Are you really hyped?

[Mlai]

Am I hyped for H6?
When I first saw the pretty graphics, I was.
But the more I learn about it, the less hyped I'm becoming.
I re-bought H5 TotE because I couldn't wait for H6 (when I first heard about it), I was so hyped. Now I'm just glad I'm playing H5 again, and waiting for H6 no longer matter as much to me.

Do I think H5 rocks?
Yes, yes I do. I have no issues with the world of Ashan, with the campaign storyline, with the gameplay, with the game engine, etc etc. I think it's all great. Yes, even Dungeon. I bought the vanilla + 2 expansions when they came out, and this month I re-bought TotE on Steam. No regrets whatsoever.

I do understand the complaint that it's hard to mod and make maps for, and the complaint regarding the AI. But that's it.

[ThunderTitan]

<<When I first saw the pretty graphics, I was.>>

I do love it when people let you know where they stand from their 1st sentence.

[MattII]

I think sequels always need to have big changes in them. Especially if its after number 3.

Wow, so Rowling should suddenly have made Voldemort a good-guy?

We can't be playing the same game with improved graphics and some minor changes. I'm also sometimes opposed to a change (old school in heart) but after some thought I realize that its the correct way.

I can only take it then that you haven't taken a closer look at the differences between H3 and H5, because they're quite big.

Rather be inventive and experimental (not destructive) than stick to the old proven formula.

What do you think "sequel" actually means?

But, I very much oppose to "dumbing down" and removing features that are pivotal and that have become the flagship of the series.

What's the difference between "pivotal" features, and merely "old" ones?

[ThunderTitan]

I think sequels always need to have big changes in them. Especially if its after number 3.

Wow, so Rowling should suddenly have made Voldemort a good-guy?

1st point: -logies don't count because they're one story, and thus are more or less equal one game if we;re comparing a story to game mechanics.

2nd point: Making a Slytherin the hero of a sequel would actually be a nice change of pace.

3rd point: Using a bad change to say that no changes are good is at the very least fallacious.

I can only take it then that you haven't taken a closer look at the differences between H3 and H5, because they're quite big.

Most changes are quantitative (less heroes, more skills because of perks etc) and don't really count any more then a new paint job and some decals makes a car new.

What's the difference between "pivotal" features, and merely "old" ones?

Pivotal features are old features that most have found quite enjoyable and there's no good reason to remove them, and should only be expanded/improved upon.

[Mlai]

I do love it when people let you know where they stand from their 1st sentence.

Selective illiteracy FTW.
Or are you still mad because I don't hate Dungeon?

[hydro123456]

Not hyped at all, but I'm still taking a wait and see attitude. So far I hate the art direction, and the faction lineup. I'm kind of indifferent to the game play changes, definitely not excited about any of them but I'll give them a chance. As with 5 though, what will really make or break the game for me is whether or not it's plays fast. I want options to make the battle animations faster and the overhead map movement very fast. Also I don't ever want to have to rotate the map or zoom in like in 5, and obviously I hope it runs well.

Someone else asked why someone would even bother posting if they're not hyped. I actually check in on the WoG forum every couple months or so to see if there's anything new coming out for Heroes 3, and I checked the Heroes 6 forum this one time just to see whats up. Sadly I'm way more hyped about the new WoG or Horn of the Abyss than I probably will ever be for a new official heroes game, even though I seriously doubt either will ever come out. VCMI is promising though.

[ChimTheGrim]

I am excited that it seems they are emphasizing the "Might" just as much as the "magic" and the "hero" aspect of the game. So there are like 6 heroes for each faction, 3 might and 3 magic. i really like that they are doing this, so we'll see how it works. I hope that the town screens are better than people are expecting. I like 2D town screens, but if it's only a pop-up window, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I think it would take away from the "heroes" feel you get when you click on a town. It feels like you are actually inside the town, which is a positive for the gameplay. But a pop-up-like window for the town screen does discourage me.

Overall, I like the way it looks and some of the new rules they are explaining seem awesome, but I'll wait to play it myself to make any judgments.

[Aerosoldier]

Well i bought my ps3 so i guess Heroes 6 is dead for me...

[Yurian Stonebow]

Question: Are you really hyped?

Answer: No, not really. Should I be?

[Avonu]

Answer: No, not really. Should I be?

Marketing dept.: Yes, you should. If you are not, then maybe we put not enough Michael's pictures?

[ThunderTitan]

I do love it when people let you know where they stand from their 1st sentence.

Selective illiteracy FTW.

Nope, read the entire thing and pretty much confirmed my expectations from reading that first line...

Or are you still mad because I don't hate Dungeon?

Nah, my arguments against it are very different from what you where arguing about and would not be countered by any inaccuracies the armour Haven uses has.

[ledger]

H3, being the awesomeness it was, has/had a myriad of gameplay problems that seem to be addressed in H6.

The resource system was bad. The skill system was bland and random. The game was basically just using windmill heroes to flag nodes while massing up the main army and leveling that main hero up. No real strategy outside combat existed. The game had a good bunch of units, but most of them ended up being uninteresting meat shields. The spell schools had imbalance in them, spells like Dispel and Cure should've not been implemented. For multiplayer's sake.

H6 looks extremely promising.

The resource system being simplified means that maps can be finally designed with important locations / choke points that reward you and the opponent the same way, no matter what faction you play, creating a solid ground for strategies to rise. The external creature dwellings not forcing you to revisit them weekly also reinforce that point.

This all also help a TON in multiplayer, where you had to wait for multitude of players to run around with windmill heroes flagging nodes. Turn times should scale down well. I only hope they remove the skiller nodes from the game, so your secondary heroes don't have to do so much meaningless runaround.

The non random skill system means that you can allocate certain unit types to certain heroes, and customize them to properly support them. Should make the game ultimately more replayable and enjoyable, and reduce the "big army syndrome" that was so apparent in the earlier games.

The spells being learned as abilities instead of from a guild also remove RNGness of it all. It was ultimately annoying to go for expert fire when you didn't get Frenzy the whole game.

Also, in H3 multiplayer you had a lot of cheap, easytoget spells like Blind, Cure, Dispel, Haste, and the likes that sort of nullified the speciality for magic focused heroes. Got the initiative to throw in Mass Slow the first round? No problem, I got my stack of Blackies to get initiative the second after just to nullify that whole spell with mass haste, mass dispel, mass cure, or anything.

In H6, having to choose either/or gives you less of this flexibility, and spell schools should become more meaningful. If you spec for fire school, you're not likely to be able to counter spells so easily, so customization matters more.

H3 had a ton of units that seemed meaningless. H6 seems to have less units that seem more specialized. It's great if they find a way to make these fewer units behave differently depending on what the speciality of their host hero is. Even if it's just a subtle difference.

I also think that a when it comes to creature design, a stack of blackies costing 5000 should be theoretically as strong as a stack of skellies costing the same amount. The advantages between these units should be more towards the timings you get them, much like the system in SC2 is. F.ex. Rushing for a Blackie in early game costs you a ton of resources, but allows you to manage fights with fewer losses, and vice versa. Also, hero speciality should also have a huge impact on these timings.

Also in H3, ranged units were extremely powerful in the early game. It's good to see the devs condition that advantage slightly. Also the slow units not slowing down heroes is a great move.

I think it's fair to say I'm getting extremely hyped up for this one. The amount of thought I see the devs are putting into this game is refreshing.

[Qurqirish Dragon]

H3, being the awesomeness it was, has/had a myriad of gameplay problems that seem to be addressed in H6.

The resource system was bad.

Playing a bit of Devil's advocate here:
How was it bad? you may not like it, but that doesn't make it bad.

The skill system was bland and random. The game was basically just using windmill heroes to flag nodes while massing up the main army and leveling that main hero up.

The skill system was not what I would call bland. If you mean that you always needed to go for particular skills, then you have no basis to show that H6 will be any different. Just because the system is different doesn't mean it is any better (or worse).

No real strategy outside combat existed.

Actually, combat was tactics. Strategy was the buildup. This was often effected by the map itself, and which resources you had access to.

The game had a good bunch of units, but most of them ended up being uninteresting meat shields.

Please elaborate. Not every unit had a special ability, but just because something doesn't have a unique ability doesn't make it useless.

The spell schools had imbalance in them, spells like Dispel and Cure should've not been implemented. For multiplayer's sake.

Again, as with the skill system, what makes you think there won't be problems in the H6 skill system? The only big problem with the H3 system was making the mass spells too easy to get/cheap to cast. H5 already fixed that.

H6 looks extremely promising.

The resource system being simplified means that maps can be finally designed with important locations / choke points that reward you and the opponent the same way, no matter what faction you play, creating a solid ground for strategies to rise. The external creature dwellings not forcing you to revisit them weekly also reinforce that point.

This could also have been fixed with proper mapmaking. Also, since when are resources the only thing to go after? It sounds like the same thing as you criticized above, only instead of a "windmill" hero, you now have one patrol the control points, but this is still until the main force is strong enough to crush the enemy.

This all also help a TON in multiplayer, where you had to wait for multitude of players to run around with windmill heroes flagging nodes. Turn times should scale down well. I only hope they remove the skiller nodes from the game, so your secondary heroes don't have to do so much meaningless runaround.

This is the first point I can definitely say you are wrong about. In multiplayer, 99% of the wait time was for COMBAT, not patrolling heroes. I never had a turn that, outside of battle, took more than 2 or 3 minutes. A single battle would usually be that long or longer.

The non random skill system means that you can allocate certain unit types to certain heroes, and customize them to properly support them. Should make the game ultimately more replayable and enjoyable, and reduce the "big army syndrome" that was so apparent in the earlier games.

Non-random skills also means that unless the design is VERY good, there is likely to be one specific build for a main-army hero. If the skills are at all imbalanced, then all heroes will be the same. Think of the problems with the "combat" skill in H4, where any hero without it was unlikely to be able to succeed.
Also, the randomness of skills was never purely random, but rather weighted based on the hero class/faction. Again, removing all of this leads to cookie-cutter heroes. Now, racial and town abilities MAY mitigate this a bit, but it is a big danger.

The spells being learned as abilities instead of from a guild also remove RNGness of it all. It was ultimately annoying to go for expert fire when you didn't get Frenzy the whole game.

This I agree with, to an extent, but having a way to research specific spells would also have been a fix. This also means that if there is any spell imbalance, again all heroes will have to get it. If some classes can't get the skill, then the entire class, or even the whole faction, may be useless. Some randomness is not a bad thing; you need to balance it, that's all.

Also, in H3 multiplayer you had a lot of cheap, easytoget spells like Blind, Cure, Dispel, Haste, and the likes that sort of nullified the speciality for magic focused heroes. Got the initiative to throw in Mass Slow the first round? No problem, I got my stack of Blackies to get initiative the second after just to nullify that whole spell with mass haste, mass dispel, mass cure, or anything.

See above for my comments about spells. Bu to add:
Each HoMM game changed the magic system:
H1: spell memorization
H2: change to mana system
H3: spell schools / masteries
H4: spells tied to factions
H5: Advanced spells needed specific abilities, not just skills
H6: Spells no longer in towns. (I assume this; If they are in towns AND in skills, you get the same problem you were complaining about above- if you are lucky, you don't have to invest skill points in a spell)

In H6, having to choose either/or gives you less of this flexibility, and spell schools should become more meaningful. If you spec for fire school, you're not likely to be able to counter spells so easily, so customization matters more.

This is the first time I've heard of less flexibility in hero development being a good thing. In many systems, specialists and generalists both have advantages. You seem to imply that a generalist should be weaker to the point of not being playable.

H3 had a ton of units that seemed meaningless. H6 seems to have less units that seem more specialized. It's great if they find a way to make these fewer units behave differently depending on what the speciality of their host hero is. Even if it's just a subtle difference.

Most units had special abilities in H5 as well. This is nothing new. Again, each HoMM game has increased the distinctiveness of the units from each-other

I also think that a when it comes to creature design, a stack of blackies costing 5000 should be theoretically as strong as a stack of skellies costing the same amount.

This would make getting the "stronger" units less important. While the lower level units should not be made useless later on (as happened in H4), there should be definite advantages for the higher level troops.

The advantages between these units should be more towards the timings you get them, much like the system in SC2 is. F.ex. Rushing for a Blackie in early game costs you a ton of resources, but allows you to manage fights with fewer losses, and vice versa. Also, hero speciality should also have a huge impact on these timings.

Fewer losses, but each individual loss is a much bigger blow. Also, since economics and resources available generally dictate when you develop a unit rather than personal taste, this is likely a moon point. The only choice of this nature I can think of off-hand was in H3 when in the stronghold you could choose to go for cyclopes or behemoths. Most other towns in all HoMM games have been quite linear. You may be able to skip one build, but generally you had to build units in order.

Also in H3, ranged units were extremely powerful in the early game. It's good to see the devs condition that advantage slightly. Also the slow units not slowing down heroes is a great move.

With small forces, ranged units SHOULD have the advantage. And they were generally frailer as well to offset this advantage. Removing speed penalties for slower troops also removes a lot of the strategy. Yes, those hydra are very strong, but you can't move as quickly with them- this made an important strategic decision to take them or leave them behind. Even if the difference is only 1 tile per day, it would still be a decision to make.

I think it's fair to say I'm getting extremely hyped up for this one. The amount of thought I see the devs are putting into this game is refreshing.

