Skills and Abilities rant!

[Ethric]

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 impartial and defends Nival's decisions for a specific reason.

Yes I wasn't aware that he was, my apologies. But seeing as JJ ignores much of the argumentations against his views and instead chooses to just repeat what he already said in a louder voice, it doesn't really seem to be necessary to take him to seriously anyway.

[King Imp]

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.

Actually, I meant to say not impartial, but forgot to add the not. My mistake.

[Da' vane]

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. 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.

I am not trying to convince you that choosing between tactics and power of speed isn't a choice. It is a choice. However, you lose the third choice - both Tactics and Power of Speed.

GC, did you eat today? Did you wash? What you do when you get up in the morning (or afternoon, even) is a choice - but it's not an either/or choice. You don't lose the ability to wash because you've eaten, or the ability to eat because you've washed. Just because you don't do both things at the same time, you don't lose the ability to do the second one - you just do it later.

thus, you could take Power of Speed now, and take tactics later, or you can take Tactics now and Power of Speed later. Of course, when you make the later choice, it becomes a decision of taking Power or Speed now, or something else now and Power of Speed later.

As you say, limit denies some choice - therefore, it denies choice. Which is what I said.

[quote="Gaidal Cain]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.[/quote]

Exactly - right now, it's a choice between Tactics or Power of Speed/Urgash's Call. However, is Tactics really worth both Power of Speed/Urgash's Call?

To make it easier to answer - forget that you can choose. It's a 50-50 chance of either Tactics or Power of Speed and Urgash's Call. Would you be happy regardless of where the dice fell?

If you think Tactics is worth Power of Speed and Urgash's Call, then you are saying that the Demon Lord's Ultimate is worth less than Tactics. You are also saying Power of Speed is worth less than Tactics. This means that either Tactics, Power of Speed, or Urgash's Call is unbalanced. Either Tactics is too powerful, or either Power of Speed or Urgash's Call is too weak.

If Tactics is too powerful, then it is also too powerful for the other heroes where it is not balanced by the Ultimate.

Ultimately, without limits - each ability is based soley on it's own merits, not what else it allows you to get. Here, you balance Tactics with Power of Speed, or with Urgash's call. There are three different wayt to get these three abilities over three levels - Tactics, Power of Speed, Urgash's Call; Power of Speed, Tactics, Urgash's Call; and Power of Speed, Urgash's Call, Tactics.

Not to mention that you forget that Urgash's Call requires more than just the Power of Speed, so you are also gambling on your ability to get the other skills. IF Tactics is only balanced with Power of Speed because you get Urgah's Call, it won't be balanced if you can't get it. Alternatively, if Tactics is balanced because of the possibility of getting Urgash's Call, then it will be underbalanced if you actually get Urgah's Call (that is, a hero who get's Uragsh's Call will be more powerful than one who doen't because they took Tactics).

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.

That's the point. Under "my" system, they are no longer balanced by the chances of what they can give you or what they lead to, but by what they actually do. The practical limits of levelling means you get a finite number of skills and abilities anyway - and ever level you are choosing between one or the other based on what they do - not based on the possibility that you might be able to get something else. They are balanced based on tangiables that can be tweaked if needed...

99 times out of a 100, I'd still not choose Navigation. For me, it's still too weak to waste time on.

If Navigation is that week to waste time on - it needs fixing, does it not?

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

That's where we differ - it makes playing the game harder, because you have to know the system, and the map, and the AI, and all the other little factors of chance before you play. The system works if you have a fully printed out Skill Wheel, and complete walkthroughs for all the maps and the campaigns. Otherwise, it falls apart because it removes the ability to adapt to the events in the game so far (hence "organic" development).

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

Thanks, but I just seem to get "Already Visited" whenever I find one that doesn't give me a basic skill...

Zhuge - the argument against flaggable resource locations is that theyare "too much like mines." That's just stinks of hypocracy, because mines are resource locations as well, they just have slower rates of producing their resources (1000 gold per day vs. 1000 gold per week).

Not to mention that Mightor Magic confesses to not having played H4. I have...

Since we don't have crusaders in H5, the Swordsman pretty much defaults to to Squire... However, like you said, the Squire/Footman's ability is new, so it can't have come from H4 or H3... Your agument, I bleive, was that it was from H4...

