PDA

View Full Version : The hero in battle



Superiora
04-09-2005, 09:35 AM
I hope the hero will appear in battlefield . The hero should be more important just as warcraft 3,and more personality .
Though in the hero 4 ,the hero is a indepent unit but besides profession ,there is no different, I hope each hero has his owen ability
and more essential,with the level growing up the hero his owen skill will be more usefull

Superiora
04-09-2005, 09:35 AM
I hope the hero will appear in battlefield . The hero should be more important just as warcraft 3,and more personality .
Though in the hero 4 ,the hero is a indepent unit but besides profession ,there is no different, I hope each hero has his owen ability
and more essential,with the level growing up the hero his owen skill will be more usefull

The_Vortex
04-09-2005, 09:42 AM
I think that there has already been made a decision to pull off the heroes out of the combat, but keep them more involved than in Heroes 3. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But, I must admit that heroes were overpowered in Heroes 4. They could easily defeat any army, especially when using immortality potions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif , so a game turned out to give us more boring stuff than challenge. So it would be better to turn back to the roots a.k.a. Heroes 1,2,3 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fidanas
04-09-2005, 10:20 AM
I like the Hero as a general, far away from the battlefield. I don't want him to interfere with bloodshed. On the other hand, i vote for special abilities that has impact on the troops.

Marelt
04-09-2005, 10:43 AM
As long as "more involved" makes the hero more than a mindless statistic booster, it's fine by me.

Mike447a
04-09-2005, 11:32 AM
if you keep heroes on battlefield...

please ! just 1 hero not more !

I don't wanna see again Dungeons&Dragons Aventurers Party !!!! ( like 5-6 heroes + 4th level monster ) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Alais_Servius
04-09-2005, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marelt:
As long as "more involved" makes the hero more than a mindless statistic booster, it's fine by me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My opinion excactly. Then again, I did like the idea on heroes in combat that HoMM 4 brought up. Mabye if Nival somehow balanced it. But I guess just time can show us anyway

NECRO95
04-09-2005, 12:57 PM
I actually like having the heroes on the battlefield, but then it makes HOMM more RPG rather than TBS.
Maybe this is the reason why many people don't like HOMM4...

EpsiTrog
04-09-2005, 01:29 PM
I did like the hero System in heroes 4.
It gives also more realety to the name of the game "HEROES of might and magic" and not "CREATURES of might might and magic and the hero.."
Also it gave a lot more variation in games i have played.
Personal opinion is: The game should be based on heroes and creatures are there to support the heroes. But as already mentioned I believe already choises about this are made.
Can also live with the idea of 1 hero on the battlefield. Just like the system of heroes 4 more.

lord_stormwing
04-09-2005, 02:27 PM
People, a hero is a hero.He must ehtecipeit in batle after all the game is called Heroes of Might and Magic 5.Heroes are to be the importantist.

Salventus
04-09-2005, 04:51 PM
What they can do if it's not too late is be able to integrate the Hero into a stack of units that will influence them and make the stack stronger. Like moral boost, attack boost or defense, speed boost, extra attack and damage, first strike etc...And you will be able to swap the Hero from unit to unit. But if the last standing unit dies from a stack which had the Hero, then the Hero dies with it.

karlito31
04-10-2005, 02:16 AM
Kinda boring to repeat myself , still ...
One big YES for heroes on battlefield. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Ellderon
04-10-2005, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>heroes will PROBABLY not participate in combat as in H4, but they'll be more involved than in H3 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the jury is still out, or so it seesm..

I would personally like Heroes on the battlefield, alltough better balanced than before. they were WAY too powerfull.

You can link a hero to a unit stack as someone said - that is a good idea. the stack woul act as his bodyguards- you can't attack a hero untill they are down.

Or you could have the hero stand alone, but you can't attack it in the first round or untill you eliminate half the enemy force. Or some other restriction to keep the now weaker hero for droping dead to fast.

Omega_Destroyer
04-10-2005, 01:49 PM
I would prefer more of a disciples view on the heroes participating in battle. I really liked the ability to use both a might hero and a magic hero, but I will cede that it did create balancing issues. You should only be allowed to have one hero particpate in the battle and have your units evolve and gain experience in the battles. It would be a neat touch and really make you think about how to apply various tactics.

Qrystal_Dragon
04-10-2005, 02:45 PM
Personally I liked having the hero in battle and I'm not a big player of RPGs. I know having a mage and a fighter was always a good combination. The ideas of limitations could be valid, perhaps balancing the hero if they have strength in one skill, weakening them in another. Also the idea of having only one hero in the battle has some merit.

Elor_Once_Dark
04-10-2005, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Akuna-Matata:
Heroes should be maintained as before in HOMM1, 2 and 3 in combat, if you want them to particapate in battle more then that, then go play a RPG eg; Baldures Gate etc, HOMM is a TBS and should remain so, the RPG elements that HOMM has already implemented are a wonderful touch but we dont want overkill here people. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, it takes more than battles to make a RolePlaying Game. The kind of game you seem to have in mind is more like the likes of Diablo. But I frankly don't see where the overkill is when might heroes can have as directly an influence on the battle as magic heroes. Why do might heroes have to serve as kind of a collective stat booster when magic heroes can do that, too, PLUS throw around chain lightning, mass curse etc.? I think the Hero on the battlefield, properly done, is merely an issue of "justice for all". As long as heroes aren't damage soakers, things should be fine.

Your argument, stringently followed, would lead to the abolishing of in-combat spellcasting. I doubt that's your intention.

We're also not talking a real-world strategy game here, but one of fantasy epic battles, and if you look at real-world epics, you'll often see the hero joining the battle.

Pengu1977
04-10-2005, 09:24 PM
Well, I am ok either way with heroes in battle or not. But every game i've played where heroes are on the battlefield the hero become so powerful it destroyes the game. There is always some spell, potion or artifact that gives him/her powers beyond any creature and can easily take out armies on it own. And even if u try to balance the power of the hero it is a difficulty task since he/she got so many things ot can do compared to a creature. Even in some games in H3 i thought that even if the heroes wasn't directly in the fight their influense was too great. One spell or artifact in the heroes posession shouldn't decide a battle. It is still the armies on the field that should make it out not one godlike hero.

Akuna-Matata
04-11-2005, 04:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elor_Once_Dark:

Um, it takes more than battles to make a RolePlaying Game. The kind of game you seem to have in mind is more like the likes of Diablo. But I frankly don't see where the overkill is when might heroes can have as directly an influence on the battle as magic heroes. Why do might heroes have to serve as kind of a collective stat booster when magic heroes can do that, too, PLUS throw around chain lightning, mass curse etc.? I think the Hero on the battlefield, properly done, is merely an issue of "justice for all". As long as heroes aren't damage soakers, things should be fine.

Your argument, stringently followed, would lead to the abolishing of in-combat spellcasting. I doubt that's your intention.

We're also not talking a real-world strategy game here, but one of fantasy epic battles, and if you look at real-world epics, you'll often see the hero joining the battle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you've played all the HOMM games Elor_Once_Dark you would have noticed that the heroes ability in combat has always been(until HOMM4, which damaged the venerable series) to enhance his troops with attribute increases while providing magical spell casting effects during the battle, this is part of the "essence" that is HOMM not direct hero engagement on the battlefield, each of the first 3 HOMM games and expansions wonderfully improved on this "essence" formula and the old and new fans of the series were happy, but when they made HOMM 4 most of this core "essence" of the series was lost and largely reduced sales proved that many of the new features in HOMM 4 are not what the majority of HOMM fans want but a continued nurturing of the previous games core "essence" and this would include heroes staying out of direct combat on the battlefield.
The WOG mod in HOMM3 is as close a hero should get in a HOMM game, in other words, hire a commander into the heroes army but maintain the hero as was before and leave it as an option not a permanent fixture. I've played a number of RPG's including DIABLO 1 and 2 and thats definately one genre where your kind of gameplay heroes should stay.

st14z
04-11-2005, 04:44 AM
So they planned HoMMV Heroes as cowards? "nnoo i dont want fight, i just want to see what you guys do in the battlefield, dont stand on my way if i have to run home".
HoMMIV is best Herowise.

Alderbranchh
04-11-2005, 06:07 AM
I dont want the hero to participate in battle.
Ive played Warlords Battlecry series and balancing heros with respect to units is hard.

And HOMM4 lacked the real HOMM-feeling and I guess it was partly because of heroes in battle deal.

1-3 were better there really. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ethric
04-11-2005, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by st14z:
So they planned HoMMV Heroes as cowards? "nnoo i dont want fight, i just want to see what you guys do in the battlefield, dont stand on my way if i have to run home".
HoMMIV is best Herowise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Well said!

H4's way of doing it is flawed, but with a bit of reworking it could be very good. Doesn't matter what they will use in H5, I think heroes directly participating in battle is a good idea.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

And HOMM4 lacked the real HOMM-feeling and I guess it was partly because of heroes in battle deal.

1-3 were better there really. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

****** eye* The REAL HoMM-feeling? I daresay there's no such thing. Everyone have their own feeling of it (though many will of course have pretty much the same definition). H4 was different than the previous games, more different than any of the previous was to the one before. H5 will be the same way, it will be different. If you started with H1, or H2, or H3, I think the leap to H5 will be quite big.

I started with H2, when it first came out. So it defines HoMM for me. No other game can bring about that elusive "HoMM-feeling" for me. H3 is not that different a game, so I see the resemblence. But it's still way off. Same with H1. H4 is, as I said, different. So it has it's own "feeling", and I like it on it's own merits.

I've been quite intrigued with the conflict of "remake or change" for quite some time (one of my favourite rant-topics, thus the lenght of this post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). People say "This is awful, nothing like H# at all!". No s*** Sherlock http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif A sequel that does nothing more than upgrade graphics and polish of an edge or two is a poor sequel (of course, this is usually the way sequels are made). Might be a good game, but a poor sequel. Like H3. H3 is a very good game and no mistake. But as a sequel to H2 it was very poor. It polished off many edges, but I liked most of those edges. They were part of the game. So I see no reason to play H3 today, as it's a poorer version of H2. I might play H4, because it's different and offers a different playing experience. But H2 will always be my #1. And for lots of other people, H3 is their #1. But we can not expect a new game in the series to be like those games. It should be different, try to improve things to the better, stand on it's own merits. Otherwise, what's the point? A remake with "better" graphics? I wouldn't bother with a remake of H2, that's for sure. I like H2's graphics, they are part of the atmosphere.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

karlito31
04-11-2005, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if you want them to particapate in battle more then that, then go play a RPG eg; Baldures Gate etc <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
But than I dont have stacks.
Nope , bad idea.

Alderbranchh
04-11-2005, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karlito31:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if you want them to particapate in battle more then that, then go play a RPG eg; Baldures Gate etc <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
But than I dont have stacks.
Nope , bad idea. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not just play warlords battlecry series... RTS true... but still... the hero is there and active and its all about massing troops anyways... besides... they made me revalue everything I ever wanted about active heros.

karlito31
04-11-2005, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why not just play warlords battlecry series... RTS true... but still <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
Whay would I want to play RTS if I want to play TBS.
Nope. Another one to the toilet...

Val-Gaav
04-11-2005, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ethric:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by st14z:
So they planned HoMMV Heroes as cowards? "nnoo i dont want fight, i just want to see what you guys do in the battlefield, dont stand on my way if i have to run home".
HoMMIV is best Herowise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Well said!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hahahhahaha .... If you want to see a hero in combat then play a RPG game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Heroes of might and magic 1,2,3 IS a strategic game with a elements of RPG ....
H4 id a RPG with elements of strategy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Heroes are cowards ????
Heroes are commanders and no commander would fight and die before his army starts to fight ...
There is no way to ballance fighting hero ...
Just think of hp per level attack damage ..
We have S , M , L , XL sized maps ... On XL heroes would be powerfull and on S week.
Another side of this : We have XL map with 10 towns ... and XL map with 30 towns ...This time hero is week when we have 30 towns . Why ? Becoucse there is more last level creatures ... He would die in combat in first round ...

In history only some of the generals or kings fight on battlefield during combat why others gived orders from a distance ....

The only hero that may be active in combat is barberian (he is stupid and likes to use force) .. A knight or a wizard shoul watch the battle from a distance give ordsers or cast spells (just like in h3) ...

Needless to say that if heroes are active in combat in h5 i will not buy this game ....

And as for the REAL HoMM-feeling -- I must agree Alderbranchh .. The combat was almost the same in h1 h2 h3 , and this is something that was unique in this game and I really liked it ... Heroes were using magics and giving bonuses to troops . This is something that makes HoMM HoMM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Alderbranchh
04-11-2005, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karlito31:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why not just play warlords battlecry series... RTS true... but still <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
Whay would I want to play RTS if I want to play TBS.
Nope. Another one to the toilet... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Play the warlords series then... thats TBS...
And RTS isnt that bad... it just combines coordination with strategic thinking

karlito31
04-11-2005, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And RTS isnt that bad... it just combines coordination with strategic thinking
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so go and play , Im fine with Heroes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

karlito31
04-11-2005, 08:14 AM
... on the battlefields , that is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

st14z
04-11-2005, 08:15 AM
I havent heard real life Heroes whos Behind lines waiting troops to return from combat .. are we planning Generals of Might & Magic ??

MacSoftish
04-11-2005, 08:33 AM
No Heroes on the battlefield, I want them as they were in Heroes 1-3. But they could be more involved.

karlito31
04-11-2005, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> But they could be more involved <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ofcourse. They could sing , do some stand-up, or go to toilet as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Crayno
04-11-2005, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hahahhahaha .... If you want to see a hero in combat then play a RPG game
Heroes of might and magic 1,2,3 IS a strategic game with a elements of RPG ....
H4 id a RPG with elements of strategy
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what it's all about and personally I think HOMM 4 was the worst thing that happened to the series.

Alderbranchh
04-11-2005, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Ofcourse. They could sing , do some stand-up, or go to toilet as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would add some strategy to it really... The hero can be out only one weak without taking a dump... or his troops will get lowered morale... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Then when you think of it... Singing does improve morale... as does a good joke so I hope they have Bards this time as a class.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Another thing Karlito... please dont doublepost.... there is a editbutton for a reason afterall...

As to me going to play RTS... Well I do that already... But its just that I enjoy both RTS and TBS... which is why I keep gettin back...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Ever lost a battle in H1, 2 or 3 against a weaker hero, who barely had a couple of goblins left?! Surely my hero wouldnt win a fight against a couple of weak goblins and a weaker hero... Right... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really... If my hero is that much better (like 5 levels worth of stuff)I usually have more than a few goblins left at that stage...

The reason I like HOMM 1-3 is cause they dont let the heros fight as the heros "cancel" if it was battle between them or better they affect the troops in many ways to represent this. Like adding defense or attack, giving spellsupport, morale etc. This in return gives the hero "damage". Sure its indirect etc but it makes the creatures under his command better and thus they do more. So every time you play HOMM3 and think... **** I cant use this lv12 warrior with 12 attack in a real attack... just think that those 12 Attack can make each creature do more damage based on a percentage. But its still that the hero affect the outcome of the battle. So im perfectly happy with that...

Ethric
04-11-2005, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ethric:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by st14z:
So they planned HoMMV Heroes as cowards? "nnoo i dont want fight, i just want to see what you guys do in the battlefield, dont stand on my way if i have to run home".
HoMMIV is best Herowise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Well said!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hahahhahaha .... If you want to see a hero in combat then play a RPG game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What an odd thing to say. So if Ubi decided to put hereos actively in combat as in H4, you would not complain? You would sit quiet and play H3? I doubt it.

But to debate with your rules: "Hahahahahhaha ... If you want heroes out of combat, go play H1-H3".

To me it's purely a matter of logic: if the hero is present at the battle, he should be attackable and able to attack. Aside from that, it's more fun that way, and it shouldn't be to hard to make it work much better than in H4.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
There is no way to ballance fighting hero ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes there are, even thoguh you don't (want to) see it. For example, let it be possible to assing one or more stacks as guards. These would surround the hero (introduce fancy graphic to show this as the stack splitting up and encircling the hero, perhaps). To kill the hero, you have to kill the guarding stack first. The guarding stack can't move as long as it guards the hero. Further, pehaps that stack could attack at half damage and retaliate at 1 and 1\2 strenght. Or perhaps it can't attack at all and instead be able to retaliate twice. But that's details, the main thing is that I think this would be a simple way to make heroes in combat balanced and playable.

Ishmael_SC
04-11-2005, 10:04 AM
Fascinating discussion! I only hope the developers are somehow having eyes for opinions like this & take them into account as they see fit; otherwise this will turn out to be a totally useless discussion.

Personally, I thought the involvement of heroes in IV was the best thing they could ever have done to improve the series: it gave the hero more of a personality as opposed to the mere decoration they were in the battles in I - III. (Granted: that IS an RPG-argument.) It also brought a lot more variation and therefore replayability into the series.

I would like to understand those opposed to this kind of involvement in V, but the only concrete argument I read from them is that it made the battles in IV too easy. I wonder: did those people REALLY play IV on its hardest difficulty setting in order to dare say that without shame? I mean: I too found IV somewhat easy on my first way trough, so the next times I increased the difficulty setting and lo and behold: "too easy" was not a problem for me anymore!

If you DID play trough IV on the most difficult setting & still found it too easy: respect! But in that case: perhaps you should plead with the developers for an even harder difficulty setting in stead of drastical eliminiation of the one thing that finally made HOM&M into HEROES of M&M? (This is just a thought in an attempt to broaden the discussion; not a sarcastic criticism)

Ethric
04-11-2005, 10:11 AM
Well the thing with the heroes was that they either died to easily, or was to tough and could beat large armies by themselves.

So mostly it seems people object to heroes in combat from the assumption that if it were used again it would be like in H4. But that's not a sensible assumption, as there are many ways to improve it and make it workable and enjoyable.

And the difficulty-settings in H4 was another of it's weak points: higher dificulty increased the size of the neutral stacks and dcreased the amount of XP you got. And while a human player could easily beat 1 to 3 odds, an AI player that does all it's "fighting" based on numerical calculations can't do that. So at high difficulty the Ai players get nowhere, unless of course the mapmaker is aware of the flaws in the game and compensate. Fortunately, there's lots of option for compensating for the games flaws when making maps.

karlito31
04-11-2005, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Another thing Karlito... dont please double post.... there is a editbutton for a reason afterall...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
that was intended. Ofcourse, if there is rule agains it,Im sory. Never again. Never. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Like adding defense or attack, giving spellsupport, morale etc <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats tactics skill, does all that without spellcasting. Thats other hero job. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Elor_Once_Dark
04-11-2005, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:

Hahahhahaha .... If you want to see a hero in combat then play a RPG game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Heroes of might and magic 1,2,3 IS a strategic game with a elements of RPG ....
H4 id a RPG with elements of strategy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I daresay that you know precious little about what a real RPG looks like.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Heroes are cowards ????
Heroes are commanders and no commander would fight and die before his army starts to fight ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, heroes are not commanders. Heroes are heroes. They dare what no one else dares. They face what no one else faces. Roland was not a commander sitting out the heat of the battle. He was there, swinging Durandal at the Saracens. Siegfried was not sitting back behind the armies, he challenged the Kings of the Saxons and Danes to duel in order to prevent mass bloodshed. Beowulf went to face Grendel and the dragon and did not send others to die.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There is no way to ballance fighting hero ...
Just think of hp per level attack damage ..
We have S , M , L , XL sized maps ... On XL heroes would be powerfull and on S week.
Another side of this : We have XL map with 10 towns ... and XL map with 30 towns ...This time hero is week when we have 30 towns . Why ? Becoucse there is more last level creatures ... He would die in combat in first round ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That depends on a lot of issues. I have had heroes toasted in round 1 as it is, simply because the comp had the reasonable idea to attack the hero straightaway with the dragons, and I had other heroes, who could bear out a dragon attack. It's all a matter of when can the hero be attacked and how much HP does he have and that's plenty of possibilities to balance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In history only some of the generals or kings fight on battlefield during combat why others gived orders from a distance .... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I daresay you should get yourself a good history book.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The only hero that may be active in combat is barberian (he is stupid and likes to use force) .. A knight or a wizard shoul watch the battle from a distance give ordsers or cast spells (just like in h3) ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A knight who doesn't join battle is not worthy of that title. A knight is a professional warrior, and his place is in battle and NOWHERE else.

A knight who doesn't join battle is a fat, cowardly slob. The exact opposite of your claims is true: Battles where lost because Nobles insisted on having the honor of the first charge when more reasonable commanders suggested to wait and let the enemy come.

Totally aside from the fact that it is silly to compare mythological heroes with real history, your grasp of the latter is seriously lacking.

Pengu1977
04-11-2005, 04:44 PM
Heroes 1-3 was made in a special way that was fine tuned for every new game. It made the heroes games become popular and grew the community. The games came out with a few years between and those who liked rpg the M&M series took care of that. Then H4 came and then no more came.... They tried to chance so much that it wasn't the heroes game that had been so popular. And u can get the rpg experiece from so many other games but that unique way those 1st 3 games were made is what made heroes unique. Trying to balance heroes in battle is way harder than u think. U can't afford to loose them and at the same time there is no way stoping them from being too powerful. I for one hope that heroes stay off the battlefield. Whatever H4 lovers believe and hope I say H4 was a big exception in the heroes saga..

Elor_Once_Dark
04-11-2005, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pengu1977:
Heroes 1-3 was made in a special way that was fine tuned for every new game. It made the heroes games become popular and grew the community. The games came out with a few years between and those who liked rpg the M&M series took care of that. Then H4 came and then no more came.... They tried to chance so much that it wasn't the heroes game that had been so popular. And u can get the rpg experiece from so many other games but that unique way those 1st 3 games were made is what made heroes unique. Trying to balance heroes in battle is way harder than u think. U can't afford to loose them and at the same time there is no way stoping them from being too powerful. I for one hope that heroes stay off the battlefield. Whatever H4 lovers believe and hope I say H4 was a big exception in the heroes saga.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A)Heroes on the battlefield has NOTHING -not the slightest bit- to do with an "RPG experience". If RPG for you is about running around and slaughtering stuff, you don't know what an RPG is.

B)Liking the "Hero on the Battlefield" concept has nothing to do with being a "H4 lover".

Sorry, what you're doing here is pure and unadulterated mudslinging, devoid of any serious argument.

Salventus
04-11-2005, 05:18 PM
The H4 system where the heroes could of directly participate in battle did not change the dynamic of the game into an RPG completely. It still remained overwhelmingly a strategy game in my opinion, but if you want to make a Hero to be more involved there are better ways to do it and I have a feeling that in H5 they probably fixed that problem. For me, it's not so much that I mind whether Heroes participate in battle but it's more of a question of some common sense. I never understood how a single Hero can fight hordes of creatures and this has nothing to do with stats. It has to do with a certain amount of logic. Consider that you get attacked by a swarm of African bees, as a human being you are more intelligent and stronger but eventually you will die. Heroes should only be able to fight other enemy Heroes and not hordes of creatures on the battlefield because your army will take care of the creatures and the Heroes will take care of the Heroes.

gerdash
04-12-2005, 01:03 AM
people are talking that heroes need to be heroic, not cowardly. so, is it that when those people play, they charge with their hero in front of their troops in homm? or is it that the players are too cowardly to do that and their heroes are desperately running around trying to hide behind stacks and still getting killed?

i mean, the idea of heroes in battle appeals to many people, but if put into practice it becomes a nuisance whenever the difficulty setting is harder than the easiest.

and how often did the generals who participated in battles stand alone in a large empty field in the midst of fighting legions, trying to shoot an arrow or stab someone in the back now and then?

there were famous generals who watched battles from a nearby hill, while others participated in battle. i think we are somewhat free to choose the version that suits the game best.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Salventus:
What they can do if it's not too late is be able to integrate the Hero into a stack of units that will influence them and make the stack stronger. Like moral boost, attack boost or defense, speed boost, extra attack and damage, first strike etc...And you will be able to swap the Hero from unit to unit. But if the last standing unit dies from a stack which had the Hero, then the Hero dies with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>something like that might have been the logical choice for homm4.

i liked the posts which said that might and magic heroes should affect battle equally without might stat boost on creatures. and please don't take me very seriously when i say:

hero starts outside battle and can give, say, 3 commands per round. otherways the stacks attack controlled by ai. it might be possible to give commands that last until new command is given, e.g. 'stand' (i.e. don't move) could be one of those. if a hero is skilled in tactics, he gets, say, 1 additional command per round per tactics skill level.

hero can join battle, and can be either alone or as last unit in a stack. on battlefield the hero can command only the stack he is part of, and can cast spells. other stacks either follow a previously given command-that-lasts-until-new-command or are controlled by ai.

so, in the beginning of battle, when there are many stacks, a player might want his hero to command the stacks from a nearby hill, and when 7.5 zombies are fighting 3.25 swordsmen in the end battle, the hero might want to join battle (because, well.. the zombies are fighting the swordsmen because of the ai anyway).

i guess this often reduces to: if there is one stack left, then it's no point keeping hero out of battle where hero can't do damage nor cast spells (except on himself, maybe), unless you are loosing. or at whatever moment when ai fights ok.

and the ai might simulate what an uncommanded group of motivated (or less motivated) soldiers might want to do. surely they would only see what's near them, not what's on the other side of the field. and maybe stacks would take into account their own survival when choosing whom to attack or getting morale freeze.

btw there was etiquette that it was not honorable for nobles to attack commoners, maybe even lower rank nobles than themselves. so, treating creature levels as nobility ranks, this might give another rule whom the uncommanded stack might want to attack.

========
otherways i like to think that heroes cancel each other out (i.e. i am quite happy with heroes out of battle).

by leading armies generals should not become physically stronger, but would rather become more famous leaders and thus increase morale of allied troops and decrease morale of enemies.

magic heroes might become stronger at magic, though. so we might have to live with the awkward 'cannot cast spells on another hero' rule if heroes are out of battle, unless someone comes up with a better explanation.

Val-Gaav
04-12-2005, 01:21 AM
"A hero is not a coward he should fight"

buhahahhahahahahahha.....

I am sorry for those who think this way ....

HERO IS COMMANDER !!! No leader will fight and die before his units even start to do enything ... What is more It is silly that when a hero dies we can control our troops ... If this happens ther should be a quick combat ...

As for the fighting hero : only berberians are stupid so if any hero should fight in combat it should be a barberian ... Knight or Mage should watch the battle from a distance and give orders or cast spells...

Ther is no way a hero in combat may be ballanced !!! We must think about size of maps S M L XL ..

Another thing a XL map with 10 towns and 30 towns ??? With 10 towns heroes are stronger but when there are 30 towns there are lots of creatures and heroes die easily ...

The way combat was in h1 h2 h3 is something unique ... It is something that was a part of HoMM ... For me turning combat in to the way it were in h4 was like making HoMM a RTS game !!!!.... I WILL NOT BUY HOMM5 IF HEROES ARE TO BE ACTIVE IN COMBAT !!!! I want the h1 h2 h3 spirit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Elor_Once_Dark
04-12-2005, 01:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
"A hero is not a coward he should fight"

buhahahhahahahahahha.....

I am sorry for those who think this way ....

HERO IS COMMANDER !!! No leader will fight and die before his units even start to do enything ... What is more It is silly that when a hero dies we can control our troops ... If this happens ther should be a quick combat ...

As for the fighting hero : only berberians are stupid so if any hero should fight in combat it should be a barberian ... Knight or Mage should watch the battle from a distance and give orders or cast spells...

Ther is no way a hero in combat may be ballanced !!! We must think about size of maps S M L XL ..

Another thing a XL map with 10 towns and 30 towns ??? With 10 towns heroes are stronger but when there are 30 towns there are lots of creatures and heroes die easily ...

The way combat was in h1 h2 h3 is something unique ... It is something that was a part of HoMM ... For me turning combat in to the way it were in h4 was like making HoMM a RTS game !!!!.... I WILL NOT BUY HOMM5 IF HEROES ARE TO BE ACTIVE IN COMBAT !!!! I want the h1 h2 h3 spirit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go and get a history book. And learn some argumentation skills. This is pure trolling. You're spamming the board with already debunked claims, ridiculing others for actually having an idea of the issues they talk about, and yell and scream as if you'd not even meet the age requirements for most strategy games.

Elor_Once_Dark
04-12-2005, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gerdash:
people are talking that heroes need to be heroic, not cowardly. so, is it that when those people play, they charge with their hero in front of their troops in homm? or is it that the players are too cowardly to do that and their heroes are desperately running around trying to hide behind stacks and still getting killed?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did Odysseus gain fame by charging into battle?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
there were famous generals who watched battles from a nearby hill, while others participated in battle. i think we are somewhat free to choose the version that suits the game best. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Said generals were rarely called "heroes". Outside ancient Rome, they are a relatively modern commodity, and irreconcilable with mythology.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
btw there was etiquette that it was not honorable for nobles to attack commoners, maybe even lower rank nobles than themselves. so, treating creature levels as nobility ranks, this might give another rule whom the uncommanded stack might want to attack.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, where did you get that? The french knights at Courtrai most certainly charged commoners, and got butchered horribly. The larger part of most armies, namely the infantry, was almost largely commoner up until the 100 years war,
when dismounted knights came really en vogue not the least because infantry discipline had improved so much that a cavalry charge was often close to suicide.

Ellderon
04-12-2005, 02:31 AM
Unbalancing?
It all depends on how you do it..

Let's assume the Hero is about as strong as a single lvl7 unit..now..that's not too powerfull, is it?

The key is linking a hero to another stack that act as bodyguards, so you cant attack his hero and kill him untill all the guards are dead.
the bodyguards can even gein some boostst to their strength.

This can be done in two way - the enemy knows who the bodyguards are, or doesn't.

If he does, that leaves him with two choices:
He can charge your bodyguards with everything he's got or concentrate on thining your army first.

Best tactics depends on the bodyguard stack.

Now, lets assume the nemy liked the Hero with a purely defensive stack. It would take a lot to bring them down, and this would leave you open to hits from his heavy hitters. By the time you kill his hero, you might loose half the army allready.

And no, armies wouldn't run away without a Hero - not in most cases anyway. In any army there's a chain of command and loyal troops keep fighting. and in heroes you allways have the retreat option..

Crayno
04-12-2005, 02:42 AM
@ Elor:

Your arrogant pseudo intellectual posts only prove that you don't have a clue about what the Might and Magic world is a bout.
It is a FANTASY GAME! not a scientificly and historicly correct simulator.

Elor_Once_Dark
04-12-2005, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Crayno:
@ Elor:

Your arrogant pseudo intellectual posts only prove that you don't have a clue about what the Might and Magic world is a bout.
It is a _FANTASY GAME!_ not a scientificly and historicly correct simulator. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you had bothered to actually read my posts, rather than simply insult people on basis of the fact that they don't share your opinion, you would have realized I pointed that out ages ago and referred to mythology rather than actual history. I referred to history only in response to others doing so in a way that was factually wrong. But it is telling that you accuse me of arrogance but don't do so with others who ridicule people's opinion.

gerdash
04-12-2005, 03:12 AM
hmm.. i guess i could have said the previous post much shorter: what use is providing means for heroes to gloriously charge into battle in homm if that makes them run around like wimps hiding behind their troops most of the time.

re: Elor_Once_Dark
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elor_Once_Dark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
btw there was etiquette that it was not honorable for nobles to attack commoners, maybe even lower rank nobles than themselves. so, treating creature levels as nobility ranks, this might give another rule whom the uncommanded stack might want to attack.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, where did you get that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>source:
[URL=http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The French men-at-arms saw archers as inferior in social standing and, therefore, not worthy opponents whereas there was ransom to be gained by capturing an English noble. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

now, the words 'not worthy opponents' must have given me the impression. maybe this could be understood in two ways, maybe they were considered not worthy because there was no ransom? should have explained the source at once, but had forgotten how vaguely it was said.

my question would be: how was the french knights's charge at commoners at courtrai seen from the point of view of etiquette by their contemporaries?

unlike real life soldiers, homm creatures always put honor first and financial reasons second. not like the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In response, to the ensuing panic, Henry ordered the killing of the prisoners. The English men-at-arms refused, probably not so much on moral grounds (killing an equal after their surrender was dishonorable) as financial. They stood to lose the ransom from the prisoners. As a result, 200 archers were given the job as they were tough, professional soldiers outside the bounds of chivalry. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>so it would be nice to know what honor and etiquette meant in medieval times.

oh, getting carried away again, i just hope we won't see querilla warfare homm5.

igoraki
04-12-2005, 03:18 AM
i will just say that heroes on battlefield is good concept,imho and i was sorry to hear ubi plans to remove them from battle,this is actually only thing that bothers me about heroes V.

stevenlynch
04-12-2005, 03:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alderbranchh:
Ethric; play Warlords battlecry series... they have made 3 games with heroes being active in a game... All are imbalanced and always ended in the community having to set houserules about lv1-4 heroes or no heroes.

