Skills and Abilities rant!

[DaemianLucifer]

@The Frostraven

We had a similar system in HIV:Each two skills gave you a specialty.This has been scrapped,as well as any good inovation from HIV.

Sure,the fans wanted to see HIII as a base,but not an HIII clone with fancy 3D.And I think most of those that voted for HIII still wanted to see some gamplay changes.For example caravans.Even some of those that organically hate HIV will say that this is a good idea.And yes,I know this isnt an HIII clone,its way worse than HIII.

@Jolly Joker

No,roulete is a game of chance,heroes is a game of strategy.And in HIV you knew what monsters where in the crypt and aproximately how many.

[Jolly Joker]

@The Frostraven

We had a similar system in HIV:Each two skills gave you a specialty.This has been scrapped,as well as any good inovation from HIV.

Sure,the fans wanted to see HIII as a base,but not an HIII clone with fancy 3D.And I think most of those that voted for HIII still wanted to see some gamplay changes.For example caravans.Even some of those that organically hate HIV will say that this is a good idea.And yes,I know this isnt an HIII clone,its way worse than HIII.

@Jolly Joker

No,roulete is a game of chance,heroes is a game of strategy.And in HIV you knew what monsters where in the crypt and aproximately how many.

I don't think you have any idea of what you are talking. Shall I really start naming all game elements that depend on chance? Are you really thinking that "chance" and "strategy" are mutually exclusive? Do you really believe what you are writing or are you trying to say something for the sake of the argument?

[DaemianLucifer]

I don't think you have any idea of what you are talking. Shall I really start naming all game elements that depend on chance? Are you really thinking that "chance" and "strategy" are mutually exclusive? Do you really believe what you are writing or are you trying to say something for the sake of the argument?

Theres a differene between pure chance and calculated risk.You getting a deleb in the tavern is a chance,or you getting a lucky strike.But attacking a horde of something is a calculated risk.Heroes should be stripped of pure chances(making all heroes equally good,or making all of them available in the tavern,nerfing down luck,etc).Sure there is a chance your opponent got lucky and got a big boost to his army.But thats why you send scouting heroes to check him out.You wont blind rush him.Whitch hut now is a pure chance,and it shouldnt be like that.The strategy should come furst with chance far behind it.And not the other way round.

[Ethric]

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 should really hope so, I would like to think that the game's features were there by design. But the argument here is that some of us think it shouldn't be this way.

And I think that your argument that HoMM is a game of chance is lacking. Why should you then get to choose what to have at leveling up, why should you get to choose whether to take gold or experience from chests, and so on, hmm? That doesn't sound like a game of chance to me.

The forced learning at witch huts has annoyed me ever since H2 and I think giving you a choice of whether to learn the offered skill or not like in H4 is a much better aproach than just giving you whatever it is straight up with a "Tough luck, the game's a gamble anyway." Yes it is for conviniences's sake, as you *can* send some gobetween hero to check it. But for that very reason giving you a choice is better, as you'll just check with another hero or reload anyway if you get something you don't want. It's nothing more than an annoyance to me.

And as mentioned the skill learnt from a witchhut is irreversible, while you have some idea of creatures numbers and can even retreat and recover if you loose. Also, it seems very weird that you shouldn't be allowed to choose what others learn you.

[Gus]

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.

that's ludicrous... there's simply no reason for a "yes-no" button NOT to be here. there are plenty of reasons for it to be here.

[Da' vane]

BT, this is what you posted:

That's it! It's only the fans who like everything in H4 and WoG that should count! Those of us with differing opinions should be completely ignored!

The important part in that quote is "everything".

Except I didn't use the term "everything". There are good things and bad things about H4, and I am well aware the some of them are controversial. Other's are a little more clean cut, because I have yet to hear ANYONE state the they prefer to go to resource locations week after week to pick up their resources. Until at least one person comes here and says that they PREFER to have a hero visit such locations week in, week out - I think it is pretty clear that this was a good improvement, even if it was in H4, and that it SHOULD have been in H5. This is just one example - but it is one that shows that Nival either chose to ignore H4, was not aware of all the features of H4. They may have actively decided against this, but I don't see how anybody could think that forcing players to visit resource locations week after week is a GOOD thing, especially given that Nival/Ubi stated they wanted to speed up the game.

