Heroes 6 wishlist (draft)

[Avonu]

Heroes games have always focused on graphics as well as the rest.

Something what H5 lacked.

[ThunderTitan]

The Heroes II town screen interface was generally lousy, but very, very beautiful.

Only if you played it years after it came out, noob...

No, I played it when it first came out. Especially with fully built up towns, there were cases where trying to click on the correct building required a good deal more precision than I was generally capable of at that time.

Build the well... also, on an unrelated note: i stand by the 2nd part of my original statement...


Oh, and they didn't even have a "move all troops down button" in H5... shameful.

[Bandobras Took]

Heroes games have always focused on graphics as well as the rest.

Something what H5 lacked.

As well as H4, H3, and H2. H4 had no AI or balance to speak of; what balance H3 had was destroyed over the course of patches and expansions; H2 had a shoddy AI and balance at best.

Build the well... also, on an unrelated note: i stand by the 2nd part of my original statement... devious

Did H2 let you purchase troops from the Well? I seem to recall trying and not finding a method for doing so.

http://www.celestialheavens.com/forums/ ... php?t=3189

Trying to click on the skeleton recruiting structure there was something of a minigame to itself.

Oh, and they didn't even have a "move all troops down button" in H5... shameful.

Try the space key.

Edit: At home, and no . . . you can't recruit from the Well. So building a Well helps . . . how, exactly?

[hydro123456]

The Heroes II town screen interface was generally lousy, but very, very beautiful.

Only if you played it years after it came out, noob...

No, I played it when it first came out. Especially with fully built up towns, there were cases where trying to click on the correct building required a good deal more precision than I was generally capable of at that time.

The difference there is that the interface improved with every Heroes game except 5. 5 took a big step back, and I can only imagine it's because they spent more time on the fancy graphics than things like AI, interface, and balance.

People keep saying this, but I'm having trouble understanding it. With the exception of having to rotate the camera sometimes in the underground, what exactly was wrong with the Heroes 5 interface? The town screen alone made things more convenient than before with shortcut buttons to take you directly from resource trading to creature buying/city building. Their manner of presenting the city build trees meant far less right-clicking to remember prerequisites. They had the standard buttons on the adventure map, and a nice "highlight" key for telling at a glance what objects you could interact with. To say nothing of their pathfinding being able to use teleporters correctly.

I principally object to the idea that a Heroes game must avoid focusing on graphics; Heroes games have always focused on graphics as well as the rest. While they have never been cutting edge graphics, a lot of work has always gone into them (the mummy unraveling from Heroes 2 is strictly eye candy -- it adds nothing strategic to the game, and that is one example among many). It is too much to ask that they avoid focusing on graphics, because that has never been the way of any Heroes game.

People seem to be in the habit of idealizing past Heroes games as pinnacles of AI brilliance and balance. Neither of these is particularly accurate. Heroes II AI had a terrible time with boats. It was obssessed with killing ranged units. It really didn't handle sieges well. The Well alone did hideous things to game balance. The Conflux in III was so imbalanced it wasn't funny. Anybody who claims Heroes 4 focused on AI or game balance probably has an extremely personal and unique definition for those terms.

Are AI and game balance important? Yes. Are they the job of the art personnel? No. Do game developers wait until they actually are working on the game before advertising job openings for artists?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Shortcut keys are great, but it should also be just as playable without the shortcuts. From what I remember of H5 you basically needed the shortcuts to play, the wait option in battle was perfect example. Why would you hide something like that?

As far as the graphics go, having to manipulate the camera at all sucks, a lot. I'll ask this, what benefit do 3D graphics bring? It's not easier, that's for sure. The 3rd dimension isn't used, so it's definitely not a strategy issue. It's not even more detailed. I'm drawing a blank other than mass market appeal.

And yes, I'm making assumptions about them spending more resources on graphics then the game, but it seems to be a common trend among games that as the graphics improve, gameplay/interface suffers. It's fairly common knowledge that art makes up a huge piece of the budget for modern games.

[Bandobras Took]

As I understand it, animation is much easier and consumes less disk space using a 3d engine. For 2d animation, you essentially store a separate "frame" for each movement somewhere and call it up, and do frames for each possible direction (or simply reverse the sprite map and do half of the possible directions). 3d animation, you simply tell the skeleton where to move and the engine draws the texture around it, which is far more efficient. That's merely what I've heard; I cannot vouch for its accuracy.

The real point is that the developer, whoever they are, already has the art team. They're already paying them. It's a sunk cost. Whether they use them for a given game or develop a text adventure, they're still going to have to pay them, so they might as well use them.

As far as shortcut keys, one could also mention H4's lack of a "Dismiss Hero" button.

[hydro123456]

Yeah heroes 4 not having a dismiss hero button was bad, but at the same time they added a lot of features to keep game play smooth, so I kind of give them a pass on that.

You're right about how animation works in general, but then again heroes needs pretty limited animation. I have to admit though I don't really know the inner workings of a game studio. It just seems to be a common trend that strategy games lose features when they go to 3D engines.

I have to ask the question again, what do you gain by having a 3d engine?

[astral76minor]

The H2 engine could have been used for graphics to make H5, although the problem is "they" have to sell the game to kids....

The more intense games get with graphics only forces people to purchase more expensive computers, especially in a multiplayer internet game.

Looks like capitolism wins again. It really is not a bad thing. After all, we are helping people get jobs WHEN we purchase.

If you had millions and made a game, would you consider "profit" (with all the 3D sugar candy) or would you develop a game with true veterans in mind who seriously love strategy?

I second the latter or, rather, the ideal blend of good graphics but intense gameplay which remains to be seen. The lotto is my wish, then I would just give away the game. If people liked it, then profit might be "truly" worth it.

[Bandobras Took]

Out of curiosity: why aren't we hearing similar complaints about the music?

"They should focus on strategy instead of an operatic soundtrack."

[Kristo]

Music isn't perceived to cost as much as 3D graphical models.

[Kalah]

Here's my little rant:

In addition to a powerful but simple map editor to increase the game's longevity, I would like for there to be a simple set of released game editions. One simple version with the game and manual, and possible one special edition with some extra goodies. None of that "extra special limited collector's superfragiexpialidocious editions" in addition to the different language versions. And running the risk of alienating the foreign world here: skip the foreign languages as well. English will do for most of the world; why do we need Italian, Spanish, French, German, Czech, Polish, Russian, Hungarian and Korean? We don't! It's rubbish! Don't spend time and resources on that nonsense; just make a game that works in one language, and I'll be happy enoughT.

*ahem*

Yes, the map editor... That's important. Make it good, powerful and simple to use.

[jimpy476]

Hey all,

I've been looking around the forums and thought I'd add my two cents.
I haven't quite formed the complete idea, but I'll lay out what I have thus far.

Essentially, the new Heroes world, as created by Nival + Ubisoft seems quite heavily focused on religion, dragons as gods etc. etc...
I figure that they should try and incorporate this more into the gameplay, at least in terms of the different towns and creatures available. I think what a lot of people liked in HOMM3 was the sheer variety of creatures and towns. HOMM4 tried adding something new to the mix, that was a good idea, just employed incorrectly. The dual upgrades in HOMM5: ToE go to addressing that, but it seems that it was just for the sake of adding more creatures for no particular reason.

So..

I'd have a couple of towns max. Like.. Maybe 4 or 5. Human, Elf, Demon Wizard and Dwarven or something else. Essentially, each town would just be a shell to begin with, like they could only recruit Lvl. 1 unupgraded troops.

From there, you'd add some differentiation and enhanced gameplay while adding to the storyline by using the religious idea.

Each town would be able to build a shrine, church - call it what you will, toward the certain dragon god or whomever (or whatever), which would then decide what branch of town it becomes ultimately. Perhaps they could build two, depending on combinations... in much the same way the different magic schools would only let you get some types of magic in HOMM4.

So, for instance, a Cathedral of Elrath for a Human town would make it the current Haven. A Magic University would change it to Academy... there would be a few changed in the line ups, depending on what race you began with..

For instance, say you had a human town, build a Magic University then a unholy chapel or something.. you'd have a Necro Mage town, focusing on reanimation. Or, you could just build a normal Necro town.. And once you'd built to a point you couldn't change to another.. For example..

Necro Mage Town
1. Skeleton -> Skeletal Mage
2. Gargoyle -> Obsidian Gargoyle
3. Mummy -> Royal Mummy
4. Blood Golem -> Flesh Golem
5. Lich -> Arch Lich
6. Wight -> Wraith
7. Bone Dragon -> Spectral Dragon

Necro Town
1. Skeleton -> Skeleton Archer
2. Zombie -> Plague Zombie
3. Ghost -> Spectre
4. Vampire -> Vampire Lord
5. Lich -> Arch Lich
6. Black Knight -> Dread Knight
7. Bone Dragon -> Spectral Dragon

Obviously there'd be similarities between each different combinations. And obviously you wouldn't be able to do some others. You should also be able to, upon capturing the towns, be able to 'convert' those there to your religious ideology.

But I think this would bring back a lot of the creatures that have been missing, while having a tangible storyline aspect as well.

Other examples could be Humans building a monument to Peace (Defence focused).. Elf town building Temple of Malassa (Dark Elf), Cathedral of Elrath (HOMM2 forest town.. minus the dwarves)... or Monument to War (HOMM3 Rampart.. minus the dwarves)... there are lots of possibilities.

Anyway, that's what I'd like to see.. an opportunity to have a choice in how your town in built, moreso than in HOMM4, but with a connection to the storyline.

[ThunderTitan]

skip the foreign languages as well. English will do for most of the world; why do we need Italian, Spanish, French, German, Czech, Polish, Russian, Hungarian and Korean?

Nah, what they need to do is have only one version of the game that can be installed with any of the languages...

[Kalah]

... and one patch version; distributing a single patch of 110 Megabytes is bad enough without having to deal with twelve...

[ThunderTitan]

that was implied by having only 1 version of the game....

[astral76minor]

Okay, after all this what should be the number 1 aspect of H6?

I suppose a map editor, which must be user friendly and full of easily accessible yet versatile options. Since the developers will use this map editor, it only makes sense.

The other options... well, toss a coin.

[Elias_Maluco]

I would be pretty happy with a revamped HOMM 5 with:

- real AI, one that can be moderately effective and play fast, not one that takes 5 minutes to be stupid as a brick.

- higher zoom out or some kind of 2D world map option.

- two hero classes for each faction, like in HOMM 3.

- no more random skill choices: please let us choose what skills we want at level up, give us some kind of skill tree or something. Is very frustrating to have to rely on plain luck to get the hero we want.

- same for city spells. Is unfair, you can miss the spells you want and need, you can be crippled by a bad mage guild selection, specially with you only got one town.

- give the barbarians some anti-spell warcries. At least some kind of dispel ability.

- little more spellpower for academy mages, a little less knowledge.

- make runes less powerfull. As it is, is almost cheating IMHO.

- editable factions, like in Warlords 3 DLR (I know that this aint going to happen, but it would be cool).

- better random map generator (give us more options, at least)

- optimized engine (take a look at Kings Bounty, for example: looks better and runs smoother that HOMM5).

Most important: dont change everything again. HOMM 5 is awesome, it has its flaws, but is still the best HOMM ever. Improve on it and you will have a winner.

[ct605]

My Thoughts on Heroes VI

What I want (in order of importance):
1. A complete game that works out of the box – no dreadfully slow AI turns, no major memory leaks, rare (if any) crashes; no unfinished portions (e.g. multi-player functionality or map editors). It is absolutely ridiculous that this need be mentioned, let alone as top priority, but after Heroes IV and V, it is obviously not a given.
2. Simple game mechanics that still reward deep strategy, rich tactics, and creativity. One thing I notice returning to Heroes III after playing Heroes IV and V is the relative simplicity of the game (no hero skill wheels to memorize, creature specials that actually affected how the creatures were used, no caravans to micromanage, etc.) Thus the game is faster; the AI is easier to program without “cheating”. Yet I find there are more ways for inferior forces to cleverly defeat strong opponents; there is more significance to town building, hero hiring, and creature purchase decisions; and selectivity in sites visited is more important.
3. A powerful, reliable, but easy to use map editor. The Heroes III editor was great except for the lack of any scripting ability. The Heroes IV editor added scripting, but had two major drawbacks: first, it was too unstable and especially prone to crash when scripts got long (which is exactly when the most work is lost). I frequently found myself having to write scripts that only called other scripts so that none became too long. Second, the Heroes IV editor required mouse driven menus for scripting (which might have been OK, except for the lack of script editing features such as copy, paste, and insert). I spent tremendous amounts of time simply entering scripts because there was no efficient way to do so. The Heroes V editor is a farce: tedious to the point of taking the joy out of map-making, hard to learn, uses unintuitive and poorly documented scripting, has a lack basic functionality without scripting, exhibits complexity that should have been transparent to the user, and contains unprofessional content with misspelled commands and inconsistent command formats.
4. Graphics that neither detract from game play nor require a new computer purchase to run the game. Although I understand that graphics helps sell the game, in the long run, it is not graphics but game-play that maintains interest. I personally would be quite satisfied with Heroes II graphics and I found Heroes III to be the most pleasing with amusing character animations like sprites thumbing their noses at opponents, peasants cringing with every hit, and harpies that conveyed perfect impressions of dirty birds. Heroes IV graphics were acceptable. Heroes V graphics were awful. I wouldn’t mind 3D if I didn’t have to continually change views just to click where I wanted the hero to move or to see objects I might want to visit. Even on the battlefield, I often couldn’t get armies to attack from the desired square without rotating views. Further, maybe it’s just me, but I found creature animations to lack character and, all too often, difficult to distinguish. Virtually the entire dwarven faction looked to me be the same: chubby men with white beards. And more than once I mistook liches for wraiths.
5. Ongoing evolution of the Heroes series. One thing I really liked about both Heroes IV and Heroes V is that they were not just re-makes of earlier editions. The initiative based combat system of Heroes V was a step in evolution of the game, as was the Heroes on the battlefield oh Heroes IV. If I want to simply play Heroes I, I’ll play Heroes I – although I admit that I wouldn’t mind a basic revamp of an earlier version (most likely Heroes III) if it revitalized fan interest.
6. Elimination of real-time elements. I do not like clickfests. I know there was one Heroes V campaign battle that was absolutely dreadful because I was forced to operate on such limited time that I could not open my hero’s spell book and select a spell (much less a target) before time expired and I lost my turn. Luckily, I had sufficiently dominant forces that I could turn on auto combat without disastrous results.
7. Precision in control of battles. I prefer combat in Heroes III and V to that of Heroes IV because I can tell exactly what my opponent is capable of doing – which squares units can move into for instance. I preferred Heroes III to Heroes V in that it was impossible to predict initiative accurately enough in Heroes V to effectively use the wait command. On the other hand, I dislike the degree of randomness in Heroes III. Some random elements are unavoidable – and others are fine. Randomness that makes maps more re-playable (such as variable artifacts and creatures) is desirable – especially if the random effect occurs often enough to follow a fairly predictable distribution. Things like the mighty gorgon’s death stare, although random, were also adequately predictable. Things like the unicorn’s blind ability (if invoked against a critical stack) and good morale (allowing a slow unit to block shooters before they could be protected) can completely swing the tide of battle and significantly reduce my enjoyment of tactics.
8. Careful balance. This includes not just factions with equal chances of winning, but decision making that requires thought. Hero skills should all be of toughly equal value (who, in Heroes III, would ever choose Eagle Eye or First Aid over Logistics or Leadership?); town structures should all matter – none of the set building sequence that tends to dominate almost every faction in almost every game. Spells should be equally valuable, distinctive, and numerous enough that their discovery is worth pursuing even late in the game. Except for details and animation, spells like magic arrow, lightning bolt, ice bolt all do basically the same thing (except with the Heroes V destructive magic feats); there is no need for separate spells. Spells like dimension door, fly, and town portal in Heroes III were usually horribly imbalancing. Creatures should be equally interesting, and sufficiently balanced that even level one creatures late in the game can make a difference. I think successive editions have made significant strides along these lines, and I look for that to continue.

Some features I’d like to see:
1. The ability to edit the battlefield (and not just the strategic map) through the map editor.
2. A return to the idea that maps are maps and not landscapes. Attractively but abstractly representing objects makes a more playable environment than one where everything has to be to exact scale (which results in awkward tedium like trees that block view, castles that take up a hundred adventure map squares, etc.).
3. More combination artifacts and mixed blessing artifacts (like those that eliminate morale bonuses for all creatures – friend and foe)
4. Better options for creature growth (growth proportional to creature stack size is exponential and outgrows the factions ability to defeat them if too much time passes, while no growth creates trivial battles as factional forces grow stronger) and better options for refreshing map challenge (month of the whatever creature tends to create nuisance stacks that are not really a challenge for main heroes, but that obstruct caravans and require tedious clearing).