As to heroes. Ive seen each stack of units as a group of em just large enough to beat any hero... that meaning 1 goblin isnt really 1 goblin... it might be 20ish (one GROUP) thus a single here should have no chance vs even a single goblin if he doesnt have a group of troops of his own. Thus having the hero affect the game indirectly makes it much more easy to balance really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this. And a magic hero might still be able to cast more than one spell per round according to initiative (plus adding whatever attack/defense/secondary skill bonuses to the troops). While a might hero adds his considerable skills to all the troops in the battle (and maybe casts a spell too if it is balanced that way).

Elor_Once_Dark
04-12-2005, 04:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gerdash:

The French men-at-arms saw archers as inferior in social standing and, therefore, not worthy opponents whereas there was ransom to be gained by capturing an English noble.

now, the words 'not worthy opponents' must have given me the impression. maybe this could be understood in two ways, maybe they were considered not worthy because there was no ransom? should have explained the source at once, but had forgotten how vaguely it was said.

my question would be: how was the french knights's charge at commoners at courtrai seen from the point of view of etiquette by their contemporaries?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the French were somewhat unusual in that time anyway, since they considered themselves the cream of the crop of chivalry with all its romantic ideals, which had no small contribution to some of their problems in the Hundred Years War. However, as far as Azincourt is concerned, those English nobles were standing right in the middle of the infantry, and so in order to engage them, the French had to engage commoners as well. I think one issue with the archers would have been the ransom, the other the fact that they used ranged weapons and thus were perhaps seen of inferior courage.

As for Courtrai, since this was essentially a rebellion, there was little alternative to quelling it other than engaging the militia of the rebellious cities and the flemish Nobles who supported them. Unfortunately for the French, in Courtrai the Flemish had chosen the terrain well, and in a fashion that reinforced their own discipline. A disciplined infantry formation, however, is much like a spiked wall on which the cavalry grinds itself to bits... The English learned the same lesson when engaging scottish "schiltrons", and it was one reason the English knights started to dismount: They willingly forfeited their ability to flee if things go bad, thus showing the regularly infantry grog they didn't ask a risk of him they were not willing to take themselves -works wonders for morale.

Zalmolxe
04-12-2005, 04:57 AM
The hero is the center entity of this game.He is the center of all that is might or magic in the Homm world. Yes, it was kind of...nice to fight with the heroes, but....IT WAS NOT Heroes of Might and Magic. It was something between Homm3 and Diablo 2 and as i have seen people didn't like the changes(i for sure didn't).

The idea is like this...in the homm universe the hero is a lonely warrior. He uses his skills to round up huge armies and to conquer teritories. He learns from every battle he fights and uses that experience to empower the troops. He is not in the front line, he is not in battle. He is the commander standing on top of the hill watching the armies in struggle. With his abbilities he increases it's armies morale and general abilities.Also if he is a mage he can cast powerful blessing to aid his armies or to curse and diminish the ranks of the opposite one.

Don't put him to active duty like a footman, a hero is beyond that. He's done his time in active service or as an apprentice mage, now he is a hero...he LEADS armies; his role is to help, improve and inspire, not fight side to side with the creatures.

Val-Gaav
04-12-2005, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Go and get a history book. And learn some argumentation skills. This is pure trolling. You're spamming the board with already debunked claims, ridiculing others for actually having an idea of the issues they talk about, and yell and scream as if you'd not even meet the age requirements for most strategy games. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Huhhh ??? ... as Crayo said "Your arrogant pseudo intellectual posts only prove that you don't have a clue about what the Might and Magic world is a bout.
" I share his opinion ... For the history book I read many of them ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
As for mytholgy arguments : The troy war was won by armies and by brilliant commanders like Agamemnon (who was also called a hero)... A hero was a half god half human ... However none of the heroes from mythology would defeat an entire army !!!...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
The one who lacks arguments is YOU !!! ...
From the begining of the series the hero was a non combat active ... and it was destroyed in h4 ... This is the best argument from me as a series Fan ....

AS I see you probably have never seen or played homm1 or homm2 ...

st14z
04-12-2005, 06:03 AM
Do you think that, if you want HERO to be removed from battle, he could be replaced by stat-screen and portrait.
Me thinks that if HERO is removed from battle he could stay in sum dark corner of his castle... NO COMMANDERS of Might & Magic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Elor_Once_Dark
04-12-2005, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:

Huhhh ??? ... as Crayo said "Your arrogant pseudo intellectual posts only prove that you don't have a clue about what the Might and Magic world is a bout. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are in no position to call anyone arrogant, especially since all you present are infantile insults. As for my "pseudo intellectual posts", I take it "intellectual" for you means talking about issues you do not have the slightest idea about, as you usually do? I for one know my posts to be well-researched. It's a pity you're too immature to actually learn something.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
For the history book I read many of them ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doubtful. Historic fiction, maybe. That's not a history book. But you seem pretty good at claims and pretty bad at actual presenting some hard arguments to support your claims.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As for mytholgy arguments : The troy war was won by armies and by brilliant commanders like Agamemnon (who was also called a hero)... A hero was a half god half human ... However none of the heroes from mythology would defeat an entire army !!!... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest learning some mythology before trying to lecture others about things you know precious little about. The Spartoi sown from dragon teeth were twice vanquished by a single hero who enticed them to fight amongst each other.

Agamemnon was also not half god half human, but the son of Queen Aerope and either King Atreus or Pleisthenes.

And from the Wikipedia article on Agamemnon:
"He takes the field himself, and performs many heroic deeds until he is wounded and forced to withdraw to his tent" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agamemnon )

Achilles, on the other hand, was he son of a Nereid, captured several towns outside troy and defeated countless others. In fact, there was prophecy that Troy could not be taken without his help.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The one who lacks arguments is YOU !!! ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's probably why I have presented many, in contrast to you, who aside from insults and playing Rumpelstiltskin has yet to make one post which could lead onlookers to believe you are actually capable of adhering to basic manners and customs of discourse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
From the begining of the series the hero was a non combat active ... and it was destroyed in h4 ... This is the best argument from me as a series Fan .... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heroes cast combat spells all the time and thus were combat active.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
AS I see you probably have never seen or played homm1 or homm2 ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I see, you're all talk and no substance. I have, in fact, played HoMM2, and your "seeing" is nothing but your usual arrogance running amok: Because you think it has to be that way, it must be that way, and to hell with any evidence.

Val-Gaav
04-12-2005, 07:14 AM
I've never said anything about Agammemnon being half god ... I said he was CALLED hero ... and that is a diference ..........

People have right to say their opinions ... and not to give arguments for it ... Arguments are for discussion not for beliefs or opinions ...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"Heroes cast combat spells all the time and thus were combat active."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I konow that ... WOOOW .. However there is a diference in hero die in combat / hero stands and cannot be attacked ...
This is what active / non active is .....
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
of adhering to basic manners and customs of discourse.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
who has no manners here ??? Who started to jump on me in the first place ...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
A)Heroes on the battlefield has NOTHING -not the slightest bit- to do with an "RPG experience". If RPG for you is about running around and slaughtering stuff, you don't know what an RPG is.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes ... And if you leave your creatures in castle and fight a 30 black dragons with one hero and potions of imortality it is a strategy ...
Well i would say it is a "hack and slash" Diablo type game...
.............................

Elor_Once_Dark
04-12-2005, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
People have right to say their opinions ... and not to give arguments for it ... Arguments are for discussion not for beliefs or opinions ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess what, a forum is for discussions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Yes I konow that ... WOOOW .. However there is a diference in hero die in combat / hero stands and cannot be attacked ...
This is what active / non active is .....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Casting chain lightning most certainly is active participation in combat. You are correct, however, that there is a difference whether a hero can be attacked or not: If he cannot be attacked, the opponent is forced to act in the most stupidly dumb manner possible.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
who has no manners here ??? Who started to jump on me in the first place ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, so manners for you means it is not allowed to question you.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Yes ... And if you leave your creatures in castle and fight a 30 black dragons with one hero and potions of imortality it is a strategy ...
Well i would say it is a "hack and slash" Diablo type game...
............................. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too bad that has nothing to do with whether a hero is allowed to actively participate or not, but with the actual execution.

And by the way: If you believe that letting someone shoot with artillery at you and doing nothing about it is a strategy, you better stay as far away from any battlefield as you can possibly can. And let people who have an idea about strategy take care of counterbattery fire.

Ethric
04-12-2005, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Crayno:
@ Elor:

Your arrogant pseudo intellectual posts only prove that you don't have a clue about what the Might and Magic world is a bout.
It is a _FANTASY GAME!_ not a scientificly and historicly correct simulator. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What an arrogant thing to say. So someone who writes in proper language and sentences as opposed to the "That suxxor how can u disagree with that???111!!!" that some use is a pseudo intellectual?

And saying that he don't have a clue what the Might and Magic world is about, what's that supposed to mean? That your opinion on what MM is about is the only one that matters? Is accepting that other people may disagree with you so hard? Why does it so often have to come to mudslinging? Is it so hard to remain civil?

Fact of the matter is that there are people who like heroes to participate actively in battle and people who don't like it, and neither side is right! It's all a matter of personal opinion. Of course, when you see someone of "the other side" use arguments you consider flawed, you want to dispute it. But there's no reason to be rude and resort to personal attacks. Personal attacks are used by those who have no relevant arguments on the matter at hand.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
Yes ... And if you leave your creatures in castle and fight a 30 black dragons with one hero and potions of imortality it is a strategy ...
Well i would say it is a "hack and slash" Diablo type game...
............................. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've said it countless times and I say it again: the heroes in battle system in H4 was flawed, so heroes in battle in another HoMM would have to be done better. I doubt there's many that wants to see the H4 way with immortality potions implemented in H5.

So the argument that having heroes in battle in H5 because it worked not so good in H4 is invalid and irrelevant. There are many ways to make it work properly and balanced. Some like the idea of merging heroes with units, other suggest having guarding stacks. Or you could have heroes start out of reach, but come down into battle if the player chooses or if all the creatures are slain.

It would also be possible to have a tickbox at mapselection where you choose heroes in battle on\off. That way, everyone should be satisfied.

Another point: there are different types of heroes. Your typical barbarian would be the rush into battle in the first wave type hero, while fx a roman-type general would probably stay on a hilltop giving orders. I want a system where both those things are possible, but I also want it to be possible to take out that general. But not as easily as it would be in H4, there have to be available defensive measures. Like guarding stacks, which is an idea I favour.

Alderbranchh
04-12-2005, 07:58 AM
Why is it so important to have a hero DIRECTLY affect the combat?
Aka, move around and attack etc...

I personally would prefer if the creators of the game could for once just state that each creature produced each week (or per day ratio) would
be not a single creature but a group and as such overpowered compared to any single hero unless he has some army.

A hero does:
Boost his troops morale/damage (by spell or skill)
Decrease the opponents troops morale/damage (by spell or skill)

All of this is real easy to balance and that is what we want really.
An imbalanced game really turns into houserule-hell

Now; direct heroes...
What do we need to think of...
Damage + Attackskill
Defense + Armor
HP
Regen?
Potions?
Items?
Skills?

Sure we can balance hero-hero... but then we have unit-hero balance too.. now its gettin nasty... how powerful should a hero be of a certain level?
Will certain skillbonuses, itemcombos etc etc etc make the hero near immortal?

As to exploiting; someone descrivbed me like this
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Alderbranch was one who found the most exploitive combo in WBC2 pretty much ruining the game for competitive players. (Should play for fun anyways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif lol) His archmage with a combo of calm/awe/drain/acquire was amazing and he had the skill to back make it even greater. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And to me it was just simple math... And trust me... making simple formulas for abusing games arnt that hard. Thus keeping it simple yet entertaining is the biggest thing. And sofar HOMM 1-3 kept that as it was... HOMM4 tried a new concept that was too much for them to grasp really.

karlito31
04-12-2005, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>that meaning 1 goblin isnt really 1 goblin... it might be 20ish (one GROUP) thus a single here should have no chance vs even a single goblin <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
whats that?

1 goblin health = 5 hp
5 hp / 20 "(one GROUP)" = 0,25 hp

You dont need hero here.You need undertaker.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Alderbranchh
04-12-2005, 08:07 AM
LOL.... well
I hope ya get my point...
Stop thinking of creatures as consisting of a single creature. Think of it as enough creatures to beat a single hero nomatter skill that hero has (unless he uses magic but without troops to defend him that long as he really is in the middle of the battle he cant cast it) but not enough to kill a group of other creatures...

As to 5 HP... well that can mean they dont have lots of morale before they die or run (aka turn useless in battle) which means some die but most flee like in the case of goblins that run easily when being attacked. Thus it could mean if "each" goblin is 5 HP then that means once you kill 25% of a group its no longer effective in battle and thus not counted toward the total groups you have availble.

A hero might be mighty but he still dies to any army nomatter size.

Ethric
04-12-2005, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alderbranchh:
I personally would prefer if the creators of the game could for once just state that each creature produced each week (or per day ratio) would
be not a single creature but a group and as such overpowered compared to any single hero unless he has some army. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Just increase the weekly\daily growth then, if you want more creatures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alderbranchh:
A hero does:
Boost his troops morale/damage (by spell or skill)
Decrease the opponents troops morale/damage (by spell or skill)

All of this is real easy to balance and that is what we want really.
An imbalanced game really turns into houserule-hell

Now; direct heroes...
What do we need to think of...
Damage + Attackskill
Defense + Armor
HP
Regen?
Potions?
Items?
Skills?

Sure we can balance hero-hero... but then we have unit-hero balance too.. now its gettin nasty... how powerful should a hero be of a certain level?
Will certain skillbonuses, itemcombos etc etc etc make the hero near immortal?

As to exploiting; someone descrivbed me like this
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Alderbranch was one who found the most exploitive combo in WBC2 pretty much ruining the game for competitive players. (Should play for fun anyways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif lol) His archmage with a combo of calm/awe/drain/acquire was amazing and he had the skill to back make it even greater. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And to me it was just simple math... And trust me... making simple formulas for abusing games arnt that hard. Thus keeping it simple yet entertaining is the biggest thing. And sofar HOMM 1-3 kept that as it was... HOMM4 tried a new concept that was too much for them to grasp really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In short: heroes should not be in battle because it would require a bit of effort to do right. Then why not:

-it has been decided to keep the number of towns in the game to 2, 1 good and 1 bad, to save work.

-each town will have 3 creaures; 1 weak, 1 medium and 1 strong.

-there will be one type of magic, with 3 spells; 1 for healing, 1 for protection and 1 for damage

-creatures will be reperesented by a red dot, castles will be represented by a blue dot.

Exaggerated, but you get my point http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Morale of the story: it's far from impossible to have heroes in battle and make it work good. It will require a bit of work, but many of us think it would be worth it.

Of course, no amount of work will prevent you from finding a way to be world champion within 5 minutes of playing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif (what is this "WBC2" anyway?)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alderbranchh:
Stop thinking of creatures as consisting of a single creature. Think of it as enough creatures to beat a single hero nomatter skill that hero has (unless he uses magic but without troops to defend him that long as he really is in the middle of the battle he cant cast it) but not enough to kill a group of other creatures... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be constructing an artificial assumption as an argument against having heroes participate directly in combat. Rather irrelevant, I'd say.

Val-Gaav
04-12-2005, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elor_Once_Dark:
[QUOTE]
Guess what, a forum is for discussions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes , but not only ... This forum is also for stating your opinion ...
I mean would you like arguments about history and mythology in a topic "heroes V rts or turn based ?" ???
For me the active hero or not is a part of game traditions, the HoMM traditions ...
I would play disciples or AoW if I wanted active hero ... I will say again that the combat system of homm 1 2 3 was something that made the game unique ....
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Ah, so manners for you means it is not allowed to question you.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Manners ehhh ??? Then :

"Go and get a history book. And learn some argumentation skills. This is pure trolling. You're spamming the board with already debunked claims, ridiculing others for actually having an idea of the issues they talk about, and yell and scream as if you'd not even meet the age requirements for most strategy games."

You call that qustioning ? For me this is an insult ...
This is the only reason for my brutal answer... You could say your opinion (or question) in a polite way .
.........

karlito31
04-12-2005, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I hope ya get my point... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes ... I think ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

hp is not hp but morale instead , and its kinda useless in battle because 25% will run anyway when being attacked ,so once you kill another 25% group is no longer effective in battle but is still too much for hero nomatter skill that hero has and they are not enough to kill a group of other creatures and than they dont have lots of morale ...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Elor_Once_Dark
04-12-2005, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alderbranchh:
Why is it so important to have a hero DIRECTLY affect the combat?
Aka, move around and attack etc... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is a chain lightning not an attack?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
A hero does:
Boost his troops morale/damage (by spell or skill)
Decrease the opponents troops morale/damage (by spell or skill)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you argue for the abolishment of direct attack spells.

By the way: Putting yourself into harms way is a good way to boost troops morale.

Once more: To attack the other side's hero is a strategic no-brainer, regardless whether he's actually holding a weapon or boosting morale. Take out the hero, and the army becomes weaker one way or the other. Making the hero impervious to damage is forcing tactical stupidity on the player.

Elor_Once_Dark
04-12-2005, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
Yes , but not only ... This forum is also for stating your opinion ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You insulted everyone who disagrees with you, posted in CAPS and repeated the same stuff time and time again. That's not stating an opinion, it's trolling.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
For me the active hero or not is a part of game traditions, the HoMM traditions ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you do not understand where these traditions come from, how do you hope to understand them?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"Go and get a history book. And learn some argumentation skills. This is pure trolling. You're spamming the board with already debunked claims, ridiculing others for actually having an idea of the issues they talk about, and yell and scream as if you'd not even meet the age requirements for most strategy games."

You call that qustioning ? For me this is an insult ...
This is the only reason for my brutal answer... You could say your opinion (or question) in a polite way .
......... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You lie. This comment by me as after you had already spammed the board with TWO abrasive, immature posts, which duplicated arguments. You were the first to insult others -you did so in the first of your posts I reply to. You have yet to make a single polite post, and until you have, do not expect to be treated with more respect than you award to others. The fact that you deny your responsibility in such a dishonest fashion merely underscores your immaturity and total lack of proper conduct.

Alderbranchh
04-12-2005, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ethric:
Why? Just increase the weekly\daily growth then, if you want more creatures.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope... thats not my idea. Check my answer to Karlito below...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ethric:
In short: heroes should not be in battle because it would require a bit of effort to do right. Then why not:

-it has been decided to keep the number of towns in the game to 2, 1 good and 1 bad, to save work.

-each town will have 3 creaures; 1 weak, 1 medium and 1 strong.

-there will be one type of magic, with 3 spells; 1 for healing, 1 for protection and 1 for damage

-creatures will be reperesented by a red dot, castles will be represented by a blue dot.

Exaggerated, but you get my point http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok I get yer point... Yet CIV is nearly like that... (a tad more complex) but its still a very fun and entertaining game.
But let me put it like this... Ive played too much of active hero strategic games and I know what I talk about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ethric:
Morale of the story: it's far from impossible to have heroes in battle and make it work good. It will require a bit of work, but many of us think it would be worth it.

Of course, no amount of work will prevent you from finding a way to be world champion within 5 minutes of playing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif (what is this "WBC2" anyway?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
WBC is Warlords battlecry, a series in which you have a active hero yet for three titles wbc1-3 the developers never learned enough.
They had to make a patch for the 3rd game (which I tested aswell and we did point out all the flaws added to the patch BEFORE it was released) cause they didnt listen atall to balancing. Ive been through this discussions so many times its gettin more or less boring nowdays. But the thing remains. Any active part of a game has to be balanced. And thus a hero with skill variety, spell variety, etc is VERY hard if not totally impossible to balance.

Try get either WBC game and ill be happy to show you how a single hero can kill anything if he is of the right level. Sure you can only have one hero but it doesnt matter... the choice in hero (400 options of hero/class combos I might add)really decides the outcome of the game (with good troops) if the hero doesnt rule the game alone that is by spellcasting or fighting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ethric:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be constructing an artificial assumption as an argument against having heroes participate directly in combat. Rather irrelevant, I'd say. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, as it is now yeah... but my idea below is really good. And the idea is not useless nor irrelevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karlito31:
yes ... I think ...

hp is not hp but morale instead , and its kinda useless in battle because 25% will run anyway when being attacked ,so once you kill another 25% group is no longer effective in battle but is still too much for hero nomatter skill that hero has and they are not enough to kill a group of other creatures and than they dont have lots of morale ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the time I wanna scream something like you being of lesser intelligence but as its just me being frustrated at your meager skill of imagination or me lacking severly in my description of what I mean then lets put it like this. (no insult intended)

Make GOBLINS grow in groups of 20... then let them have the same stats as just ONE creature has now in say HOMM3; simple as that really.

Omega_Destroyer
04-12-2005, 09:20 AM
Vicious. These boards are supposed to be fun and for expressing your opinions about a great series we all have a mutual fondness for. There's nothing wrong with debating an issue; but nobdoy is better than anyone else in this board and has no right to call another person an idiot for disagreeing.

I would like to see the heroes participate directly in the battles again, but if the developers don't find such implementations in the game's best interest, then that is fine. If they do opt to include them, great. Each game has had some impact upon the series. King's Bounty and Heroes of Might and Magic started the series. Heroes 2 made some great improvements by providing 2 more castle types, hero skills, and upgradeable creatures. The third game added 3 more castle types, had over 130 creatures, hero specialization, etc, etc. The 4th game branched out further by allowing heroes to participate in the battle and provided a unique magic system. Where Heroes 5 goes is anyone's guess, but we should support the developers' decisions and be thankful they are making a new game, instead of chastising eachother for our individual beliefs. Let's have a discussion; not a flame war.

Ethric
04-12-2005, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alderbranchh:
WBC is Warlords battlecry, a series in which you have a active hero yet for three titles wbc1-3 the developers never learned enough.
They had to make a patch for the 3rd game (which I tested aswell and we did point out all the flaws added to the patch BEFORE it was released) cause they didnt listen atall to balancing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well then, there you go: it didn't work well because they wouldn't listen. But what if they did listen? What if they ran extensive betatesting, listened to fan input after release, patched it if needed? That some have failed doing it doesn't mean it's not doable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alderbranchh:
Make GOBLINS grow in groups of 20... then let them have the same stats as just ONE creature has now in say HOMM3; simple as that really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you go over the why of this again? I don't understand what purpose this would serve.

karlito31
04-12-2005, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Make GOBLINS grow in groups of 20... then let them have the same stats as just ONE creature has now in say HOMM3; simple as that really <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At 25% morale , is that correct?

Grey.Pilgrim
04-12-2005, 10:46 AM
Thank you, Omega_D, for trying to get this thread back on track...
I've enjoyed the H4 idea of having heroes participate in the battles...however...as many others have stated...immortality potions really unbalanced the fights, especially when we got to the "one hero defeats 60 black dragons" stage! I think that banning those potions would have made H4 much more of a challenge for most people. As to H5...I'll take whatever comes from the developers, work with it, and just be happy to have it!

Val-Gaav
04-12-2005, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You lie. This comment by me as after you had already spammed the board with TWO abrasive, immature posts, which duplicated arguments. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ummm ... I am sorry Now that I looked on first page I have made a two posts .... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

This was not on purpose.... When I send the first one I've got an error and lost the message .... It was a late time so I'd gone to sleep...

The second post I send some time later becouse I thought that the first one was NOT send ...
That is why those posts are very similar ....
.................................................. ..........................................
So my mistake http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif and for that I am sorry ...

Still however my post was not immature ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

to end this offtopic ...
The good thing would be making a switch combat hero on/off ...

Or maybe if everyone wants fighting hero so badly :
Create a special hero class for each castle ...
Main heroes would be like in h3.
-Special hero would come from the strongest race of our city
For exemple :
Castle= special hero Angel --- Rampart special hero Ancient Dendroid ---
-Special hero would be very powerfull even at first level 500 hp at start ... and 1000 hp at top level (yes it would be limited)
-Each main hero would have a slot for a special hero...
-We would be allowed to buy a special hero when we had buid a top level creature generator .. He would be recruited in a special temple ... Cost =very high 10000 or 20000 gold and a sacrafice (artifact for good and some creatures for the evil ones)
- Special heroes would not die - when their hp would fall dramaticaly they would be cast out off combat ... and we would have to recruit them once again ...

That makes sence becouse Hero-Angel is more likely capable of killing a dragon then a wild barberian with axe ...
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
This is something that is similar to WoG commanders - still it should be well balanced ...

It is just an idea ...

Tristan4
04-12-2005, 11:59 AM
Well I would like to see hero participate in battle. But it should be balanced much more than in Heroes IV. Yep i know the Heroes 1-3 tradition, but things changes, and heroes should also change http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And please don't talk about this historic nonsens, it's forum about HoM. In fantasy world single hero can kill an army of dragons only if author of the world likes to do that!!

Ethric
04-12-2005, 12:01 PM
Or how about having the hero start on the side (perhaps with an option to have the hero start in battle if you wish). Then as the battle progresses, you may choose for your hero to enter battle, with the risks that entails. The act of entering battle would give the creatures on his side a moral boost (but a significant decrease if the hero dies). In battle the hero has of course the ability to perform physical attacks, and it could give a bonus, say 25%, to the effectivenesss of spells, due to being closer to the targets. If the entire army dies, the heroes would automatically be in battle.

Furthermore, add a tickbox at mapselection, with herofight on\off, which would enable\disable this. If set to off, the option for heroes entering battle will not be available for any players on that session. If the entire army is dead the heroes would simply run away.

And I see no reason for anyoen to complain that heroes in battle gets advantages that the ones not in battle don't get. Afterall, this would be equal to all players, and for people choosing not to have their players in battle it would work the same as in the earlier HoMM games.

The strenght of heroes would of course have to be subjected to testing and adjustements. There would be no immortality-potions, and it would take quite a highlvl hero to take down a big beast like a dragon. So the otpion to enter combat would be beneficial for helping finishing of a nearly defeated enemy, and for giving your army a boost in even fights. Risky, but might pay off if you know what you're doing.

So, what do people say to something like that? Aside from the "This is to much work"-argument. I can see that the "No to heroes in battle" people would prefer no time was spent on an option they wouldn't use, but such egoistic concerns can not come into consideration as long as there are a good few people who would like the option to have fighting heroes. I'm just trying to see ways to do it that would make pretty much everyone happy.

Val-Gaav
04-12-2005, 12:19 PM
Yes I like this idea ...

however it should be well balanced lets see :

heroes in combat give morale and luck bonus , however they cannot cast spells (or can cast only the 1'st level spells)

It is difficult for a combat hero to kill even a one dragon (and he should never kill more then one by one hit) ... However he has plenty of hp .

If a hero dies army gets a negative morale

heroes out of combat - no morale bonus to units however may cast spells ...

there is only one hero per army !!! This is very important ....


There will be a problem however with primary and secondary skills ... It is like developing two games in this part ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Or maybe not ?) ...

NailagCiad
04-12-2005, 12:22 PM
I'll try and throw my 0.02US$ in here: I doubt heroes can be placed on battle in the way H4 tried doing it- i.e. all heroes can be targeted unless line of sight applies- AND keep 'combat' and pure 'magic'/'tactical' heroes balanced. It might be possible if it was easier to create 'safe havens'- and then we've almost landed on the onlooking hero anyway.

Ethric
04-12-2005, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
Yes I like this idea ...

however it should be well balanced lets see :

heroes in combat give morale and luck bonus , however they cannot cast spells (or can cast only the 1'st level spells) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the contrary, they should be able to cast spells better. As I mentioned, a % increase in effectiveness would be good. If not, mageheroes are gimped compared to fighters. The whole point is to increase effectiveness by taking a risk.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
It is difficult for a combat hero to kill even a one dragon (and he should never kill more then one by one hit) ... However he has plenty of hp .

If a hero dies army gets a negative morale <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. But not to much HP, don't want to unbalance it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
heroes out of combat - no morale bonus to units however may cast spells ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if the hero has apropriate skill (leadership, tactics) or artifacts he'd provide that bonus wherever he is, on the battlefield or on the side. But if he enters battle, there will be an additional bonus.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
there is only one hero per army !!! This is very important .... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fiercely disagreed! Limiting armies to 1 hero is not a good thing, IMO, and I see no good reason for doing it. However, it might be an idea to set the number of allowable heroes in an army dependant on the amount\relative strenght of the creatures. And keep hero-slots and creature-slots two separate things. 1 would be a minimum, even if it's an army of 1 peasant. Then when you have an army at a strenght of n XP (or however you choose to measure it), a 2nd slot is opened. And so forth. A maximum of 3-5 would maybe be a good idea as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
There will be a problem however with primary and secondary skills ... It is like developing two games in this part ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Or maybe not ?) ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shouldn't be to hard to attribute certain skills to affect combat-abilities. If we take the example of H4, let the skills in the Tactics skill family also give increases in the hero's own combat-capabilities accordingly. Mages would have self-defence spells (that are disabled if herocombat is off). Or there could be skills dedicated to fighting as in H4, that are disabled in non-fighting game sessions.

So yes, all this requires a bit of work for developers but it has the potentional of pleasing a greater amount of fans.

Alderbranchh
04-13-2005, 01:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ethric:
Well then, there you go: it didn't work well because they wouldn't listen. But what if they _did_ listen? What if they ran extensive betatesting, listened to fan input after release, patched it if needed? That some have failed doing it doesn't mean it's not doable.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the developers started to listen after ppl went screaming in disgust (I as a beta-tester just laughed at the developers).
What my point is that a developers sense of "what the game should be like" has nothing to do with what the balance will be like. And balancing 400+ hero-combos with 16 races proved to be more than overwhelming...

Hey; even starcraft was real unbalanced at start and that was from 3 races only!

CONCLUSION: The more elements you put into the game the more you have to balance.
So really... if the developers want a balanced TBS (which is what im after) then they have to limit the different elements a bit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ethric:
Could you go over the why of this again? I don't understand what purpose this would serve. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would show all these "I want the hero active"-ppl that a single hero doesnt stand a chance in 1 vs 20 as the smallest stack is just like 20ish ppl even though it in earlier games was represented by just one creature.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karlito31:
At 25% morale , is that correct?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bah, skip that. I fixed my idea (each creature actually being 20ish would solve it even if they have only 5 HP in total or whatever) so it could work even for you to understand.
Now stop pretending to not understand, its annoying.

AzureSlayer
04-13-2005, 01:56 AM
I think Heroes on battlefield isnt right.I have seen armies consisted of Heroes only its like playing a Rpg.And for your information Generals Commanders etc never fight in battle they just give orders.

Elor_Once_Dark
04-13-2005, 02:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AzureSlayer:
I think Heroes on battlefield isnt right.I have seen armies consisted of Heroes only its like playing a Rpg. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has precisely ZERO in common with a real RPG.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And for your information Generals Commanders etc never fight in battle they just give orders. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when is HoMM set in the Napoleonic age or more recent periods?

For your information, historically, commanders very much fought in battle. We're not talking generals here, we're talking HEROES.

An example:
A classic medieval example of this tactical situation occurred at the battle of Pontlevoy in the Touraine on 6 July 1016. Fulk Nerra, Count of the Angevins, in preparation for an attack on an army of foot and horse led by Count Odo II of Blois which greatly outnumbered his own, divided his own command into two parts. Fulk retained the larger part, composed of both foot and horsemen, under his own command at Pontlevoy athwart the line of advance of Odo's force which was moving to ravage Angevin possessions in the region. The remainder of the Angevin army, composed solely of horsemen, Fulk placed under the nominal command of Count Herbert of Maine and stationed as a reserve at Bourre less than five kilometers to the south of Pontlevoy. When Odo's army arrived at Pontlevoy in the late afternoon of the sixth, tired from the day's march, it was astonished to find Fulk's army drawn up in front of it and ready to attack. With the element of surprise on his side, Fulk charged Odo's front. But after some very heavy fighting the Angevins were repelled by the hastily drawn up Blesois. Fulk was severely shaken up during the attack and unhorsed. His standard bearer, Sigebrand of Chemille, was killed. The Angevins withdrew, perhaps because the standard had fallen with Sigebrand; this was the usual signal for retreat. In any event, while the Blesois were resting after the exertion of this initial encounter, Count Herbert attacked out of the West. The late afternoon sun at his back partially shielded his movements and blinded the enemy. The Blesois' left side, taken in flank, crumbled under the impact of Herbert's charge, and just at that moment Fulk launched his second attack along Odo's front. This destroyed the Blesois resistance; the milites fled, while the slower-moving pedites were slaughtered in large numbers as the Angevin horsemen, in hot pursuit, rode them down.
( http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/ARTICLES/bachrach3.htm )
Note that Bachrach is one of the most prominent scholars on medieval warfare, especially in this period, and specifically mentions Fulk Nerra being unhorsed. Sounds like he wasn't precisely standing at the top of the hill waiting for others to execute his orders.

