Yeah, adventure spells could use a bit of expanding. A few of the ones I'm working with are Reverse Portal, which turns a one-way portal exit into a one way portal entrance and Dimension Door, which basically creates a temporary two-way portal (What used to be DD is now Teleport, and what used to be Teleport is now Mage-Move).
Of course, Portals could be far more utilised than they are, maybe you have a spell that allows you to see through them, another which allows you to pick where you go, yet another which disallows you to use a selected entrance, etc.
You could also use a mage to create temporary road and skyways (roads that cross obstacles), impassible squares, minefields, mires. Or what if you could warp into the middle of towns (turning a siege into a regular battle) or slip invisibly past enemies, so further than normal, etc.
And all of that is on top of the already used ones like Summon Boat (what about an ability that allows you to pass through whirlpools without losing troops, Pathfinding, Town Portals, etc.
Heroes 6 wishlist (draft)
-
Metal Wolf
- Pixie
- Posts: 103
- Joined: 13 Jun 2006
MattII wrote:Yeah, adventure spells could use a bit of expanding. A few of the ones I'm working with are Reverse Portal, which turns a one-way portal exit into a one way portal entrance and Dimension Door, which basically creates a temporary two-way portal (What used to be DD is now Teleport, and what used to be Teleport is now Mage-Move).
Of course, Portals could be far more utilised than they are, maybe you have a spell that allows you to see through them, another which allows you to pick where you go, yet another which disallows you to use a selected entrance, etc.
You could also use a mage to create temporary road and skyways (roads that cross obstacles), impassible squares, minefields, mires. Or what if you could warp into the middle of towns (turning a siege into a regular battle) or slip invisibly past enemies, so further than normal, etc.
And all of that is on top of the already used ones like Summon Boat (what about an ability that allows you to pass through whirlpools without losing troops, Pathfinding, Town Portals, etc.
The "Reverse Portal" and the "ability to create temporary road and skyways" can be really problematic since many maps are built in a very certain way that you have to acquire keys/finish quests/defeat throngs of enemies before you can reach a certain place. Having those spells will be almost like cheating - or just prevent mapmakers from using the aforementioned principles when creating maps.
In someways those abilities are much more powerful (and dangerous to the map's itegrity than the "Angel's Wings" from H3 - and that artifact was rare to find, in many cases only on specific occasions.
However, I really liked some of your other abilities.
The invisibility idea is great - it reminds me a spell in H3 when each of your stacks in a hero's army appeared much stronger than it really was (to the enemy inspecting it in the adventure map), and therefore the enemy was more reluctant to attack. Anyway, they are different enough to have them both!
Also temporarily blocking a portal is a good idea imo. Invisibility, portal blocking and the idea which I mentioned in my first post (having spells which temporarily can block/slow down an enemy) can add a whole new concept of stalking and intercepting the enemy's schemes...
-
Aerosoldier
- Peasant
- Posts: 88
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
- Location: My house in Peru
-
duffman4evr
- Leprechaun
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Coming from a player that started on HOMMV, I just want to start off by saying that ToTE is a overall fun game to play, and that the developers did a lot of things right with it:
The skill system is great. However, I'd like to be able to have a bit more control over my choices while leveling up. I understand that some randomization is needed, and the Ultimate abilities come into play here as well, so any changes would obviously need to be balanced.
The duel system is good, but could have been so much more with some more work put into it. A better editor and online matchmaking are two big features that come to mind.
To me it seems like the difference between normal AI and hard AI is pretty big. Maybe we could bridge that gap? Again, this just kind of goes into the 'Better AI' bucket.
One major annoyance is the problem of getting troops to my main hero once he is far away from town. Its just not a fun part of the game, and it becomes a real problem, because in a fair matchup, the hero that wins in a chance encounter is the one that was resupplied better. Summon creatures helps, but seems like too much of a sacrifice for (usually) not all the troops that are available anyway. I agree that there should be some cost involved in order to resupply the hero, but maybe it can be a little more fun for the player to do.
I heard talk of simulaneous retaliation. Though I've never experienced it myself, it sounds interesting. Right now, combat seems to heavily favor high initiative creatures, especially ones with good attack. Even tough defenders will lose too much of their stack before retaliation can take place. I'm not going to ramble too much about balance; maybe attacking should have an inherent advantage, maybe it shouldn't, but It seems to be a bit too lucrative right now. A defensive game should be more of an option.
Probably the hardest problem to deal with: game time. I can't really sit down with a few friends and play a game without it taking several hours. Is it possible to change the adventure map game to minimize wasted time?
The skill system is great. However, I'd like to be able to have a bit more control over my choices while leveling up. I understand that some randomization is needed, and the Ultimate abilities come into play here as well, so any changes would obviously need to be balanced.
The duel system is good, but could have been so much more with some more work put into it. A better editor and online matchmaking are two big features that come to mind.
To me it seems like the difference between normal AI and hard AI is pretty big. Maybe we could bridge that gap? Again, this just kind of goes into the 'Better AI' bucket.
One major annoyance is the problem of getting troops to my main hero once he is far away from town. Its just not a fun part of the game, and it becomes a real problem, because in a fair matchup, the hero that wins in a chance encounter is the one that was resupplied better. Summon creatures helps, but seems like too much of a sacrifice for (usually) not all the troops that are available anyway. I agree that there should be some cost involved in order to resupply the hero, but maybe it can be a little more fun for the player to do.
I heard talk of simulaneous retaliation. Though I've never experienced it myself, it sounds interesting. Right now, combat seems to heavily favor high initiative creatures, especially ones with good attack. Even tough defenders will lose too much of their stack before retaliation can take place. I'm not going to ramble too much about balance; maybe attacking should have an inherent advantage, maybe it shouldn't, but It seems to be a bit too lucrative right now. A defensive game should be more of an option.
Probably the hardest problem to deal with: game time. I can't really sit down with a few friends and play a game without it taking several hours. Is it possible to change the adventure map game to minimize wasted time?
You're right, attacking does have too much of an advantage at the moment, but this isn't an issue of initiative really, it's an issue of retaliation, or lack of it. Currently, most units get only one retaliation, which means that an attacker can choose which creature the defender retaliates against, which puts the defender at an inherent disadvantage, which I'd like to change. Rather than each creature getting a single retaliation, I think each and every creature should have unlimited retaliations, but with retaliations doing somewhat less damage than the main attack (in most cases below 50%, but in a few, like the Golem, it would be in the 80%+ range).
Welcome to the Round Table! Most of your points are good, so I'll just respond to this one. Logistics and resupply is a real problem that real militaries face. They employ smart people dedicated to solving it. As for HOMM, part of the problem is the maps themselves. H5 maps don't have as many towns as there were in earlier games. It's harder to "live off the land" with fewer creature sources available. Thus, your main hero quickly gets far away from town and you have to get another hero to manually schlep a new batch of troops out to him. I agree with you, it's not fun. I'm not sure how to solve it other than telling you to go play H2 or H3.duffman4evr wrote:One major annoyance is the problem of getting troops to my main hero once he is far away from town. Its just not a fun part of the game, and it becomes a real problem, because in a fair matchup, the hero that wins in a chance encounter is the one that was resupplied better. Summon creatures helps, but seems like too much of a sacrifice for (usually) not all the troops that are available anyway. I agree that there should be some cost involved in order to resupply the hero, but maybe it can be a little more fun for the player to do.
Peace. Love. Penguin.
Yeah, this was discussed on the previous page, so I'll repost the suggestion I posted there:
Possibly the way to do this would be to give a hero a certain number of 'logistics points', and assign a 'cost' of said points to each unit, so if an army exceeds the limit it goes slower (maybe along the lines of hero points/army cost, or even [hero points/army cost]^2). You'd have to work it differently on the battlefield, perhaps if each stack was taken individually rather than the army as a whole.
Possibly the way to do this would be to give a hero a certain number of 'logistics points', and assign a 'cost' of said points to each unit, so if an army exceeds the limit it goes slower (maybe along the lines of hero points/army cost, or even [hero points/army cost]^2). You'd have to work it differently on the battlefield, perhaps if each stack was taken individually rather than the army as a whole.
-
jigsaw2008
- Leprechaun
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 10 Oct 2008
I find it more realistic when a battle comes to retreat, the loser not to lose all his troops but a percentage of them and the rest of them to return in the nearest town like caravans but in more days as cost.