Some ideas (which may not all work):
1. A change to the upgrade philosophy. Let every faction have basic soldiers, e.g. elves, humans, dwarves, goblins, orcs, etc. Create different units by how these soldiers are equipped and trained – e.g. give basic humans armor and shields and you have a footman, give them crossbows and you have marksman, mount them on horseback with lances and you have knights, equip them with prayer and faith for priests, train them in magic for mages. Each city provides a weekly number of raw recruits which can (with expensive equipment) be trained into a choice of units. Make each type of unit valuable but vulnerable without support from other types of units. Then in addition to the strategy of gaining the largest army one can afford, one can actually change the composition of that army. Let each faction have strengths and weaknesses: maybe dwarves make sturdy foot soldiers, elves precise archers, maybe orc cavalry sweeps in on backs of ferocious wolves, or goblins train falconers to strike from a distance. Truly fantastic creatures (dragons, unicorns, hydras, medusas, griffins, demons, etc) are either neutral, are available as pets or livestock, or are summoned.
2. Incorporate more naval strategy: perhaps different types of ships, perhaps battles between ships more than creatures on the ships, truly aquatic creatures, etc.
3. Build more flexibility into campaigns: let the way in which a scenario is won (or even lost) impact the shape of the remainder of the campaign. For instance, if one scenario is to secure resources from a given region, let the player’s level of success actually affect his income and resources through the rest of the campaign. If a scenario objective is to obtain a given artifact but the AI gets there first, let the player continue the next scenario without the artifact and against an enemy that has it.

[Raelag84]

What I would like most is for there to be an increase in the number of important variables in the battles. Preahps snow and mud on the battle feild could slow the approach of enemies, as it would in real life, or there could be hills on the battle feilds that take away from range penalties. Also it would be cool if you could set up ambushes, and that somehow those doing the ambushing would have an advantage over those caught by surpise.

Though it is a minor issue I would love it one of the following factions could make an appearence.

The Faceless-A faction mentioned, but never revealed even though in their own way they had a profound affect on the heroes universe.

Naga-Another mentioned faction that is not revealed.

The orginal fortress faction-My old lizard friends nuff said.

Now I know there is a limit on how many factions can be in the game so I would not loose any sleep if those factions are not in the game , and I don't want any arguments about future factions. Lets just say I would be pleasntly surpised if one of those factions weas squeezed in there.

[sylvanllewelyn]

Heroes will be in battle like Heroes 4, with hit-points, combat abilities and all that, but "attached" to a stack. The units in the stack takes damage first and must all die before the hero is "exposed" as a unit, and during the hero's turn it can simply attach itself to another stack within reach. Heroes can also attach itself into another stack during his turn or unattach itself entirely to absorb retaliations for his units. Hero actions will include melee, ranged, ability or spells as usual (of course, melee means the hero will take the retaliation damage himself, because under the ATB system, the hero's turn does not coincide with the stack's, even though after the retaliation hit, the hero will be protected by the stack again). Primary stats will be attack, defense, spellpower and knowledge as usual, and with several combat abilities.

I feel this way magic heroes can be well-protected without developing combat skills, and might heroes can choose combat and bash skulls. You could still kill the hero, but you have to destroy the stack first and kill him off before he attaches himself to another stack. And obviously, if you wipe out his army, a magic hero will be vulnerable, while a combat hero will still take down many enemies before dying, like a true hero. And of course, a hero attached in a stack will give it bonuses, as well as nearby stacks based on distance.

Frenzy and puppet master will control the stack, but not harm the hero. Instead, a pop-up will ask whether the hero wants to remain attached or unattach. Or... whatever, these are detailed balance issues, let them do the work!

***********************

Previous comments:

1) They want to release incomplete games and then make you download patches. Why? ANTI-PIRACY, people. I hate this practice, but eventually all companies will do it. It's like death and taxes, it's here to stay.

2) Heroes being able to directly attack was included for the same reason as making resurrection and raise dead reduce total hit-point: so the battle will end.

Example 1: 1 blood fury can beat 10000 zombies if the player had the patience of a machine and stare at the screen for 400 hours straight. With the enemy having a hero, he'll just kill that 1 unit and win.

Example 2: you have two necromancers fighting each other, both use Mark of the Necromancer, if spellpower is high enough you can be stuck in an infinite loop. With reduced hitpoints, eventually your stack of zombies will be reduced to 1 hit-point and one thwack will finish them off.

[Sir Dabbler]

So for 2 months we have suggested. What should happen next?