Also, do you have any idea where the term "Paladin" comes from? It stems from "attached to the palace" in latin. The original "Paladins" are all Lords in the "Song of Roland" and very much fight in battle.

gerdash
04-13-2005, 03:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alderbranchh:
Bah, skip that. I fixed my idea (each creature actually being 20ish would solve it even if they have only 5 HP in total or whatever) so it could work even for you to understand.
Now stop pretending to not understand, its annoying. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>could you explain why does this have to be so complicated?

earlier in this thread someone wisely said that heroes cancel each other out. if you tryed to kill that 1 goblin that has 1 health point left with your hero, the opponent hero would also join battle and still have an advantage over your hero without any troops.

i understand this is an approximation, but considering that hero level means leadership type of things rather than fighting ability, the level or class of hero doesn't necessarily make a difference.

i would rather suggest to let the intuitive things stay intuitive whenever possible. and 1 creature meaning 20 isn't imho really necessary.

your hero &gt; enemy goblin + enemy hero
is approximately false.

Ethric
04-13-2005, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alderbranchh:
Well, the developers started to listen after ppl went screaming in disgust (I as a beta-tester just laughed at the developers).
What my point is that a developers sense of "what the game should be like" has nothing to do with what the balance will be like. And balancing 400+ hero-combos with 16 races proved to be more than overwhelming...

_CONCLUSION: The more elements you put into the game the more you have to balance._
So really... if the developers want a balanced TBS (which is what im after) then they have to limit the different elements a bit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well this won't be like balancing 400 herocombos, this is a different game. The balancing can be done on a general level. And with the option-system I proposed above I honestly can't see why it should be a big problem to balance. I'll volunteer to test it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Conclusion: if a bit of extra work can make for a better game I'm all for it.

Another point though is that what's balanced and what's not is not always readily appearant, and I think most gamedevelopers, when hearing some fans scream their heads of that X feature is imbalanced take it with a grain of salt. And rightly so. Sometimes a good move is imbalanced only until someone finds a countermove, this is something the devs have to take into consideration. I do not doubt that you know that other game very well and that there really was imbalances, but it helps explain why devs usually don't, and shouldn't, jump to "correct" every percieved imbalance by fans. In H3, there has been countless discussions about why this and that town is imbalanced. And yet, you find that people that have really played with that town, extensively, can do pretty well against so-called overpowered towns.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alderbranchh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ethric:
Could you go over the why of this again? I don't understand what purpose this would serve. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would show all these "I want the hero active"-ppl that a single hero doesnt stand a chance in 1 vs 20 as the smallest stack is just like 20ish ppl even though it in earlier games was represented by just one creature. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's it? I thought you had more to it... then I'm sorry to say it has to be one of the worst arguments against heroes in combat I've ever heard. Taking assumptions out of thin air doesn't show anyone anything, the validity of the assumption reaches no longer than to your own mind. What if we were playing a game, and you attacked me and defeated my army. Could I just say "Hey, you weren't supposed to win, because in my mind I had assumed that my army was 10 times bigger!" I suggest you lay that "argument" to rest, it's absurd. Sorry, no offence meant, but I really think it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gerdash:
your hero &gt; enemy goblin + enemy hero
is approximately false. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if your hero is twice the level of the other hero? Surely a lvl 20 hero should beat 1 goblin and a lvl 10 hero?

gerdash
04-13-2005, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ethric:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gerdash:
your hero &gt; enemy goblin + enemy hero
is approximately false. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if your hero is twice the level of the other hero? Surely a lvl 20 hero should beat 1 goblin and a lvl 10 hero? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>umm.. approximately no.

also, you would have to take into account that e.g. napoleon couldn't have been a low level hero, he should have been at least level 20. almost any level 1 barbarian with a stick (especially if aided by an almost mortally wounded goblin) would have beaten the devil out of napoleon. btw i think that napoleon was considered a hero by many of his contemporaries although he stayed behind the scenes.

if you would think a little further, level 20 hero could be a troglodyte, level 1 could be a minotaur. btw i also said in my previous post that hero level doesn't really need to indicate hero's strength in battle.

and if you let heroes fight, you would soon start to get complaints that different hero races don't feel different, giant sized heroes should cost more than smaller ones, etc.

that's why it's appeals to me to use the heroes-cancel-out approximation instead of letting heroes fight on battlefield. heroes would put on white gloves and watch the battle from a hill. maybe they would even enjoy a good meal, listen to musicians, make jokes about battle events, etc.

btw i am not a diehard hater of heroes in battle, just commented about the repetition of the 20 goblins topic. my own version of heroes in battle can be found on page3 in this thread. but as both versions (heroes in battle and not in battle) were historically correct i see no desperate problem if the game doesn't cover the whole variety of possibilities and heroes stay out of battle.

i guess the discussion seems to boil down to 'heroes of might and magic' vs 'commanders of might and magic' discussion.

========
to me the most weird fact was recruiting heroes in a tavern. imagine that us needs a general that would lead it's armies in war (like in iraq or a more serious war) and us president goes to the nearest bar and chooses the general from among the not extremely sober customers (including some accidental tourists from other countries).

Ethric
04-13-2005, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gerdash:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ethric:

What if your hero is twice the level of the other hero? Surely a lvl 20 hero should beat 1 goblin and a lvl 10 hero? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>umm.. approximately no.

also, you would have to take into account that e.g. napoleon couldn't have been a low level hero, he should have been at least level 20. almost any level 1 barbarian with a stick (especially if aided by an almost mortally wounded goblin) would have beaten the devil out of napoleon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, I suppose. But it goes both ways: what if you have a lvl 20 barbarian against a mortally wounded goblin and a lvl 10 Lord-hero? it would be a gruesome slaughter, the barbarian would mow them down.

So this approximation, while being good for cases where the heroes are equal, does not give an accurate representation of each individual case, as most often the heroes will not be exactly equal.

For many, it has also something to do with the definiton of heroes. As you said it, it boils down to Commanders of Might and Magic vs Heroes of Might and Magic. Being a good commander is not the same as being a hero, to me. A Hero does heroic stuff, and heroic stuff often involves risking your own hide. Someone who dives into someone to save them from being run over by a bus at the risk of being run over thmesleves I'd consider a hero. If you just tell someone to watch out for that bus it's not so heroic, even though the result may be the same.

karlito31
04-13-2005, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>but as both versions (heroes in battle and not in battle) were historically correct i see no desperate problem if the game doesn't cover the whole variety of possibilities and heroes stay out of battle...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
... or , by the same token , in the battle http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Im sorry , it was only natural to finish that sentence. Hope You dont mind.

karlito31
04-13-2005, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now stop pretending to not understand, its annoying.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK.
You can buy 20 creatures at cost of one and with effectiveness
of one and because of this Heroes are toasted.
Now , dig this:
Hero is not one hero. He is stack of 20ish heros. When You move hero , you are moveing 20 of them.
Surely , they can toast 20 imps? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
Would you agree with me here?

Zamolxis108
04-13-2005, 09:03 AM
Didn't read all posts above, so I hope I'm not repeating exactly what smb else said.

I, myself, wasn't that bothered about heroes in battle (even liked it to some point), but in time I discovered the disadvantages:
- creatures lost in importance
- the annoying potions system
- heroes killed & resurrected 100 times during a game (& 10 times during a single battle)
- unnatural, unbalanced strength heroes vs creatures.

I mean, it was sometimes too much: armies of heroes, heroes walking around with 50 "bottles" after them and fighting, drinking the "bottles" during the fight to be always resurrected even if they die, a heroe (no matter how strong a human-like being can get) more resistant to physical damage then an angel, titan or dragon etc...

It can work if they re-think it, but I don't see the point of debating on it now, for Heroes V, as they've already decided what they want to do with the heroes ("they won't participated in the battles like in H4, but they'll be more involved than in H3"), and it's too late to change anything about that now. When the game will be out, we can start a tread (or even separate section): Heroes VI proposals - as only there we'll be able to talk about bringing the heroes back in the battlefield (to fight aside the creatures).

Ethric
04-13-2005, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamolxis108:
It can work if they re-think it, but I don't see the point of debating on it now, for Heroes V, as they've already decided what they want to do with the heroes ("they won't participated in the battles like in H4, but they'll be more involved than in H3"), and it's too late to change anything about that now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. I think it's important that the people who would like to see heroes participate hands-on in battle at some future point in the series makes our presence known at all times to show that we're still here, and present arguments on why this is a good idea and how it could be done.

Ishmael_SC
04-13-2005, 09:20 AM
I agree with Ethric.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "they won't participated in the battles like in H4, but they'll be more involved than in H3" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zamolxis, if you "quote" a statement from another post, you should not leave words out, especially if that only serves to "prove" your point.

So I feel I have to correct your quote: "heroes will probably (!) not participate in combat as in H4, but they'll be more involved than in H3" =&gt; nothing seems to be final yet.

Also, I can understand you were eager to join this discussion, but just as an advice: you really should read all the posts in this topic. You'll notice that quite a few good ideas have been suggested already in order to keep the heroes actively in combat without that spoiling the game.

The best idea you'll find is to give players a choice whether they want "active heroes" or not. That would make everybody happy! However, I fear that would be almost impossible to develop (?).

khabal
04-13-2005, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ishmael_SC:
I agree with Ethric.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "they won't participated in the battles like in H4, but they'll be more involved than in H3" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zamolxis, if you "quote" a statement from another post, you should not leave words out, especially if that only serves to "prove" your point.

So I feel I have to correct your quote: "heroes will _probably_ (!) not participate in combat as in H4, but they'll be more involved than in H3" =&gt; nothing seems to be final yet.

Also, I can understand you were eager to join this discussion, but just as an advice: you really _should_ read all the posts in this topic. You'll notice that quite a few good ideas have been suggested already in order to keep the heroes actively in combat without that spoiling the game.

The best idea you'll find is to give players a choice whether they want "active heroes" or not. That would make everybody happy! However, I fear that would be almost impossible to develop (?). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those weren´t Zalmoxis' words, but Fabrice's, some months ago.

Ishmael_SC
04-13-2005, 09:38 AM
Sorry, I should have mentioned my source. I copied it from the "sticky" post called "Summary of confirmed feautures" on this forum. I just thought that Zamolxis' quote was suspiciously alike & concluded that he also got his quote from that post but "edited". Again: sorry about that!

Zamolxis108
04-13-2005, 09:44 AM
I'm also sorry if I got the quote wrong. I quoted from memory, and didn't mention the author, as I thought everybody know from where it is. My bad.

Ethric
04-13-2005, 09:51 AM
Well exact quote of what was actually said is: "Some important info, heroes will probably not participate directly in combat. They'll be more involved than in Heroes 3 though."

http://www.forumplanet.com/strategyplanet/homm/topic.asp?fid=5292&tid=1361198

Pengu1977
04-13-2005, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I, myself, wasn't that bothered about heroes in battle (even liked it to some point), but in time I discovered the disadvantages:
- creatures lost in importance
- the annoying potions system
- heroes killed & resurrected 100 times during a game (& 10 times during a single battle)
- unnatural, unbalanced strength heroes vs creatures.

I mean, it was sometimes too much: armies of heroes, heroes walking around with 50 "bottles" after them and fighting, drinking the "bottles" during the fight to be always resurrected even if they die, a heroe (no matter how strong a human-like being can get) more resistant to physical damage then an angel, titan or dragon etc...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

100% agree. To make a game where heroes can grow stronger the whole game getting better skills, spells, potions etc and still manage to balance that to creature strenght in a fight on the field is nearly impossible!!
There will always be some spell, potion etc etc that will make a hero 100 times stronger than an angel. So sure, if u can make a game where u can balance that I wouldn't mind heroes on the field, but it will take forever.

Ethric
04-13-2005, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pengu1977:
So sure, if u can make a game where u can balance that I wouldn't mind heroes on the field, but it will take forever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forever? Nah, why would it? It's not like coming up with the unified theory of everything. I can't see why this is more difficult than making sure that no faction in the game have imbalanced advantages, it's a design process where you come up with a concept, try it out, adjust, test, adjust again, etc, until you got it about right.

Ishmael_SC
04-13-2005, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> if u can make a game where u can balance that I wouldn't mind heroes on the field, but it will take forever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forever? Hmmm... eliminating the potions of resurrection, combined with some of the ideas posted in this topic, would be a huge step in the right direction + do not underestimate Ubisoft's developers!

Right, let's get back on track here because there's an awful lot of quoting, agreeing and disagreeing in this post, which is by no means bad or anything, but: any new ideas/insights (pro or con) on this topic? Personally, I think it is the most important discussion on this forum yet...

karlito31
04-13-2005, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To make a game where heroes can grow stronger the whole game getting better skills, spells, potions etc and still manage to balance that to creature strenght in a fight on the field is nearly impossible!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are veteran game dev pro with numerous games by belt, and you know that
from experience with simmilar projects ?

Alderbranchh
04-13-2005, 01:17 PM
Discussion here is like talkin to a brickwall... nothing good comes out of it... *SIGH*

Hero in battle adds to much things to balance to have it working in less than 3-4 years of balancing before it gets remotely good... which means the game will be real old by that time.

Thus... keep it simple and let armies wage war and have heros affect combat with their skill... They do indirect damage afterall...


And karlito31 that dude had a perfectly valid opinion.
Do present what games besides HOMM4 you have played that are either RTS or TBS that has a active hero and which in you got topranked. After being ranked like the best of the best in a few games then you can actually talk more about balance than developers can as they usually never get good at their own games nor do they realise much of what they are up too or have done.

Ive calced myself good in games even before I actually play it... when I do go online I kick most ppls rear ends without any real prob (and it usually results in patches being released as a follow up as I complain about poor balance (along with the hoard of ppl I beat) then find the next "flaw"). Im also an experienced game-tester... which means I know what I talk about.

And also how do you know that the one you quoted aint like that or is a top elite player of some other games?

Ethric
04-13-2005, 02:38 PM
Of the thousands, millions, of people that play HoMM, how many do you think are top rank competetive online-players? Ten thousand? Less? However many, I feel confident assuming the percentage is small. This is why I think moulding the game solely for the needs of elite MP players is a bad idea.

It is my understanding that your main argument for not having heroes directly in battle is mainly that it will require more work to make balanced as opposed to having hereos on the side, and thus more likely to have imbalances. And thus again be less suited for MP. And you are of course right.

But for me HoMM has always been mainly about the singleplayer experience. I want a fun game, that may not necessarily be perfectly balanced in every aspect. I know there are others like me. Earlier HoMM games had excellent campaigns, with good stories and fun gameplay. I want that to continue. And if ways to make the gameplay more fun presents themeselves, like having heroes fight hands-on, I want that too. My main argument for having heroes fight hands on is quite simply that I think it would make for a more fun game. I don't think that it's right to sacrifice that just so that a small group of elitists can play a perfectly balanced game. If I play Mp it's usually hotseat, and never with the main aim to win as soon as possible. i want to take my time, explore the game's possibilities and then try to win in an amusing way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But that doesn't mean I want the elitist MP-players to be deprived their fun, that is why I suggested having heroes in battle an optional feature. Sure, that might mean the game were released a month or two later. But is that to much to ask to make the game appeal to a good few more people?

Omega_Destroyer
04-13-2005, 04:24 PM
That's an interesting proposition Ethric regarding the implementation of heroes. However, I respectfully disagree that it would be a feasible application. I think it would alienate people from both the pro/anti hero camps. Some maps and campaigns may be better than others and require a hero. Then that camp will be irratated they to drag him into the fight. Other maps may be great, but specifically anti-hero, and then people would be upset that they couldn't bring a dread knight in to the fray. It could also potentially cheapen the value of the invidual heroes. For 2,500 you may want your hero to do more than just be coaching from the sidelines, especially after seeing their capabilities in the 4th game. Yeah, yeah, thse were created by the developers and their...uhh...oh man, my brain is fried from property law. Losing...ability to make...logical arguement...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Omega_Destroyer
04-13-2005, 04:26 PM
Weird, when I posted that last message, it said I had been banned from the community...

Val-Gaav
04-13-2005, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But for me HoMM has always been mainly about the singleplayer experience. I want a fun game, that may not necessarily be perfectly balanced in every aspect. I know there are others like me. Earlier HoMM games had excellent campaigns, with good stories and fun gameplay. I want that to continue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Campaign is fun for a week or two however mp is what comes in next years ...
I play homm3 still in hot seat or mp ... If the game will not be well mp balanced (like h4) it will not live a long time ... People will finish campaign and forget the game ...

If there was a question : "We can balance mp and implement hot seat , but it is much work so there will be no campaign" I would choose MP and hot seat...

Ethric
04-13-2005, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Omega_Destroyer:
That's an interesting proposition Ethric regarding the implementation of heroes. However, I respectfully disagree that it would be a feasible application. I think it would alienate people from both the pro/anti hero camps. Some maps and campaigns may be better than others and require a hero. Then that camp will be irratated they to drag him into the fight. Other maps may be great, but specifically anti-hero, and then people would be upset that they couldn't bring a dread knight in to the fray. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But people would have a choice. It should not matter to people who don't want heroes in battle that some circumstances would make that option more favourable for the player, as they didn't want that option.

But that's not how people think, is it... there will always be something to complain about. I see your point.

Allright, how about this: if heroes in battle are turned off, everything works pertty much as in H1-3 with the improvemenets\changes HoMM5 brings. But if heroes in battle are set to on, the effectiveness of any hero on the sideline is decreased by a %, say 25%, until he joins the fray. Would that help? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Omega_Destroyer:
It could also potentially cheapen the value of the invidual heroes. For 2,500 you may want your hero to do more than just be coaching from the sidelines, especially after seeing their capabilities in the 4th game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I do, I want my heroes to be able to fight hands on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Others are happy with having their heroes coach from the side. But I must stress that heroes in battle the way I see it could be done in H5 is not like the way it is in H4. A fair bit of rework is required to make it better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
Campaign is fun for a week or two however mp is what comes in next years ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Campaigns are not everything. As long as H5 comes with a good mapeditor (and I can't imagine it won't, considering the legacy), there will be an abundance of quality fanmade maps, as there are now for the previous titles.

Then there's the possibility of a random map generator, which I really hope will appear, if not initially then in an expansion.

I replayed H2's campaigns this christmas, because they are very good. Still fun, years after.

MP doesn't come in next years, MP has been here for many many years. But it gets more widespread as more people get decent netconnection. that does not, however, mean that there's no longer any market for games that play well in singleplayer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
I play homm3 still in hot seat or mp ... If the game will not be well mp balanced (like h4) it will not live a long time ... People will finish campaign and forget the game ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But people have not forgotten H4, flawed as it was. The great work of the Equilibris team deserves much credit for that, as well as the talented people making new maps.

Sure, I'd like H5 to be reasonably balanced. But balance should not come at the cost of variety and innovation, in my opinion. Others disagree, of course.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:
If there was a question : "We can balance mp and implement hot seat , but it is much work so there will be no campaign" I would choose MP and hot seat... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if the devs posed such a question I would curse them to kingdom come http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Let there be grand campaigns, and let there be hotseat, and let there be netplay with decent transfer speeds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif None of those are mutually exclusive, and all of it should be present in the game.

Pengu1977
04-13-2005, 05:10 PM
I do prefer mp before sp but i enjoy sp too. And i find balance to be important but that's secondary to the challenge itself. I want the game to be challenging and when u fail to balance the hero element(the most important part to get right) it becomes to easy=boring, less challenging. Mainly cause the cpu has no clue as how to utilize the "rules" that heroes has to follow and how to use them effectivly.
And whatever some might think i feel the creatures and towns fill a very important part in the heroes saga and not just heroes. having 5 heroes with the only the highest lvl creature needed along makes creatures useless. I want the heroes to be important but there has the be balance to the creatures and to how well the cpu player use the bonuses heroes can aquire. Heroes 3 had flaws too like the dd spell which once gotten ruined the game both cause the creatures lost some of it importance and the cpu never got a clue how to use the spell to benefit the most. And if u place a hero on the field there are millions(ok, maybe a few less) of factors that not only to balance the use of the creatures, but also to make the cpu player to utilize these things in the best way. Really tough challenge making heroes strong, but not too strong. But neither weak and an easy target for other armies so they die too easily. Not stronger than angels u say? But then opponent will target your hero 1st thing in every battle cause if it's importance on the fight. Too strong and u get immortal godlike heroes with no need of armies. Making up protection systems for heroes makes it even more complicated which also the cpu must understand and use just as effectivly as u. Putting them as leaders like in h1-h3 solves the protection issue while still have a strong influence on it's army. And u may say heroes are no generals but they are at least the way it has worked, except in h4.
And to take up these extreme cases like 1 goblin vs 2 goblins with lvl 20 heroes is laughable cause that never happens but in theory. And I think the name heroes has been wrongly used when they are leaders. It's a huge difference to me.

And this is my opinion as i'm sure others have theirs

Omega_Destroyer
04-13-2005, 09:56 PM
Now there is some good posting. It's nice to see that people are not flaming eachother anymore. Anyways... As much as I am a proponent of incorporating the heroes in the battles, I will cede that they should be toned down in power. Don't get me wrong; it was a guilty pleasure to slaughter legions of creatures with one hero. However, I agree with previous opinions that it does seem unusual that a hero could grow to be more powerful than a black dragon or an angel. So if they did lower the power of the heroes, perhaps it would balance things a little more. But, in rebuttal to what I just said, if you lowered the power of the heroes, then tactics would start to revolve around keeping the hero alive. Yet, hasn't the series revolved around preserving your hero for later battles? So ultimately, I have no idea how to answer the hero conundrum.

gerdash
04-14-2005, 03:08 AM
ok, first off, to thos people who want heroes in battle and in no other way:
you know how it turns out, hero running arond the battlefield, hiding behind stacks. if hero can be last unit in a stack, he will be running from one stack to another.

why is it that you call it heroic? to me it sounds like 'wimps of might and magic', but this time it also attracts attention.

when heroes are out of battle, it just attracts attention if they face a hero of physically weaker race and that has 1 goblin left at the end of battle.

maybe i have just not understood the true meaning of having a hero in the field, but i am suspecting that it's because you can often fight with your hero only. that's somewhat comfortable, you know, and might almost feel like cheating from point of view of previous homms.

solitary hero: nice castle you have here, it's mine now.
city defense: get lost, beggar.
in homm4 the hero casts summon imps a few times and wins the battle. or just breaks down the gate and kills 100 defenders with his physical strength.

as i understand hero being so strong was an artifact of inability to balance heroes on battlefield the way it was done in homm4. even if heroes would be in battlefield, they hopefully won't be such superheroes like in homm4. not so comfortable at all anymore, istead we have to run arond the battlefield with them and hide them behind stacks.

maybe i got it all wrong (or maybe there exists a perfrct solution yet to be mentioned), but i think heroes out of battle would be much more enjoyable game. you just wouldn't need to worry so much about them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrOELOELOE:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gerdash:
your hero &gt; enemy goblin + enemy hero
is approximately false. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
....
So in no way thats false as "hero = hero" is not true in this situation.
....
hero &gt; 7 goblins + hero is then true. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
2 : nearly correct or exact &lt;an approximate solution&gt;
- approximately adverb <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
approximate does not mean exact. and as i have seen the word used in literature, it is usually in the context of some assumptions.

so we can e.g. say that a small piece of a sufficiently smooth curved surface is approximately linear, and if we use this assumption we call it 'linear approximation (to the curved surface)'. of course a curved surface is not linear at all in the general case.

now, if the word 'approximate', the way it is used in general speech, means something like 'indistinguishably close to exact' then it has just been a misunderstanding.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamolxis108:
When the game will be out, we can start a tread (or even separate section): Heroes VI proposals - as only there we'll be able to talk about bringing the heroes back in the battlefield (to fight aside the creatures). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>aren't we funny today? maybe you might as well try to imagine homm5 is already out, so we don't have to wait with discussing things in the forum.

Elor_Once_Dark
04-14-2005, 04:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gerdash:
ok, first off, to thos people who want heroes in battle and in no other way:
you know how it turns out, hero running arond the battlefield, hiding behind stacks. if hero can be last unit in a stack, he will be running from one stack to another.

why is it that you call it heroic? to me it sounds like 'wimps of might and magic', but this time it also attracts attention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the hero is the last unit in a stack, he will not be running from one stack to the other unless A)that is actually a possibility in the game and B)the stack he's currently in is in danger of being eliminated. So the claim is factually wrong.

But it is funny that you consider putting yourself in danger as something whimps to, while hiding outside the battle as "heroic".

I guess Roland and Siegfried were the greatest whimps in history, then.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
when heroes are out of battle, it just attracts attention if they face a hero of physically weaker race and that has 1 goblin left at the end of battle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False. It attracts attention every time a might hero faces a magic hero.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
maybe i have just not understood the true meaning of having a hero in the field, but i am suspecting that it's because you can often fight with your hero only. that's somewhat comfortable, you know, and might almost feel like cheating from point of view of previous homms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I suspect you're making up arguments because you don't have any.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
solitary hero: nice castle you have here, it's mine now.
city defense: get lost, beggar.
in homm4 the hero casts summon imps a few times and wins the battle. or just breaks down the gate and kills 100 defenders with his physical strength.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aha. But if he has a single imp along, then attacks the town and wipes out all defenders with chain lightning, the imp just being for decoration, that's better?

Ethric
04-14-2005, 05:42 AM
I must admit I am getting a bit tired of repeating myself... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Saying that heroes in battle is a bad idea for H5 because it didn't work well in H4 is an irrelevant argument. There are many ways to do it, but it is very possible to have heroes in battle and make it "right". As in, different and better than in H4.

It will require a bit of effort on the part of the developers, but I think it will be worth it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

nicktg
04-14-2005, 05:42 AM
I think gerdash has a point, I for one have experienced how insanely strong heroes can ruin the flow of the game. On large maps, 7 might heroes (with a school of magic at grandmaster level each) are unbeatable. Not only because of potions of immortality but also because they can cast dragon strength, divine intervention and other spells to each other. I know there are spells to counter that like cancelation and steal enchancment, but the ring of permenancy renders them useless as it`s such a common artifact. While it`s fun and very rpg like to have such a squad, it elliminates the strategic element of the game: you dont need to hire creatures thus you dont need towns and resources , just enought money to buy potions and a castle to retreat to. But war is all about aquiring resources and defending them, and when resources stop being important.. well, then you`re not making tactical decisions anymore, just playing a brainless deathmatch. Remember how exciting heroes 3 was, having to make critical decisions like "do I go after this artifact, or do I keep my forces intact to defend my castle (and mines) cause the opponent is near. That happenning in heroes 4? Nah, you just go for the artifact, and retreat to your castle to defend it IF you feel like it, it`s not like you need it anyway, you`ve learned the spells already.
But, it doesn`t have to be this way. Actually I would like the heroes on the battle field, I like the extra rpg feel it gives as long as it`s not at the cost of strategy.
I tried to think of a few ways to balance it. For instance, it`s easy to make the hero weaker without him beeing easy to kill. Low damage compared to hi level creatures, very high defense skill. It makes sense right, he`s no dragon, but he can take care of himself being a veteran and all. Also, how ell it would work depends on how the battlefield is going to be like. Althou no coward, he CAN stay at the back. This way, although the opponent can reach him, it will be costly. He`ll have to send his fastest units in the middle of the opposing army, and as the hero can take quite some beating, you can imagine it`s not an easy decision. Sounds pretty tactical to me. The hero's strength can be kept down to earth by gradually decreasing the bonuses he gets at higher levels. You can also limit the amount of heroes per army. 2-3 heroes would still need support from even lower level troops. Finally, eliminate ressureaction, or even better, make it cost a lot. This would stop players from using their heroes as human shields.
It`s hard to balance heroes and creatures in battle like many of you have said, and even if it hasn`t beed properly done before (althou age of wonders and disciples were not too bad in that respect), it doesn`t mean it can`t be done now. Developers can look at other games, to learn from their shortcomings.

stevenlynch
04-14-2005, 08:01 AM
I'm not saying that it's impossible to balance HOMM with heroes on the battlefield. Just that IMHO it is very, very hard. And heroes can still contribute to the battle without them taking down hordes of creatures on their own. Including being the commander of a stack and giving more and more bonuses as the hero levels up.

DavHero
04-14-2005, 09:03 AM
Hello everybody!

Well, interesting matter this of heroes in combat... I've enjoyed all four Heroes of Might and Magic games, first three ones because Heroes were the last standing, and the fourth because they fought!

The problem, as some of you have noticed (IMO), is that Heroes on the battlefield are such a tasty plate for enemies! They focus their attacks on the unfortunate hero who must keep in front of him (her if heroine ;-) ) all creatures he can in order to protect him from mischivieous spells, ranged attacks and the like. Then, the strategy is, as have also been said here, maintaining them alive.

Well, my opinion... Experience (as experience points) is the most valuable characteristic of Heroes. And I get so upset if, after a long, many creature battle which I win, my hero is dead and NO EXPERIENCE is earned!

I think both systems (in- or out-of-the-battlefield heroes), when well developed (and no doubt Nival will do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), are pretty good.

Maybe if a hero could choose to solve a combat by fighting hand to hand the opposite hero, (if this last hero wants!) without any creatures, at player's choice (or let it be one skill), you could see Heroes fighting other Heroes, but creatures fights would still resolve among them, with Heroes aiding them with their skills and spells...

But let the time pass and see what kind of Heroes game awaits us (or are we awaiting it? ;-))

Bye!

karlito31
04-14-2005, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the game will not be well mp balanced (like h4) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
funny...
no DD/
no fly/
no diplo/
no necro/
no flux/
no grail/
no carto/
no hillfort/
no HR/
no RR/
no born logistics/
no cons-
no hives/
no lvl 4-5 scrolls
No heroes with4th level spell speciality
no red rush allowed
no hit'n run allowed
any hero that starts with logistics skill is banned
....
some common rules used by H3 onliners/hotseaters


on the other side

no master or gm demonologist
no vamps (is that still valid ?)
no imo potions

some common rules used by H4 onliners/hotseaters

You were saying ?

karlito31
04-14-2005, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>having 5 heroes with the only the highest lvl creature needed along makes creatures useless <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But then opponent will target your hero 1st thing in every battle cause <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes , but which one from Your fabricated example above? All 5 of them? With useless creatures?

karlito31
04-14-2005, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On large maps, 7 might heroes (with a school of magic at grandmaster level each) are unbeatable <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cmon ,be serious. What month ? 20+ ?
Considering amount of experience
on average map , its hard enough to reach GM in one skill and M in second ,even for 2 hero only.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actually I would like the heroes on the battle field <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Welcome to the club than http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Omega_Destroyer
04-14-2005, 10:51 AM
Why can't we be friends,
Why can't we be friends,
Why can't we be friends,
Why can't we be friends, etc, etc.

