Skills and Abilities rant!

[Da' vane]

So what if anaolgies is a useful rhetorical tool? I could just as easy use your analogy and replace "levels" with "skill slots" and it would serve me as much as it did you.

You could, but by replacing levels with skill slots, you are justifying the limits on skill slot because of the limits on skill slots. This pretty much puts you in the 'Limits for Limits sake' camp. Once you to that argument, what's stopping limits of kingdom treasuries, limits on the number of creatures in a stack, and all sorts of other limits that would be there just for the sake of being there.

Very cute. And what would the ultimate be with your system? "Feeling lucky? go for utlimate!" Since you won't be able to block out abilities, you're going to get so much stuff you don't need that getting the ultimate would never, ever happen.

I was actually expecting much more from you - at least "Ultimates: For the hero who has everything else..."

I can't believe you are justifying limiting ability slots because it makes the options when levelling up easier. H3 had 28 skills to chose from, and just two slots, and it done a pretty good job. The only real complaints were when you got stuck with a choice between Basic Eagle Eye and Basic Scholar - but like I said, this would be lessened somewhat if the skill limit was removed, because the main arguements against these skills are that they are too weak compared to other skills you could have had in that slot...

Which sort of kills the point of the ultimate- that you're not playing with an optimal build but in return will get something really, really good if you manage to come through anyway.. The ultimate isn't just something you should get because you've managed to get to level 30, it's something you should make sacrifices for. But you don't seemt o believe in that...

No, I don't believe in that - why should I have to make the sacrifice of "weak" skills and abilities in order to get the Ultimate? That just doesn't make sense to me - you're intentionally making the game harder for yourself for the chance to get something that is supposedly "ultimate", which is not always the case, that you can stand quite a good chance of not reaching anyway.

Ultimates shouldn't be "Here's a reward for sucking!"

That's assuming that both of them are equally good, and that every ability has a pretty constant power level. Here, tactics is IMO better than Power of Speed, which also gets weaker as the game progreses. Four mana is nothing once you get decent Knowledge, but can be quite much earlier.

If the system was balanced, then each ability should be of equal power. You should be arguing for Power of Speed to be made useful - not justifying it's weakness because it is a prerequisite for the ultimate.

Sorry, but you're not making any sense here. Without limits, you get more options (as in differnt hero builds), but you're still making as many choices- one per level up.

That's the thing - you are confusing choice with choices. Choice is based both on quality and quantity - so the number of choices yo make and the quality of those choices (i.e. options to choose from, options in builds, strategic considerations and tactics). Choices is strictly quantity-based. As I keep saying - limits reduces choice (as in quality). It doesn't reduce the number of choices, because it is STILL 1 per level.

Of course there is. If I don't want Navigation, I pick three other abilities from the logistics family, and I'll never have to see it again. If I don't want Light Magic, I don't pick it up from the start. Simple.

So, you pick your abilities based solely on what you DON'T want? There is nothing stopping the system from offering you Light Magic over and over, until you gain your 5 skills - but I don't think people should be rushing out to fill up their skill slots just because they don't want to be offered Light Magic. Likewise, people shouldn't be rushing out to fill up their Logistics ability slots just to avoid getting offered Navigation.

Meh. If I see Tactics and know taking it won't have any bad consequences, I'll take it.

You say that like it is a bad thing? If you want to be punished for taking tactics, go outside and whip yourself with a thornbush a couple of times...

Sounds like a bad strategy to me...

How is looking to see what will get you through the next level a "bad strategy", exactly? How is adapting to the requirements of the map, a "bad strategy?"

I agree that this isn't particularly well-thought out, but I also think you're a bit hung up on the damn ultimate. It's good, yes, but it's not the only way to play the game.

What is the point of putting in a feature that you can't use? They might as well have not bothered putting in the feature at all. And if there is no ultimate, then a lot of the "justification" for the weaker skills and abilities disappears, which just leaves an unbalanced system.

Not much to do about bad level ups (except for allowing to skip them), but Witch Huts should be changed. And it's not like you don't know that going for the ultimate is a gamble. If it were as easy to just go for it and have it fall out in the end, it wouldn't be half as interesting.

It would be a darn sight more interesting than going for it and being denied at the last minute, or realising as soon as you start the game that it is not an option for your starting hero. If I take the requirements to get the ultimate, I should be able to get it - I shoudn't be denied because I can't take the final ability required for it because some other perk is there, especially when I didn't neccessarily get to choose that perk.

You're playing MP on XL maps until your heroes hit level 30, and yet I'm the masochisst? Yeah, right. And I could just as easily claim that SP is what's keeping the heroes games alive, and I'd be just as right, and just as wrong, as you are.

Not with H5 I'm not...

MP is a strong factor in the survival of the HoMM series - multiplayer maps are abound on CH and other map sites on the internet.

And playing XL multiplayer maps is hardly masochistic. More maps means more buildup time before you get into the Player vs. Player battles. While reducing maps size does speed up the time it takes for players to get to grips with each other, it also removes much of what make HoMM fun - exploring, engaging in flanking manuevers, and generally trying to outsmart your enemy. A straight road between two opposing castles is not a great MP experience, in my opinion.

Yeah, and if I have 100 Archangels while the enemy only has 2 peasants, I'll win. If one player has allowed himself to end up with such bad skills, he deserves to lose.

The skills system requires such "bad skills" to go for the ultimate, and can leave the hero in the cold by screwing that opportunity over for him at any time.

It's not just about "allowing" yourself to get into that state. often you don't get the choice. This is like the only reason your opponent has 2 peasants is because he falls foul to a scripted event that reduces his army to 2 peasants.

That doesn't mean you won by skill, strategy, or tactics - it means you won by luck.

Your opinion. Certainly not mine.[/quotes]

That's been established... you like to be punished.

And that's mostly because there aren't, and never has been, very many interesting locations on the ocean. There are no mines or towns that you need to control. Yes, one can create maps where water travel is important, but it's much harder as you're working with much fewer objects.

Except, you know, HoMM maps aren't always about objects, particulalry in multiplayer. Still, you should be arguing for more water-based objects to make Navigation viable, not clamouring for Navigation to be changed so it also works on Land.

It only takes the addition of a water-based town - a Hero-only skill allowing them to move on water or always have access to a boat, and a few resource locations, and suddenly water is just as important as land. Maybe this is too much work, or possibly too wonky with the system, but even so, you make a map where island hopping and seafaring are important, and Navagation will increase.

Taking navigation on a water map should be a good idea. It does prevent you from getting UC however, so, you have to ask yourself if it's the best strategy. However, it's important to realize Urgash's Call is not the only way to properly build a Demon Lord. You choose another set of abilities, and if navigation is the aid it should be, you're stronger than he who didn't take Navigation. Or, you decide that on this particular map, you can manage without Navigation, and go for UC, and manages to use it to overcome he who took navigation. That's strategy.

That's the point - by limiting the number of abilities and having only a single path to a single ultimate, you are dissuading people from adapting to the map. People will favour what they think if more powerful, and suddenly, you're comparing Navigation with Teleport Assault/Urgash's Call.

I'm sorry, but Navigation is weak enough without you having to give up whether to go for what is probably the best ultimate in the game.

What you appear to think is strategy is just punishment. Don't confuse the two - strategy is about using what you have to the best advantage, not about sacrificing things because you feel the need to repent for your sins or whatever reason your masochism stems from.

I disagree. You can build heroes who have good strength through the game- perhaps it won't beat the heroes optimized for early or late games if they catch you first or you take too long to get there, but that's also strategy.

That good strength is because they are generic or adaptable. Except, the ability to adapt seems to be rather limited in H5. It appears to be a simple choice of going for the ultimate or not going for the ultimate - which is basically going for right now, over in the end game. You don't get both.

No. It penalties headless adapting. If you see a small pond you have to sail across, and take navigation because of it, of course it penalizes you. If you instead wait with your logistics abilities until you can see that it's a common feature with large water areas you need to often sail around on, and then adopt by taking navigation, you can expect to be rewarded.

Except, you are penalised by taking Navigation, even though it should make good strategic sense on the map. That penalty is that you can't get Urgash's Call. Oh yeah - I like THAT reward...

Of course it does- because almost all of your complaints about stuff that aren't documentation are about stuff that I don't see as problems.

That's true - but that just means that better documentation solves YOUR problems, not mine. because I have a problem with limits, because I don't feel I should be penalized or punished for trying to play smart.

I see your point, but I wouldn't call that a "gamble" per se. I don't consider not buying tickets to the lottery gambling just because the winning ticket might have been amongst those I didn't buy

No, but not playing the lottery one week when you regularly play and having your numbers come up definately puts a crip on people's life - especially when the jackpot is £13+ million...

[Da' vane]

That example doesn't really hold with the Inferno; Teleport Assault, Power of Speed, and Dead Man's Curse are all skills that I like.

In a larger sense, though, you're still assuming that your preference and play style is the same as everybody's. It's become apparent to me that one of my favorite skills, First Aid, is nearly universally considered crap by other players.

But you seem to like being weak...

Seriously, if all abilities are created equal, and they should be, none of them should be justified by the fact that they lead on to your ultimate. Especially since the path to the ultimate is different for each hero, yet the skills and perks remain the same for all heroes. This just makes for a decidedly unbalanced system with carbon-copy heroes.

You either have all the heros that have gone for the ultimate, and have virtually all the same skills and abilities for that hero types ultimate, and then you have those that did not, which will have virtually all the same abilities for their ability type that are not considered "weak" - which is commonly, everything else.

This is it, in a nutshell. There is a difference of opinion among the players of the game. Nival chose to go with the more stringent option. Those of who really like having to weigh our options -- not to mention trying different builds off the same class -- are appeased. Those who like to explore every option of a skill at once are infuriated.

That having been defined, I don't think anybody's going to jump the fence on this one and go over to the other side, if twelve pages haven't managed it.

And therein lies the problem - those that want to choose between the ultimate and an ability can still choose if they want to. Just because you have the option to take the ultimate and another ability like tactics doesn't mean you HAVE to.

But, under the current system, those of us that DO want to aim for the ultimate and another ability like tactics are unable to do this, and are left out in the cold.

Essentually, without limitations, those who like limitations can impose them upon themselves. So you have both those who like limits happy, and those who don't. Yet, with them, only those who like limits are happy. Those of us that don't, are ignored, and told to like it or play something else.

Heck, if they wanted, Nival could even had included an option for this in the game controls. That would at least make everybody happy...

Well, of course you do. It's the hero selector when you start a map. If I'm aiming for Urgash's Call, my first step is to select Grok as my starter. If not, I'll likely still select Grok since I love his specialty. If I'm looking to build a spellslinger and shred my opponent's defenses, I'll choose Grawl. If I want a townbreaker and a good early game, I'll choose Deleb.

You don't get to choose your hero on certain maps, and even then, you can only do it if you choose your starting faction.

There it is -- "barring all situation in which Ultimate abilities have a point, there's no point in Ultimate abilities."

Seriously, in my own town, Heroes survived on the strength of its Single Player capacities. If Ultimate abilities are primarily meant to enhance single player, then MP will not suffer from not realistically being able to reach them.

I am assuming that ultimates are not exclusive to single player mode, so with larger maps and more opportunities for experience, the ultimates will also be a factor in MP play. It is short-sighted to say that they are only restricted to SP play.

Not to mention that most single player experiences in H5 are through the campaigns. It's bad enough going through an entire map and no getting the Ultimate, but to be able to go through an entire campaign and be denied it - it's enough to make you want to stop play the campaigns and H5 completely.

Yep, but it sure is organic when you get a bad level up and have to deal with it.

Okay, maybe that was a little over the top. The only times I've been frustrated going for an Ultimate, though, have been from a bad Primary Skill offering. Being limited to three subability slots has had nothing to do with it.

Meh. Three ability slots doesn't leave much room for flexibility when going for ultimate however. I went through the first two campaigns without even realising there were anything besides skills and perks!