There is a difference between listening and agreeing. The fact that I am even replying (and often quoting) should be just enough to show you that I am listening. I have not accused anyone here on this thread of not listening to anyone else - just Nival/Ubisoft, because if they had listened to the fanbase, they would have picked up that while many disliked H4, even it had good features worth salvaging. Sure, poeple would say "H4 sucks!", "H4 roxxor! Screw H3!", or whatever, but there would have been a number of arguments and points crop of from it that even the staunchest H3 fan would have to admit was kind of useful, even if they didn't like the rest of the game.

Nival done one poll apparently, but they appear to have either decided to not listen to it, or they have misinterpreted it badly. As I said, there's a lot of differences between wanting something "more H3 than H4" and straight H3 clone.

It's pretty clear that the H3 vs. H4 debate will continue to rage for quite a while, because there are quite a lot of changes between the two. How could Nival have even hoped that a single poll could tell them what the fans want? They could have had two more polls - "what did you like from H3" and "what did you like from H4". I'm pretty sure that would have provided a clearer insight into the fan-base, and helped to make H5 more like an evolution of the entire series, than just a H3 close with H4 left out in the cold.

Of course, there's always other concerns, because H5 seems like it was rushed. Very badly rushed. The decision to make it a H3 clone was probably taken not because it's what the fans wanted, but because it was easiest to copy.

The Creature Experience reference was meant as a general idea of the kind of features that could have been taken from WoG, not a specific feature. it was never meant to alientate you or anyone else who didn't like this feature - I just couldn't think of anything generic from WoG to use as an example. I suppose I could have said scripts, but those are mostly map specific, and probably far too generic to mention. I might as well have said "gameplay" or "graphics" or something equally as broad...

On a side note here though, I have to ask: does your hatred of the Creature Experience thing in WoG stem from the principle (creature can improve over time) or from the specific way in which Creature Experience is handed and/or specific advancement schemes for certain creatures?

Personally, Heroes on the battlefield is a good idea. However, this doesn't neccessarily mean it has to be as H4 implemented it, because there were some definate quirks, and not really balanced between large creature stacks in the end game. It seemed that if you were a combat hero, you were night on invincible, but if you weren't, you got beat up really badly, if not killed outright by large creature stacks. But this doesn't mean it was neccessarily bad - but that it just wasn't implemented right. It doesn't neccessarily mean the whole idea of Heroes on the battlefield needs to be chucked out and the whole system dragged back to H3.

This may seem stupid, but a lot of people liked HoMM 1 - yet, for some reason we're all here talking about HoMM 5. From what I've heard in this thread, there is a great like for the skill system, but it is not unaminous. yet my grip is not with the skills or abilities, but the limitations they put on gaining abilities. I don't like the limitation - and as far as I can tell there is no real reason for it. The only one given was about trying to limit the number of abilities taken compared to skills, but thesse rather too arbitrary to me, and not like the ideal solution at all. But then, if Nival were after a quick fix because they wanted to rush it out - I suppose that was the best they could do in the time they were allowed.

Finally, as to making broad sweeping statements, I thought I made it pretty clear that this was a broad sweeping statements. That's what a term like "the fans" means. If you look at what I've said the fan's like and don't like - which was intended to be mostly generic rather than specific, with a few specific examples coming to mind, you will see thet this is a broad sweeping summary of the fanbase as a whole.

There are a few things I can say that the fan base wants, and I dare any of you to disagree, in public, here right now:

a) A better game. I shouldn't think there's anybody here that want's a worse game, and very few here that want the same game. If what you want is Heroes 3, go play Heroes 3 - you'll be saving money, time, and effort by not trying to make Heroes 5 exactly like Heroes 3. The exact specifics of a better game are not important - and obviously, something may be more better for some people than others.

b) Choice. You can never go wrong with more choice. That's the point of this thread about the Skills and Abilities - it denies choice. You may be content with what you have now, but if you were given the choice because they removed the three ability limit or the 5 skill limit, you wouldn't start demanding that they remove it. Realistically - the fact that it takes experience to level up, and this is the main way to get skills and abilities, there is already a practical limit of sorts within the gameplay that restricts heroes to a realistic number of levels, and thus a realistic number of skills and abilities through levelling up.

c) More options. More is always good - everybody loves more options, regardless of quality. Few people demand less options for the sake of having less options. Sometimes people ask for broken or weak options to be removed, but usually this is not so much about having less options, and a quick method of getting the specific skill fixed - and a fix is usually just as good as getting such an item remove.

Point b) applies here - because this is about choice of abilities. If you are happy with the skill and ability system, then dine - you can still opt not to take that extra perk when going after the ultimate, we're not stopping you. However, for those of us that want a bit for freedom when gaining levels, so that we can try for that ultimate even if we take another perk, we can. It'll take us another level to do so, and since the Ultimate requires you to be around 30th level, every extra perk or ability you take outside of it just means you might not get there before the end of the map or the campaign. But at least you know you aren't denied it because your starting hero has the wrong starting perk, or because a witch hut gives you the wrong skill.

Not to mention that not limiting heroes to the number of skills they get removes all the annoyances of the Witch Hut giving you the wrong skill in H5 and weak skills like Scholar and Eagle Eye in H3. Where as currently, these are annoying, it's just because that, with the limit, they deny you an actually useful skill that you might have wanted. However, if there is no limit, such issues are no longer relevent - if the Witch Hut gives you the wrong skill in H5, you just shrug your shoulders, because you can still get the skills you actually want. Likewise, skills like Eagle Eye and Scholar in H3 are less of an issue if you get them, because they don't take up the space of a more useful skill you actually want.

These could also apply to abilities, should there actually be more to make this relevent. If you somehow get an ability you don't like (poor starting hero, bad set of level choices when playing "organically", or there's an ability-giving version of the Witch Hut) this is less of an annoyance without a limit, because such an event doesn't deny you of the things you want. Of course, if you have a choice, you can always take what you think to be cooler, and ignore weak skills and abilities if they come up when you level.

As long as getting a skill or ability doesn't deny you the chance of reaching the loft goals of getting the ultimate, there really isn't any need to compare the ability or skill with the ultimate. But if they do, then you have to compare them. No ability or skill just be justified on the basis that it allows you to get the ultimate or some other ability - I don't think four of the skills are much weaker than the others that than can only be considered balanced because they also allow you the chance to get to your ultimate. Likewise, no perk from a skill should be weaker than the other two such that it can only be justified by giving you access to more advanced abilities and possibly the ultimate.

Instead, if Guardian Angel requires Master of Blessings, you should be able to take Guardian Angel after you get Master of Blessings, even if Master of Blessings is your third ability for Light Magic. Likewise, if you can get Last Stand after Vitality (Defence perk) and Aura of Swiftness (Leadership 3rd tier that is not connected to any of the Leadership perks), you should be able to, even if you have another Defence perk, such as Protection or Evasion. While this would take me and extra level with that hero - that's always an extra level that someone else could have spent taking another skills, advancing an existing they already have, or choosing some other ability.

If the possibility of all heroes ending up the same is that big of a concern - then choose something different from what you would normally take that I wouldn't. Sure, if heroes were capable of gaining an infinite number of levels, they could take all the skills and abilities - but the practicallity of that is impossible - because there is only so much experience on the map.

As it stands, with 12 skills x 3 ranks, and 5 abilities for each skill, and three racial ability, three ranks in your racial skill, and the ultimate, minus the three starting skills and/or abilities a hero gets, that's 100 levels to get everything without limits. Even if you were lucky enough to be bale to visit enough Witch Huts get to get all the basic levels of each non-racial skill, you'd still only be saving 11 levels, meaning it would take 89 levels to get everything. (Yes, some skills on have four abilities in them, bit this is only a couple of levels, so we can say 85 levels to max one hero.)

Given that most maps and campaigns barely get you to 30, I think it is clear to see that removing the limits for skills and abilities still won't make all heroes exactly the same, because getting 85 levels over 1 map isn't exactly going to happen quickly... Whereas, it is entirely possible to max out a hero with the current limits (5 skills x 3 ranks, and 5 skills times 3 abilities, plus 3 racial abilities, plus 3 ranks, plus the ultimate, - 3 starting skills and/or abilities = 34 levels, or 29 if you get your skills from Witch Huts).

On the concern that players were taking more abilities over skills - well, that's because of skills versus abilities in the first place. It takes 2 levels for Advanced Attack to gain +20% to melee damage, versus 2 levels to take Basic Attack (+10% melee damage) and Basic Archery (+20% ranged damage). Which would you take? However, if you balanced a level of skill with an ability, so each level of Attack granted +20% damage to ranged attacks, it'd become a much fairer contest - Advanced Attack (+40% to melee damage) or Basic Attack (+20% Melee) and Archery (+20% Ranged).

Besides the power of Abilities vs. Skills, you also have the fact that there are more Abilities than Skills (5 vs. 3), and that the abilities are much cooler in most cases and add something new, unlike skills, whose advanced ranks just increase the additions you already have. Plus, taking abilities opens up the advanced abilities, where as higher ranks in skills don't open up anything new.

[Gaidal Cain]

b) Choice. You can never go wrong with more choice. That's the point of this thread about the Skills and Abilities - it denies choice.

No. It forces choice. Choosing something means not choosing something else. Here, it's very obvious what you doesn't choose. What you describe is a situation were you're only "not choosing" a particular ability just becuase there aren't enough level ups and witch hut to be able to get everything.

[N]o perk from a skill should be weaker than the other two such that it can only be justified by giving you access to more advanced abilities and possibly the ultimate.

Why not? There is clearly a choice involved here. I thought you liked those?

Oh, and since you don't seem to have noticed: Witch huts now can teach you the advanced version of a skill, or even an ability if you're already at expert. Pretty nifty.

[Da' vane]

Limits deny choice and deny options. In this case, it denies you the option of having both choices, even if it takes you more time. When I level up, I should be choosing what I want now, not which I want over the entire map, campaign, especially when I haven't seen it yet.

How do I know whether navigation is going to be useful or not on a map I haven't seen? Yes, I happen to start with a hero who has Logistics and Pathfinding, and my first turn takes me to an oblisk and some chests, so I gain two levels and I am forced to make a choice. Do I take Navigation now, or do I take Swift Gating? If I take Navigation now, I can't get Teleport Assault, but if this is almost entirely a water-bound map, Navigation may help me explore and get the edge on my opponents. If this isn't I've just wasted an ability and denied myself the opportunity for a potent ability later on, not to mention my chance at the ultimate.

Here, in the first turn, my success with the map is determined by what might as well be random chance.

Logistics, Pathfinding, Swift Gating, and Teleport Assault are not so weak that they can only be considered balanced with other skills and abilities by the fact they also serve as requirements for higher level abilities. Not only this, but in this one example, I'm having to compare Navigation with not only Swift Gating, but Teleport Assault, and Urgash's Call.

Given the choice between Navigation and Swift Gating/Teleport Assault/Urgash's Call, which would you choose? Which would you choose over and over, every time this situation comes up?

If you are making the same choices every time, you will end up with heroes that are identical, and that is supposed to be something that people want to avoid right?

Now imagine the same scenario without ability limits. Suddenly, the decision comes down to whether I take Navigation or Swift Gating now. Can I see water, and do I look like I'm going to be crossing it any time soon? If so - Navigation is a good choice, and I can always pick up Swift Gating later. If not, Swift Gating is clearly more beneficial to me now, and I can always pick up Navigation later one if I do come across large bodies of water. Either way, I haven't lost the ability to take Teleport Assault or Urgash's Call, so these do not factor into decisions made and do not affect the balancing of abilities.

As for Witch Huts - if if Witch Huts grant advanced or expert ranks in skills, what are the chances of having more than 11 on any one map or campaign? Given the maximum players on a map is 6, I'd say it's be lucky to have more than 6 on a map, really...

[DaemianLucifer]

Except I didn't use the term "everything". There are good things and bad things about H4, and I am well aware the some of them are controversial. Other's are a little more clean cut, because I have yet to hear ANYONE state the they prefer to go to resource locations week after week to pick up their resources. Until at least one person comes here and says that they PREFER to have a hero visit such locations week in, week out - I think it is pretty clear that this was a good improvement, even if it was in H4, and that it SHOULD have been in H5. This is just one example - but it is one that shows that Nival either chose to ignore H4, was not aware of all the features of H4. They may have actively decided against this, but I don't see how anybody could think that forcing players to visit resource locations week after week is a GOOD thing, especially given that Nival/Ubi stated they wanted to speed up the game.

Browse this forum a bit and youll see at least one person that thinks this is strategy and not tedious micromanagment.Forgot his nick though.

[Da' vane]

Well, like I said DL, if they really think so, they can come here and say it in front of everybody (or you can post a link or a quote or something).

He wouldn't happen to work for Ubi/Nival, because apparently they also think this, apparently...

[Gaidal Cain]

Limits deny choice and deny options. In this case, it denies you the option of having both choices, even if it takes you more time. When I level up, I should be choosing what I want now, not which I want over the entire map, campaign, especially when I haven't seen it yet.

No, limit denies some choices and some options. If it "denies you the option of having both choices" (whatever that means), then what you've got is another choice. Sorry, but you're not going to convince me that I'm not choosing when I take Tactics instead of Power of Speed, knowing that I then never will get the later. You don't like being limited. Fine. Just don't pretend that the game doesn't allow choices, because it does quite the opposite: it forces you to make more difficult choices. A "choice" between Arcane Intuition and Intelligence isn't what I'd call meaningful, since I'll get great use out of one but not very much out of the other. A choice between Intelligence and Lord of the Undead would be another matter entriely.

Given the choice between Navigation and Swift Gating/Teleport Assault/Urgash's Call, which would you choose? Which would you choose over and over, every time this situation comes up?

Swift Gating. 99 times out of a 100. That's, because one is of limited and circumstancial use while the other will almost guaranteed be useulf, as well as leads to something even better.But let's stick to the Demon Lord skills. You start with Battle Frenzy. First level up, you're offered Excruciating strike and tactics. Situation is the same with regards to Urgash's Call, and there's an - albeit not that powerful- Power OF Speed that you're not getting if you go with Tactics. What will you do? With the current system, you get a hard choice between the very useful tactics and the slightly less useful Excruciating strike that however could lead to Urgash's Call. That's a meaningful choice. With your system, picking tactics would be easy as you'd still have all doors open.

If you are making the same choices every time, you will end up with heroes that are identical, and that is supposed to be something that people want to avoid right?

If heores are too identical, I see that as a problem with ability and skill balance. Not necessarily with the system itself. Note that your system makes it harder to balance the skills. Tactics wouldn't stop yo from getting Urgash's call and thus be pickable if you want it.

Now imagine the same scenario without ability limits. Suddenly, the decision comes down to whether I take Navigation or Swift Gating now.

99 times out of a 100, I'd still not choose Navigation. For me, it's still too weak to waste time on. If you're unsure which of the two is best to spend your slot on, pick a skill instead until you know which you want.

Either way, I haven't lost the ability to take Teleport Assault or Urgash's Call, so these do not factor into decisions made and do not affect the balancing of abilities.

Exactly- which makes that harder and the overall system less interesting. IMNSHO.

As for Witch Huts - if if Witch Huts grant advanced or expert ranks in skills, what are the chances of having more than 11 on any one map or campaign? Given the maximum players on a map is 6, I'd say it's be lucky to have more than 6 on a map, really...

It was more of a tip for your next playing session than related to the argument

[DaemianLucifer]

c) More options. More is always good - everybody loves more options, regardless of quality. Few people demand less options for the sake of having less options. Sometimes people ask for broken or weak options to be removed, but usually this is not so much about having less options, and a quick method of getting the specific skill fixed - and a fix is usually just as good as getting such an item remove.

Not always true.Remember MOO3?They became so obsessed with making loads of options and choices,and making it realistic that it became a pure crap.

Limits deny choice and deny options. In this case, it denies you the option of having both choices, even if it takes you more time. When I level up, I should be choosing what I want now, not which I want over the entire map, campaign, especially when I haven't seen it yet.

How do I know whether navigation is going to be useful or not on a map I haven't seen? Yes, I happen to start with a hero who has Logistics and Pathfinding, and my first turn takes me to an oblisk and some chests, so I gain two levels and I am forced to make a choice. Do I take Navigation now, or do I take Swift Gating? If I take Navigation now, I can't get Teleport Assault, but if this is almost entirely a water-bound map, Navigation may help me explore and get the edge on my opponents. If this isn't I've just wasted an ability and denied myself the opportunity for a potent ability later on, not to mention my chance at the ultimate.

Here, in the first turn, my success with the map is determined by what might as well be random chance.

Logistics, Pathfinding, Swift Gating, and Teleport Assault are not so weak that they can only be considered balanced with other skills and abilities by the fact they also serve as requirements for higher level abilities. Not only this, but in this one example, I'm having to compare Navigation with not only Swift Gating, but Teleport Assault, and Urgash's Call.

Given the choice between Navigation and Swift Gating/Teleport Assault/Urgash's Call, which would you choose? Which would you choose over and over, every time this situation comes up?

If you are making the same choices every time, you will end up with heroes that are identical, and that is supposed to be something that people want to avoid right?

Now imagine the same scenario without ability limits. Suddenly, the decision comes down to whether I take Navigation or Swift Gating now. Can I see water, and do I look like I'm going to be crossing it any time soon? If so - Navigation is a good choice, and I can always pick up Swift Gating later. If not, Swift Gating is clearly more beneficial to me now, and I can always pick up Navigation later one if I do come across large bodies of water. Either way, I haven't lost the ability to take Teleport Assault or Urgash's Call, so these do not factor into decisions made and do not affect the balancing of abilities.

As for Witch Huts - if if Witch Huts grant advanced or expert ranks in skills, what are the chances of having more than 11 on any one map or campaign? Given the maximum players on a map is 6, I'd say it's be lucky to have more than 6 on a map, really...

Theres a better way to do this.Just give you a skill point every level up,and you can later choose what to spend it on.

Well, like I said DL, if they really think so, they can come here and say it in front of everybody (or you can post a link or a quote or something).

He wouldn't happen to work for Ubi/Nival, because apparently they also think this, apparently...

He did say it like that,even argued it,but in another forum.And wheter hes from ubi/nival is irrelevant.

[Bandobras Took]

Thank you for clarifying.

I don't like creature experience for Heroes games in general. It would seem to generally lead to more of a "whoever wins the first battle wins the rest" situation. So far, in Heroes 5, the winner will find certain aspects (Summon Creature, Town Portal) get weaker the more towns they conquer. It gives the underdog a slight advantage, helping to mitigate the avalanche effect. Creature experience gives even more rewards to the winning party -- something that, as the game stands now, they don't need. Though one could argue that there is a modified form of stack specialization with the Academy's Artificer skill.

As far as the three subability limit goes, you simply need to choose which one (or two, depending on the skill and class) you don't want. I like that kind of choice, where I have to think whether this fits my playstyle or not, and I've got leave something behind. I've experienced no frustration in getting the wrong abilities because I've chosen what I'm aiming for beforehand.

As to the Witch's Hut issue, I can see both sides of the argument. I would only add that with the XP amounts that higher levels require, a free skill can be an awfully, awfully strong thing.

[King Imp]

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.

Wow, you really will defend Nival's laziness and incompetance on some issues to the death, won't you. Kinda makes one wonder how much they are paying you to do so because everyone but you and a few select others can see obvious problems and missing features that should never have happened.

Please, feel free to defend them on the High Score list thing as well when they had no problem giving it to their countrymen in their versions.

[Ethric]

Accusing someone of being paid of is NOT an acceptable argument here.

Unless perhaps if a selfproclaimed employee of the company were to come here and debate, which I doubt will happen.

edit: Oh, he actually is on their payroll. My bad, I wasn't aware.

[Gaidal Cain]

King Imp: While JJ is on Ubi's payroll as a translator, I hardly think it's part of his job to defend every part of H5, and I find it quite rude to imply otherwise. I've seen him defending things I can't for any reason see how they belong in a heroes game since so long back that I don't think he was a translator then, so my guess is that he's just a bit too used to the way things are...

[Ethric]

Yeah there'll always be someone who holds the other point of view, however odd it may seem. One has to respect their right to hold that view, even while arguing fiercly against it.

[King Imp]

Accusing someone of being paid of is NOT an acceptable argument here.

While JJ is on Ubi's payroll as a translator

Not exactly implying or accusing when Gaidal himself has confirmed it, now is it?

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to legitimately take JJ's criticisms as legitimate when it's obvious he's not impartial and defends Nival's decisions for a specific reason.

[zhuge]

Well, like I said DL, if they really think so, they can come here and say it in front of everybody (or you can post a link or a quote or something).

Have a look here:
viewtopic.php?t=2702&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
Scroll down and look for the person: Mightor Magic

Btw, I also do not favor flaggable Windmills and Waterwheels.
They are too similar to mines. There will always be differences of opinion on this matter. I like the H3 system just fine.

Also regarding Squires and Swordsmen... the H3 Swordsman/Crusader counterpart is the H4 Crusader. The Squire and his ability was essentially a new thing in H4.

[Continuity]

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to legitimately take JJ's criticisms as legitimate when it's obvious he's impartial and defends Nival's decisions for a specific reason.

I think you mean "partial". Impartial means neutral and unbiased.