An example to practise this idea is that a battle takes place and during the battle a hero retreats. During the battle some troops perish. The idea is that the troops that are not perished (the rest of the troops), a 30% percentage of them to be injured or to desert, so to act like the perished ones, and the 70% percentage of them to return (regroup, not hire) to the nearest town of the retreating hero, through caravan but in double days (in fact needs time to regroup an army that flees from a battle, so the days to regroup could be calculated by the type : 2 x caravan days and at least 3 days) as a cost. If the nearest town during those days is captured, then the troops regroup at the nearest of the other towns the retrieting hero owns. If all towns are captured then the groups are broken and the hero who retreats lose them all. The hero who retreats must be hired in the tavern in the same way like the previous Heroes series. So the hero acts independently of the regrouping troops. On the other hand the winner gains the experience not only of the perished troops but of the 30% of the rest troos (the injured and run-a-way ones) as well.
I think this formula is a realistic one and protects both the hero who flees and the winner of the battle who gains more experience.
An example to practise this idea is that a battle takes place and during the battle a hero retreats. During the battle some troops perish. The idea is that the troops that are not perished (the rest of the troops), a 30% percentage of them to be injured or to desert, so to act like the perished ones, and the 70% percentage of them to return (regroup, not hire) to the nearest town of the retreating hero, through caravan but in double days (in fact needs time to regroup an army that flees from a battle, so the days to regroup could be calculated by the type : 2 x caravan days and at least 3 days) as a cost. If the nearest town during those days is captured, then the troops regroup at the nearest of the other towns the retrieting hero owns. If all towns are captured then the groups are broken and the hero who retreats lose them all. The hero who retreats must be hired in the tavern in the same way like the previous Heroes series. So the hero acts independently of the regrouping troops. On the other hand the winner gains the experience not only of the perished troops but of the 30% of the rest troos (the injured and run-a-way ones) as well.
I think this formula is a realistic one and protects both the hero who flees and the winner of the battle who gains more experience.
The formula is needlessly complex, so here's a simpler one:
The combat grid is 30 spaces long, but the two sides draw up within the centre 12 spaces. The spaces behind each player are withdrawl spaces, with the last two spaces on each side being the 'retreat' spaces. Any time one side feels that it is in a hopeless situation, it will run as many stacks as it wants back to the 'retreat' spaces, and then the hero orders a retreat. Any stacks not on the 'retreat' spaces when the order is given are left behind and at the mercy of the enemy.
Once a hero retreats, he automatically moves one space on the map towards the nearest allied town and awaits either the player's turn, or a second engagement from his pursuer.
The combat grid is 30 spaces long, but the two sides draw up within the centre 12 spaces. The spaces behind each player are withdrawl spaces, with the last two spaces on each side being the 'retreat' spaces. Any time one side feels that it is in a hopeless situation, it will run as many stacks as it wants back to the 'retreat' spaces, and then the hero orders a retreat. Any stacks not on the 'retreat' spaces when the order is given are left behind and at the mercy of the enemy.
Once a hero retreats, he automatically moves one space on the map towards the nearest allied town and awaits either the player's turn, or a second engagement from his pursuer.
-
jigsaw2008
- Leprechaun
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Your idea is a revolutionary one. The problem is that the retreat lose its value because if the hero who retreats and retires a space to the nearest town, gets a second attack the possibilities to lose all his troops increases. So the attacker gains the experience as if he won the battle without the retreat of the enemy and the hero who retreats lose all his stats, skills and artifacts. To make matters worse, the hero could be attacked by other hero as well either from the army of the same faction or another.
The combat grid 30 tiles in a non siege battle is a 2-7-12-7-2 one and in a siege battle is a 2-7-14 according to your statement.
So I agree with you with the exception of the chase you mention if the attacker want to repeat a second battle.
The Ubisoft must work more in combat and tactics topics.
The combat grid 30 tiles in a non siege battle is a 2-7-12-7-2 one and in a siege battle is a 2-7-14 according to your statement.
So I agree with you with the exception of the chase you mention if the attacker want to repeat a second battle.
The Ubisoft must work more in combat and tactics topics.
