HoMM is disappointing

[Banedon]

This has nothing to do with HoMM 6 in particular - the same could apply to any HoMM.

The problem is there's nothing to do. How can there be nothing to do? Well you can only play single-player (SP) or multi-player (MP) games. SP games themselves can be divided into campaign and skirmish vs. computer games.

Now the root of the problem comes because SP games are dull. Campaign games are usually repetitive. You repeat the same creeping tactics against neutral mobs again and again and again, each time aiming for (and usually achieving) zero casualties. Then you run into the enemy, who comes at you with a big mob of monsters. Beat that, and you win the map. Or, if the map is more annoying than others, after you beat that you have to go on to defeat similarly large, similarly composed armies, one after another. The "challenges" simply repeat themselves one after another.

After that you have skirmishes, which are similar to campaigns but even worse off. With campaigns you at least have an unfolding storyline to pay attention to. In skirmishes you don't. Instead you fight a single big battle vs. an AI force, and win the game afterwards. The AI tends to be easily rolled over. That's in no way a fault of the developers, because it's really difficult to get AI to play as well as a human. Nonetheless, there's no challenge at all. Any "challenge" comes from the completely artificial problem of cheating AI, zero starting resources, huge neutral armies, etc.

Finally there's MP. The playing field is generally level there, and you get enjoyable games. The big problem though is it simply takes so long to play a game. Hours of time must go by before something happens you could not already do in SP. Sure, there are games in which something serious happens in the second week, but far more games last twice as long as that or even more. Finding an opponent who can invest this much time - as well as investing this much time yourself - is difficult.

Which basically leaves super-short skirmish MP duels, such as Random Tactical Arena from H5. All well and good, but such games feel cheap. There doesn't tend to be much variety (at most, a few different strategies with different factions), and they're rather simple.

The upshot is even though I'm part of the beta for H6, I've barely started the game up after the first week. There's nothing to do. Somewhere into playing the campaigns I got mad that the AI could conjure big armies out of nothing. What's worse, they're all the same armies of Crossbowmen + Squires (in H5 terms), yet I had to play each battle carefully to avoid losing an inordinate amount of units. The AI tried to play in the most annoying fashion, going after towns I didn't defend (couldn't, since their armies were so big) while avoiding my hero like wildfire. Eventually the armies got so annoying I simply parked my main hero in the town and waited three weeks, when even autocombat was giving me simple wins, and I ended the map. Extremely tedious. It isn't the fault of the AI for trying to win to be fair - it's something that seems fundamental to the game. I haven't gotten to playing the skirmish games because there just doesn't seem to be a point.

Opinions?

[Kristo]

It sounds to me like you've gotten so good at this game that it's become boring. If you're not having fun anymore, then by all means go play something else. But since this is a discussion, I'm compelled to ask: what could be changed to make Heroes games un-boring?

[Banedon]

Don't say that. I'm sure there are plenty of players out there as good as or better than me.

What's really worrying about this issue is that I've already become bored of HoMM 6 and it's not even released yet! The problems remind me somewhat of Galactic Civilizations actually. GalCiv is this 4x game where you do something similar to HoMM, except you have research trees and trade routes etc, making it a lot more complex. But at some point the game also becomes boring. You can roll straight over the AI (which is really good, as all the reviews can attest) and that's just it. Game over. At least in the campaigns once you build up a firm advantage you can group your units together and simply attack-move your way to victory, and your opponents have no room to be annoying.

As for what can be done about it, I don't know. It seems to be a fundamental problem. I suppose the only real thing that can be done is to make the AI so good it plays like a human player (or plays good enough to consistently give a good human player a challenge e.g. Street Fighter), but that's really difficult to do isn't it? Or maybe make autocombat somehow reliant on your previous combat results, so if someone wins several difficult battles then his autocombat results improve as well, I don't know.

[Dalai]

Long turns is a real problem in MP. Stupid AI - in SP. Single great battle to win is a little disappointment too.

Back in H3 time we fought MP games where we actually managed to have several pivotal fights, after which losing opponent managed to get back on his feet, survive the siege, get reinforcement and mount an offensive. I can not grasp the main reason which made it possible. It was there and it made a game real fun to play.

[mr.hackcrag]

Banedon, you captured my feelings about homm so well. There just came a day where I finally decided to uninstall all the homm games from my computer. H3, even with WoG just wasn't as satisfying as it used to be.

I remeber having my first feeling that homm was dead for me during H5. This is not an H5 bash post! Maybe the game's shift to 3d changed the feeling of the series or maybe I'm just less patient with games now that I'm an old man.

I haven't played H6, but it looks like it will be a lot better than H5. Nonetheless, I just don't feel like playing it. Weird.

[Pitsu]

I would not agree that it really applies to the first games in HoMM series.

In story maps (campaigns by your classification) fun very much depends on how the story is presented. Not much to discuss about it unless we specify the map.

Both in PvsAI and PvP maps your main objective should be to defeat the opponent. To do so, you need to be good at locating strategically important places (adventure) and gaining control over them (creeping). Creeps are there to offer a challenge for players skills and give a choice between casualties and guarded treasure. Creeps that can be taken without casualties and offer no challenge should not fight (run away) as this battle would be a waste of time. The newer versions of HoMM have greatly improved the “tactical depth” of battles. Simple flyers-ranged-melee units on tiny battlefield it has grow to a mess of creature specials, tactics phase etc. While it is great for PvP battles, they affect also PvE battles by making them last longer. Be the reason excessive healing, slow gating or sprite vs zombie style exploits. To my experience the MP turns in HoMM2 take much less time than HoMM5, and not thanks to having less battle or lower graphic resolution. Just one is a strategy game where individual (PvE) battles are relatively straightforward and you have to be at right location at right time, other is a game where hero build and your tactic skills are the most important.

To make MP turns faster: make every creep that cannot cause casualties to run and speed the (PvE) battles up as much as possible.

To make creeping more fun: Mixed armies, with odd combinations if necessary. Battlefields or spell/specialty mechanics more unique, so that certain tactics cannot be used over and over again in every battle. If there is no fear for casualties there is no fun in fighting as simple as that.

PS. i was sober when i wrote this

[ThunderTitan]

Well look who finally realised repetition breed contempt...


All games are like that, once you master them there's nothing new to do... that's why i always switch between multiple games all of the time...

[intipacha]

the thing that keeps me with heroes is Idan's random map generator, and a good balanced template i've made along with a few friends of mine.
it really offers a balanced, fair and pretty fast games (tiny map), so that we can discover the deep aspects of very complex tactics you can discover, since h5 is so rich and complex in terms of possibilites.

it seems to me your main problem is that you can't find players for MP.
well, that's tough. but it's life.

[jeff]

Sadly you may have identified what is my main problem. H-IV vs the rest aside, my problem was H-V was it was too similar to H-III in its method of play and I loved H-III but had outgrown it. I am not saying there weren’t differences but not enough. Now even making maps for H-IV has lost its luster. My two campaigns totaled fourteen maps and that doesn’t take into consideration 5 of the maps in the second campaign played differently depending on the first maps choices. The problem is how many ways can a player be asked to do quests to accomplish events without being overly repetitive. I strived to minimize repetition, but sadly I’ve run out of ideas. This has led me to abandon my last project (at least for now) even with it over half done.

You have identified the problem UBI should be addressing. Strike off in a new direction, H-IV was an attempt at a new method of play. Whether you liked it or not is not the point here, the point was it was different. UBI could have been bold and continued with modification but chose to select what they felt was a safer course. Consequently I bored quickly with H-V and its editor was completely unusable (at least for me). It sounds as H-VI is too similar to H – V and this would bore me quickly again. Add the fact UBI has been completely silent of the campaign editor’s future; leaves me on the sidelines but I really do what to play.

[ThunderTitan]

Besides the hero abuse H4 wasn't that different...

[Pol]

@Banedon
To create AI takes about full 8 years of developing cycle. The games are pushed out in 2 year cycle or even shorter.

So, it's possible. For some longer time but it doesn't seem to be likely.

I wanted AI libraries, as a plugins for H3 WoG. And it wasn't impossible - just out of time. Now, fe for H5, perhaps try to follow Quantomas.

The concepts to create a fun game are still here. Always been. They're all in our minds.

[wimfrits]

Good points Banedon. I usually only play the first 2 to 4 weeks of a map because after that, the game is decided and the rest is repetitive. My guess is that your too good a player like Kristo said.

Things that can hook me are an entertaining story and maps with sufficient variation in combat challenges. And ofcourse hotseat with my brother. Or maybe that's just the beer..

[Dalai]

@Banedon
To create AI takes about full 8 years of developing cycle.

How can you be so precise? Why not 7 or 9? Why so long at all?

Pitsu
Columbus
Posts: 1492

That's sweet

And yes, I agree with your post.

[Pol]

@Banedon
To create AI takes about full 8 years of developing cycle.

How can you be so precise? Why not 7 or 9? Why so long at all?

Tweaking. And yes, it's an estimation only. Based on some other games but I dare say it's exact.

The AI copies part of human thinking, that's also to add years. It's not easy but it can be done, see the chess & IBM Deep Blue. However, chess are cheesy simple compared to MM.
Also you need people, who can do that - they are rare. You will get heap of art designers, programmers, scenario writers but got one who can lead the team of AI builders?

There are more rules to create good AI, of course. - Like the state of the game.

[jeff]

Besides the hero abuse H4 wasn't that different...

Sorry I don't get that statement at all, I don't read minds. I was referring to the fact the hero was on the battlefield allowing more of an RPG environment was a different feel than the games before it. The fact it was poorly executed due to lack of funds is a different argument.

[Banedon]

@Pitsu - there's already autocombat. Problem is more often than not autocombat gives you slightly unsatisfactory results. Losing 1 Crossbowman and 1 Squire per battle may not be much, but it quickly snowballs.

I do actually have people to play MP with, but at the rate we play it takes hours to finish a game and we don't have that much time to spare. I don't get how wimfrits gets through his Hotseat games without either player getting bored after 3-4 turns - it certainly happens to me. Repetition need not breed contempt as well; RTSes tend to be similar but that doesn't mean the next new RTS on the shelf isn't worth playing.

@jeff - striking off in a new direction is easy to say and all, but actually implementing it? Think about it. If I asked you to think of a HoMM game what would you imagine it to be? It's been the case in every HoMM game I've played that you clear neutrals, build up armies and then (after several weeks in-game time) fight your opponent. Its very premise assumes that you'll be playing SP for weeks and then finally play MP. What can you change? If you made tiny maps and everyone runs into everyone else after only a few turns, you would also cut out late-game units from the game.

That said, I do remember some enjoyable SP games in H3. I remember maps I enjoyed, i.e. Barbarian Breakout and Pestilence Lake. Barbarian Breakout was probably fun because of the immediate challenge you face and the fact that, after you survive that challenge, the game ends quickly. Pestilence Lake was somehow balanced that the AI's armies kept being challenging as your own armies grew, and they got more and more varied too. But I vaguely remember the game got boring too after I became strong enough to crush any AI army easily.

Potentially fun (and a lot less stressful - imagine playing a game for hours and then losing) are co-op games against the AI, as long as the game stays highly challenging. This is a mapmaking problem though, and there's still the "I-win-one-battle-I-win-the-game" problem to worry about.

I don't really know how to solve this problem, just posing it ...

[Pitsu]

@Pitsu - there's already autocombat. Problem is more often than not autocombat gives you slightly unsatisfactory results.

Exactly on the reason you posted quickcombat is only useful when map culmination is over and you need to do some final cleaning. To speed up MP, quickcombat either has to give so good results which even expert players cannot achieve or be forced. The latter would mean that there is an option to select which causes all PvE battles to be fought by quickcombat and not give you a possibility to play them manually. HoMM multiplayer would become more similar to Warlords game and tactical skills are needed only in PvP battles, but time consumption would drop significantly and all other parts beside PvE battles would still be there.

[mr.hackcrag]

Too many players use the "turtle until your super powerful" strategy and that can get boring.

When people play more of a rush style, the game can feel much different and is more fun.

[jeff]

@jeff - striking off in a new direction is easy to say and all, but actually implementing it? Think about it.

Let's face it, if it was easy then anyone could do it. H-IV was definitely different than H-I, II, III. I believe it was a refreshing change. It was released to soon and on and on. It really isn't for me to come up with it, they want my and your money it's up to them. They chose to use an older format for use in H-V and VI, granted the skill tree and blah blah blah is different but it doesn't work for me. That's ok I'm only one customer, if it works for must then I will wave on the sidelines as everyone else sails on and hope to rejoin you at some future date. Now if they give me a good campaign editor I may jump on board even though I may not like the actual gameplay.

[ThunderTitan]

Besides the hero abuse H4 wasn't that different...

Sorry I don't get that statement at all, I don't read minds. I was referring to the fact the hero was on the battlefield allowing more of an RPG environment was a different feel than the games before it.

The hero was just a very powerful extra creature... sure, it made it feel differently, but mechanic wise they didn't change the base game any more then no longer having unlimited extra Atk/Def or any of the other changes...

I mentioned the hero abuse because you could have an army of just a few high level heroes, and that was more different on account of the lack of stacks, but even so it's not as much of a departure from the heroes norm as some of the ideas people are talking about around the forum...