Single player skirmish maps are not worth playing

[ywhtptgtfo]

I finally tried one today with aggressive A.I. turned on and hard settings. All the A.I. did was to turtle and leave around unclaimed resource piles. A few A.I. even had paralyzed heroes that don't move at all.

Somehow, the A.I. seems to have regressed since the demo, which is weird. I wouldn't recommend anyone playing single player skirmish maps until the A.I. is fixed.

Oh, and by the way, it seems that creature growth calculations are extremely buggy and that stretches beyond the special weeks. I literally saw growth numbers changing day to day when I simply click end-turn to test it.

I'd say this game is released at a much more sorry state than Heroes 5.

[mr.hackcrag]

Lol, it's been over ten years since an excellent HoMM game was made, and still I wait... Man I'm old.

[ywhtptgtfo]

Heroes 5 is not that bad even though it has a dumb A.I. that takes forever to load and a number of balancing issues.

I mean, when I play Heroes 5, I actually do look forward to building units and leveling up. I also do feel threatened by the A.I. from time to time.

In Heroes 6, the A.I.'s are sitting ducks and leveling up has very little reward. When I picked Implosion/Puppet Master/Chain Lightning from the skill tree, I was like "meh" and then when I picked up Expert Dark/Summoning/Destructive Magic, I was like "LOLOLOLOLOL DIE B1TCHES!".

Same story with getting units in Heroes 5 vs. Heroes 6. I was excited about building Matriarchs (because they look hot and deadly) but I was not that excited about building Glories because... well... core units are usually the deadliest units in the game (barring liches and centaurs).

[Toejam]

It's not only single player skirmish, hot seat multiplayer is just boring as hell...

After playing it for some time now it's getting more and more clear to me that the Heroes game we used to know is totally gone now, even 5 was great compared to this, the only thing we seem to be doing is taking towns and forts, nothing else, just town portal from town to town and when you attack an enemy he just flees, and thanks to the easy acces for town portal it's like playing mulitplayer battles with wizzards only, ALL the time..., there is no strategy involved at all anymore, everything is predictable, buildings for diff races are pretty much all the same (for easy converthing ofcourse) and therefore boring beyond believe.

It's a real shame but after all these years they finally managed to make me not like a Heroes game and that's a real achievement because i simply loved it from the start till 5 (even 4 i liked )

[Edwardas 3]

I also like 3-4 ,but HoMM 5 was not so bad ,beisdes long AI turn.
This one skirmishes are boring .

[ywhtptgtfo]

Even Marzhin stopped posting. This game has to be pretty bad. :/

[Edwardas 3]

skiirmish replay value is the law for a strategy game ,if its low-game sux

[Mozared]

skiirmish replay value is the law for a strategy game ,if its low-game sux

Not really. It's all relative. To me, Heroes was always about the storyline and the campaigns. If the story is original and entertaining, then hot seat and skirmish is all nice but not what you play the game for. This is especially true for turn-based strategy; modern day gamers can't handle the turn principle and most people grab a real-time game instead. Because of this, to keep turn-based going, creators of TBS have to cater to a niche audience that prefers a bit slower gameplay. These are generally also the people who care more about a game's story than whether it looks cool, has a fast pace and allows you to blow stuff up.

[Metathron]

While campaigns are one of my favourite things in Heroes games, and I will replay them several times if they are really enjoyable (H2, H4), there's only so much time you can spend on the same (scripted) campaign over and over again, so I do think having a sharp, competitive multiplayer/singleplayer component is absolutely vital for a game's longevity, as is a powerful but user-friendly map editor.

I haven't played any of the single-player maps yet, only the campaigns, so I'm hoping that things are not quite as gloomy as described here. And if they are, I hope they address these (and many other) issues soon.

[Mozared]

While campaigns are one of my favourite things in Heroes games, and I will replay them several times if they are really enjoyable (H2, H4), there's only so much time you can spend on the same (scripted) campaign over and over again, so I do think having a sharp, competitive multiplayer/singleplayer component is absolutely vital for a game's longevity, as is a powerful but user-friendly map editor.

Sure, but a game doesn't have to last long to be good? I go to movies that last 1,5 hour and then never bother with them again. Which is kind of my point to begin with - don't make the mistake of judging a game not made for skirmish/hot seat/multiplayer on those points. It'd be the same as saying that Mass Effect's multiplayer is terrible and it is therefore a terrible game.

That's not to say longevity is a bad thing, though.

[Dalai]

don't make the mistake of judging a game not made for skirmish/hot seat/multiplayer on those points.

I'm sure that you are right - this game is definitely not made for skirmish/hot seat/multiplayer. But I am also sure that many fans did expect it to be made for skirmish/hot seat/multiplayer. Failed expectations usually do not improve longevity.

[Metathron]

Which is kind of my point to begin with - don't make the mistake of judging a game not made for skirmish/hot seat/multiplayer on those points. .

I do think this game has to last long to be "good" in the long run, meaning that it has to provide enough diversity and challenge, at least against the AI, to keep you entertained for a long time. I believe many HoMM players would agree.

I think the long-term charm of HoMM has always been more about single-player maps (whether against the AI or another player; skirmish or story driven), not campaigns, because of their rather limited replayability. If the games consisted of campaigns only, they would not be as memorable to me as they are now. I don't think a point and click adventure game that you complete once or twice is "bad" because it doesn't last long, but that's all there is to it, and there's more to HoMM than the campaigns and that's why I expect more from it.

this game is definitely not made for skirmish/hot seat/multiplayer.

What do you mean by that? That it wasn't intended for those things or that it failed to achieve them?

[Dalai]

What do you mean by that? That it wasn't intended for those things or that it failed to achieve them?

