Skills and Abilities rant!

[OliverFA]

You COULD try the Hut with a secondary hero, could you?

Or they COULD have given you an OPTION on whether you WANTED the skill or not.

I mean, is the witch grabbing your hero by the neck and forcing the skill into his brain, is that's what's going on? Seems to me, as it says she teaches you the skill, it implies a voluntary action of getting taught.

Lol! You got it Just like your troops refuse to go and get the money from windmills but it's ok for them to do the same from mines

[The Frostraven]

Great, now we've got someone suggesting that there shouldn't even be a limit on Basic Skills? Why don't we just save time and give every hero Expert Level in every skill and every subability and their ultimate skill at level one? It would certainly cut down on the chances of not getting that vital skill you really want, and you wouldn't even need a skill chart.

Duh...

Yes, that was my point as well.

Skills are a fine way to make every hero more unique.

Say, what if there were more skills, and more advanced abilities instead..?

For instance;
If:
Basic Attack only work for melee, and the abilities granted by Attack were melee battle-oriented
Then we would have the skills Basic Berserk (skill replacement for Blood Frenzy) and Basic Archery freed up...
Each having their own six abilities, whereof 2 abilities which require the Advanced and 1 ability that require Expert skill level.
Or that could been 2 basic abilities, 2 advanced abilities and 2 expert abilities... In the latter case, there is two paths where one basic ability advancement leads to speed, and the second basic advancement to raised Attack.

(...snip)

Ban certain skills for certain towns-- no light magic for necromancer etc.

I'd say that banning skills for certain towns while increasing the number of generic options tends to make heroes more similar, not less.

Ack... Agreed...
I've always loved to see fair maidens pick flowers for decorations...
For some reason, people see killing pretty plants and flowers and hanging them up on the wall for a death of thirst, heat and darkness is rather neat -- but it *is* cruelty and destruction of both beauty and life.
While if I stomp on a dying rose and kill it instantly, the same maidens will react with disgust.

I wouldn't deny necromancers light magic...

That's the changes I would have made anyways-- After playing the game for a month without realizing that there was any such thing *as* "ultimate abilities"

There's that documentation complaint again.

Documentation *and* game implementation. The game sais where abilities derive from, but the game doesn't say what abilities yield which abilities, nor which abilities are denied certain heroes.

Program shortcomming. Lack of documentation. Easter egg. Bug. Annoyance.

Call it whatever you want; something should be done.
Should have *been* done.

[Da' vane]

Actually, BT, the only thing I "see" is that you're trying to put things into my statements in order to find fault with them. I didn't say only those who liked everything H4 and WoG should be listened to, but looking at Nival/Ubi's stance, it appears that they aren't listening to those that thought that did like things from H4 and WoG.

Scripts are a good feature from WoG, but they've only been adapted for SPECIFC SINGLE PLAYER MAPS. You can't really say that they are a standard feature of H5 gameplay - so that doesn't count. If it was, then you could say that Nival/Ubi HAVE looked at things like H4 and WoG and taken ideas from them.

As for speculation - let me tell you a little story...

On day, a certain group of people saw a certain video game series they enjoyed, and started speculating about wouldn't it be cool if there was actually a roleplaying game like that. Soon, they started talking about specifics, and started putting things on paper, and soon enough they released that they had actually created the said roleplaying game they were after. So, they released it to the public, for free, because they couldn't get hold of the license. And it was met with surprisingly resounding success. So much so, they they are now currently revising it and an entire product line based on it, all free, working on the setting and making it even better. The name of that game was the Legend of Zelda. I know this, because I was, and still am, one of the founding members of this group. In fact, I am the lead for this group at the current time.

So don't go around saying that it's empty speculation that's not constructive or useful. Because it's that speculation that gets these groups off the ground. To be honest, if I could code (rather than being a games design industry professional, as I am) I'd most definately be seeking to add my talents to these groups, if not creating one of my own.

As it stands, BT, the only one around here that is spamming is you - with your fanboyish attitude and trying to twist my statements to something you can find fault with, so you can reasonably ignore my entire comments. I'm pretty sure posters like you are a dime a dozen round here too...

[Gus]

Actually, BT, the only thing I "see" is that you're trying to put things into my statements in order to find fault with them. I didn't say only those who liked everything H4 and WoG should be listened to, but looking at Nival/Ubi's stance, it appears that they aren't listening to those that thought that did like things from H4 and WoG.

That's where you don't understand. Since there are things that are antagonistic (is that a word?) in H4 and H5 (such as the role of Heroes in battle), there will be people FOR, and people AGAINST.
If you say: "they didn't listen to the fans who were FOR", you imply that their opinion is more important than those of the AGAINST camp. Because, if they listened to the FORs, the AGAINSTs would then complain, and probably using your very argument. So, even if i personally wish they put in stack experience and all, it is not that they didn't listen to the_fans_who_wished_that (not just "the fans" because it's a broad generalization you cannot make), it is that they took a designe decision. You are, of course, free to think it's a bad one, but the argument that they didn't listen is flawed.

[Da' vane]

What I said was those who didn't take the good things from H4. I didn't say specifically what those good things were. However, Nival/Ubi has acted as if H4 NEVER existed. I seem to recall at one point that Nival even stated this.

Heroes on the battlefield is a thorny issue, but I liked it. I think this is a good thing. I know others do not - but most of these were either because Heroes were too tough (GM Combat-based Barbarians come to mind) or too weak (Non-combat heroes at the End Game). This isn't neccessarily against the heroes on the field in principle - but the application of them on the battlefield. Essentially, if the heroes were handled better on the battlefield in H4, a lot of the opposition against them being on the battlefield would disappear.

But Heroes on the battlefield isn't the only thing that H4 added. There was the ability to flag all resource dwellings, not just mines, which helped speed up the game, as did caravans and the possibility of having armies walk themselves out to Heroes. Some, but not neccessarily all, of these features could also have been added.

But, of most relevence to this discussion is Hero development. Hero Development in H4 seemed better, simply because you got secondary skills based from other skills, and the skills needed certain other skill requirements before you could take them. I'm not saying the SPECIFICS of this method were good (or bad), but the principle behind it was better than H3 and it's simple Basic-Advanced-Expert approach. More importantly, this would have worked better with the ability system implemented in HoMM 5 - mor powerful abilities could have required Expert level in a skill, and possibly a previous ability if appropriate. Currently, the only reason behind getting advanced and expert is so that it allows you another ability, but this has created the absurd limit of 3 abilities per skill at most.

They may have took a design decision - yet it appears that the design decision they took was that Heroes 4 was a mistake and should never have happened. They appear not to have looked over anything in H4 and thought "should we or shouldn't we?"

I find it hard to believe that the following could have happened at the design discussions of Nival:

"So what about the ability to flag resource locations other than mines?"
"Well, we want to speed the game up don't we?"
"I think it's much better to force players to have to send heroes out to these locations week after week."
"Yeah, because players like mindless tedium."
"Also, you didn't have the ability to flag such locations in Heroes 3 - it was added in Heroes 4."
"That settles it - we won't add the ability to flag resource locations other than mines..."

Well, actually, that could pretty much be what happened...

Does anybody really truly believe that the game is much better without the ability to flag resource dwellings other than mines? I don't think they do - I haven't heard any of the non-fanboys (that is the "It's Heroes 5! We love Heroes 5! We agree with everything in Heroes 5! Can we work for you Nival/Ubisoft!? We can make lots of tea...") say they agree with this decision.

Of course, there's always the possibility that those that hated H4 so vehemently lead Nival to believe that they also hated this option, but I think it's pretty low.

Either Nival didn't listen to the fans, or they didn't understand the fans. Either way, it amounts to the same thing. And I'm pretty sure they didn't post a poll saying "Which game should we copy - H3 or H4?" They already made their minds up with that, and people who have already made their minds up tend not to listen to those who disagree with them...

[Gus]

However, Nival/Ubi has acted as if H4 NEVER existed. I seem to recall at one point that Nival even stated this.

Look, this quote is enough for me to say that you either did not read my post, or simply do not get it.
They do not act as if H4 had never existed. They act as if the features in H4 were bad. Now, i don't agree with that stance, and wish that plenty of things from H4 were back, BUT that does't mean they act as if H4 had never existed.

In all the things you quote, there is an "opposition" between the H4-way, and what we shall call the classic HoMM way. Both stances are diametrically opposed. Example:
- flaggable windmills (and others) is opposed to non-flaggable. You can't have both.
- Heroes on the battlefield is opposed ot heroes off the bf.
- etc, you get the point.

Now, what you say is "the fans wanted that or that". But who are you to say what the fans want? And who is exactly "the fans"? Once again, i must remind you that i'm all for some features of H4 (in fact, i reinstalled H4 and play it in alternance with H5). But still, Neither me nor you have the right to say "the fans want the following". We're not the fans. We're fans, period.
All that to say: they took design decisions. You're free to disagree, as i do on many points. BUT saying they "ignore the fans' wish" just because they thought something was bad, and you (and other, plenty of others, maybe even the majority, but we simply can't know) thought it was right, is simply incorrect.
Say you don't agree, say you wish they used more of the improvements (according to you) from H4, but don't say they ignored the fans, just because they chose one of the paths. I'd like to remind you that plenty of fans DO prefer H3 over H4, and DO prefer the fact that some H4 features were left out, even the ones which seem obviously better (like flaggable dwellings).

EDIT: I find it odd that you say that they didn't listen to the fans when leaving out H4 features. Because, from my own experience on a few HoMM-related boards, i've gotten the strong feeling that H4 was the "black sheep" of the HoMM family. If the fans think the game sucks, and the developers don't use the game as a reference, how can you say they don't listen, huh?
Note that i'm not saying the fans are right, nor Nival.

[Da' vane]

Actually, there is no difference, because Nival/Ubi has acted as if H4 (and by extension the features in it) were bad, and thus act as if it has never been made, and thus could not possibly have had any benefical effect on the game WHATSOEVER.

Nival/Ubi appear to have engaged in a policy of outright deniability of any association with H4, having stepped back to H3 in it's virtual entireity. Instead of merging H3 and H4, using that as a base, and then evolving the game - they stepped completely back to H3 and evolved the system from there, in a different direction. Since none of the features in H4 that were in H3 have appeared in H5 (as far as I can tell), that pretty much means they are ignoring it as if it never existed/writing it off as a complete disaster/waste of space.

I like your definition of terms - H4 vs "classic". This is laden with symbolism of the main issues with H4 - it is not H3 or previous. They changed things. By not including H4 is part of "classic" HoMM, you force a person to take sides, so that naybody who likes H4 cannot possibly like HoMM, because H4 is not "classic" HoMM. Basically, the argument sounds like a bunch of crotchety old men complaind about change and preferring the gold old days. Except, things have changed, because with H5, the crotchety old men all appear to be H4 fans...

I understand diamtric opposition, but I reallt don't see how people can think that not flagging resource locations makes for a better game, especially given that they already flag mines. If they don't like flagging resource locations - then surely the shouldn't like flaggable mines either? Perhaps after playing a few maps where the heroes have to visit mines every day or every week for resources will show them the error of their ways. To say "we don't want flaggable resource locations, but we do want flaggable mines," is just hypocracy... but that's acceptable because that's "classic" HoMM...

There will always be for or against on certain issues, but if people really liked HoMM 3, they should play HoMM 3. If they liked HoMM 4, they should play HoMM 4. HoMM 5 should be its own game, a mixture of H3 and H4, which is the next step in the line - an improvement. It's an improvement over HoMM 3, but it's not neccessarily an improvement from HoMM 4, because there's hardly any similarities between the two - even the good elements from HoMM 4, were ignored in their entirety, including the ones that should have been no-brainers given the design brief for the game.

being a fan gives me the right to speak for what I want, and for what I believe other fans want, taken from these very boards. And what they want is a better, more complete game, and choice. Heck, I thought those wants would have been obvious even without reading these forums. And that's what the rant about skills is all about - a lack of choice. The choice for whether or not to go for the ultimate isn't enough - we chould have the choice of how we go for the ultimate, and when we go for the ultimate as well. The limit to abilities removes these choices, and shouldn't be there. There are better ways of handling this, as have been mentioned on this thread - if they were really worried about powerful abilities needing limitations, then they could have drawn on the hero development of H4, which more powerful skills needing earlier skills (so you couldn't always go straight from Basic to Grand Master in a skill in 5 levels). But they didn't...

Also, I don't suppose I need to point out the hypocracy of your speaking for "the fans" in stating the H4 was the black sheep of the family. In fact, I know at least one fan personally who doesn't think this - me. But then, it would be hypocritical of me to point this out to you, since I too speak for "the fans"...

However, if Nival did listen to the fans and decided the H4 was the black sheep of the family, then while you may have proved me wrong about Nival not listening to "the fans", you have also provided additional support for my argument that Nival acts as if H4 never existed. After all, that's what people do with their "black sheep"...

Of course, it's not proven that they listened to the community - there's been numerous incidents of when neither Nival or Ubi have listened to the community, and the only time they appear to have happened is when the community was preparing to boycott H5 for being incomplete. Not to mention that Nival has claimed to be fans of the HoMM series themselves, so probably already made their mind up over H3 and H4 without ever needing to consult the community.

Not to mention the all-to-common case of selective hearing common with design professionals all over the world (myself included, as it happens) where you are looking for specific type of feedback - such as variations or improvements of a specific feature, rather than comments about other things or arguments for removing the feature. For instance, comments on how to improve heroes off the battlefield, without putting them ON the battlefield.

(On a side note about hypocracy in "classic" HoMM - if you can attack war machines, why can't you attack heroes?)

[zhuge]

Agree with all the stuff Gus stated

Anyway, H5 didn't ignore H4. In term of creatures, Squires were adapted and their Shield Bash/Stun as well. They also took Nightmares too. As with every game in the series there are some creatures which are less popular aesthetically. I remember the Venom Spawn being one. Of course when Ubi/Nival reviewed this it'd be fair for them to discard the less popular choices.
Btw we don't have Stronghold/Barbarian faction in H5. Doesn't mean that they ignored H1-4

[Jolly Joker]

Actually three years ago the major sites made a big fan poll on Ubi's regard where the fans could say what they wanted for Homm V. The fact that Heroes V is more like III and less like IV is the direct result of what the fan majority wanted then.
Complaing now about that is, well, useless at best (and has nothing to do with the theme of this thread, btw.)
About the Witch Hut, OliverFA: No, the Witch does NOT drag the hero in, the hero comes VOLUNTARILY. He doesn't HAVE to go. He isn't forced to. As he isn't forced to visit a crypt or a derelict ship or some such. If he does, it's a risk; it may work, it may fail. What's so wrong about that?

[Ethric]

The risk of getting killed from an encounter you can't handle is not the same as the risk of having a skill you don't want forced upon you. The first is a calculated risk, the second is a total gamble, and what's more, it's irreversible. If you get in over your head in a fight you can retreat and regroup.

And about the "majority" wanting this and that for H5, that depends entirely on where you ask. The Round Table is often quite H4 friendly, while other sites might be more in favour of others. So I for one will complain as I didn't get *my* way, while those who got what they wanted can be happy.

[Da' vane]

More like H3 and less like H4 is NOT the same as no H4 elements what so ever, wven when they made the game better and helped the team meet their design brief.

The results asked for more like H3 and less like H4, NOT a H3 clone. I don't quite remeber the poll, but such things are easily manipulated, depending upon how the question is put. Ultimately H5 should not have been a choice between H3 or H4, but should have combined elements from both.

You can't really include specific creaures as beinf from the games, simply because all the creatures are from popular mythology, so aren't exactly "original" let alone tied solely to H4.

That said - Squires aren't from H4, as there were Swordsmen in H3 at tier 4. The haven is a stright conversion of the Castle in H3, except pikemen replace peasants (although consripts carry pikes...)

Okay, Nightmares were from H4, but is that really the only thing that you can dig up as being from H4. Out of the whole of H4, the only thing worth keeping and evolving for the series are Nightmares?!

[Gus]

I like your definition of terms - H4 vs "classic". This is laden with symbolism of the main issues with H4 - it is not H3 or previous. They changed things. By not including H4 is part of "classic" HoMM, you force a person to take sides, so that naybody who likes H4 cannot possibly like HoMM, because H4 is not "classic" HoMM. Basically, the argument sounds like a bunch of crotchety old men complaind about change and preferring the gold old days. Except, things have changed, because with H5, the crotchety old men all appear to be H4 fans..

*sigh*
it's annoying that you don't pay attention to the arguments...
"you force a person to take sides"? But if they had put, say, heroes on the battlefield, wouldn't they have forced people to take sides, by putting in a feature that is hated by many?

That's what i'm trying to tell you, but you don't understand... They ignored H4 because they think it sucks. I disagree, you disagree, Ethric disagrees, plenty of others disagree, and plenty of others agree. In the end, i don't care if you say "It was a mistake that they did not take the good things from H4", but don't say "They ignored the fans", or "They ignored H4", because it's not true. And i don't like people saying false things =)

[Caradoc]

I wonder what process they used to make decisions about features. Did they ever even look at Heroes IV and consider whether a feature was worth having? Or did their unfamiliarity with the game lead them to decide to ignore it.

A good case is Caravans. Could it be that they knew that caravans could move armies from town to town, but they did not realize they could also bring armies from dwellings? Did they understand about blocked paths? I seriously doubt anyone enjoys marching around to pick up armies. But if you are used to it and it looks like some work would be involved in implementing an alternative, I can see how they could decide to avoid the issue.

Did they decide that hero chaining was a tactic worth supporting? I had forgotten how easily the balance of the game can be upset by setting up extended chains and delivering a massive army whereever needed. I have found myself using the same army to fight three and four times a turn. But they did not care to put in the effort to maintain movement data on each army. Had they considered the reason the Heroes IV did this, they might have seen the benefit.

So I attribute the neglect of Heroes IV features not to Nival ignoring the fans, but to its ignorance of the game itself.

[Gaidal Cain]

Personally, it's not whether they listened to fans with regards to H4 that makes me wonder. It's whether they've played it at all. For one, they have the nice feature of how Sylanna's Ancients give xp, which is like in h4, but on the other hand, they have treasure chests that while no longer offering xp when you've hit the cap, it stills show the dialog window instead of just showing the gold you gained...

[Bandobras Took]

Actually, BT, the only thing I "see" is that you're trying to put things into my statements in order to find fault with them. I didn't say only those who liked everything H4 and WoG should be listened to, but looking at Nival/Ubi's stance, it appears that they aren't listening to those that thought that did like things from H4 and WoG.

That's precisely what you said. You said, as I quoted, that if Nival had listened to the fans, we would have the good stuff from H4 and Creature Experience from WoG. Since I don't like Creature Experience, I am by your definition not a fan and Nival should not listen to me. This is the logical conclusion of your argument. You have taken to yourself the sole arbitration of who Nival should have listened to. Anybody who does not agree with you is by your definition not a fan; if I don't want creature experience, Nival must not listen to me, no matter how long I've been playing heroes.

But wait . . . you've consistently not listened to all the people saying they like the skill system and the limited choices. You're acting just like you accuse Nival of acting. This is known as hypocrisy.

Scripts are a good feature from WoG, but they've only been adapted for SPECIFC SINGLE PLAYER MAPS. You can't really say that they are a standard feature of H5 gameplay - so that doesn't count. If it was, then you could say that Nival/Ubi HAVE looked at things like H4 and WoG and taken ideas from them.

Nice argument. "Anything which shows that Nival took good ideas from H4 or WoG doesn't count, because it doesn't agree with my play style." The scripting of H4 was an eminent addition to Heroes and they've kept it and expanded on it. But because you want to complain that they don't listen to fans (who are, as you've said, people who want Creature Experience from WoG), we can't look at anything good they've done, or must immediately discount it.

As for speculation - let me tell you a little story...

On day, a certain group of people saw a certain video game series they enjoyed, and started speculating about wouldn't it be cool if there was actually a roleplaying game like that. Soon, they started talking about specifics, and started putting things on paper, and soon enough they released that they had actually created the said roleplaying game they were after. So, they released it to the public, for free, because they couldn't get hold of the license. And it was met with surprisingly resounding success. So much so, they they are now currently revising it and an entire product line based on it, all free, working on the setting and making it even better. The name of that game was the Legend of Zelda. I know this, because I was, and still am, one of the founding members of this group. In fact, I am the lead for this group at the current time.

Congratulations, you can design an RPG. But the idle speculation still meant nothing until it was backed up with an actual product. Pull together a group of people and produce a Heroes game from scratch. Then you can claim you've done a better job than Nival, but not until then.

So don't go around saying that it's empty speculation that's not constructive or useful. Because it's that speculation that gets these groups off the ground. To be honest, if I could code (rather than being a games design industry professional, as I am) I'd most definately be seeking to add my talents to these groups, if not creating one of my own.

It's not going to be a valid argument against Nival until you back it up with something concrete. You claim that they could do a better job. I'd like to see some evidence beside your say-so.

As it stands, BT, the only one around here that is spamming is you - with your fanboyish attitude and trying to twist my statements to something you can find fault with, so you can reasonably ignore my entire comments. I'm pretty sure posters like you are a dime a dozen round here too...

My apologies. I thought you were the one accusing Ubi/Nival of never doing a poll on which Heroes game one liked best (even though they did), accusing them of not taking any good ideas from H4 (even though they did), of not listening to fans (even though they delayed the game at the request of the fans), of claiming by extension that if you do not support Creature Experience, you're not a fan (even though many Heroes fans don't even use WoG), and deviating from your original topic of too few slots to do a general and completely false invective against Ubi/Nival and people who don't agree with you.

My mistake.

[Ethric]

Generalisations on the lines of "The (true) fans feel this way about it...", "Most people agree with my point of view", etc are Bad, unless you actually have some solid backing. And such a backing is practically impossible to aquire.

If one nevertheless feel the need to make sweeping statements, based on ones perception of the situation, one should at least be aware of and point out that one is indeed making a sweeping statement that might very well be wrong.

But try to not let this devolve into a scrap. Not saying it has, but I see potential for it

[King Imp]

About the Witch Hut, OliverFA: No, the Witch does NOT drag the hero in, the hero comes VOLUNTARILY. He doesn't HAVE to go. He isn't forced to. As he isn't forced to visit a crypt or a derelict ship or some such. If he does, it's a risk; it may work, it may fail. What's so wrong about that ?

But in the case of a crypt or derelict ship, we are given a choice after entering if we want to proceed. Once you hit that Witch Hut, there is no turning back. It's automatically given to you. The fights don't automatically start when you enter a crypt, derelict ship or Dragon Utopia so how hard is it to say "The Witch residing in this hut has offered to teach you "so-and-so" skill. Do you accept?"

This is a clear example of laziness on Nival's part, plain and simple.

[The Frostraven]

The problem about the Witch Hut, as I see it, is that you enter--

--and without warning or your concent, the witch in this hut is able to teach your Hero *anything* you might need or loathe, without even letting your hero Necromancer fight to the death trying to avoid beeing taught light magic.

The fact that she can teach you something irreversible, plan-shattering that you didn't *want* to know in the first place is rather odd...

It's not like grown up heroes *can't* put their fingers in their ears and scream "lalalalalalallalalalalalalalala-I-Can't-Hear-You-lalalalalalalala"

A simple <Accept> or <Decline> window would have saved most everyone the discussion of the feared, loved and hated Witch in the Hut. A <Fight!> option would even *satisfy* many, allowing you to be the only person in a map with her taught skill, and I doubt anyone would have complained about the ability to decline something that may wreck your plans, and even, perhaps, your chances of seeing the end of the scenario alive because of a single roll of a die.

Yes, yes... She teaches you for her own inscrupulous reasons, but if someone fills my 1/6 of my full and limited memory with Basic Knitting, or something similarily useful... I would want vengeance.

[DaemianLucifer]

You COULD try the Hut with a secondary hero, could you? Just as well as you COULD try a really sensitive guard stack with a secondary hero, whether for example "horde" in this case means more like 55 or something like 95. Since this costs a hero a secondary SCOUTING hero would be even better. But of course save/reload is much more, uh, convenient.
Not in MP play, though.

What if your secondary hero is some three days away?Besides,wisiting a witch hut is not the same as fighting a stack.Casualties can be replaced,but wasted skill/ability slot cannot.First of all,there should be no crappy skills and abilities.They all should be equally good.But even if thats the case,youd still have the problem of witch hut screwing with your levelup plan by giving you an ability that blocks your calculated path.

[Jolly Joker]

I didn't know they tell you exactly what you have to fight when you enter the Crypt, so I don't see what a window asking, "You have entered the Witch Hut. Do you want to procee?" would gain.
If you are not prepared to take what you get - DON'T ENTER. If you want to know what IS taught, because you'd like a good skill raise, but don't want the risk, use one of your secondary heroes. This has the additional effect of giving your useless, running-from-mill-to-out-of-town-dwelling-and-back caravan hero something useful to do. It just MIGHT be meant this way, you know.
I just read DL's last post. "What if the secondary hero is three days away?" Jesus Christ, man, what if the opponent is one day away? What if... What if you start playing the game? You have clear choices and you can decide what to do. This IS a game of chance. What if I take skill A and don't get the right ability offered? What if I need 2 Gems or 5 Woods to make a crucial build and I may go in two directions with my hero while my secondary hero is three days away? Heck, why do I have to move into the dark? They should have thought about removing that FoW.