Kotaku preview

[ThunderTitan]

Man, **** this forum. What a bunch of miserable short-sighted stuck-in-the-past whiners you are.

Yeah man, why can we just accept that the way forward is 2 resources, 3 races and our real names on bnet... we should just be happy it's still turn based.

[MattII]

1 creature always moving 2 times for each one time another does was really the wrong way to implement a linear initiative system... especially with retaliation working just as always.

Yes, I know, I'd like to see retaliations changed as well. I thought maybe infinite retaliations, but most creatures would only be able to do like 1/4-1/3 damage. Some creatures (like Golems) would be able to do more, but equally, some creatures wouldn't be able to retaliate at all (have to carefully select those).

- Introducing an irregular upgrade system (some creatures one upgrade, some two, some alernative upgrades, some no upgrades...)

Totally irregular I'd disagree with, but if you introduced a certain regularity to it (say, each faction gets three creatures with no upgrades, two with only one, and two with alternate), I could go along with that.

That totally negates the point of having more diverse factions...

Oh I don't know, there's still like 800+ ways you could arrange those upgrades, even as fixed as they are.

- Introduce movement points for creatures (no more hero chains)

If you're talking about creatures moving without a hero, I'd have to disagree, although I'd be up for the idea of being able to raise some very weak heroes (captains) on the spot to get around this.

No, he just meant that if you max out a units movement points transferring it to another hero would also mean that hero can't move either, regardless of whether or not the creatures can move on their own.

Ah, okay, yeah, I can go along with that.

- Introduce bosses (big single creatures with lots of HP and huge statistics for final battles)

Oh, you mean like the dragons they introduced in H3:AB?

Oversized version of regular units with better stats would work too... and it would cut down on the number of dragons... it's not DRAGONS & MAGIC you know.

I know, I was just giving the dragons as an example, because there's really nothing else, and yes, I'd like to see the number of dragons cut down as well, it's just a damned pity they're now buried in the mythology of the place.

[ThunderTitan]

Yes, I know, I'd like to see retaliations changed as well. I thought maybe infinite retaliations, but most creatures would only be able to do like 1/4-1/3 damage. Some creatures (like Golems) would be able to do more, but equally, some creatures wouldn't be able to retaliate at all (have to carefully select those).

Lowering the difference between the initiative values of units is a simpler, more elegant solution imo. And more in keeping with HoMM.

Totally irregular I'd disagree with, but if you introduced a certain regularity to it (say, each faction gets three creatures with no upgrades, two with only one, and two with alternate), I could go along with that.

That totally negates the point of having more diverse factions...

Oh I don't know, there's still like 800+ ways you could arrange those upgrades, even as fixed as they are.

Well if you just add them at random then you'd still have the same problems balancing them, so what's the difference between all having the same number or not? Is it that you just don't want your faction to end up with less upgrades or something?

[parcaleste]

...

- Introducing an irregular upgrade system (some creatures one upgrade, some two, some alernative upgrades, some no upgrades...)

Totally irregular I'd disagree with, but if you introduced a certain regularity to it (say, each faction gets three creatures with no upgrades, two with only one, and two with alternate), I could go along with that.

That totally negates the point of having more diverse factions...

Actually this could turn quiet good... if the creatures were earning experience just like in Disciples (II). It will also be really sweet if mixed with the KB Leadership system, I think.

[ThunderTitan]

Actually this could turn quiet good... if the creatures were earning experience just like in Disciples (II). It will also be really sweet if mixed with the KB Leadership system, I think.

King's Might and Bounty Magic: Disciples Heroes?! No thanks...

[OliverFA]

In my opinion, it is. To be better. Not to be different. If the next game in any franchise puts more effort in being different than in being better, then it either means that the developers made a mistake or that the previous formula gave all it could give.

Except that better is a matter of personal opinion, what one person considers better another considers worse.

Not everything is a matter of personal opinion. For example, 99% of players agree that the H5 skill system was better.

But anyway, you know what I am saying. I am saying that developers shoud say "I'll try yo improve the game" and not "I'll try to make the game different".

About my list of possible "improvements", they are just some of the most requested wishes. And not exactly what I think should be done in the game. Anyway, it will be fun to comment them ;-)

- Trying to introduce heroes in battlefield

This is one big area of disagreement, some consider it a good idea, others a terrible one. Personally I'm open to it, but it has to be done better than in H4.

The problem with H4 was not design. It was budget. With enough budget and without 3DO's financial problems, Heroes would have been properly balanced.

- Adding experience to creatures

Similar to the above, a contentious issue.

It does not need to be something really complex. For starters, a simple (recruit/veteran/elite) would do, each of them with small bonuses. However, if they really wanted to fully do it, the WoG system properly balanced will work. I think I'll beter write it in a different thread.

- Introducing upkeep system (so we have something to do with resources in the endgame)

Only above a certain level, you really don't want to run into upkeep too soon.

That could be reasonable. Let's say for example that a town can maintain x weeks of creatures, and that you must pay upkeep for something beyond that.

- Developing even more the cities building plan (and not devolving it!)

I can go along with this, although I'm not altogether sure how you'd do it.

There are plenty of suggestions from the community about new buildings that make a lot of sense.

- Introducing an irregular upgrade system (some creatures one upgrade, some two, some alernative upgrades, some no upgrades...)

Totally irregular I'd disagree with, but if you introduced a certain regularity to it (say, each faction gets three creatures with no upgrades, two with only one, and two with alternate), I could go along with that.

Then it would be regular again. Remember that initially HOMM was very irregular. In HOMM1 Knight's Lvl 5 unit had 50 hp, and Warlock's Lvl 5 unit had 200 hp! It was so nice!

- Introduce movement points for creatures (no more hero chains)

If you're talking about creatures moving without a hero, I'd have to disagree, although I'd be up for the idea of being able to raise some very weak heroes (captains) on the spot to get around this.

I am talking about not allowing a creature to move when it gets transfered to another hero. The famous hero chains.

- Introduce leadership system (like in KB, effectively limiting army size or reducing its effectivity)

I agree there needs to be some form of leadership, but I disagree that limiting army size is the way to do it, I'd prefer to see a larger army get reduced movement if it gets above a certain limit (the limit being determined by the level of the hero)

There are several ways to do it. And yes, it does not need to be limiting army size. It can also be reducing effectivity. For example, -1 morale for each 10% creature power points above hero leadership.

- Introduce bosses (big single creatures with lots of HP and huge statistics for final battles)

Oh, you mean like the dragons they introduced in H3:AB?

[/quote]
No. They were very powerful type of creatures. I am talking about unique creatures. For example, "the allmighty dragon" which has the graphic of a dragon but increased stats. If they want to do a special graphic it's even better, but is not needed. The stats of that unique creature would be entered by the level designer when he made the map.

[Adicto]

Sh*tloads of resource types has always been as HoMM representative as excessive. Wood, ore, sulfur, mercury, crystals, gems… too many for just 1 main purpose: buy structures. Developers noticed this and decided they have 2 options:
1- Find a specific use for each resource.
2- Reduce the amount of resources.

[MattII]

In my opinion, it is. To be better. Not to be different. If the next game in any franchise puts more effort in being different than in being better, then it either means that the developers made a mistake or that the previous formula gave all it could give.

Except that better is a matter of personal opinion, what one person considers better another considers worse.

Not everything is a matter of personal opinion. For example, 99% of players agree that the H5 skill system was better.

Okay, point accepted, but things like heroes in combat and creature experience are just changes, some say they'd make the game better, others say they'd make it worse. There's also the point that the way they implemented heroes in H5 was very limiting, since there was basically no point in choosing a hero outside of your own faction any more.

But anyway, you know what I am saying. I am saying that developers shoud say "I'll try yo improve the game" and not "I'll try to make the game different".

Except that 'making it better' is just a special case of 'making it different', and not everyone is going to agree that it's better.

- Trying to introduce heroes in battlefield

This is one big area of disagreement, some consider it a good idea, others a terrible one. Personally I'm open to it, but it has to be done better than in H4.

The problem with H4 was not design. It was budget. With enough budget and without 3DO's financial problems, Heroes would have been properly balanced.

Yes I know budget (and therefore time) was the issue, but the fact that it was buggy was what I was getting at, not the design itself.

- Adding experience to creatures

Similar to the above, a contentious issue.

It does not need to be something really complex. For starters, a simple (recruit/veteran/elite) would do, each of them with small bonuses. However, if they really wanted to fully do it, the WoG system properly balanced will work. I think I'll beter write it in a different thread.

Regardless of whether or not it can be balanced (and yes, I agree it can be), it's still a contentious issue, which could backfire if they tried to introduce it into the main game.

- Introducing upkeep system (so we have something to do with resources in the endgame)

Only above a certain level, you really don't want to run into upkeep too soon.

That could be reasonable. Let's say for example that a town can maintain x weeks of creatures, and that you must pay upkeep for something beyond that.

sounds like an interesting idea, and quite realistic as well (folks in the medieval era owed their lords a certain number of 'soldier days' per year, but beyond that they had to be paid). There's some who'd disagree, but there always is with such issues.

- Developing even more the cities building plan (and not devolving it!)

I can go along with this, although I'm not altogether sure how you'd do it.

There are plenty of suggestions from the community about new buildings that make a lot of sense.

Fair enough, I myself would like to see a bit more economic buildup.

- Introducing an irregular upgrade system (some creatures one upgrade, some two, some alernative upgrades, some no upgrades...)

Totally irregular I'd disagree with, but if you introduced a certain regularity to it (say, each faction gets three creatures with no upgrades, two with only one, and two with alternate), I could go along with that.

Then it would be regular again. Remember that initially HOMM was very irregular. In HOMM1 Knight's Lvl 5 unit had 50 hp, and Warlock's Lvl 5 unit had 200 hp! It was so nice!

That wasn't irregular upgrades that was irregular tier strengths, there's a big difference, H2 had irregular upgrades. Also, my idea would still be fairly irregular (or at least non-uniform), just not totally.

- Introduce movement points for creatures (no more hero chains)

If you're talking about creatures moving without a hero, I'd have to disagree, although I'd be up for the idea of being able to raise some very weak heroes (captains) on the spot to get around this.

I am talking about not allowing a creature to move when it gets transfered to another hero. The famous hero chains.

Yes I know, ThunderTitan already pointed that out, and I like it.

- Introduce leadership system (like in KB, effectively limiting army size or reducing its effectivity)

I agree there needs to be some form of leadership, but I disagree that limiting army size is the way to do it, I'd prefer to see a larger army get reduced movement if it gets above a certain limit (the limit being determined by the level of the hero)

There are several ways to do it. And yes, it does not need to be limiting army size. It can also be reducing effectivity. For example, -1 morale for each 10% creature power points above hero leadership.

No, I don't think morale would be the way to go (that's already limiting enough as it is), but maybe dropping 1 point of hero-provided defence and attack for every 10% over the limit.

- Introduce bosses (big single creatures with lots of HP and huge statistics for final battles)

Oh, you mean like the dragons they introduced in H3:AB?

No. They were very powerful type of creatures. I am talking about unique creatures. For example, "the allmighty dragon" which has the graphic of a dragon but increased stats. If they want to do a special graphic it's even better, but is not needed. The stats of that unique creature would be entered by the level designer when he made the map.[/quote][/quote]

Personally I'd prefer to have a few spare graphics, or else why not just make a stack of the things rather than modifying the actual stats?

[OliverFA]

Personally I'd prefer to have a few spare graphics, or else why not just make a stack of the things rather than modifying the actual stats?

Of course. Having spare graphics for them would be even better. That's undeniable ;-)

[ThunderTitan]

1- Find a specific use for each resource.
2- Reduce the amount of resources.

Man, if only they had though about having each high lvl unit for each faction need one of those resources thus allowing you to screw another player by stopping him/her from getting it... then they might have gone with #1.

Personally I'd prefer to have a few spare graphics, or else why not just make a stack of the things rather than modifying the actual stats?

Because with each dead unit in the stack the boss gets weaker offensively?

And of course moar graphics would be better, but then you risk them just becoming moar dragon types again... and they require more work that could be spent making the game better to play instead of just prettier.

@OliverFA

C'mon man... balancing creature XP and heroes on the BF isn't something doable on a normal development schedule. You'd need extensive beta testing etc.

Not everything is a matter of personal opinion. For example, 99% of players agree that the H5 skill system was better.

Actually that's still opinion... if a majority of people think that cutting off your head doesn't kill you it doesn't make it true, it just makes them idiots.

In order for it not to be an opinion someone needs to bring in some objective facts.

[vicheron]

Sh*tloads of resource types has always been as HoMM representative as excessive. Wood, ore, sulfur, mercury, crystals, gems… too many for just 1 main purpose: buy structures. Developers noticed this and decided they have 2 options:
1- Find a specific use for each resource.
2- Reduce the amount of resources.

Trading posts were introduced in Heroes 2. Once you built up your towns, you needed to trade your other resources for gold in order to afford all the units your towns generated.

Spell shops were introduced in Heroes 4: Winds of War, you could buy spells in exchange for rare resources.

Rune magic and creature artifacts were introduced in Heroes 5. Rune magic used rare resources to cast spells and creature artifacts used rare resources to buff your troops.

That's four different uses for rare resources that already exist. It would be very simple to expand upon those ideas. They could add the ability to craft your own artifacts using rare resources. Each rare resource could correspond to a certain buff like attack boosting artifacts needing sulfur and intelligence boosting artifacts needing gems. They could allow you to expend rare resources to get temporary production boosts in dwellings. They could allow you to spend rare resources at the mage guild to research spells with each spell school corresponding to a rare resource. They can just look at other games with multiple resources and see what they do with them.

[MattII]

I think the problem with the rare resources is that they've been up till now, too rare, so I imagine you could solve some of the issues of late-game surplus resources by increasing current production and cost by say 5 times (and of wood and ore by 10 times, so that they'd still be rare), and then finding new uses, like unit costs down to tier 5 rather than just up at tier 7.

[ThunderTitan]

Dude, 5/day/mine is way too much... they'd have to jack up prices for buildings and units then too.

Making them 2 or 3/day/mine would be plenty (and would work with the smaller maps the 3D requires to work well)

[MattII]

Dude, 5/day/mine is way too much... they'd have to jack up prices for buildings and units then too.

I did say 'production and cost', and that was kind of the point of my suggestion, make high-tier units cost resources, so that once all of the buildings are built those resources still have a use.

[ThunderTitan]

And i was pointing out that it would also require modifying the cost of everything else, or making mines rarer at least, in order for such a big increase to work, and not just adding a resource cost for more lvls of creatures.

[MattII]

And i was pointing out that it would also require modifying the cost of everything else, or making mines rarer at least, in order for such a big increase to work, and not just adding a resource cost for more lvls of creatures.

It doesn't require modifying the cost of everything Only those things that need rare resources, and even then, multiplying a number by 3 or 5 should hardly be difficult. Probably the hardest thing about it would be modifying the exchange rates at the market, and I can't image even that taking very long.

[ThunderTitan]

Yes it does, because 5 times as much resources will screw up the game flow otherwise...

[MattII]

Precious resources aren't even used for a lot of buildings, their costs don't have to change, and of the buildings that do use them you only have to change the rare-resource cost, not the gold or wood/ore ones.

[ThunderTitan]

Didn't you start out saying wood/ore would also increase?!

And unless they remove trading the resources coming in will also affect gold etc...

A lot easier to just leave the resource rates alone and just work on the prices for stuff.

[MattII]

Didn't you start out saying wood/ore would also increase?!

Yes I did, so we increase to wood/ore cost of everything as well.

And unless they remove trading the resources coming in will also affect gold etc...

No, because you'll just decrease the gold-value of the rest of the resources, ie, if 1 wood was worth 50 gold before, it's now worth 5 gold. The same for the precious resources.

A lot easier to just leave the resource rates alone and just work on the prices for stuff.

Except that that's the whole point, most of the resources are too rare to be any more use than they currently are. Unless you want to work in fractions, you're never going to make the rare resources any more useful than they currently are.