Yeah, posting song lyrics really doesn't help the situation any, but it's a nice touch. On a more serious note, people need to calm down. Nobody on this board is really Hell-bent on insulting anybody else. Their opinion is just coming out differently. No need to get all up in arms about it. This debate really doesn't have anywhere left to go; it's now a moot point. How the hero will be implemented is beyond our control as posters. We should support Ubisoft and Nival for picking up the remains of a legendary series that we all cherish. They will do what they feel is best for the series, and if you do not care for the outcome, there is nothing stopping you from going back to other heroes games. Essentially, if you want to the game to be more like Heroes 3 and it's not, then by all means, continue to play Heroes 3. If you want the hero in the battle and you can't, play Heroes 4. There is no point in be disrespectful to eachother about something we can't control. Heck, we might as well just argue about how the universe will end. Personally I'm betting on evil clowns that go around turning everyone into cotten candy...stupid evil clowns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

gerdash
04-14-2005, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elor_Once_Dark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gerdash:
ok, first off, to thos people who want heroes in battle and in no other way:
you know how it turns out, hero running arond the battlefield, hiding behind stacks. if hero can be last unit in a stack, he will be running from one stack to another.

why is it that you call it heroic? to me it sounds like 'wimps of might and magic', but this time it also attracts attention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the hero is the last unit in a stack, he will not be running from one stack to the other unless A)that is actually a possibility in the game and B)the stack he's currently in is in danger of being eliminated. So the claim is factually wrong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
had already thought of B, that would be the whole reason for running from stack to stack, wouldn't it? A is the only solid argument here, so if you don't have a large enough stack to ensure safety of your hero, the stack will be running around trying to avoid being attacked. slightly better than no stack at all, just because of being slightly more unlikely. if there isn't much difference what stack the opponent attacks, the hero stack may be targeted and put into extremely defensive position, and your whole battle will largely evolve around protecting the stack no matter what, especially if only one hero per army is allowed. and now i hope that people noticed the word 'especially'. otherways the stack would be targeted especially if hero is reasonably easy to kill and has sufficient impact on battle as a booster.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But it is funny that you consider putting yourself in danger as something whimps to, while hiding outside the battle as "heroic".

I guess Roland and Siegfried were the greatest whimps in history, then.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i absolutely never said that staying out of battle is heroic. i said it didn't attract as much attention as having to make active efforts to run around the battlefield hiding from attackers.

roland and siegfried would maybe have rushed into battle against 100 black dragons without hesitation and died. in game they are controlled by players, though. unless the player has a self-destructive streak, they don't have the luxury of dieing a heroic death (assuming heroes will not be such superheroes as they are now). instead they will be running and hiding behind creature stacks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
....a hero of physically weaker race.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False. It attracts attention every time a might hero faces a magic hero.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so what could i have meant by that part in the very quote? pineapples?

or did you mean that the magic hero can cast spells more effectively than might hero? maybe the mage's pikemen are suspicious of magic and the mage could never boost his army's morale like the might hero could?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
maybe i have just not understood the true meaning of having a hero in the field, but i am suspecting.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I suspect you're making up arguments because you don't have any.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>honestly, i dont think i have to back up something i am suspecting with a load of argumentation. i really thought i was concerned about the reasons why people like heroes in battle and if they will feel that their expectations are fulfilled if hero stays in battle while being made considerably weaker<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
solitary hero: nice castle you have here, it's mine now.
city defense: get lost, beggar.
in homm4 the hero casts summon imps a few times and wins the battle. or just breaks down the gate and kills 100 defenders with his physical strength.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aha. But if he has a single imp along, then attacks the town and wipes out all defenders with chain lightning, the imp just being for decoration, that's better? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>would be more complicated than you described, but possible. you would also need summon elementals and resurrect true. the combination of enough mana and spell power with resurrect true and summon elemental (even without damage spell) is indeed worse than hero in battle.

anyway, what i was talking about, was that if heroes will be in battles but weaker, they shouldn't be able to take castles like that anymore. would heroes being able to fight loose much of it's appeal then? the complication you pointed out as a side note is interesting, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrOELOELOE:
I feel like I am back at college.. "Hey, u can't use that word like that". U got my point, didnt u. Please dont throw that scientific bull at me to try and make my point look stupid. Math lessons in a "The hero in battle"-topic, whats next!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>please do read my post and your own. i repeatedly stressed the word 'approximately'. then you say as if i had told you that you shouldn't 'use that word like that'. you didn't use the word at all, and ignored it in my post, that was the problem. now, this is making me somewhat upset. so, if i had given an example with apples, would you say that it was an agricultural lesson? not everybody is from an english-speaking country, i was just trying to make sure that general speech meaning of the word is not much different from what i see in specific literature:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gerdash:
now, if the word 'approximate', the way it is used in general speech, means something like 'indistinguishably close to exact' then it has just been a misunderstanding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Real_King_Louis
04-14-2005, 11:14 AM
Guys, play nice please.

You've been warned. Once. And that's one too many. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Elor_Once_Dark
04-14-2005, 01:21 PM
"Ic ¦t hogode, a ic on holm gestah,
s¦bat ges¦t mid minra secga gedriht,
¦t ic anunga eowra leoda
willan geworhte, o?e on w¦l crunge
feondgrapum f¦st. Ic gefremman sceal
eorlic ellen, o?e ended¦g
on isse meoduhealle minne gebidan!" (lines 632-638)

["I expected, when I set out in the sea, sat down in the sea-boat with my troop of warriors, that I might be able to perform for your people a good deed, or I might die in battle in a firm fiend-grip. I will accomplish heroic deeds of valor, or I will abide my death-day in this mead-hall!"]

That's a hero for you: Beowulf. "Win or die trying.

Val-Gaav
04-14-2005, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karlito31:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the game will not be well mp balanced (like h4) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
funny...
no DD/
no fly/
no diplo/
no necro/
no flux/
no grail/
no carto/
no hillfort/
no HR/
no RR/
no born logistics/
no cons-
no hives/
no lvl 4-5 scrolls
No heroes with4th level spell speciality
no red rush allowed
no hit'n run allowed
any hero that starts with logistics skill is banned
....
some common rules used by H3 onliners/hotseaters


on the other side

no master or gm demonologist
no vamps (is that still valid ?)
no imo potions

some common rules used by H4 onliners/hotseaters

You were saying ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes and what about Hipnotise ? town portal in battle ??? .... on S maps or M barberian fighting skills from a start compared to low magic of others ? ...how about a barberian grail which is more powerfull then others ? what about spliting genies into couple of 1 creature slots and casting multi "song of peace ? "... etc ... correct me if I am wrong but are there many people that play h4 online ? I don't think so ... Maybe that is why there are so few rules http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If h4 was so good for multiplayer people would play it more ... however they don't...........
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Aha. But if he has a single imp along, then attacks the town and wipes out all defenders with chain lightning, the imp just being for decoration, that's better?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
that is why casting a damage spell should be allowed only after a first combat round passes ... Well at least for attacking hero ... That would also be a solution for Hit & run ....
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But people have not forgotten H4, flawed as it was. The great work of the Equilibris team deserves much credit for that, as well as the talented people making new maps.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They only tried to balance some things that should be ballanced from the begining by 3do ...
The wog team deserves much more credit as they added some interesting things to the game .... and don't foget the ERM ...
[quote]
Well if the devs posed such a question I would curse them to kingdom come Let there be grand campaigns, and let there be hotseat, and let there be netplay with decent transfer speeds None of those are mutually exclusive, and all of it should be present in the game.
[/qoute]
Well we already see flashy 3d graphics ... so the wish list for the h5 should be limited ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Seriously ... Game developing takes much time ... If we wish for active hero / and non active ... 10 towns ... Lots of campaigns ... and nice graphics etc, the game will be realesed in 2008 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
...............................
As for the active non active hero -&gt; You guys who want active hero should play disciples or AoW ... I think that only heroes as a turn based strategy had a non active hero ? So what game should the non active hero supporters play ? ....
I sure hope that those ubi "non active but more involved in combat heroes" will be something unique and hommm like and not another idea taken from AoW or Disciples ... I am worried becouce HoMM (just after the KB ) was the first fantasy turn based game ... AoW or Disciples are clones of HoMM ... Why should HoMM take ideas from those games ?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
HoMM2 was HoMM1 + some new things
HoMM3 was HoMM2 + some new things
HoMM4 .... well it was a total revolution ... and a dissaster

HoMM5 ... In my dreams it should be H5 + some new things (maybe the h4 fog of war)
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
Needless to say that homm1 homm2 homm3 were great games and nobody said : "bah.. it' just like in homm1 homm2 I will not play that kind of sequel ... It' borring!!! "

Real_King_Louis
04-14-2005, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>p.s. I could care less about any warning from a company-representative (if I can call a mod that) from a company that treats its costumers as if they are lower then garbage. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll take that as humour due to the smiley in the end.

- K -

CyberViper
04-14-2005, 02:14 PM
I sure hope that the heroes are not part of the bloodshed...

For example, many myths and legends depict heroes slaying dragons...but in this game, there is almost no way a single hero can battle a black dragon and come out hands up...that is unless the hero is a very high level, which by the time the hero has leveled up,the black dragons have grown in size too.

For this to be realistic, the heroes need to be on the battle screen, but not part of the "hand to hand" combat.

PS: if the heroes do end up in the middle of the hacking and bashing...they better have some really AWESOME special abilities or something, because it will have already lost its realisticness.

nicktg
04-14-2005, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Cmon ,be serious. What month ? 20+ ?
Considering amount of experience
on average map , its hard enough to reach GM in one skill and M in second ,even for 2 hero only.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t remember which month, but I was playing the lost temple. Heroes were in their mid 30ies (not their age http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif ) 2 skills GM plus another one
it does depend on the map (how many locations that give xp, skills) but we mostly played large maps on lan so heroes were usually more important than creatures.

Elor_Once_Dark
04-14-2005, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CyberViper:
I sure hope that the heroes are not part of the bloodshed...

For example, many myths and legends depict heroes slaying dragons...but in this game, there is almost no way a single hero can battle a black dragon and come out hands up...that is unless the hero is a very high level, which by the time the hero has leveled up,the black dragons have grown in size too.

For this to be realistic, the heroes need to be on the battle screen, but not part of the "hand to hand" combat.

PS: if the heroes do end up in the middle of the hacking and bashing...the better have some really AWESOME special abilities or something, because it will have already lost its realisticness.

-CyberViper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Beowulf died fighting a dragon, and there's few myths in which a dragon was vanquished in full frontal combat. Most of the time, some degree of subterfuge was involved.

PeXalot
04-14-2005, 03:44 PM
NO HEORES IN BATTLE

Ethric
04-14-2005, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeXalot:
NO HEORES IN BATTLE <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES TO HEROES IN BATTLE! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But did anything happen in this thread? My last post is gone, as well as the post I replied to. Is it due to buggy forums or unanounced moderation?

Zamolxis108
04-14-2005, 05:31 PM
Next time guys try to bold it and eventually also make use of those colors, if you really want to make yourselves heard. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

(Ethric, I know yours was already irony, don't worry, I was just continuing it) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Salventus
04-14-2005, 05:53 PM
I'm tired of this Hero in battle arguements, once and for all the Heroes should battle like a stack of units period.

Lith_Maethor
04-14-2005, 08:38 PM
posted this in the HoMM4 thread a while ago but this is where it should be...

keep the heroes in the background (in homm 1-3 fashion) till all stacks are gone... then allow them to go in and kick butt (or die trying)

this of course doesn't mean running away is not an option (not unless the opponent has shackles of war or something similar)

Valtor2
04-14-2005, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Val-Gaav:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
HoMM2 was HoMM1 + some new things
HoMM3 was HoMM2 + some new things
HoMM4 .... well it was a total revolution ... and a dissaster

HoMM5 ... In my dreams it should be H5 + some new things (maybe the h4 fog of war)
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
Needless to say that homm1 homm2 homm3 were great games and nobody said : "bah.. it' just like in homm1 homm2 I will not play that kind of sequel ... It' borring!!! " <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'm sure it happened, but they did not happen to be fans, that's the only difference... Why does everywhere I go I hear Heroes 4 is a total disaster? yes, lots of things were removed, eithout any reason, but don't say it was only ****! Didn't you like the end of micromanaging? caravans? a more 'balanced' magic system? without entering the hero in/out battle, i mean no one is really inclined to change their position anyways, nor is Ubi (so starting to debate on which system should be better for heroes 5 is a little bit too late, since the solution is already chosen i think), the hand-to-hand direct damage, the more fair luck and morale bonuses, etc... yes there were misses, but no it was not a flop!

gerdash
04-15-2005, 12:00 AM
unless all problems (that i persoanlly am concerned with) would be solved by keeping hero out of battle, i would like to discuss the following:

if hero can be part of a sufficiently large stack, then should it be possible that the hero gets killed before the stack is wiped out? i guess the hero has more or less the same chance to get hit as other creatures in the stack, or should it depend on skills of the hero? assuming that the hero should be weaker than right now, he might get killed quite soon or at least sooner or later if it had equal probability of being attacked while actively participating in battle.

should black dragons, etc, be weaker? more clearly, should the health point difference of the squire and crusader (creature) be smaller? i mean, i would expect crusader to have no more than about twice the health of a squire. i think that the armor and some special ability should be what makes the crusader so strong.

was it honorable to attack commander on a hill? i cannot quite provide you with a reference to a source, it's more like 'a history student once told me said that' before romans vs celts attacking the commander on a hill was considered not honorable. it's just that the celts didn't know it or didn't care and took out the commander asap. so, i think that if that's true, then commanders should be able to choose to stay out of battle, but maybe barbarian should have a special ability to challenge them to battle (bad idea maybe).

back to my main question: so the hero joined battle, then what? in most situations that i have seen, no matter how heroic the hero might be, the player just doesn't let the hero die a heroic death. unfortunately the only comment on this question was when somebody asked if hero out of battle was more heroic. should the heroes be more replacable (which would imho be a good thing) or something else? or should we have a stack of 20 heroes in an army as someone sarcastically said?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrOELOELOE:
I didnt ignore it. Approximately is something one can use to say "Even though its not exactly true, we just assume it to be true" or in other words "it is true" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>well to me this reasoning sounds extremely queer. so you just proved that i might as well not have used the a-word at all? let me give my interpretation of the word: if we say that something is approximately true then it means that we know it's not true (at least in the general case) but seeing it as if it was true provides us with a not exactly correct but useful model (usually a simplification). like the earth is approximately round.

Val-Gaav
04-15-2005, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Valtor2:
Didn't you like the end of micromanaging? caravans? a more 'balanced' magic system? without entering the hero in/out battle, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes there were things that I liked in h4 like fog of war for example or the unique skills for every castle (hero) : necromancy, summoning ,diplomacy, charm ...
However all the battle changes :
- active hero
-group of heroes in army
- Archers retaliate to archers attack http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
This are the bigest disadvantges of h4 for me...
ummm add also the castle unit choosing system and the only 4 levels of creatures to my list...


Needless to say as I liked fog of war or spell system ther are many people who didn,t like it ...

karlito31
04-15-2005, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes and what about Hipnotise ? town portal in battle ??? .......etc <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You said "If the game will not be well mp balanced (like h4)"
I presented You with rather huge list ...
If You want me to dig even deeper , NP http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It turns out that , balancing-wise , "On battlefield" aproach yields much better results. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

karlito31
04-15-2005, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>keep the heroes in the background (in homm 1-3 fashion) till all stacks are gone... then allow them to go in and kick butt (or die trying)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So , in order to put heroe/s in fight , one is forced to place one creature, lets say imp , get him killed and enter fight . Than heroe/s must buy another one ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

some_stranger
04-19-2005, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karlito31:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>keep the heroes in the background (in homm 1-3 fashion) till all stacks are gone... then allow them to go in and kick butt (or die trying)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So , in order to put heroe/s in fight , one is forced to place one creature, lets say imp , get him killed and enter fight . Than heroe/s must buy another one ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The best solution would seem to be to allow the hero to join the combat at any time. There could be only 1 hero per army, as in HMM1-3. Player would know that the hero would be a prime target for the AI the moment (s)he joined the battle, and even that knowledge could be used against the AI (to save a wounded dragon).