Second. They (unintentionally?) did all they could to decrease strategic variety - not something multiplayer gamers really want.

[ywhtptgtfo]

What do you mean by that? That it wasn't intended for those things or that it failed to achieve them?

Second. They (unintentionally?) did all they could to decrease strategic variety - not something multiplayer gamers really want.

While I admire their attempt to reduce stochastic, they have not sufficiently compensated the loss in complexity with a more complicated deterministic design.

I remember Heroes 4 also made luck and morale more predictable and my memory tells me that the Heroes 4 approach at least works pretty well...

[Mozared]

What do you mean by that? That it wasn't intended for those things or that it failed to achieve them?

Second. They (unintentionally?) did all they could to decrease strategic variety - not something multiplayer gamers really want.

I wouldn't even want to say that. I'd view it more as a "the game's selling point, what you're paying money for, is the campaign - they just put the option to skirmish and multiplayer in there". In a similar fashion to how StarCraft II's selling point was the multiplayer, but that they simply 'put an awesome campaign/story in there'.

[Edwardas 3]

skiirmish replay value is the law for a strategy game ,if its low-game sux

Not really. It's all relative. To me, Heroes was always about the storyline and the campaigns. If the story is original and entertaining, then hot seat and skirmish is all nice but not what you play the game for.

All in all HoMM are series ,which mostly played for skirmishes and multipayer .
The question is - HoMM 5,had interesting campaign ,but skirmish AI-slow routine ,it could deal with their problems ,in patches and expansions. HoMM 6 can rid off bugs only ,but can't add the complexity

[ywhtptgtfo]

What do you mean by that? That it wasn't intended for those things or that it failed to achieve them?

Second. They (unintentionally?) did all they could to decrease strategic variety - not something multiplayer gamers really want.

I wouldn't even want to say that. I'd view it more as a "the game's selling point, what you're paying money for, is the campaign - they just put the option to skirmish and multiplayer in there". In a similar fashion to how StarCraft II's selling point was the multiplayer, but that they simply 'put an awesome campaign/story in there'.

I agree that Heroes 6's selling point is the story as one can see from the advertisements. While the concept is more original than Heroes 5's, the execution is quite bad... unfortunately. Even if one plays the campaign maps in sequence, there are a lot of wtf moments.

[Mozared]

I agree that Heroes 6's selling point is the story as one can see from the advertisements. While the concept is more original than Heroes 5's, the execution is quite bad... unfortunately. Even if one plays the campaign maps in sequence, there are a lot of wtf moments.

'Bad' depends on your benchmarks, though. I for one really enjoyed the story of Heroes 3. Heroes 6's way of storytelling is very similar to that, with added graphics and some cutscenes (however lame some of those might be). Most of Heroes 6's story is told through in-game events and conversation pop-ups, just like it was in Heroes 3. It's mostly reading.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't expect improved storytelling now that we have improved technology (since when Heroes 3 was made), but it does sometimes get a bit tiring when people complain the story of the latest Heroes games suck because of bad cutscenes when we were perfectly happy when we had to do with simple windows with text.

[Khelavaster]

After playing it for some time now it's getting more and more clear to me that the Heroes game we used to know is totally gone now

And this, in a nutshell, is what explains M&M Heroes 6 (not HOMM6, mind you, and at least I appreciate the sincerity in the name change).

Basically the series has moved into Etherlords/King's Bounty territory. My favorite entries in the HOMM series (I-III) had nearly infinite replay value thanks to the generous helping of skirmish battles included, which I've played single or co-op with friends for years. The very enjoyable campaigns were little more than strings of solid & challenging scenarios wrapped in a light fantasy story to make them more appealing.

HOMMV started the trend of decidedly shifting the weight towards the story, cinematics and scripting side, relegating the AI to a low priority concern (I'm not counting the broken disaster that was the AI in HOMMIV). M&MH6 is a step deeper in that direction. I can enjoy the trite fantasy story and pretty graphics as much as anyone, but if there's no brain to be found when you get past the glitz it all becomes a pretty pointless exercise.

Coupling this with the dumbif... er, streamlining of the game mechanics, the myriad of bugs ("sorry, all our resources were occupied in developing the story of how Count Generic stood up against Duke Evil in the mystical land of Whocares, but hey - have you noticed the pretty graphics?") and a computer player that apparently has given up on trying to play its own game and has settled for just rushing and levelling up basically for free with armies created out of thin air, it is clear to me that the target audience has changed. The game has moved away from its strategy roots to favor the on-rails story-driven experience.

It's not only single player skirmish, hot seat multiplayer is just boring as hell...

Good thing you can at least vent here - Ubi has banned all "boring" posts from their forums: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/ ... 3631093859

[Dalai]

I remember Heroes 4 also made luck and morale more predictable and my memory tells me that the Heroes 4 approach at least works pretty well...

It was plain simple - your luck and morale were between -10 and +10. Every point equals 10% of a chance. If you had -5 morale - it meant that every turn this hero or stack has exactly 50% of bad (low) morale (last to move, first after wait). If you had +10 luck - it meant that every single hit was lucky (more damage).

I wouldn't even want to say that. I'd view it more as a "the game's selling point, what you're paying money for, is the campaign - they just put the option to skirmish and multiplayer in there". In a similar fashion to how StarCraft II's selling point was the multiplayer, but that they simply 'put an awesome campaign/story in there'.

I would agree if you talked about some completely unsuspecting customer who has no idea what to expect. He takes the DVD and reads description, and there multiplayer and skirmish are nice additional options. But for many (most?) fans it's very different (check message above this one). I know A LOT of people who do not care even to start a campaign. All those level caps, linear plots, limited possibilities in campaigns are frustrating for them.

Although I personally usually play campaigns, they are like 10% of the game for me.