Conceptually, I agree with this, but we haven't seen many details. Great ideas do not necessarily come to fruition in the end.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know this whole response of mine is anti-H6, but I do have some optimism as well. As I said at first, a lot of this was playing Devil's advocate. If you came out trashing H6, I would have tried to find similar flaws to what you mention in the earlier game(s) you preferred.

The new tier system for units, if they implement synergism between core/elite/champion units (as in Clash of Heroes), this could greatly enhance the combat system. The skill system, IF PROPERLY BALANCED, can be great, but I have seen too many other games try this and fail.

[ledger]

Playing a bit of Devil's advocate here:
How was it bad? you may not like it, but that doesn't make it bad.

It's bad because of how much it complicates map design for multiplayer. If you have a static map where f.ex. mercury is found at very active/contested areas, you will end up having a disadvantage with a faction that needs it, compared to a faction that ignores it. And another faction might get his preferred nodes from his backyard in that same map, way out of harms way, and from easily defendable/reinforced locations.

The skill system was not what I would call bland. If you mean that you always needed to go for particular skills, then you have no basis to show that H6 will be any different. Just because the system is different doesn't mean it is any better (or worse).

The problem with this is that it never was skill vs. skill. But rather a synergy of skills vs a synergy of skills in a finite skill slot design. An inferno player might want to get expert fire for Frenzy only if he has morale and luck skills and might focused hero. The synergy between those is amazing. On the other hand, a defensive spellcasting hero would like to max on mana pool, expert earth, defence and resistances to get as durable units as possible while doing offensive casting.

When skills are thrown at you at random, all this vanishes into a gameplay of prioritization. When you can't affect the end synergy with precision, you have to prioritize skill over another. "Is wisdom better than defence?" "Is logistics better than pathfinding?". This leads to the point below:

Non-random skills also means that unless the design is VERY good, there is likely to be one specific build for a main-army hero. If the skills are at all imbalanced, then all heroes will be the same. Think of the problems with the "combat" skill in H4, where any hero without it was unlikely to be able to succeed.

In single player, once you complete a certain campaign or map in the most efficient way, you want to replay that with more challenge, more specialized and different heroes the second time around. The challenge shifts from "how do I complete this map/campaign" to "how do I solve this problem with my specialization and it's restrictions".

In multiplayer, optimal strategies rise and fall. It's just metagame. People eventually figure out the timings and weaknesses of that initial "optimal" strategy, given enough attempts against it and that new strategy becomes the new "optimal" strategy. Metagame keeps shifting around and around. Games like Starcraft have seen this happen for decades. If the skills themselves are good enough and the game is balanced enough, this will be our only problem.

Randomness, on the other hand, give you no control over the outcome. You end up compromising and compromising and then blaming the RNG for your loss. I know the randomness of the H3 system is less drastic than what I want to make it sound, but when playing multiplayer, you can't load from an autosave just to try again for better odds, and that little randomness can cost you a very tight game.

Actually, combat was tactics. Strategy was the buildup. This was often effected by the map itself, and which resources you had access to.

Yeah, I've no argument with how it was. I'm just proposing that there could be more generalized map-specific goals for all races, so that the map imbalance could be less drastic. What comes to strategy, a magic user would most likely to use durable slow units than fast offensive ones. And might heroes it could be the other way around. So the game would reward splitting forces to various heroes rather than having one centralized army with some waste heroes on the side. A good example is the Centaur vs. Dwarf in H3 ramparts, or Zombie vs. Skelly, or Wight vs. Vampire at higher tiers.

Again, as with the skill system, what makes you think there won't be problems in the H6 skill system? The only big problem with the H3 system was making the mass spells too easy to get/cheap to cast. H5 already fixed that.

There will be imbalance initially, that's for sure. But the system generally seems to have better ground rules. The 1-3 level spells were too strong in my opinion for multiplayer in H3, and favoured "generalists" too much. There was no way to know what spells your opponent aquired from his mage guilds before your hero was too far specialized in. I think the only magic spell that should be accessible for all heroes is something like the Magic Arrow. Rest of the bunch should be only accessible for the mages specialized in that school. I can only hope this will be the case in H6. And the early information seems points that way.

This is the first point I can definitely say you are wrong about. In multiplayer, 99% of the wait time was for COMBAT, not patrolling heroes. I never had a turn that, outside of battle, took more than 2 or 3 minutes. A single battle would usually be that long or longer.

True, but every little bit counts. I really want to see this game to succeed in multiplayer after it's previous shortcomings. I don't mind combat taking it's time, it's the way it has to be for a turn based strategy game. But if any time can be cut elsewhere, that's what I'd do.

In many systems, specialists and generalists both have advantages. You seem to imply that a generalist should be weaker to the point of not being playable.

I don't like the idea of generalists at all. They typically end up being too powerful or too weak. I guess it's just me, but I find, especially in HoMM series that heroes should always be specialized, so that all units can have their role, and so that there are clear advantages and disadvantages for each path.

Most units had special abilities in H5 as well. This is nothing new. Again, each HoMM game has increased the distinctiveness of the units from each-other

I loved H5, even though it had it's problems with it's engine. Most of what I tried to challenge with my post is this "golden age" mentality I've seen on the boards saying "it'll be nothing like H3, and thus bad".

But to the point: It's not only about the special abilities, but how they play with certain heroes. F.ex. the biggest thing about Blackies in H3 I found was their speed given early initiative that couldn't be too well harmed with spells (mass slows or mass hastes), so they essentially ended up being a safetynet for caster heroes, so that they get their spells out slightly sooner. It fit amazingly well for that faction, since they had extremely potent spellcasters. Outside blackies, there were a ton of units that didn't have almost any real role outside their meatshieldiness and average damage. I'm hoping that the less unit types they make, the more meaningful units they can come up with.

Yes, those hydra are very strong, but you can't move as quickly with them- this made an important strategic decision to take them or leave them behind. Even if the difference is only 1 tile per day, it would still be a decision to make.

Yeah, but it wasn't this gracious as the map design was what it was. F.ex. in Warlords, most of the map was grass, native to Ramparts heroes, and you could pick up Kyrre for logistics bonus and Centaur Captain -only army in the early game and get pretty ridiculous early speed compared to something like what necros get with their unupgraded skellies and zombies.

I never saw any fairness in it. I hope the only thing that influences movement speed on map in H6 is logistics, and I wouldn't mind seeing that gone too.

Conceptually, I agree with this, but we haven't seen many details. Great ideas do not necessarily come to fruition in the end.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know this whole response of mine is anti-H6, but I do have some optimism as well. As I said at first, a lot of this was playing Devil's advocate. If you came out trashing H6, I would have tried to find similar flaws to what you mention in the earlier game(s) you preferred.

The new tier system for units, if they implement synergism between core/elite/champion units (as in Clash of Heroes), this could greatly enhance the combat system. The skill system, IF PROPERLY BALANCED, can be great, but I have seen too many other games try this and fail.

Deffo! We can only hope they will. But everything I've loved about the previous Heroes series seems to be preserved in the new one, and all the things I hated seem to be fading away. So I'm surely gonna support this dev group and be as vocal as possible with ideas/fixes to make sure they know I/we care.

[Caradoc]

Count me in. I've been hooked since the original King's Bounty and have been suffering from deep depression through Heroes V. From what I see so far, the game is in good hands. Now where can I find out more about the editor? I miss map making the most.

[ThunderTitan]

It's bad because of how much it complicates map design for multiplayer.

I really hate that argument... as a player i shouldn't care how hard it is to make a map right, so taking away stuff i enjoy to make it easier is very bad.

[BloodFuryFan]

Not yet...I'll wait for more information.

[Banedon]

I'm beginning to get a little (just a little) hyped about Heroes 6. The music definitely sounds nice and the graphics look fine, but beyond that the game seems deeply traditional and without real innovation. It would just be a touched-up Heroes 5 with new graphics and new units.

I can see myself getting mildly interested in this game, but not much more. Still, I look forward to playing it, with the occasional MP game the definite highlights to come.

[ChimTheGrim]

To ledger:
You can't just expect to build up a main army and attack and that's it. If you know how to play the game in most cases splitting your army on a bigger map makes for an optimal strategy--which adds a ton of depth to the game and the choices that will be made.
It sounds like Ledger just doesn't know how a "strategy" game is played.

To others about heroes V:
Heroes V would've been a great game if it didn't have bugs and glitchy gameplay. If it would've ran smoothly, then it would've been great which is why I am waiting to make any judgement on Heores VI.

[Mirez]

I'm beginning to get a little (just a little) hyped about Heroes 6. The music definitely sounds nice and the graphics look fine, but beyond that the game seems deeply traditional and without real innovation. It would just be a touched-up Heroes 5 with new graphics and new units.

I can see myself getting mildly interested in this game, but not much more. Still, I look forward to playing it, with the occasional MP game the definite highlights to come.

redesigning the hero skills, resources and magic aren't innovative? Not to mention there's only 3 tiers now and a completely new race...