Other ideas:
- once joined the battle, hero can not leave. Only options would be to surrender or run away as in HMM1-3
- while on the battle field, the morale of creatures would improve.
- make heroes as similar as possible to heroes in game "Master of Magic". They were the best heroes I've seen in any game. (Only super artifacts could make them overpowered).

igoraki
04-20-2005, 03:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>make heroes as similar as possible to heroes in game "Master of Magic". They were the best heroes I've seen in any game. (Only super artifacts could make them overpowered). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
in Master of Magic there is no stacks,every unit is single entity,while is Heroes units are in stacks as you may noticed
its much easier to balance heroes when they are fighting against single units and i agree its the biggest problem with heroes in battle in HOMM

Elor_Once_Dark
04-20-2005, 04:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by igoraki:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>make heroes as similar as possible to heroes in game "Master of Magic". They were the best heroes I've seen in any game. (Only super artifacts could make them overpowered). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
in Master of Magic there is no stacks,every unit is single entity,while is Heroes units are in stacks as you may noticed
its much easier to balance heroes when they are fighting against single units and i agree its the biggest problem with heroes in battle in HOMM <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not quite correct. Some stronger units represent one or two creatures, others are four, others even more. It's entirely possible in Master Of Magic for a Hero to go up against a dozen swordsmen and sweep them away.

igoraki
04-20-2005, 04:28 AM
that was just graphics,imo,good way to visualy separete heroes from units
one units was represented as two or four creatures and in battle some of them disappear like they were killed,but if you heal that unit,disappeared creatures will come back,so they still count as single entity and the number of creatures is used as indicator of remaining health of that unit

Elor_Once_Dark
04-20-2005, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by igoraki:
that was just graphics,imo,good way to visualy separete heroes from units
one units was represented as two or four creatures and in battle some of them disappear like they were killed,but if you heal that unit,disappeared creatures will come back,so they still count as single entity and the number of creatures is used as indicator of remaining health of that unit <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's incorrect. All of the individual members attack independently, and make their saving throws independently. Cf. section 4.5 and 4.6 of the Master of Magic FAQ at http://db.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/file/master_of_magic.txt

igoraki
04-20-2005, 05:51 AM
ok,you win.

seriously,been playing this games for years,never read the manuals in my life and never ever thought about something like that.thanks for the info.

Skaflok
04-21-2005, 07:27 AM
As far as I am concerned HEROES SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN BATTLE !!!!!!!!!!!
It is completly ridiculous when "one hero army" defeats 100 dragons,80 archangels and 200 dread knights.
I think that we should stay with the HEROES III option when heroes were comanding battle far away from it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Elor_Once_Dark
04-21-2005, 07:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skaflok:
As far as I am concerned HEROES SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN BATTLE !!!!!!!!!!!
It is completly ridiculous when "one hero army" defeats 100 dragons,80 archangels and 200 dread knights.
I think that we should stay with the HEROES III option when heroes were comanding battle far away from it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I think this posts adds nothing to the discussion.

NailagCiad
04-21-2005, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elor_Once_Dark:
And I think this posts adds nothing to the discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And neither does this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

simon_cowell
04-21-2005, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skaflok:
It is completly ridiculous when "one hero army" defeats 100 dragons, 80 archangels and 200 dread knights.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it is not. If it is ok with you that a hero can bring "THE ARMAGEDDON" (!) using his spells, I don't see what is wrong with a hero personally kicking some *** in battle. He simply reached a level when he is not just a mere mortal, but a demigod. And YES, to defeat that hero, an army may not be enough - you also need a mighty HERO to face him.

Elor_Once_Dark
04-21-2005, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by simon_cowell:
No, it is not. If it is ok with you that a hero can bring "THE ARMAGEDDON" (!) using his spells, I don't see what is wrong with a hero personally kicking some *** in battle. He simply reached a level when he is not just a mere mortal, but a demigod. And YES, to defeat that hero, an army may not be enough - you also need a mighty HERO to face him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forget that for these folks, deciding a battle with spells is not the same as deciding a battle by feat of arms. It's perfectly alright for them to have a hero single-handedly decide a battle if he uses spells for it. They just think that Might Heroes have no business to exist anyway (never mind the title MIGHT and Magic) and thus should have to rely on armies to do what magic heroes can do all on their own.

Ellderon
04-21-2005, 03:16 PM
Allright, given the spellpower of magic heroes (artifacts not counted), they should have only minimal influence on the army itself, inlike might heroes.

So MIGHT hereos:
- give big bonuses to army (even bigger if they enter battle)
- are as strong as a lvl 7 unit (no artifacts counted)

MAGIC heroes:
- more powerfull and more earth-shaking spells
- lesser influence onthe army
- weaker in melee

simon_cowell
04-21-2005, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elor_Once_Dark:
You forget that for these folks, deciding a battle with spells is not the same as deciding a battle by feat of arms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you remember LoTR scene where Sauron personally fights good guys? That is kind of might I'm talking about. And homm heroes should be able to do the same stuff too.

arvismetoo
04-23-2005, 02:41 AM
Heroes should be able to demount there horses (1 turn) and enter in batlle as units or choose to stay on the horses and give bonuses to the entire army.

I think it is not a good ideea to have might heroes or magic heroes, this must be the player option to choose in make his heroes run faster or dodge, shoot or hit, like in real life if you have one speciality you will be better!

gerdash
04-23-2005, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elor_Once_Dark:
"He takes the field himself, and performs many heroic deeds until he is wounded and forced to withdraw to his tent" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agamemnon )
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>so, at least in this example, a commander could enter battle and retreat to his tent at will.

i think this discussion doesn't seem to get us to any reasonable result without getting 10 or 15 pages long. so, maybe we should first try to relax a little, and make clear why exactly we want hero in battle. i mean, before we start to argue about the specifics, we might want to understand what we want to achieve by putting the hero into battle.

as far as i understand:

some who are against hero in battle, e.g. alderbranchh has clearly said that he is mainly worried about balancing.

some supporters of heroes in battle have said that they wanted might hero to be equal to magic hero in the sense of damage.

others have said that heroes do not look enough heroic if they stay out of battle.

(1) as for might hero against magic hero damage, i think morale and discipline for the might hero and maybe limited number of commands per round that include spells could balance might and magic heroes. more details could be found in my post here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=1851065692&m=1141081603&p=3).

(2) i don't think am really against any of those thoughts, but i think that the heroism reason for putting heroes in battle might end up contradicting the reality of gameplay.

would anyone be so kind as to describe with the homm vocabulary how a heroic hero would behave in a battle in homm.

what if there are large stack of creatures that could kill the hero in one hit?

========
just another thought: 100 black dragons cannot possibly attack 1 creature all at once. maybe there should be a limit. surely all the enemy army couldn't reach to hit agamemnon, he would have been pulverized instead of just wounded.

Ellderon
04-23-2005, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by simon_cowell:
Do you remember LoTR scene where Sauron personally fights good guys? That is kind of might I'm talking about. And homm heroes should be able to do the same stuff too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Sauron was a Maiar so that explains his strength.
But even so, according to the book he got his *** kicked by Elendil and Gil-Galad.
Or to be more specific, they "killed" eachother (Sauron was still not dead..but out of hte fight for sure)...So Isildur cut the finger of a KO'd Sauron..not very heroic, is it?


EDIT: One of the resons I would like to see Might & Magic heroes more polished (and hereos in battle) is to show the differences between the two types.
As some of you may have noticed, in H3&4 multiplayer games, everyone stock his heroes with spells and magic. So we have might heroes that cast spells like crazy....and that doesn't sound right

Elor_Once_Dark
04-23-2005, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ellderon:
Well, Sauron was a Maiar so that explains his strength.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the Sauron in the books was more of a schemer, manipulator, who got his sorry a** kicked every time he actually went into physical combat, but anyway, let's take his physical strength for a moment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But even so, according to the book he got his *** kicked by Elendil and Gil-Galad.
Or to be more specific, they "killed" eachother (Sauron was still not dead..but out of hte fight for sure)...So Isildur cut the finger of a KO'd Sauron..not very heroic, is it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it's certainly heroic for some heroes to wrestle down a lesser god. And he wasn't really KO'd, but taken down.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
EDIT: One of the resons I would like to see Might & Magic heroes more polished (and hereos in battle) is to show the differences between the two types.
As some of you may have noticed, in H3&4 multiplayer games, everyone stock his heroes with spells and magic. So we have might heroes that cast spells like crazy....and that doesn't sound right <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was especially true in those games, though, in which the might heroes didn't enter battle. In H4, I also had heroes with archery maxed and magic arrows etc. or a poison potion mowing down the enemy with regular attacks. Or heroes with melee maxed and the nice two-handed thing that summons lightning after the attack. Trash the enemy, take some damage from the handful of survivors, then trash the survivors.

Campaigner_1st
04-24-2005, 03:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elor_Once_Dark:
You forget that for these folks, deciding a battle with spells is not the same as deciding a battle by feat of arms. It's perfectly alright for them to have a hero single-handedly decide a battle if he uses spells for it. They just think that Might Heroes have no business to exist anyway (never mind the title MIGHT and Magic) and thus should have to rely on armies to do what magic heroes can do all on their own. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the fundamental difference between might & magic heroes. Ultimate magic heroes like Warlocks are supposed to wipe the enemy out with damage spells while ultimate might heroes such as Barbarians makes their troops much stronger.
The Warlocks troops will be very weak while the Barbarian ones will be extremely strong.
And I think it's just as funny everytime somebody uses the games title as an argument (or lack thereof...)

Elor_Once_Dark
04-24-2005, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Campaigner_1st:

That's the fundamental difference between might & magic heroes. Ultimate magic heroes like Warlocks are supposed to wipe the enemy out with damage spells while ultimate might heroes such as Barbarians makes their troops much stronger.
The Warlocks troops will be very weak while the Barbarian ones will be extremely strong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The warlock has some of the strongest units in his towns.

And I thought it was Might Heroes, not "Have someone else do it" Heroes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And I think it's just as funny everytime somebody uses the games title as an argument (or lack thereof...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The title is the most distilled expression of what the game is about.

Ellderon
04-24-2005, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elor_Once_Dark:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ellderon:
Well, Sauron was a Maiar so that explains his strength.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the Sauron in the books was more of a schemer, manipulator, who got his sorry a** kicked every time he actually went into physical combat, but anyway, let's take his physical strength for a moment.

/// Yes, he was a manipulator, but he allso was a Maiar...one of the mightiest of his kind, os only a few could stand up to him - Melian, Eonwe
spring to mind..and later Gandalf (it is written he will kill Sauron in the Final Ballte...and Turin will kill Morgoth!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well it's certainly heroic for some heroes to wrestle down a lesser god. And he wasn't really KO'd, but taken down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certanly Elendil and Gil-Galad were heroes! They were very powerfull, both of them (Elendil was a 2.5m tall warrior, and Gil-Galad was slightly shorter)
But taken down means beaten. No doubt Isildur fought valiantly in the battle and he is allso brave and all, but the finger-cutting was not a heroic deed as it was in the move..

Elor_Once_Dark
04-24-2005, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ellderon:
/// Yes, he was a manipulator, but he allso was a Maiar...one of the mightiest of his kind, os only a few could stand up to him - Melian, Eonwe
spring to mind..and later Gandalf (it is written he will kill Sauron in the Final Ballte...and Turin will kill Morgoth!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One has to be careful with the different drafts Tolkien wrote. Especially since he always covers his tracks by writing as rumors. What we have black on white is that two times Sauron entered physical combat, and two times he lost. First against Huan, and then against Elendil and Gil-Galad.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Certanly Elendil and Gil-Galad were heroes! They were very powerfull, both of them (Elendil was a 2.5m tall warrior, and Gil-Galad was slightly shorter)
But taken down means beaten. No doubt Isildur fought valiantly in the battle and he is allso brave and all, but the finger-cutting was not a heroic deed as it was in the move.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't see it as heroic in the movie at all. It was an absolutely silly scene, with Sauron beaten by a "lucky punch". There's nothing heroic about that. It was part of Jackson's denigration of the Free People.

Campaigner_1st
04-24-2005, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elor_Once_Dark:
The warlock has some of the strongest units in his towns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but units of the same lvl differ just a little and with the Barbarians superior attack and defense skill, the Barbarians troops will easily have 20 points more in attackskill and atleast 5 points more in defenseskill which they will crush the Warlock with.

Elor_Once_Dark
04-24-2005, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Campaigner_1st:
True, but units of the same lvl differ just a little and with the Barbarians superior attack and defense skill, the Barbarians troops will easily have 20 points more in attackskill and atleast 5 points more in defenseskill which they will crush the Warlock with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only helps you if you get to attack at all. And even defense skill is of limited use with area and no-retaliation attacks.

Campaigner_1st
04-24-2005, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elor_Once_Dark:
Only helps you if you get to attack at all. And even defense skill is of limited use with area and no-retaliation attacks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since the might hero knows that he has to strike out the enemy creatures fast to avoid getting his army decmimated by powerful spells, there's a good chance that he have choosen skills and spell schools that would help him reach the enemy A.S.A.P. Tactics with expert haste would be a crytalclear choice for a Barbarian (and Leadership, Armorer, Offense, Ballistics and other skills that greatly increase the power of the might heroes creatures) f.e.

Getting too tired to continue this. Night here now. Back tomorrow.

karlito31
04-25-2005, 12:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>... he have choosen skills and spell schools <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So , for might hero ,to be competitive, useing magic is obligatory?
He canot fight but can cast spells?
Odd. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Omega_Destroyer
04-29-2005, 08:09 AM
Not only can he cast spells, but he can also sit on his horse and frown when his units die. Who needs a hero fighting when you can do all that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif They should just rename the series Generals of Might and Magic cause that's all they are.

WolfRamm1986
04-29-2005, 02:17 PM
Personaly i think, that hero must be on the battlefield, but only 1 hero and without immortality. And his maximal damage souldn't be more than life of 10-15 6th level creachers, and his life on first level should be like a half of 6th level creacher.

phoenix_reb1973
04-29-2005, 08:04 PM
HMM IV had added some positive moments , especialy 5 levels of skills instead of 3 , but one detail irritates me very much - a possibility making hero unvulnarable to spells only by his(her) grandmaster resistance skill .
I strongly conside that it makes the game itself poorer , everyone knows that combat-melee-resistance line is more important than all others together . I hope , HMM-5 will be more balanced beetwen Might and Magic , on HMM-III level .
Lets stop unlimited barbarians !

stevenlynch
04-30-2005, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phoenix_reb1973:
Lets stop unlimited barbarians ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, magic resistance (for either the hero or his/her creatures) should be partial, not total. But it still needs to be enough to make it a worthwhile skill. Maybe a bit better than H3 non-specialty-modified Resistance though.

OliverFA
04-30-2005, 11:27 AM
If heroes are really out of the battlefield, I vote for renaming it Generals of Might and Magic

Or... If you want to make reference to the fact that the so called "heroes" don't want to risk their pretty faces in battle (maybe they will get their expensive clothes broken and have to buy new ones) they could just be called Cowards of Might and Magic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Aseved
04-30-2005, 12:24 PM
It seems they are... tough it's not really new news - Fabrice commented that some months ago in CH.

However, he said they would be more involved than in H3, so... what's the deal? Are we going finally to the H3-way, or is there something more?

We want info! We want info! We want info! WE WANT INFO!... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

*continues shouting until so much people joins that the question is answered - note the smiley above should not be holding a "OFF TOPIC" sign, but a "WE WANT INFO!" one*

Anyway as former -and still- member of KHIC, i suscribe the petiton for naming the game Generals of Might & Magic

Ellderon
04-30-2005, 02:59 PM
I'm somewhat confused here...

What does "more involved than in Heroes3" mean?

How can they be more involved without entering combat?
Perhaps they will be able to cast TWO spells each turn...or use some artifacts directly in combat or something...

Aseved
04-30-2005, 04:01 PM
We do not know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Still.

More involved in combat maybe means a might hero can effect its creatures in some active way, increasing their performance.

It might mean there will be some skills that allow the hero to effect the battlefield in some way, as ballistics (including the ballista with the skill) or first aid.

If might mean the hero may confer a higher bonus to a unit per round.

Or it might mean nothing... either if it was just a discarded idea, or just meant more involved graphically.

We do not know.

Omega_Destroyer
04-30-2005, 08:17 PM
Seriously, there can't be another Heroes of Might and Magic like we know if they scrap the original universe in favor of the dragon plot.

nicktg
05-01-2005, 04:01 AM
I don`t know about the dragon plot either, I dont think it will be easy to fit into the homm universe. I also see tha many people would like heroes return to the battlefield including myself, should ubisoft reconsider this? It`s not like they`ll have to redo their 3d models or am I underestimating the programming involved?
And why I want heroes on the battle? Because after spending so much effort (and hours) earning experience and skills, I`d like to see my hero do more than boost stats and cast spells. I`m no big fan of rpgs but I really like the rpg feeling given by watching your leaders hit points and damage increase, even if they never reach the super levels they did before (for balancing reasons).

st14z
05-02-2005, 01:02 AM
KHIC 4ever .
It would be kewl to have the change to 'promote' a creature to a Hero?
or is there some kind of discrimination in HoMM universe?.