[zhuge]

Zhuge - the argument against flaggable resource locations is that theyare "too much like mines." That's just stinks of hypocracy, because mines are resource locations as well, they just have slower rates of producing their resources (1000 gold per day vs. 1000 gold per week).

Different structures should have more different functions. I prefer a structure which entails visiting it to get the bonus which necessitates having a scout/scavenger hero for the purpose. The slower/faster rate of getting the resource does not make the structures different enough for me. It's really as simple as that.

[Da' vane]

So, you are justifying non-flaggable resource locations, because it gives you a reason to have a second hero!?

Why don't you just buy a second hero anyway? You could always use it to scout the enemy, or push the attack from a second direction, to pick up resources your main hero doesn't have time for...

Secondly, flaggable locations has another benefit - they are objectives to fight over. The same principles of flagging mines would apply to other flaggable resource locations - the main reason to take them is not so much to improve your own resources, but to deny them for the enemy, thus slowing down their development.

If you flag a windmill on day 1, and your opponent come and flags it on day 4, you have three days to flag it again. Whoever has the flag there at the end of day 7 gets the resource. This has so much more potential, especially on a multiplayer map.

In fact, it sort of make you want to have flaggable locations that provide other kingdom bonuses besides creatures and resources...

[zhuge]

So, you are justifying non-flaggable resource locations, because it gives you a reason to have a second hero!?

Why don't you just buy a second hero anyway? You could always use it to scout the enemy, or push the attack from a second direction, to pick up resources your main hero doesn't have time for...

Of course not. I often play with 8 heroes on SP maps and do all you said, setting up hero chains, etc. Certainly not just for taking resources as you mentioned.

Secondly, flaggable locations has another benefit - they are objectives to fight over. The same principles of flagging mines would apply to other flaggable resource locations - the main reason to take them is not so much to improve your own resources, but to deny them for the enemy, thus slowing down their development.

If you flag a windmill on day 1, and your opponent come and flags it on day 4, you have three days to flag it again. Whoever has the flag there at the end of day 7 gets the resource. This has so much more potential, especially on a multiplayer map.

In fact, it sort of make you want to have flaggable locations that provide other kingdom bonuses besides creatures and resources...

You could apply the same argument for a non-flaggable structure. Whoever gets there first gets the resource instead of waiting for a week for it. I think that has good potential as well. Since if you are so desperate for the resource, you would camp a hero nearby non-flaggable structures early in the week.

Anyway, the point is that there are players who prefer the structure flagging system as it is and also the current system and choices for skills/abilities. As this thread has already dragged on for 10 pages, I doubt we will ever convince each other of our viewpoints so I'll just say we agree to disagree and move on to other matters.

[DaemianLucifer]

GC, did you eat today? Did you wash? What you do when you get up in the morning (or afternoon, even) is a choice - but it's not an either/or choice. You don't lose the ability to wash because you've eaten, or the ability to eat because you've washed. Just because you don't do both things at the same time, you don't lose the ability to do the second one - you just do it later.

Bad example.More likely it would be:You had an option to go to medical or atronomy college.If you take both,youd have to be a genious to finish them both,or your spare time will be reduced to zero for a long time.

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.

Ah,but thats where youre wrong.Youd have to find a nice balance for how many troops to lead and when to add reinforcments.And youd also have to take greater care of conserving your troops.

Different structures should have more different functions. I prefer a structure which entails visiting it to get the bonus which necessitates having a scout/scavenger hero for the purpose. The slower/faster rate of getting the resource does not make the structures different enough for me. It's really as simple as that.

I wouldnt mind this if you could automate your resource gathering heroes.But again,if a windmill needs a hero to give him resources,why doesnt a mine require one as well?Why can they be flaged?

Of course not. I often play with 8 heroes on SP maps and do all you said, setting up hero chains, etc. Certainly not just for taking resources as you mentioned.

Ah,the chains.Another stupidity of HIII.Creatures should have separate movement then heroes.Especially now that we have a spell to trnasport them instanteniously.Its a bit dumb for a huge army to cross the whole large map in a single day.

