make them right). They would work better if instead of pure killing power they'd get more abilities as they lvl.
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
Gaidal Cain
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 6972
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Solna

Postby Gaidal Cain » Jan 10 2007, 22:20

Jolly Joker wrote:I just say I can't understand how 50% take it to be the conceptually best Heroes game.


I'd say it's the conceptually most interesting - there are lots of new ideas in many areas (whether they work out is another matter). Some of them were things I'd like to have kept, some I'm glad to see gone (The whole skill system, for one thing. I find it boring to level up and only ever get to pick one school, just to reach GM magic ASAP). From that standpoint, it's not hard to see why people would vote for it- it's the most distinct alternative, and thus get's a lot of votes. People who think H3 is the best game in the series could just as well vote H2 or H5 (and the other way around), but people who prefer H4 has only got that one option.
You don't want to make enemies in Nuclear Engineering. -- T. Pratchett

User avatar
gravyluvr
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 1489
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby gravyluvr » Jan 10 2007, 22:42

Another thing... people also tend to vote with their favorites and with the one's they started with. Many HOMM2 and HOMM3 fans have gone to other games rather than stick with the series. HOMM4 players are more plentiful here.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If I were a flower, I'd be a really big flame-throwing flower with five heads.

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

Postby Jolly Joker » Jan 11 2007, 7:46

@GC
Yes, that's probably it. They did risk something with that concept and people acknowledge that in this poll here.

@DL
I hadn't read that sketch of yours, but have no. In all fairness, it's too sketchy to comment on it, too many things not touched. I don't think it could work as sketched there: Stack Leaders of M&M doesn't sound good. On the other hand there might be a way to implement a concept like that, even though I doubt it:
1) You cannot have too many heroes in any given battle because then it's too much casting, especially when some creatures are casting as well. This was a conceptual problem in H 4 (although some may not think so, but maybe if you think about it you'll realize that the might side of heroes doesn't work that well when you only have chieftains that cast on a few warriors). There might be a way to specialize into what you said, a Tactician for creature stats, a mage for casting and a fighter, although there would be the question what the Tactician would do when it was their turn.
2) Oranges should keep to oranges and apples to apples, that is, if there is a demand for fighting heroes they should fight against each other, but not against creatures. An army could, for example have one (or maybe even more) fighter heroes that could attack the opposing heroes. Think of Heroes IV with each side having one Combat hero who'd battle it out. After one hero would be the victor that victor could attack the remaining heroes.

That would make heroes vulnerable, but since there would be no fighting interaction with either a couple of Peasants or a couple dozens of Paladins or Archmages they could have their very own combat model in terms of Health, Initiatve, Magic Resistance, Damage, Defense and so on.

In the strictest sense you could have that kind of effect by leaving everything as it is, but making a second hero-type for each town, the "fighter-assassin" that hero might slip into the role of the Thief of H IV alone and on the adventure map, while in an army would simply be the "fighter", attacking or defending the main hero.

As far as concepts went, it could work because it looks reasonably simple to implement without having to make too many changes to the rest of the game, which allows flexibility enough to not having to build the rest of the game around that feature which can only be good.

User avatar
Corribus
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 4994
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: The Duchy of Xicmox IV

Postby Corribus » Jan 11 2007, 18:06

I'd have to say H2, because the factions where so different from one another, and it was executed well. H3 was a great game, but there was nothing revolutionary about it, and the factions were very (overall) similar. H4 is difficult, and had some great conceptual design, particularly the branching town structure. I'd be tempted to vote for H4 but it was so poorly implemented that I voted for H2. Chalk it up to personal bias.
"What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" - Richard P. Feynman


Return to “Heroes I-IV”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests