Conceptiually best heroes game?

[Jolly Joker]

If I understand you right you are saying that HoFB is the utopia that sounds good as a concept, but can't work (and you shouldn't even try). I think I never did agree more with you!

Disciples...

Geez, I did say, it works in AoW and it works in Disciples, didn't I? But we are talking HoMM, and in HoMM it doesn't, at least not as well as in those. It makes no sense to put things into a game just because they work well in another environment, except if you change the environment enough so that they fit.

[EDN]

Heroes 3... without doubt

[Akul]

Ah, yeah. I told that I won't mix any longer into this discusion but... I fail to see the similiarity betewen leaders in Disciples and the heroes in HoMM. In fact, I think that some people wanted heroes in combat even before Disciples.

[Jolly Joker]

Yes, exactly my point. Disciples (and AoW) are a lot more... let's call it personal. In Disciples you groom only very few units, while in AoW it's single unit fight.
Now compare that to Heroes. Does it make a lot of sense to have one Hero alongside of a stack of 100 Vampires in H 4 or Cyclopses? I mean, the destructive power of 100 Vampires or Cyclopses (or think of any other comparable stack) is so big, what kind of single being would withstand it? And then the Life Potion: smashed to pulp by the rocks of a hundred Cyclopses and, poof, there he stands again. Ridiculous.
Okay, there's the implementation argument, but the logic is the same: when thousands of Skeletons are battling dozens of Dragons, a mere human (or elf or demon or whatever) looks a bit forlorn.

I think, that the way started now by Nival is the right one to get more hero action. Inhibiting hero actions (like Counterspell), abilities to slow opposing heroes, all that's good stuff. But battling it out with the monster armies directly?

I agree that in theory some prospects may look good on first sight: installing heroes as part of stacks and the last one to die may look good, but will inevitably pose problems: who'll win, the surviving army or the surviving hero? Logic dictates that you lose as soon as you lose your (last) hero, but no one would want that. It would further pose problems with the hero characteristcs and their actions (if heroes got the initiative of their host stack) and so on and so force.

Most important, though, I don't see what the game gains. The trouble is, if you have to guard something (in this case the hero) the tactic is simple: have strong blockers and shooting (or missile) superiority which is rather dull.

[ThunderTitan]

Geez, I did say, it works in AoW and it works in Disciples, didn't I? But we are talking HoMM, and in HoMM it doesn't, at least not as well as in those. It makes no sense to put things into a game just because they work well in another environment, except if you change the environment enough so that they fit.

You forget that you can change the things you add to fit the enviroment. In all of nature humans are the only ones that do the opposite.

As for 100 vamps vs Hero... you haven't read alot of mythology, have you.

[Angelspit]

Enough of that. The thread has been cleaned.

[gravyluvr]

I always miss the good stuff...

Anywho...

Concepts does not equal features but it could very well mean NEW features.

So in general, we are talking about new features.

And when you say best it means best to you, so interpret that as te game that had your most favorite new features. Or if you take all the new features and rate them 1-10 and then add those numbers up, what do you get?

For me?

KB got a 50
HOMM1 got a 60
HOMM2 got a 70
HOMM3 got a 30
HOMM4 got a 65
HOMM5 got a 20

I am in the minority - I know - If I wasn't we'd be playing HOMM5 more how NWC/3d0 envisioned the prject and less like Ubisoft/Nival envisioned the project.

But I know what new features I liked and which I did not. You don't have to agree with me, but for god sakes accept my opinion or at least respect it. I can understand why you are ga-ga over HOMM3. I know people liked the Castle and Inferno towns from HOMM3 - I did not. I know people like the fact that they could have skelton wariors and silver pegs - I did not. I know many people hated losing the shuttle system - I did not. Some people liked having 8-9 different town types - I preferred six.

[HodgePodge]

… Now compare that to Heroes. Does it make a lot of sense to have one Hero alongside of a stack of 100 Vampires in H 4 or Cyclopses? I mean, the destructive power of 100 Vampires or Cyclopses (or think of any other comparable stack) is so big, what kind of single being would withstand it? And then the Life Potion: smashed to pulp by the rocks of a hundred Cyclopses and, poof, there he stands again. Ridiculous.

You're forgetting one major thing Jolly, Heroes is a FANTASY game!

[TheUndeadKing]

Besides, the game is Heroes of Might & Magic, not Generals of Might & Magic. They're called heroes for a reason.

[DaemianLucifer]

Most important, though, I don't see what the game gains. The trouble is, if you have to guard something (in this case the hero) the tactic is simple: have strong blockers and shooting (or missile) superiority which is rather dull.

And what exactly do you do now with your meat shield but guard your fragile range stacks?As to what would it add,the end of immortal heroes,thats what.Its really frustrating when the hero cant be touched by you,yet he can rain death on you.

[Gaidal Cain]

Now compare that to Heroes. Does it make a lot of sense to have one Hero alongside of a stack of 100 Vampires in H 4 or Cyclopses?

I'd say it makes more sense than having knights galloping through walls and hitting a stack on the other side...

(Oh, and in case you're forgetful- there are plenty of examples through history of generals or even kings falling in battles. Being on the filed isn't the same as having the same destructive power as the other stacks).

[Akul]

Enough of that. The thread has been cleaned.

YAY

Also, do people, do we really need to continue this anoying conversation?

[Jolly Joker]

@Gravyluvr
I agree that it is difficult: concept, features, how to rate them.
Some things I find true:
1) More features isn't necessarily better; a game with more (and even as such not bad features) isn't necessarily better
2) A game is more than the sum of its features.

A very good example is Heroes 3.
There is what I would call a conceptual change from H 2 for example:
partly upgrades (different for each town/general upgrades for each creature (all towns the same)
The second feature makes for more creatures (an additional creature level was put in for good measure), the first makes for a more interesting game (of you ask me). So more isn't better.
You could say the same for many more things.
The bottom line is that H 2 is the better game, conceptually (in the end it's straighter, more defined and so on), but H3 has a lot of "mass" in terms of simple material and "features". SoD has a brilliant editor. There's an rmg and so on. Difficult.

Now H 4. H 4 has not new features it has CHANGED features which translates to a very different concept (we all know that). A simple example for a changed feature is combat mechanics. Instead of adding and subtracting attack and defense there's percentages and division. I hated that, quite frankly. But that's not the point. The point is that the changed mechanics is a CONCEPTUAL change that has consequences on how low level units interact with high level units no matter your tactics hero. Simply put, a level 1 unit has no place in your army (except maybe Halflings). This makes one third of your available units a waste (and this is CONCEPTUAL).

This is one example for a conceptual feature that plainly spoken just SUCKS. You don't want wasted units (and you can easily compare that with Heroes I and II and the necessity to leave one unit out). However, it's a feature as well. I'd "award" negative points for this "feature".
Moreover there are debatable features (features that gain and lose at the same time). An example wpuld be potions. An additional but completely unnecessary feature (considering most potion effects are available as map objects) cluttering your inventory and so on.
There are lost features (Heroes in IV are basically back to those in Heroes II; gone are the specials). That one sucks and is a missing feature as well as a conceptual error. There are more.
Well. I don't want to put this into an anti H4 rant. It's just that I don't see the great concept behind the game.

@ Hodge Podge
Last time I checked FANTASY didn't mean IDIOT (even though, having a look into a lot of the available fantasy novels one could get doubts here). Considering how many SQUIRES 1 Vampire in Heroes 4 can kill, a level 17 Barbarian who has Combat and nothing else is simply a god on the battle field. Fantasy or not, that's just stupid.

@ DL
In case you didn't notice, DL, guarding your ranged units doesn't have that much of an effect in H 5 due to certain features that not that many people are happy with. However, put the hero on the battlefield with this system and heroes die before they get a turn.
Now, the untouchable hero is not set in stone. I think that Nival paved the way. What you simply need is a way to interact more between HEROES and ONLY heroes. Counterspell, direct attacks, heroes fighting heroes while the armies fight it out. I'd call it a real tactical decision if you could cast a mass spell on your army or attack the opposing hero (damaging him, reducing initiative, reducing hit points, forcing him to react, and so on.

[Jolly Joker]

Now compare that to Heroes. Does it make a lot of sense to have one Hero alongside of a stack of 100 Vampires in H 4 or Cyclopses?

I'd say it makes more sense than having knights galloping through walls and hitting a stack on the other side...

(Oh, and in case you're forgetful- there are plenty of examples through history of generals or even kings falling in battles. Being on the filed isn't the same as having the same destructive power as the other stacks).

To quote DL: it makes no sense to justify something stupid with something that is equally stupid. And it doesn't make even less sense to sell human idiocy as good game concept.

[Jolly Joker]

Enough of that. The thread has been cleaned.

YAY

Also, do people, do we really need to continue this anoying conversation?

Well, no one is forcing you to do so, right? What's so annoying about it, by the way?

[DaemianLucifer]

Now H 4. H 4 has not new features it has CHANGED features which translates to a very different concept (we all know that)

Hold on.Shouldnt this be different?How can basically the same but a bit changed thing like upgrading some units turned into upgrading all units be a new concept,yet almost a comepletelly different game like HIV has changed concepts?

This is one example for a conceptual feature that plainly spoken just SUCKS. You don't want wasted units (and you can easily compare that with Heroes I and II and the necessity to leave one unit out). However, it's a feature as well. I'd "award" negative points for this "feature".

Werent you the one defending small BF because it is more tactical?Even when I pointed out that you cant place 7 large units on it,but have to leave some out?

Moreover there are debatable features (features that gain and lose at the same time). An example wpuld be potions. An additional but completely unnecessary feature (considering most potion effects are available as map objects) cluttering your inventory and so on.

Bad implementation,not bad concept.If the potions stacked,no one would complain.

There are lost features (Heroes in IV are basically back to those in Heroes II; gone are the specials). That one sucks and is a missing feature as well as a conceptual error. There are more.

Not really.It eliminated overpowered heroes that everyone took and underpowered ones that no one used for anything except squire duty.I find classes a much better way of diferenting heroes.

@ Hodge Podge
Last time I checked FANTASY didn't mean IDIOT (even though, having a look into a lot of the available fantasy novels one could get doubts here). Considering how many SQUIRES 1 Vampire in Heroes 4 can kill, a level 17 Barbarian who has Combat and nothing else is simply a god on the battle field. Fantasy or not, that's just stupid.

To quote DL: it makes no sense to justify something stupid with something that is equally stupid. And it doesn't make even less sense to sell human idiocy as good game concept.

Now he sees my points?And all those defending of heroes attacking through walls because its a fantasy game?

Now, the untouchable hero is not set in stone. I think that Nival paved the way. What you simply need is a way to interact more between HEROES and ONLY heroes. Counterspell, direct attacks, heroes fighting heroes while the armies fight it out. I'd call it a real tactical decision if you could cast a mass spell on your army or attack the opposing hero (damaging him, reducing initiative, reducing hit points, forcing him to react, and so on.

It could work.Much better than untouchable heroes anyway.

[Pitsu]

Also, do people, do we really need to continue this anoying conversation?

A time-out wouldn't be a bad idea IMO. To let the boiling pots and kettles to cool down and think all the arguments through a few hundred times more before posting them again. To be opened again in a day or so...

Edit: after reading the thread second time, let the day past very fast.

[Gaidal Cain]

Also, do people, do we really need to continue this anoying conversation?

If you find the discussion annoying, don't read it. Don't reply to it either- you'll only annoy those who aren't.

I'll wait with the answer I have to JJ until Pitsu/someone else has decided to reopen this thread...

[ThunderTitan]

Considering how many SQUIRES 1 Vampire in Heroes 4 can kill, a level 17 Barbarian who has Combat and nothing else is simply a god on the battle field. Fantasy or not, that's just stupid.

Hercules, Beowulf, Siegfried, Achilles, Hector, Perseus, Batman, King Arthur, Finn McCool, Gilgamesh, Odysseus... need i go on?

[pepak]

Simply put, a level 1 unit has no place in your army (except maybe Halflings). This makes one third of your available units a waste (and this is CONCEPTUAL).

You know, you might try to state your opinions as opinions and not as facts. Maybe people will be less inclined to disagree with you then. For example, I consider H4 to be the one closest to the ideal of "each unit should be useful".

(Heroes in IV are basically back to those in Heroes II; gone are the specials).

True. But THIS has very little to do with a concept. This is what I would call "feature" (or lack of it).

Last time I checked FANTASY didn't mean IDIOT (even though, having a look into a lot of the available fantasy novels one could get doubts here). Considering how many SQUIRES 1 Vampire in Heroes 4 can kill, a level 17 Barbarian who has Combat and nothing else is simply a god on the battle field. Fantasy or not, that's just stupid.

Many characters in fantasy literature have almost godlike powers. Top magicians are almost uniformly considered extremely powerful, more so than whole armies. While the cases of strong warriors are far less common, they do exist (such as R.E.Howard's Conan or R.E.Feist's Tomas).

In any case, just because a concept (heroes on battlefield) is poorly implemented (too great differences in power between strong and weak heroes) doesn't mean it's a bad concept. While most of us agree with this statement, you seem to fail to see the point.