[MrSteamTank]

How can people even support non-flaggable structures? No wonder this game has had poor multiplayer support with these kind of terrible multiplayer ideas floating around. Why have structures that waste everybodies time forcing them to hire 2-3 'non flag' structure heroes that are only there to take these locations on a weekly basis?

Not only is it time consuming to the average gamer that does NOT want to play a 4 hour multiplayer game but it is also boring as heck. The most IMPORTANT thing in this game is to speed up big time as a huge portion of players will refuse to play any multi due to the ridiculous time commitment required.

In this respect they NEED to do far more than what they did before. Making almost all structures flaggable that don't have to be visited every week would speed up gameplay a significant amount.

They could also tighten up a lot of the multiplayer maps(make most of them small-medium sized), put in simultaneous turns(I'm aware they are already doing this), and pre-build a lot of the structures you HAVE to get(first city hall upgrade and the tier 1 unit building at least). Removing any tier 3-4+ unit on any needed flaggable structure(ore, wood, sulfur, etc) while keeping the more powerful artifacts and non essential locations covered by the higher tier monsters. I mean some maps have like 10 treants blocking the path to the enemy. Stuff like this severely slows down the game for no real reason.

How can this game ever take off in multiplayer when games take forever and ever and rarely get finished. I managed to get a few friends interested in this game but they stopped playing because it takes WAY too long to finish anything. There is a reason warcraft 3 & starcraft crushed most of the strategy competition and that was because you could fight the enemy in under 5 minutes flat. I find myself playing for at least half an hour before even seeing my enemy.

Now, I don't expect this game to ever be as fast as warcraft 3 or starcraft. However, it can definitely be sped up significantly and heroes 5 did not do enough to speed it up in this regard.

[Corelanis]

If you think the game is taking to long put on a turn time limit
and ignore the windmills etc. If its still a problem uninstall the game and play wc3/sc becuase tbs are imo supposed to be longer. I agree that flaggable mills would be nice but we dont have them in h5 so oh well.
As for skill i like the currant skill system, it could use some tweaking but i dont like the idea of every heroes getting every skill/ability regardless of their lvl or how hard to get them it is.

[Jolly Joker]

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.

Well, King Imp, just take my criticisms illegitimately as legitimate if you can't do it legitimately.
Apart from that this is a poor post. What are you, a small, exclusive club of nit-picking, all-knowing whiners who know everything and everything a lot better than lazy, stupid Nival who don't know squat?
Actually it's pretty obvious that in the Witch Hut case the lazy ones are you. But let's discuss the Witch Hut a bit more in detail, shall we?
So we have a simple normal multiplayer map where each position may be played by each faction. You implement a Witch Hut there and you have the check window: You can learn skill A. Proceed, yes or no.
IF THE SKILL OFFERED IS A RANDOM SKILL: This may lead to Necro player getting asked: Do you want to learn Light Magic, while his neighbour, the Inferno may be asked , do you want to learn Logistics (or any other useful skill fitting even for the ultimate ability). I don't find it that hard to see that the Witch Hut may be the source of a really unfair advantage or disadvantage. Why should you make an mp map with such an obvious potential source for an imbalance? I mean, one time Necro gets offered Light Magic and next time he gets offered attack?
If you don't know what you get, you either have to do something (letting a secondary hero "taste" the thing) or risk it; depending on the placement of the thing (some far-off corner is what I prefer) this would be just right to make up for the potential imbalancies there.
However, it don't has to be random, has it?
IF THE SKILL OFFERED IS NOT RANDOM:
How do we do this, provided player positions are still random? Basically this would make necessary a script linking witch hut with town and taking out the two useless magic skills for each. That would still leave the chance that you'd get a not-necessary-for-ultimate War Machines or a necessary-for-ultimate Defense and so on, in short, a wanted skill or an unwanted skill. If you want to solve the problem the way that you offer each town a wanted and necessary-for-ultimate skill you'd have to write a really big script indeed, linking each Witch Hut with a town and then allowing one or at most two skills or so, which is a stupid amount of work for such a feature.
So in summary: presenting either a very good skill on a silver platter or a completely unusable skill seems to be too big and unnecessary difference in terms of mp map balance - you would be better off leaving witch huts completely out on mp maps - if there is the window that tells you what you get. If there isn't, the difference may still be there, but it's not foolproof and simple. You have to work for it (which may be awkward; the Hut may and should be in some far away corner) OR you can take a risk OR you can on principle avoid Witch Huts (or only when they are far off). You MAY gain; you MAY lose.
In any SP game it doesn't matter much except for a reload (if you decide to go the simple route); in MP games it makes a difference, though. Which is exactly the interesting thing there.
On a last note, don't you think EVERY one of you would be aggravated if you'd play Necro in an mp game and your Witch Hut would ask you whether you'd like to take Light Magic, while your Inferno opponent would report, hey, nice, my Witch Hut here teaches me Logistics. Comes in really handy!

[ThunderTitan]

What i like to know is why the heck doesn't the Hut say which skill it teaches after you visit it with a hero that can't learn it. Having to hire an extra hero just for that is annoying.

[Jolly Joker]

That IS annoying and an obvious oversight.

[King Imp]

Apart from that this is a poor post. What are you, a small, exclusive club of nit-picking, all-knowing whiners who know everything and everything a lot better than lazy, stupid Nival who don't know squat?

I'm sorry. I forgot the Jolly Joker rule of thumb. That is, if 100 people all see a problem with something and all argued in one direction, but the great all-knowing JJ disagreed with those 100 people, then everyone is wrong except for him.

Oh, and yes, I have seen that from you in the past many, many times.
But, who are we? We obviously know nothing compared to the great one.

[Jolly Joker]

Apart from that this is a poor post. What are you, a small, exclusive club of nit-picking, all-knowing whiners who know everything and everything a lot better than lazy, stupid Nival who don't know squat?

I'm sorry. I forgot the Jolly Joker rule of thumb. That is, if 100 people all see a problem with something and all argued in one direction, but the great all-knowing JJ disagreed with those 100 people, then everyone is wrong except for him.

Oh, and yes, I have seen that from you in the past many, many times.
But, who are we? We obviously know nothing compared to the great one.

That's just polemic crap and you know that very well. YOU say: I know better than Nival; there's a problem with this and that and they were wrong to do it that way, it sucks the way it is and everyone who doesn't see this is either as stupid as Nival, on their payroll no fan or damaged in any other way. *I* say: I don't see a problem with the way NIVAL did it, and I don't see that is sucks the way it is. It's not a question of ME being right or YOU being right, it's a question of NIVAL being lazy and stupid and inept or not and they are not. There's good reason to do things the way they do. They could have done all things another way, but obviously, what the HAD to do another way is only the BUGGY things. The rest is open to discussion with no right or wrong, just like or not.

[Orfinn]

Stay on topic you you two, this is not JJ and KI rant thread!

[Gaidal Cain]

I am not trying to convince you that choosing between tactics and power of speed isn't a choice. It is a choice. However, you lose the third choice - both Tactics and Power of Speed.

Exactly. And this makes the choice between whether to get Tactics or Power of Speed earlier far less important. You wish to be able to design your heroes completely after your head. I wish to be offered hard choices that will have an impact on how I play the game.

GC, did you eat today? Did you wash? What you do when you get up in the morning (or afternoon, even) is a choice - but it's not an either/or choice. You don't lose the ability to wash because you've eaten, or the ability to eat because you've washed. Just because you don't do both things at the same time, you don't lose the ability to do the second one - you just do it later.

I don't care much for "real world" arguments when it's a matter of finding superior gameplay, as long as it's consistent.

thus, you could take Power of Speed now, and take tactics later, or you can take Tactics now and Power of Speed later. Of course, when you make the later choice, it becomes a decision of taking Power or Speed now, or something else now and Power of Speed later.

Exactly. It lessens the value of the choice I do now, because I can "undo" it and go the other path later.

As you say, limit denies some choice - therefore, it denies choice. Which is what I said.

No. Denying choice would here be letting the AI decide for you. You have a set of rules, within which you can do pretty much what you want. You are not denied choice.

To make it easier to answer - forget that you can choose. It's a 50-50 chance of either Tactics or Power of Speed and Urgash's Call. Would you be happy regardless of where the dice fell?

That really depends on how long I've been developing the hero. If Attack is the last skill I'm developing, I probably wouldn't be too happy with Tactics. If this was the first level up, I would be perfectly happy with tactics and develop my hero in a different manner. And even if it was almost at the end, my hero would still be a very good one- the abilities on the way to Urgash's call are for the most part very good.

If you think Tactics is worth Power of Speed and Urgash's Call, then you are saying that the Demon Lord's Ultimate is worth less than Tactics. You are also saying Power of Speed is worth less than Tactics. This means that either Tactics, Power of Speed, or Urgash's Call is unbalanced. Either Tactics is too powerful, or either Power of Speed or Urgash's Call is too weak.

Nope. If I get tactics early on, I would have been using it for a long, long time when I get to the point I'd otherwise have Urgash's Call. The accumulated effect over the game could easily be on a similar scale for both. But I do actually think that Power of Speed is a weak ability.

If Tactics is too powerful, then it is also too powerful for the other heroes where it is not balanced by the Ultimate.

I bthink it's one of the most powerful abilities. It's not so strong that it's unbalanced, but nevertheless very, very strong.

Ultimately, without limits - each ability is based soley on it's own merits, not what else it allows you to get. Here, you balance Tactics with Power of Speed, or with Urgash's call. There are three different wayt to get these three abilities over three levels - Tactics, Power of Speed, Urgash's Call; Power of Speed, Tactics, Urgash's Call; and Power of Speed, Urgash's Call, Tactics.

But in the end, no choice. If I can get them both, I will get them both. Tactics is that good, and there is a real conflict of interests here on what I'd choose.

Not to mention that you forget that Urgash's Call requires more than just the Power of Speed, so you are also gambling on your ability to get the other skills. IF Tactics is only balanced with Power of Speed because you get Urgah's Call, it won't be balanced if you can't get it.

Nope. As I said I don't find it unbalanced. But I do find the choice between it and UC interesting, and I wouldn't have to make that choice if your system was implemented.

Alternatively, if Tactics is balanced because of the possibility of getting Urgash's Call, then it will be underbalanced if you actually get Urgah's Call (that is, a hero who get's Uragsh's Call will be more powerful than one who doen't because they took Tactics).[/url]

You're looking at things too narrowly: only in the context of the last two level-ups. One can decide not to aim for UC much earlier, pick tactics, and have an easier time for it. You get an advantage that can accumulate over the whole map and ultimately offset the advantage given by UC.

That's the point. Under "my" system, they are no longer balanced by the chances of what they can give you or what they lead to, but by what they actually do. The practical limits of levelling means you get a finite number of skills and abilities anyway - and ever level you are choosing between one or the other based on what they do - not based on the possibility that you might be able to get something else. They are balanced based on tangiables that can be tweaked if needed...

And no matter what you'd do with it, no one would ever pick Arcane Intuition if it were not for the abilities it leads to. No one would ever not pick Tactics, or Master of Wrath, or Pathfinding on a map with lots of difficult terrain. You'd never have to be able to pull out a victory inspite of not having choosen the best abilities, you'd just keep taking what's good, and what's good, and what's good.

If Navigation is that week to waste time on - it needs fixing, does it not?

Yes. It is, and always has been in need of some kind of use on non-water maps.

That's where we differ - it makes playing the game harder, because you have to know the system, and the map, and the AI, and all the other little factors of chance before you play. The system works if you have a fully printed out Skill Wheel, and complete walkthroughs for all the maps and the campaigns. Otherwise, it falls apart because it removes the ability to adapt to the events in the game so far (hence "organic" development).

Half that complaint is just about bad documnetation again, but you're always talking like you only ever get offered abilities, when you most of the time aren't forced to take them at all. If you don't wish to find yourself with a bad set, make a choice and wait. If you suspect that you might be up for a lot of difficult terrain, but are offered Scouting which leads to Teleport Assault and Death March, you have the choice of gambling on what you believe will work best or postphoning picking one of them until you know more. You can rush in and pick whatever you think sounds cool, but the game might penalize you for it, because Heroes is a strategy game, and not thinking about the future is the opposite of strategy.


JJ: You're being silly. With that argument about witch huts, one can just as well remove all random artifacts, and random monsters, and random resource stacks, and all windmills and treasure chests and pretty much anything you can find on the adventure map except for Mines and Water Wheels...

[Jolly Joker]

Well, actually I WAS on topic until KI tried to disqualify me by saying I was on Nival's payroll and therefore biassed. True is, Ubi.de is paying me for translating stuff, but they couldn't care less about whether I'm not exactly pleased about some game and production aspects (and here I'd like to mention the un-manual that comes with the release first and foremost) and state that or whether I defend game aspects I like. Because I'm not involved in either design or production, so the only aspect of the game where I'm partial is the German translation of the actual game (not even the manual which was not translated by me). So if someone complained about the German in-game texts and I would start making afuss about it you could say I was not to taken serious here. But the rest?
And for the record: about flagging stuff and caravans. Yes, I liked flagging things like windmills. No, I don't like Caravans and no I didn't like daily growth. I find it difficult to label any of this questions with right or wrong, it's more a question of like and dislike and the way you see the basic game and everyone has a right to express this. What I can't stand is this attitude, "everyone has to see it, it's just plain obvious, that this way is clearly better than Nival's, didn't Nival take ONE look, are they a bunch of lazy idiots, every six-year-old could do a better job" etcetera etcetera ad infinitum and nausea.

[Gaidal Cain]

I had reply here to JJ until I realized he probably only had read Orfinn's post and not my previous.

Anyway, if the whole discussion about JJ continues further, it will be removed from this thread.

[Jolly Joker]

GC: If you care to take a look back on page 7: I just answered to a couple posts (Hodgepodge and King Imp) about how lazy Nival is with the Witch Hut (you can read it as first post). The main gist of that posts is:
a) it's obviously wrong to do it that way
b) Nival is a bunch of lazy idiots either too dumb to realize or to lazy to do the obviously right thing.
I just objected against this being obvious. You can like it or not, but the only thing obvious is that there are ways to cope with the situation and the only lazy ones are those that complain about that.
About me being silly with the Witch Hut argument, don't be silly yourself by comparing it with the rest of the game features that may vary. Obviously a Witch Hut can be a very useful thing and give heroes (early)access to things they will have difficulties to get. Gaining access to attack for example, with either Battle Frenzy or Tactics as vital ability behind it (depending on town) can EASILY decide an MP game, when the opponent gets a very unwanted skill for free offered.
Now, the main thing to keep in mind here is that it is not at all perfectly obvious and "right" to ask the question and tell the player what he would get. It just isn't. You don't tell the players exactly how many creatures are guarding an object either. Do you want a window THERE, too: You are going to face 48 Minotaur Kings; proceed? And you have the same choices.

[Gaidal Cain]

About me being silly with the Witch Hut argument, don't be silly yourself by comparing it with the rest of the game features that may vary. Obviously a Witch Hut can be a very useful thing and give heroes (early)access to things they will have difficulties to get. Gaining access to attack for example, with either Battle Frenzy or Tactics as vital ability behind it (depending on town) can EASILY decide an MP game, when the opponent gets a very unwanted skill for free offered.

So can getting a great artifact while your opponents only gets an average one. Or you getting a stack of Golems guarding something vital while your opponent gets Spectres or Master Hunters. Or you finding exatly the right correct random resource stacks while your opponent is having bad luck. Witch Huts are great aides, but it has to be an otherwise very close game if they can decide it on their own. Besides, the problem you describe seems to be more about imbalances amongst skills than the fact that you aren't asked. With a secondary hero, not getting asked is just a very annoying inconvenience.

Now, the main thing to keep in mind here is that it is not at all perfectly obvious and "right" to ask the question and tell the player what he would get. It just isn't. You don't tell the players exactly how many creatures are guarding an object either. Do you want a window THERE, too: You are going to face 48 Minotaur Kings; proceed? And you have the same choices.

If I had been able to, without any other costs than having to spend extra time on it, determine the exact numbers of a stack, I would have complained about it as well. Currently, there isn't so I'm fine with it. Besides, I do get to know roughly how many creatures there are. Not exactly, but enough to take a calculated risk. The Witch Hut is a risk as well, but one that you can totally rule out with just the aid of an secondary hero.