This may have been down to bad documentation, but know I know they exist, I can see that the system is flawed because of it's inflexibility - you are rewarded for taking the same skills and abilities required to go for ultimate and penalized for deviating.

That punishment is an extra ability over heroes without the ultimate, because the Ultimate is tied to your racial slots, and not an ability slot.

Except, in players of equal skill, poor abilities wouldn't enter into it. I am, again, speaking from personal experience. I have never failed to get the subabilities I've aimed for, so two players of equal skill may reasonably expect the same success rate in getting what they're aiming for. Poor Primary Skills might affect it, since there's absolutely no control on what Primary Skills you get offered. We may be better served with a way to increase the options on Primary Skills. At least, that's what my own experience with the game indicates.

Skills are the biggest factor, followed by a poor random starter. Apparently, Witch Huts also offer abilities if you have Expert rank in the skill, so this would be a close third.

However, there is far too much luck involved in gaining the ultimate - which means this isn't a strategy, but a gamble. For a strategy game, this is bad - if I aim for ultimate, I should be able to get the ultimate. This is only possible without limits while such luck factors exist.

Naturally. The Ultimate Abilities are rather powerful, and getting to them is supposed to be tough for that reason. If we toned down the difficulty of getting to them, we'd also have to town down their strength, with the end result that it feels like just another subability rather than an achievement.

This is not always true, because not all ultimates are created equal. But in most cases, the ultimates are simple upgrades of existing abilities anyway. Urgash's Call means gating is instant, yet you already have Swift Gating which makes it 50% faster, so it only take half the normal time. In essence, Urgash's Call is simply Swift Gating taken twice (using D&D arithmetic, which involves removing the original values, to avoid them from being multiplied over and over - so x2 and x2 make x3, not x4). These ultimates already have the requirements that they are reserved for heroes of levels 29-30, through their requirements - that should be limitation enough.

Someone who takes other abilitys than those required for their ultimate would get the ultimate later than level 30, and the hero who rushes ultimate can still continue to advance beyond level 30 by taking other abilities. The practicalities of getting to level 30+ are already a good enough limit, that no other limits are needed for ultimates.

I would contest this, as well. Deleb, for example, is strong in the early game, but with Brimstone Rain becomes a town-breaker in the late game. Grok, who starts with Teleport, gives the Inferno a leg up in the early game, while his Logistics specialty sustains him in the late game. I don't see that capacity in the early game automatically guarantees incapacity in the end.

I'm not counting Hero specialities, because these do increase with level. In H3, a lot of the skill boosting specialities were potent because of this - I mean, Lord Haart giving you +5% to your Estates skill per level was pretty funky. But that doesn't mean you could actually say that the Estates skill improved over time and levels, because it didn't.

While you sometimes has a choice with your hero if you choose your faction, you don't always get that choice - it depends on the campaign/map.

In both the stated cases, you use the Heroes' speciality to sustain them in the early game, while advancing them for the late game. This is NOT the same as adapting your skills from the early game to the late game. I'm not talking about specific heroes, or even specific factions here. The problem with ability limits oocurs entirely across the faction and hero spectrum. It is a universal factor, and won't be prevented just because I can sometimes take Grok or Deleb...

But it's solved the problem for me -- I know precisely what I want to aim for and I go get it. Most of the time that doesn't include the Ultimate, because the map's over before you'll get it. Which would reinforce that Ultimate Abilities are a SP garnishing.

The game doesn't play any better (except that it goes alot faster for me with the patch), but I certainly do.

Yes, well you and Gaidal Cain both fall into the group that happen to like hard choices so you don't see the problem. You can't fix a problem you don't see or accept as a problem.

However, my problem is with the ability score limits, and the effect this has on acquiring the ultimate, by they intended as SP garnish or not. The skill wheel lets me see what my options are, but it doesn't remove this limit.

But the other and bigger reason is the levels required for it. If I'm romping around at level thirty and thinking I need Urgash's Call to win, I likely screwed up my game long before then, and under circumstances that have nothing whatsoever to do with skill selection.

That depends - if you've screwed up the game outside of skill selection, it's highly unlikely that you would even be level 30 in the first place, unless you started quite high.

If you screwed up because of skill and ability selection, then at least without limits, there's a chance of rectifying that situation if you continue to advance, even though advancing takes a lot longer. The number of levels required depends upon just how far away from Urgash's Call you are when you screwed up.

In fact, the only reason you would screw up through skill or ability selection and be level 30 without limits is if you made a bad choice at level 29 - any earlier, and there is always the chance to rectifying the situation than just wasting levels of other skills and abilities because you screwed up.

Only if you completely failed to get any of the skills for Urgash's Call and reached 30th level would this be a significant problem, because you'd need another 30 levels to fix things, which is nigh on impossible. But this is justification of why their should be more than one ultimate for each hero type - otherwise, you're just providing an incentive for cookie-cutter heroes.

But here you return to documentation: why would a person choose Tactics rather than Power of Speed if he's going for Urgash's Call? And under what circumstances would somebody decide they want it at level 28? Especially since, by this time, they'll have Frenzy and Puppetmaster?

Sometimes you don't have the choice...

At the end of the day, the Skill system says you have to be a certain way to get Urgash's Call, which amongst many things gives you an extra ability slot because it isn't based on a skill, and having more skills and abilities than your opponent is always a good thing.

I don't mind that, but it also adds that if you deviate from that in any way, for whatever reason, you cannot get Urgash's Call, and since you can't put anything else in there, that's one space you've lost for an ability - ultimate or otherwise.

The first point is not so bad - having certain combinations of abilities open up other abilities is cool. We say this to a limited extent with H4 and advanced classes - take Life and Combat, and you become a Paladin, take Life and Order, and you become a Monk, and so on.

But the second point is unneccessarily restrictive. Why shouldn't I be allowed to deviate if I want to get Urgash's Call? Why can't I take Navigation, Tactics, or Light Magic and still try to get Urgash's Call. None of these skills and abilities are innately mutually exclusive - the only reason for this restiction is the somewhat arbitrary ability limit.

As Ethric said, it's like somebody going up to the Hero and saying "Sorry, you can't posibly learn any more about logistics. Why don't you take Light Magic instead?" That makes about as much sense as only being able to learn two langauges - you can't possibly know English, French, AND German...

But if Ultimate Abilities aren't intended for MP, then why worry? And if they're "icing on the cake" for SP, why do we worry about whether or not to get them at the end of the map?

Unless you can be certain that they are not avaialble on multiplayer maps, ultimates have to be considered for both SP and MP play, assuming that MP maps can allow hereos to get to level 30. If they do not, I think you'll find a lot of people complaining about this fact - they want the game to be faster, but that doesn't mean they want to shorten the bits they like doing, such as levelling their heroes.

The person that tries and fails for Ultimate abilities will be at a disadvantage, you say. How so?

I can't think of any Hero who'd be so fundamentally weakened by failing to get their ultimate that they wouldn't stand a chance against a hero who hadn't gone for it in the first place.

The logic in this is simple - if certain skills and abilities are so weak that they can only be justified by the possibility to getting the ultimate, then a hero that has all of these skills without the ultimate must also be weak.

However, given that the skills and abilities are so strong that they are justified because they deprive you on the ability to allow you the ultimate, then a hero with some or all of these abilities must be strong.

So, wer'e pitting a hero with weak skills and abilities vs. a hero with strong skills and abilities. It should be clear which of the two will win, and therefore which is weaker.

Whether this is true or not is up to discussion, but you can't have it both ways. You cannot have a balanced system justified by whether the skill/ability allows you to get your ultimate or denies you the ability to get your ultimate, and than claim all heroes are equal regardless of whether they have cone for the ultimate and failed or not gone for it at all.

On the other hand, you can't state that a hero who has gone for ultimate and failed is equal to one who hasn't, and continue to justify skills and abilities based on whether allow you get your ultimate or not, because this factor unbalances what would otherwise be a balanced system.

And if there's no justification for balancing abilities and skills based on whether or not they allow you your ultimate or not, then there is no justification for the ability and/or skill limits which causes this factor, either.

The only case of real weakness would be against someone who'd gotten the Ultimate vs. someone who hasn't, but you've fortunately countered that situation by describing for us in detail how incredibly difficult it is to get one.

Unfortunately the chance to get the ultimate is still such that it means success is determined by luck, not strategy.

The summation of this rather long-winded and likely boring response:
1) Some of us like the limitations, some don't;
2) Most often, when people complain about getting the wrong subabilities, it's because they've misunderstood how to get them;
3) Ultimate abilities are really difficult to get and most likely intended for SP, so those who cherish the MP aspect don't even need to worry about them; and
4) This thread is wandering off into "Yes it is!/No it isn't!" Land.

Goodbye!

1) However, those who like limitations have them, those who don't got stuffed. However, without such limitations, those who like limitations could always impose them upon themselves anyway, allowing both parties to be happy.

2) This is true - but in HoMM there isn't supposed to be right or wrong skills and subabilities, but in H5 there is a clear punishment for those who don't follow the prescribed cookie-cutter routes of hero development.

3) This is so not true - unless ultimates are removed from MP play complely, they still have an impact in MP play. If this IS the case, then all those abilities that are justified by the ability to gain the ultimate are no longer justified.

4) This is actually more a case of (for the main, non-Witch Hut bit) those of us who do like limits vs. those of us who don't. Unfortunately, it's clear to see where Nival lies in this debate - so I think that it is clear that those of us who don't like limits won't be fans for H5 much longer...

[Gaidal Cain]

I can't believe you are justifying limiting ability slots because it makes the options when levelling up easier.

IF you've been reading, that's not my sole justification. However, your system would mean that ultimates were practically unreachable, which I think is silly.

No, I don't believe in that - why should I have to make the sacrifice of "weak" skills and abilities in order to get the Ultimate? That just doesn't make sense to me - you're intentionally making the game harder for yourself for the chance to get something that is supposedly "ultimate", which is not always the case, that you can stand quite a good chance of not reaching anyway.

Becuase it's called an "Ultimate". It's an über-skill. If it would be kept, annd all abilities on the path to it would be roughly as good as all otheres, what's the point of not pursuing it? If I go for it and don't get there, my hero is still as good as if I had taken any other path. No gamble=no fun.

Ultimates shouldn't be "Here's a reward for sucking!"

Which they currently aren't. They're rewards for being a good enough player to play with a combination of skills you might not have otherwsie choosen and coming through.

If the system was balanced, then each ability should be of equal power. You should be arguing for Power of Speed to be made useful - not justifying it's weakness because it is a prerequisite for the ultimate.

No. If each ability were as powerful on their own, and there was an ultimate, the abilities on the path there would be much betetr by that sole virtue. I'd be happy to argue that Power of Speed is too weak in a thread dedicated to such things, but you've choosen to have how sucky you think the skill system is, so that's what I discuss first and foremost.

That's the thing - you are confusing choice with choices. Choice is based both on quality and quantity - so the number of choices yo make and the quality of those choices (i.e. options to choose from, options in builds, strategic considerations and tactics). Choices is strictly quantity-based. As I keep saying - limits reduces choice (as in quality). It doesn't reduce the number of choices, because it is STILL 1 per level.

And you're outright confusing. And my belief is that the limits here increase the quality of choices, as each choice I make is in fact manyfold- I don't just choose Tactics, I also choose to not have Power of Speed. I get less options, but have to excersise more thought to determine what's best for me.

So, you pick your abilities based solely on what you DON'T want?

Of course. I pick Pathfinding becuase I want it more than Navigation. Then I pick another ability that I want more than navigation, and then I do it again, at which point I've not picked navigation enough times that I won't see it again- be it for good or bad.

You say that like it is a bad thing? If you want to be punished for taking tactics, go outside and whip yourself with a thornbush a couple of times...

I'm not getting "punished" for taking tactics. I would get punished if I just took whatever ability I wanted without thinking on what the other option would lead to, and what I don't get. And if this is the level this discussion is going to be held on from now on, I think I'll pass.

How is looking to see what will get you through the next level a "bad strategy", exactly? How is adapting to the requirements of the map, a "bad strategy?"

THey aren't. But just taking skills and abilities that will max your power right here and now are- and that's what you said you wanted to do.

What is the point of putting in a feature that you can't use? They might as well have not bothered putting in the feature at all. And if there is no ultimate, then a lot of the "justification" for the weaker skills and abilities disappears, which just leaves an unbalanced system.

Of course you can use ultimates. But as I said, it's not the only way to play the game. If you think it's to restricting, don't try to go for it.

If I take the requirements to get the ultimate, I should be able to get it

Which is exactly how it works. If you get the requirements, you can take it. Same for Power of Speed, where the requirements (for Demon Lords) are Excruciating Strike and an open slot. If you have that, you can get Power of Speed. Simple.

MP is a strong factor in the survival of the HoMM series - multiplayer maps are abound on CH and other map sites on the internet.

So are SP maps. This argument is way off topic however, and you're even less likely to get me to say that Heroes only survive because of MP or SP than to convince me that the current skill system is bad. Both modes are important parts of the game.

The skills system requires such "bad skills" to go for the ultimate, and can leave the hero in the cold by screwing that opportunity over for him at any time.

And? Then the player who went for ultimate misjudged, and pays the price. Again, going for the ultimate is not the only way to play the game.

It's not just about "allowing" yourself to get into that state. often you don't get the choice.

Of course it is. It's hardly the game that tells me I must go for the ultimate, and if I do, I have exposed myself to the risk of failing to get it in time. The game hasn't been making the decisions for me, and claiming that it's the games fault for me making a bad judgement is not a very mature response.

That's been established... you like to be punished.

Again with the ad hominem?

It only takes the addition of a water-based town - a Hero-only skill allowing them to move on water or always have access to a boat, and a few resource locations, and suddenly water is just as important as land.

I've yet to see a water-based town suggestion that sounds interesting and plausible. Not saying it can't be done, just that it's hard work. Another part of the problem is that it wouldn't be enough with just one water-based town- you'd need a couple if there's going to be any dynamics in it.

That's the point - by limiting the number of abilities and having only a single path to a single ultimate, you are dissuading people from adapting to the map. People will favour what they think if more powerful, and suddenly, you're comparing Navigation with Teleport Assault/Urgash's Call.

Of course. This is called strategy. Or would you really prefer people to not pick what they think is the strongest, and just go "Oh, this map has water in it so I'll take navigation" while not considering that's just a small island that can be traversed in one turn any, or "Oh, I've got a light magic spell!! Let's pick Light Magic so it can become stronger!", nevermind that you have five dark magic spells as well. That's not what I call strategy.

What you appear to think is strategy is just punishment. Don't confuse the two - strategy is about using what you have to the best advantage, not about sacrificing things because you feel the need to repent for your sins or whatever reason your masochism stems from.

And the ad hominem attack continue... .

This sentence is more or less correct: "strategy is about using what you have to the best advantage". Here, the slots is "what you have". Take away them, and you take away the strategy. For the record, I'd replace the "what you have", with "limited resources", but that's a minor distinction.

That good strength is because they are generic or adaptable. Except, the ability to adapt seems to be rather limited in H5. It appears to be a simple choice of going for the ultimate or not going for the ultimate - which is basically going for right now, over in the end game. You don't get both.

And they're adaptable because you've wisely choosen your skills and abilities. I'll give you that the skill system isn't currently very geared towards allowing you to adapt through it, but rather to making a hero that's versatile enough to be able whatever is thrown at him. However, with the rest of the game looking as it does, this is pretty much the way it has to be.

Except, you are penalised by taking Navigation, even though it should make good strategic sense on the map. That penalty is that you can't get Urgash's Call. Oh yeah - I like THAT reward

I'll say it one last time: The ultimate is not the only damn way to build your hero. Yes, going for Navigation prevents you from getting Urgash's Call. It doesn't stop you from choosing another combiantion of skills and abilities, which- together with the aid of navigation- allows you to win the game. They Ultimates doesn't put a button in the interface that says "press here to win". You can beat heroes that has the ultimate.

because I have a problem with limits, because I don't feel I should be penalized or punished for trying to play smart.

If you're being punished, I'd say that's a clear indication of you not playing smart. It's not like the game looks at your selection and says "Oh, nice choices. Now I'll take all of your gold because of it. Mwahahaha!".

Essentually, without limitations, those who like limitations can impose them upon themselves.

Yes, great idea. Not. If we play MP, and I choose to "impose limits myself", I'm penalizing myself. Why should I be forced to do that because of your want-it-all notion? Suggesting to remove the limits and let those who like them impose them by themselves isn't a solution. Someone is going to be unhappy no matter how they do, and currently it seems that someone is you. You're free to argue for how it should be different, but don't suggest that limits can be selfimposed like that, because that will just not happen.

[Da' vane]

The Ultimate is the ONLY way to get 22 abilities however, compared to 21 abilities without it.

Given all abilities are supposed to be equal, how can you sit there and claim that this is balanced? That's not to mention that if ultimates are supposed to be "uber-abilities", then this single ability difference is much larger than a single ability.

You claim to be for limits, yet you ask why you should penalize yourself when you self impose those limits? You don't have to penalize yourself - that is the point. There should not be penalization for anybody.

But it is sheer hypocracy to be advocating limits when you rail against self-limitation.

You say: If you could get everything, you would. Is that really a bad thing? There shouldn't be limitations because certain players such as yourself lack the willpower to deal with excess.

If you don't like the "take everything" approach, then the simple answer is not to take everything. You can restrict your choices to what you want - you don't need Nival to do that for you.

[Gaidal Cain]

The Ultimate is the ONLY way to get 22 abilities however, compared to 21 abilities without it.

Yes, and? You're paying for it by the rest of your abilities and skills: you've been forced to take abilities you might not otherwise have taken, and you've probably not been able to pick up the skills you want. Besides, if the extra slot would be what makes an ultimate worth it, I'd say that it's a waste of code...

You claim to be for limits, yet you ask why you should penalize yourself when you self impose those limits? You don't have to penalize yourself - that is the point. There should not be penalization for anybody.

And there isn't any, either. But if your solution for me is to "implement limits yourself", then you are suggesting that I should, in fact penalize myself, and that in a much worse manner than the puny free slot for the Ultimate "penalizes" those who don't go for it.

But it is sheer hypocracy to be advocating limits when you rail against self-limitation.

No. Because self-limitation is a farce. It doesn't work. It would probably even be impossible to try to limit myself that way, because sooner or later, I'll get offered abilities beyond the limit. At that point, I'll begin to get penalized, and no matter what you think, I'm not a masochist.

You say: If you could get everything, you would. Is that really a bad thing? There shouldn't be limitations because certain players such as yourself lack the willpower to deal with excess.

Sigh. Can't you just stop with the ad hominem? Anyway, yes, I couldn't deal with that excess. Not becuase I "lack willpower", but becuase it would be boring. Not having to care at a levelup what I choose because I can get the other option later? Boring. Only getting offered stuff I don't want without being able to do something about it? Boring. Having heroes I know sooner or later will end up pretty much the same because I can get everything I want? Boring. And least of all: having to keep track so I don't step over the limit myself? Boring.

If you don't like the "take everything" approach, then the simple answer is not to take everything. You can restrict your choices to what you want - you don't need Nival to do that for you.

No, I very much need Nival to implement it for me. If they hadn't doing it myself would have meant playing badly. I don't wish to have to play badly just to have an interesting game. It's Nival's job to make the game as intersting as possible, and I find that the skill system they've come up with is fantastic in that regard. I don't want that undone. Having to do it myself would be like starting every town fully built, but then having to "virtually" build it up myself. Not my idea of fun.

You're free to dislike the skill system, but don't think that those of us that likes it are willing to let it to go just because "we can impose it ourselves".

[Da' vane]

Yes, and? You're paying for it by the rest of your abilities and skills: you've been forced to take abilities you might not otherwise have taken, and you've probably not been able to pick up the skills you want. Besides, it's not the free slot that makes the ultimate worth it, as you should have an entire skill family left when you get there.

First, you don't always HAVE an entire skill family left over - because your starting skills and abilities take up one of the five slots you currently have.

When you compare a maxed out hero who has ultimate and one who doesnt, the hero with the ultimate has an extra ability, and being that it's the ultimate which is supposedly more powerful than a normal ability, this is quite an imbalance.

Not to mention that if someone who goes for ultimate is forced to take weak skills, then they will have weak skilles even when they don't get the ultimate for whatever reason. This makes them considerably weaker than heroes who haven't gone for ultimate, and thus is also an imbalance.

Either way, there is a significant imbalance with the skills system that stems completely from the ability and skill limits.

And there isn't any, either. But if your solution for me is to "implement limits yourself", then you are suggesting that I should, in fact penalize myself, and that in a much worse manner than the puny free slot for the Ultimate "penalizes" those who don't go for it.

If there is no penalization in the skill system, then you should be happy to remove the limits, while you stick with the three abilities per skill limit. The very fact the you rail against penalizing yourself indicates that there is a penalty - the only injustice you see is that you should be penalizing yourself when nobody else is.

Which explains your position quite clearly - everybody should be penalizaed equally. However, those of us who don't like this level of baby-sitting are saying, why does anybody have to be penalized at all?

No. Because self-limitation is a farce. It doesn't work. It would probably even be impossible to try to limit myself that way, because sooner or later, I'll get offered abilities beyonf the limit. At that point, I'll begin to get penalized, and no matter what you think, I'm not a masochist.

When you decide to go for the ultimate over something else, you are limiting yourself - this is what self limiting is all about. For those of us that don't want limits - we have no choice, but at least with self-limitation, you can limt yourself in the way you want to, if you want to limit yourself at all.

You say: If you could get everything, you would. Is that really a bad thing? There shouldn't be limitations because certain players such as yourself lack the willpower to deal with excess.

Sigh. Can't you just stop with the ad hominem? Anyway, yes, I couldn't deal with that excess. Not becuase I "lack willpower", but becuase it would be boring. Not having to care at a levelup what I choose because I can get the other option later? Boring. Only getting offered stuff I don't want without being able to do something about it? Boring. Having heroes I know sooner or later will end up pretty much the same because I can get everything I want? Boring. And least of all: having to keep track so I don't step over the limit myself? Boring.

Ad hominem - we're talking about playstyles and arguments for or against, so of course it is going to get personal, because its our personality that defines out preferences, in such things as playstyle.

But you know what is worse than boring - Annoying? Spend 4 hours on a map to get stuck with a hero that's no longer fun because of a choice you didn't make - Annoying. Going through games getting offered nothing but perks because you don't have a skill wheel and you took them in the wrong way - Annoying. being forced to take the same route over and over to get to ultimate - Annoying.

I don't know about others, but I try to play games to relieve stress - I don't enjoy games that wind me up with useless bloody limitations that have no right being there. If I want to have Teleport Assault and Tactics, I should be able to - but I'm not. And the only reason I get is because some whingers think it might be too "broken" and a bloody design company that things mindless tedium and frustration are fun, rather than annoying.

No, I very much need Nival to implement it for me. If they hadn't doing it myself would have meant playing badly. I don't wish to have to play badly just to have an interesting game. It's Nival's job to make the game as intersting as possible, and I find that the skill system they've come up with is fantastic in that regard. I don't want that undone. Having to do it myself would be like starting every town fully built, but then having to "virtually" build it up myself. Not my idea of fun.

You're free to dislike the skill system, but don't think that those of us that likes it are willing to let it to go just because "we can impose it ourselves".

If the skill system is only interesting by what you can't have, rather than what you can - there there is a significant issue with the skill system: it's just not interesting enough.

I thought it was Nival's job to make the game interesting and fun, but apparently, their job is to make it as frustrating and annoying as possible. But if frustrating and annoying what you like - go for it.

I dislike the skill system, and thus I dislike H5. I think I'll pass on H6, and wait for Nival and Ubi to fail, before someone who actually knows what fun is gets hold of the license...

Good Day, gentlemen - and thank you for showing me that people who don't like annoying shouldn't be playing H5. I think I'll submit that quote to Ubisoft - I'm sure they can put it on the box and boost H5 sales by a good percentage...

[Jolly Joker]

While it seems that everyone of you is putting a lot of effort into this discussion, it's clear that posts have become so large that not many will read them. So maybe it's time to simply come to the point again and condense the argument. It seems that one side doesn't like the way it is - specifically the limitation of abilitiy picks, more specifically with regard to the fact that with all the restrictions the ultimate ability is like a phantom that can be chased but won't be caught easily.
I'm going to add a few cents here.
The limitation of abilities CANNOT be an issue because it never was an issue. You could never get all skills, not even in Homm II, so in each and every Homm, even in Homm IV you had to PICK and it was clear, every pick would limit the rest of your pickings. Take creature dwellings in H IV into consideration and it's clear, the principle that you cannot take everything was there.
So actually having a limit on what is possible isn't new (if you treat abilities as a second layer of skills for simplicity's sake).
What about the ultimate then?
I think, here the key is the fact that skills and abilities are offered at random. So the easier the ability would be to get the more annoying (and decisive) the randomness would get. Add to this the fact that the ultimate should be difficult and late to get then the ONLY reasonable way to alter things I see is to make the prerequisites more generic: instead of naming the skills AND the exact three abilities I would think it possible to make the prerequisites this way: 4 specific skills (up to expert level), for example:

Racial
Attack
Leadership
Dark Magic

plus ANY three abilities for EACH of the skills.

[Corelanis]

I like JJs idea but i would put one futher resriction on it, require one skill to go along a specific path the skill that is cosest in idea to the ulitimate (luck for natures luck etc.).
As for map speed MrSteamTank most of it could be solved with a map editor. I also never said 3-4 hours i merely meant more than 10 or 20 mins.

[Bandobras Took]

Perhaps it's time to demonstrate your self-contradiction:

Seriously, if all abilities are created equal, and they should be, none of them should be justified by the fact that they lead on to your ultimate.

Especially since the path to the ultimate is different for each hero, yet the skills and perks remain the same for all heroes. This just makes for a decidedly unbalanced system with carbon-copy heroes.

You either have all the heros that have gone for the ultimate, and have virtually all the same skills and abilities for that hero types ultimate, and then you have those that did not, which will have virtually all the same abilities for their ability type that are not considered "weak" - which is commonly, everything else.

This is not always true, because not all ultimates are created equal. But in most cases, the ultimates are simple upgrades of existing abilities anyway. Urgash's Call means gating is instant, yet you already have Swift Gating which makes it 50% faster, so it only take half the normal time. In essence, Urgash's Call is simply Swift Gating taken twice (using D&D arithmetic, which involves removing the original values, to avoid them from being multiplied over and over - so x2 and x2 make x3, not x4). These ultimates already have the requirements that they are reserved for heroes of levels 29-30, through their requirements - that should be limitation enough.

Here's where I'm going to officially cease to take your arguments seriously.

You're arguing about the relative strength of various skills and subabilities when you obviously have no clue what they do. Swift Gating affects the intiative of the summoning stack -- instead of losing a full turn to gate, it becomes a wait-equivalent action. Urgash's Call makes a summoned stack arrive instantly.

If you're going to base your arguments around certain abilities being stronger or weaker you need to have used those abilities yourself so that you know what they do. Arguing about skill balance when you haven't even bothered to test the skills is invalid.

You do not know what the skills do. You haven't bothered to take careful notes or observe. You're complaining for the sake of complaining, but you're dealing with vague theory that has nothing to do with how the game actually plays.

Please. Go try out the skills. Get some Ultimate Abilities and see what they do. Then come back and talk when you've at least got accurate information on your side.

And then I challenge you to provide one skill or subability whose sole worth lies in the fact of their being on the path to an Ultimate.

If you want more contradictions, I'll give them to you, but I think this one is sufficient.

[ThunderTitan]

And then I challenge you to provide one skill or subability whose sole worth lies in the fact of their being on the path to an Ultimate.

Tear of Asha Vision. Seriously, there's no point in ever taking it. And most of the Enlighment abilities aren't worth much either.

[Ethric]

The limitation of abilities CANNOT be an issue because it never was an issue. You could never get all skills, not even in Homm II, so in each and every Homm, even in Homm IV you had to PICK and it was clear, every pick would limit the rest of your pickings.

The first sentence is plain wrong: just because something has been one way all along is not a reason for it not to be an issue, and change, later. If that was true there would be no change from one game to another (and thus there wouldn't be any new games).

That said, I couldn't care less about ultimate skilll. It's a toy, a very small cherry on a large vat of icecream. That is, not important, all in all, you won't see it in the vast majority of games played. But I do think you should be allowed more than three subskills, simply because here is a fairly interesting new take on skills, but you are severly constricted in how you build your hero. And it wouldn't be like you got any *more* skills\abilities\whatever, you'd just get to choose more from each "branch". And they're all based on something, so I don't think there'd be that many choices each time. And it could be tweaked anyway, so that more are based of others, if it should turn out to be a problem.

And there aren't that many in each branch anyway. No more than 5 subskills of each branch. I just think it would be a bit more fun if you didn't get hindered to take the 4th subskill, or 5th. That's it.

As for what's mentioned in all these very longwinded posts here, I can't comment as I have no intention of reading all that

[DaemianLucifer]

Tear of Asha Vision. Seriously, there's no point in ever taking it. And most of the Enlighment abilities aren't worth much either.

If theres a map with no obelisks with a victory condition to find the tear of asha,this one becomes very usefull

[Jolly Joker]

I probably should add: the limitation of abilities cannot be an issue because it is a major factor of the game since H II and it never was an issue until now. I mean, has anyone ever said, well, drat only 8 skill slots I want a chance to get them ALL? Worse, has anyone ever said only 8 skill slots, THAT RUINS THE GAME? No. And if so, it cannot have been many and they cannpt have been loud.
Now we have 5 skills out of 12 (or more correct is probably 4 out of 11 and in some cases heroes start with 3 skills, than we have 3 out of 10). And linked to each skill are 3 subskill-slots with the player having to pick 3 out of 4 or 5.
I completely fail to see, while it should be right on the skill level that the player is being forced to pick, while it should be wrong having to do so on the subskill level. There doesn't seem to be any logic in that. There is even less logic in it, why this should ruin the game.

[DaemianLucifer]

I probably should add: the limitation of abilities cannot be an issue because it is a major factor of the game since H II and it never was an issue until now. I mean, has anyone ever said, well, drat only 8 skill slots I want a chance to get them ALL? Worse, has anyone ever said only 8 skill slots, THAT RUINS THE GAME? No. And if so, it cannot have been many and they cannpt have been loud.

Umm...Isnt that the reason why WoG allows ten skills?

[Jolly Joker]

Because it ruined H III having only 8 skill slots?

[Gaidal Cain]

When you compare a maxed out hero who has ultimate and one who doesnt, the hero with the ultimate has an extra ability, and being that it's the ultimate which is supposedly more powerful than a normal ability, this is quite an imbalance.

Yes, but heroes doesn't suddenly jump to level 30. You've spent a whole map getting to the ultimate. Of course it's going to be powerful- it better damn be if I'm going to go through the trouble of getting to it.

Not to mention that if someone who goes for ultimate is forced to take weak skills, then they will have weak skilles even when they don't get the ultimate for whatever reason. This makes them considerably weaker than heroes who haven't gone for ultimate, and thus is also an imbalance.

No. There are lots of skills out there with more or less worth. It's the combination that matters. Some of them are weaker, some are stronger. That goes for all abilities.

If there is no penalization in the skill system, then you should be happy to remove the limits, while you stick with the three abilities per skill limit.

No, because doing so is exactly what creates the damn penalty of having to do a lot of boring stuff just so I can look silly. If the system is changed as you want, I'll curse Nivals folly, and stick with it. THat doesn't in any part mean that I won't oppose the change.


If you don't think building a hero without the limits will make him better in the end than building him within the limits, why the heck are you arguing? Playing with selfimposing limits is playing worse than I could, thus I'm penalized for doing so.

Which explains your position quite clearly - everybody should be penalizaed equally. However, those of us who don't like this level of baby-sitting are saying, why does anybody have to be penalized at all?

Of course everyone should be treated equally. But having to play by the same rules isn't getting penalized. Saying that I should impose a different standard myself is penalizing me.

Ad hominem - we're talking about playstyles and arguments for or against, so of course it is going to get personal, because its our personality that defines out preferences, in such things as playstyle.

Calling me "weakwilled" is an ad hominem. As is calling me masochistic.

But you know what is worse than boring - Annoying? Spend 4 hours on a map to get stuck with a hero that's no longer fun because of a choice you didn't make - Annoying.

So don't try for the ultimate. Just pretend it doesn't exist, if it bothers you that much that you might not reach it. You still have 36 perks and some 25 abilities for each hero to chose from. Saying that the hero isn't fun just because he can't get the ultimate seems rather shallow to me.

[Snip part about lack of documentation]being forced to take the same route over and over to get to ultimate - Annoying.

JJ's sugestion seems like on I could accept, perhaps with some specific abilities you need. The skill system could use some more variation.

I don't know about others, but I try to play games to relieve stress - I don't enjoy games that wind me up with useless bloody limitations that have no right being there. If I want to have Teleport Assault and Tactics, I should be able to - but I'm not. And the only reason I get is because some whingers think it might be too "broken" and a bloody design company that things mindless tedium and frustration are fun, rather than annoying.

I agree with the parts about tedium, but they hardly apply to the skill system. And even if every skill was as near balanced as it could possibly be, I'd still say that the choice between Pathfinding and Teleport Assault would be more interesting than the ability to have both.

If the skill system is only interesting by what you can't have, rather than what you can - there there is a significant issue with the skill system: it's just not interesting enough.

Nope. If it would be like that, there would be an issue with the skills and abilities, not with the system. Currently, there's a lot of intersting abilities, and the system adds even more spice by forcing me to choose between them.

[Bandobras Took]

And then I challenge you to provide one skill or subability whose sole worth lies in the fact of their being on the path to an Ultimate.

Tear of Asha Vision. Seriously, there's no point in ever taking it. And most of the Enlighment abilities aren't worth much either.

It can come in handy on Find the Grail maps. Like Navigation, limited use, but worthwhile in its sphere.

[MrSteamTank]

And then I challenge you to provide one skill or subability whose sole worth lies in the fact of their being on the path to an Ultimate.

Tear of Asha Vision. Seriously, there's no point in ever taking it. And most of the Enlighment abilities aren't worth much either.

It can come in handy on Find the Grail maps. Like Navigation, limited use, but worthwhile in its sphere.

Tear of asha is totally dependant on find the grail maps solely. Why even offer the ability in a map that does not have this as a victory condition? Same thing can be said to offering navigation in a map with no water. It simply wastes a slot for no reason.

Seriously the tear of asha would be nice if it gave 1 random resource per turn if someone places the tear and an additional 250 gold per round if the person in possession of the tear is you. This way it would be a sort of 'gamble' type estates skill thats weaker usually but gets a lot better when you're in possession of the tear.

They could honestly do the same with navigation as it's niche I wouldn't mind seeing a buff to it in another area. For example granting it +10% momvent bonus when above ground then to balance this give scouting a +10% movement below ground. This would give those logistics buffs another way to boost their speed giving these skills a purpose to be there even in maps where normally they wouldn't have a use at all.

Highly niche and specific abilities are ok but when they are not disabled in maps that don't have these features. Mainly for maps that have no tear of asha(then remove the tear of asha skill from the list of skills) and no sea(then remove navigation from the list).

One or the other imo. Having a 'useless' skill is severely gimping as it lowers your choices for other 'real' skills. And personally I hate luck in my strategy games.

[ThunderTitan]

It can come in handy on Find the Grail maps. Like Navigation, limited use, but worthwhile in its sphere.

If you can guess the general location where the Grail is you'd be better off hireing another hero and following the messages. Like DL said, only if there are no obelisks...