MMH6 Gamescom 2010 Trailer (HD)
http://computergames.ro/en/downloads/po ... er-hd.html
http://www.gamershell.com/download_62286.shtml
http://computergames.ro/en/downloads/po ... er-hd.html
http://www.gamershell.com/download_62286.shtml
Give us the ability to do more things on the adventure map.
1. Ability to change the terrain, the terrain around a town should slowly change to the native terrain of the town's faction. The more developed the town, the bigger the area and the faster the change.
2. Give us the ability to set up way stations. Basically, it's like a garrison that you can send caravans to. This allows you to more easily reinforce heroes far away from your castle. It would take a hero a day to build one and the cost depends on the distance of the closest town you own, the farther away, the more you have to spend.
3. Make garrisoning troops in mines increase resource income. Just make it so that putting $1000 worth of units into a mine increases income by 10% with a cap of 150% or 200% increase. Basically, you have to decide between stronger army or stronger economy.
4. Add the ability to sabotaging mines so that it doesn't give any income for a certain amount of time. It's pretty simple, you spend a certain amount of money to sabotage a mine that you've taken over so that it doesn't give any resource for a certain amount of time up to a maximum of one week. The cost of sabotage depends on the distance of the closest town you own. The farther away the town, the more expensive the sabotage.
5. Add the ability to harden mines against sabotage or take over by a hero with a small army, and lets you keep getting income for a few days after it's been taken over. Let's say you harden your mine for $2000, then the only way for an enemy hero to take it over is if they have $3000 worth of troops or if the hero is over a certain level, each hero level would count as either $500 or $1000 or something like that. Even if the mine gets taken over, you still get income from the mine for a few days based on how much you spent on it. The cost of sabotage by an opposing faction is also increased by the amount spent on hardening.[/list]
1. Ability to change the terrain, the terrain around a town should slowly change to the native terrain of the town's faction. The more developed the town, the bigger the area and the faster the change.
2. Give us the ability to set up way stations. Basically, it's like a garrison that you can send caravans to. This allows you to more easily reinforce heroes far away from your castle. It would take a hero a day to build one and the cost depends on the distance of the closest town you own, the farther away, the more you have to spend.
3. Make garrisoning troops in mines increase resource income. Just make it so that putting $1000 worth of units into a mine increases income by 10% with a cap of 150% or 200% increase. Basically, you have to decide between stronger army or stronger economy.
4. Add the ability to sabotaging mines so that it doesn't give any income for a certain amount of time. It's pretty simple, you spend a certain amount of money to sabotage a mine that you've taken over so that it doesn't give any resource for a certain amount of time up to a maximum of one week. The cost of sabotage depends on the distance of the closest town you own. The farther away the town, the more expensive the sabotage.
5. Add the ability to harden mines against sabotage or take over by a hero with a small army, and lets you keep getting income for a few days after it's been taken over. Let's say you harden your mine for $2000, then the only way for an enemy hero to take it over is if they have $3000 worth of troops or if the hero is over a certain level, each hero level would count as either $500 or $1000 or something like that. Even if the mine gets taken over, you still get income from the mine for a few days based on how much you spent on it. The cost of sabotage by an opposing faction is also increased by the amount spent on hardening.[/list]
A great idea but it would have to have a way for the enemy to destroy it or you could use it to block off choke points and make the game unending and you can 'man' it with your hero and his troops should the need to defend arise.vicheron wrote:2. Give us the ability to set up way stations. Basically, it's like a garrison that you can send caravans to. This allows you to more easily reinforce heroes far away from your castle. It would take a hero a day to build one and the cost depends on the distance of the closest town you own, the farther away, the more you have to spend.
Corelanis used baton pass The Heroes Round Table sent out [the poster below me]
-
Bishop AlMighty
- Peasant
- Posts: 51
- Joined: 05 Jan 2006
- Location: Pancevo, Serbia
-
ThunderTitan
- Perpetual Poster
- Posts: 23271
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
- Location: Now/here
- Contact:
Romanov77 wrote:They had better put dancing Leprechauns in it.
Seriously.
I APPROVE OF THIS MESSAGE... hell, i'll even cut my complaining in half if they do that...
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!
I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti
Alt-0128: €
I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti
Alt-0128: €
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests