Skills and Abilities rant!

[Gus]

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.

You can right click on a stack and get an estimation of their numbers, can you not? And, if you don't like what you see, you just don't click on the stack to attack it.
If you could see the skill you get when right-clicking on a Hut, then we wouldn't need a yes/no option.

see how every one of your arguments is countered post after post? =/ The best is to admit there should have been a goddamn yes/no option, since it is so simple to make, and so convenient. I'm sorry, i don't get my fun from tediousness (if that's not a word, now that is one!), micromanagement, etc. They should know that, as game developers.

[Jolly Joker]

. The Witch Hut is a risk as well, but one that you can totally rule out with just the aid of an secondary hero.

That's a very superficial view; there are those maps where your main hero finds a Witch Hut in some corner with the secondary far away. That's when it's awkward: You have to make a decision, at least when MP-ing: Do you risk it? Do you go in with a secondary and then decide wther it's worth the time and effort to go there again? Do you ignore it?
That's a clear and well-defined choice you have and per se there is nothing wrong with it. You COULD do it any number of other ways: H IV had a plethora of different locations where you might be able to learn something. But you don't HAVE to, and Nival isn't the lazy bunch of idiots some are saying they are just because they did it this way. I don't see even ONE really convincing reason why there HAS to be that question before going in, why that IS so obvious, why there CAN'T be any other way. Why? Why is it obvious? Why is Nival silly not doing it this way? And don't start with save/reload in SP-mode; obviously that's not the only thing in the game people are save/reloading. If THAT was a reason for changing things you'd basically have no more game to play.

[Jolly Joker]

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.

You can right click on a stack and get an estimation of their numbers, can you not? And, if you don't like what you see, you just don't click on the stack to attack it.
If you could see the skill you get when right-clicking on a Hut, then we wouldn't need a yes/no option.

see how every one of your arguments is countered post after post? =/ The best is to admit there should have been a goddamn yes/no option, since it is so simple to make, and so convenient. I'm sorry, i don't get my fun from tediousness (if that's not a word, now that is one!), micromanagement, etc. They should know that, as game developers.

So I take it you'd be satisfied with an estimation of the skill you get, right? Right clicking on the Witch Hut tells you, say: This Witch Hut is teaching a Magic Skill.

[Gaidal Cain]

That's when it's awkward: You have to make a decision, at least when MP-ing: Do you risk it? Do you go in with a secondary and then decide wther it's worth the time and effort to go there again? Do you ignore it?

Of course, there are situations where you can't bring a second hero, and where going there is a calculated risk. However, I think the annoyance of having to bring another hero (or of reloading in SP) far outstrips the "fun" in trying to judge it in MP.

[Ethric]

Without going to far I'm villing to bet that most HoMM-sessions are played singleplayer. Sure it is a calculated risk in MP if it's to far away for your secondary hero to visit if you take it or not, but that reason is for me outweighed by the tedium of having to drag anothe hero just to test it. Just as having to run around to gather resources and creatures, it is a tedious part of it that I could do without, to have more time for the actual thinking parts (what to build, where to explore, fighting battles with as few lossess as possible). And when you visit any other structure what you encounter isn't random. An elemental creaturebank won't be guarded by 10 peasants or 100 black dragons, it will be guareded by a vaguely defined amount of elementals. This you know when entering it, or at least you will learn it soon enough, and remember if for future games.

And even in MP, it doesn't seem convincing to me that it has to be this way for the cases where your main hero went far from his castle and didn't bring his flunkie along. You'll just have to make sure you do bring him along then... most MP maps aren't to large either, and certainly not in H5 as there are no large maps at all, as of now.

But what it comes down to for me is that I can't quite grasp the idea of visiting some old crone and be forced to learn something without being able to do anything about it. If there was some way to influence what is taught, or to improve the odds of getting something you'd need (for example "Your considerable knowledge of the arcane (Knowledge) allows you to decipher the signs in the tome the witch is studying", or "When noticing your impressive might (Attack), the old crone seems to think better of withholding information from you", with higher ability enabling you to pinpoint more precisely what skill is being taught) then I could accept that your gamble might fall out badly ssometimes. But as its now, it's a total gamble.

[Da' vane]

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.

Funny you should say that...

I did both, but I did them one after the other. It took longer than just doing one, but I felt it was worth doing. This is exactly what I am trying to get across here - you should be able to take all the abilities under a skill, but it will take you longer to get them all. If you only want the three that get you to your ultimate, then it will take you less time (and less levels) than going for all five.

Oh, and by the way Gaidal, it's an ANALOGY. An identical situation in a different context, so you can better understand the principles - If you want to ignore that, you might as well not be here arguing for an ability limit.

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.

Are you saying that the ability to adapt to the situation at hand without losing sight of a player goal WON'T change the way you play? As it stands, you have to decide to go for ultimate or not, and damn the map. This is a decision you can take before you see the map, or your opponents. In fact, if you constantly take this decision, all your heroes will be the same.

I don't want to feel that if I adapt to the situation at hand, I have to abandon any chance of the ultimate. Neither do I want to to feel as if I can't adapt to the situation at hand, because I feel tied to getting the ultimate. Yet, this is EXACTLY what the current limit does - it forces you to make choices before you even start to play the game, choices you will most likely stick to regardless of whatever happens on the map.

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

You would still has "wasted" the level increase, and the time required for such an increase, so it's not the same as completely undoing the decision. It just removes the fact that taking Tactics means not getting Power of Speed/Urgash's Call, because this shouldn't be a balancing factor. Without the limit, getting Urgash's Call sooner MAY be a factor in your decisions if that's what you want, but commonly, it should be a straight choice between whether you take Tactics now or Power of Speed now, for whatever reason, without any other factors.

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.

We could argue this - but it seems to me, we're using two different contexts of the word choice. I'm using it in the generic plural sense, where as you are using it in the specific sense.

As an ANALOGY: If you take at least one apple, you are taking apples. It doesn't matter how many apples you take, or how many apples remain. Thus, taking some apples = taking apples.

In this case, at least one choice is denied, the choice to have both. This is a denial of chhoice. It doesn't matter how many choices are denied, or how many choices remain.

As for AI - the AI chooses which two abilities you get offered when you level up (and it chooses which skill a Witch Hut offers).

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.

Does Tactics actually get better the longer you use it? I don't think so, so this is NOT a valid argument, and should most definately not factor into any balancing. Tactics is still just as useful if you take it at level 20, than if you get it at Level 1.

Power of Speed might be weak, but it also means that Urgash's Call has to be weak as well, so that the two weak abilities balance woth Tactics.

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

Actually, by definition, it is unbalanced - it just might not be broken. However, if Tactics is balanced only by an ability and an Ultimate, it is unbalanced for other heroes who do not balance it with an ability and an ultimate, therefore a similar choice for these heroes becomes a no-brainer.

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.

There's more choice without limits than there are limits, and could always choose not to get both, and put the saved levels elsewhere, like on Defence or Leadership skills and abilities. Nobody is forcing you to get both options - this would be your choice. It's not like a third option comes up under these two abilities with "Take Both" when you level up and gives you both abilities straight away.

The decision between Tactics and Power of Speed becomes more about which you take now. You may still consider taking Power of Speed to get to Urgash's Call quicker, and then coming back for Tactics, but that is over 30 levels away. Alternately, you might want to take Tactics now, and delay your progression towards Urgash's Call by a level. These are also choices.

At higher levels, when the experience needed gets greater, it becomes harder to level up and gain more skills and abilities, and you may find that by taking Tactics and several other needless perks, you have lost the ability to reach Urgash's Call. It might be that on the map, you can only really gain 30 levels, to taking Tactics denies you Urgash's Call. This is due to the practicalities gaining experience. But, at least you don't automatically lose the ability to go for Urgash's Call by taking Tactics - if the map supports enough experience, you can still get both. It just takes you longer.

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.

No, you wouldn't have to make that choice. Instead, it becomes a choice of when you get Urgash's Call, not if you get Urgash's Call. If you don't want Tactics or Urgash's Call, you can keep putting it off and taking other things instead, because you'll generally find there is less experience on the map than required for a hero to gain enough levels to take every single skill and abilitiy, including Tactics or Urgash's Call.

Basically, skills and abilities will become prioritized - you'll be taking the ones you want the most, and leaving the ones you don't want until last. So, if you want all the Light Magic skills and abilitiy, you can choose these all first, and not bother with others like Dark Magic. If you want Urgash's Call, your priority is to get the skills and abilities required to get there first, and then pick whatever else you can get until the map is finished.

You don't lost the opportunity to gain any skill or ability because you took another, but you may force it so low down your list of priorities that it becomes virtually impossible to obtain by collecting experience alone, and if there are no other means of levelling up, it simply doesn't happen.

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.

It's only the last two level up's that should matter, GC. The level requirements for Tactics and Urgash's Call are vastly different, but given that neither ability advances with levels, you compare them if the choice comes at any level. So, is the choice a balanced one if it comes up at say 3rd? What about 10th? What about 20th? What about 30th? What about 100th?

At low levels, you are trading the potential for a high-level ability for a concrete easier to gain one. This is too much of a gamble, in my opinion - you can't know that you will be able to get the other skills required to reach Urgash's Call.

At higher levels, the gamble becomes less, because as you gain more skills, you know whether you can't get Urgash's call, or whether you can, but the chance between the two becomes more important - if your starting skill matches on of the four needed to gain Urgash's Call, then you can afford to burn a skill and still possibly get there. If your starting skill isn't, but your other skills match those required, there's a chance you will get there.

At level around 30, there's no chance left - you already know if you can get Urgash's Call or not. So this means that the choice is between Tactics and Power of Speed, because the possibility of Urgash' Call is no longer relevent.

That may seem fine, but think about when you gain options you have no choice over. You take Power of Speed over Tactics trying to get Urgash's Call. But something happens, like you visit a witch hut or you don't get the skill or ability you need, and suddenly, you've lost the ability to get Urgash's Call. You're left with a weak ability and nothing you can do about it. If you've taken a second Attack Perk (possibly because of your starting hero), you are also denied the opportunity to take Tactics.

If you're playing an opponent who has had the luck not to have this happen to him, then suddenly, your hero is below par, and that can make or break your game for you, right there.

But, without the limits, this isn't a problem - if the Witch Hut gives you a skill or ability you don't want, you can suck it up and move on, because you can still get Urgash's Call. Nobody knocks a free skill, unless it takes up a valuable slot for a more important skill - like one for your Ultimate. If it's bad skills and ability options when levelling - you pick one you like from the options, and hope for better options the following level.

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.

There are people who would pick arcane intuition and would not take tactics, just as there are apparently those that like non-flaggable resource locations a the gamble of the Witch Hut.

Not to mention that if you are able to pull of a victory in spite of not having the "best" abilities, then clearly you had some other advantage, which means that the abilities of your hero probably didn't matter anyway. Like, lucking out on a weekly event and ending up with more creatures than your opponent, or finding a powerful artefact. Or you were just very lucky in battle.

The very fact that there are "best" abilities at all means that there are abilities that are unbalanced - and these should be fixed. A very popular saying in D&D and similar systems is that if people are taking a feat just because of what it leads to, it probably isn't actually worth a feat. This same notion should apply here - if people are only taking Arcane Intuition because it leads to an Ultimate, then it should be upgraded so that people have a reason to take it anyway. Then, should the hero be denied from reaching the ultimate, they aren't left with a sucky ability they never really wanted in the first place.

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

Not neccessarily. Like I have been saying, the limits on the number of abilities and skills you can take gives the slots worth. While this continues, Navigation needs some worth on non-water maps. However, if there are no limits on skills and/or abilities, the slots themselves would have no worth, so it's not neccessary for Navigation to have a use on non-water maps. If you're on a water map, you can take Navigation. If not, you don't. If you get it for free - it doesn't matter because it hasn't cost you anything.

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.

The opposite of strategy is luck, GC. A strategy game allows you to win by thinking - be it having a carefully laid out plan, or adapting to the needs of the map. Luck has you win, regardless of what you do.

Thinking ahead has you planning whether you want Urgash's Call or not. Adapting is taking Light Magic because that's what has appeared in your mage guild, taking Howl of Terror because you're facing Haven opponents (which you never knew about because the enemy is set to random), or taking navigation because you're on a water-based map (without knowing that beforehand - if you know before hand, then it becomes planning).

Bad documentation isn't the true issue here - it's a convenient arguement to deflect the discussion away from the true issue - limitations of the Skill and Ability system.

Also, I don't recall seeing the option to pass when you level up, so you can get a second set of options. From what I hear, it's based on a "random" seed, which isn't reset when you reload. You can sometimes improve a skill to a higher rank, but this is not always an option.

But ultimately, what really annoys me is that you don't just have to plan ahead, you need to be able to predict the future. You not have to gamble that you will get the ultimate, but you also have to gamble that you won't be able to get it either. There is nothing more annoying than thinking you won't get a skill, and then picking it up for free at the Witch Hut or having it offered a couple of levels later when levelling up.

If I take the skills and abilities to get an ability, I should be able to pick it up, even if I have already used the ability slots, especially since some of the advanced abilities in a skill are not directly related to any of the perks in a skill. For instance, a Warlock can take Mana Burst as a destruction ability, even though it requires non of the Destruction Perks, but does require several attack abilities. IF I have destruction and attack, I should be able to take Mana Burst, even if I have two Destruction perks. Similarly, if I get the four skills required for the ultimate, I should be able to for the ultimate, even if I have already taken different perks in any of these abilties.

[Jolly Joker]

Well, I completely understand that some people don't like it. But not liking things doesn't mean it HAS to be different no matter what.
In a way this reminds of the Incorporeal discussion. A lot of people have a problem with the Ghosts, and a main point was that fighting them would be too much of a gamble and in SP you could easily reload in case of a bad result. But Heroes IS a game of chances and probabilities, of calculated risk, you could say. There is ample opportunity to try things in SP and to reload when you don't like what you see. The Witch Hut thing is just a very obvious one.
I mean, OF COURSE you could do it any other way. But you don't NEED to.

[Ethric]

Well of course there is no need to have it one way or the other. But with the witch hut and other frequently mentioned complaints, many of us delighted at the improvements made in H4 and at least for me thought that it really made the game more fluid in that much of the tedium was taken out. So it's not just a matter of thinking it should be done different, we've actually seen it done different and now see that the old "unimproved" ways has been reverted to. But then some I guess didn't see those things as improvements but rather asa dumbing down of an important part of the overall strategy or whatnot and cursed over the folly of it while playing H4 as I curse the folly of it in playing H5.

But here is one other thing to nag on, related to the witchhut and other tasks requireing a runaround hero, and that is Nival's stated goal of speeding up gameplay. Having to use a secondary hero to check witchhuts and gather stuff every week etc does seem to contradict wildly with that goal, and I think that is an important reason for why many question nivals competence in some matters. It is for me at least.

[Da' vane]

The fact that Nival has acted contrary to their stated design brief also gives me concern, which is why I think they are either lazy or inept. They could have been lazy, and simply not bothered to put these features in, or they could have been inept, and not really understoof HoMM enough to realise what makes for a slow game, and what these missing features would mean.

Sure, not everybody is going to like everything. But, taking flaggable vs. non-flagable resource locations, even if not everybody agrees with it, those that don't like it should be ignored. Why? Because it is contrary to their design brief, and in most industries, failing to meet the specified design brief carries severe consequences, including not getting paid and lawsuits.

It's not like Nival did it any other way to speed it up, either. As Ethric said, they went back to the slow H3 method. So either they did this by accident though ineptness or laziness, or they did it deliberately, in which case they would normally stand a good chance of being sued, except that Ubisoft don't care - they just want a game for the money...

[Ethric]

I very much doubt a lawsuit is feasible the way you describe it. A game is more a work of art and design than a mere industrial product. It's wise to try to keep your feet on the ground in a debate, try to keep your arguments on a realistic level

[ThunderTitan]

A game is more a work of art and design than a mere industrial product.

You'd be great in PR, but awful in management.

While I doubt flagable mills would have resulted in any lawsuit it's not imposible, just stupid.

[Ethric]

Oh it might very well have resulted in one, in theory. But you wouldn't win it, if there was any sense in the system

But this is quite beside the point I think. I just wanted to try to dissuade using somewhat unrealistic points.

[Da' vane]

It's not unrealistic, Ethric. But it is highly subjective to the employer's attitude. It seems unlikely, because it is really hard to see Ubisoft giving a crap as long as they have something to put in a box and write Heroes of Might and Magic 5 over it...

But this isn't just Nival/Ubi bashing for the sake of it - there are genuing reasons why certain people feel this way. We don't think Nival/Ubi sucks for no reason - we have reasons, and it is hard to see otherwise.

[Jolly Joker]

See, that's the attitude I mean: Nival is lazy and incompetent and Ubi doesn't care as long as they can put something into a box and write HoMM V onto it. That IS ranting, not more. What's worse, that kind of attitude really makes it difficult to pluck out the resonable points. I don't think this is helpful, because if it was true this whole thing would be pointless anyway.

[Gaidal Cain]

Oh, and by the way Gaidal, it's an ANALOGY. An identical situation in a different context, so you can better understand the principles - If you want to ignore that, you might as well not be here arguing for an ability limit.

An extemely bad one. I could say something how you about shouldn't be here if you can't come up with something better, but I dislike such arguments..

Are you saying that the ability to adapt to the situation at hand without losing sight of a player goal WON'T change the way you play? As it stands, you have to decide to go for ultimate or not, and damn the map. This is a decision you can take before you see the map, or your opponents. In fact, if you constantly take this decision, all your heroes will be the same.

Of course. Part of the decision of going after the ultimate is that you pretty much give up adapting to the circumstances. It's a choice you make.

I don't want to feel that if I adapt to the situation at hand, I have to abandon any chance of the ultimate. Neither do I want to to feel as if I can't adapt to the situation at hand, because I feel tied to getting the ultimate. Yet, this is EXACTLY what the current limit does - it forces you to make choices before you even start to play the game, choices you will most likely stick to regardless of whatever happens on the map.

No. The existance of an ultimate skill gives you the choice early on to strive for it, or to make a hero more suited to circumstances. It does not force you to go for it. Nor does it mean that you cannt start going for it, and at a later point decide that it's probably better to choose another set of skills.

For me, if the choice at a level-up is just about what I should get on my hero right now and don't have much implications for later, I find it much less interesting. It cheapens the choice I have if I know that I could pick the other options any time I want at a later time.

As for AI - the AI chooses which two abilities you get offered when you level up (and it chooses which skill a Witch Hut offers).

If we're arguing sematics, it's a random number generator that chooses those, and not an AI.

Does Tactics actually get better the longer you use it? I don't think so, so this is NOT a valid argument, and should most definately not factor into any balancing. Tactics is still just as useful if you take it at level 20, than if you get it at Level 1.

Since tactics is such a good ability, it stands to reason that hving it will make you overall much more effective in a way that Power of Speed doesn't. It will allow me to fight more difficult fights easier and with less losses, and will thus have an effect that accumulates from the point I get it.

Actually, by definition, it is unbalanced - it just might not be broken. However, if Tactics is balanced only by an ability and an Ultimate, it is unbalanced for other heroes who do not balance it with an ability and an ultimate, therefore a similar choice for these heroes becomes a no-brainer.

For me, it's a no-brainer if I'm not going for the ultimate. I like it that much. Your mileage may vary.

There's more choice without limits than there are limits, and could always choose not to get both, and put the saved levels elsewhere, like on Defence or Leadership skills and abilities. Nobody is forcing you to get both options - this would be your choice.

No. There are more options without limits. That is not the same as more choices- I have to choose between as many skills and abilities each level up in both systems. But without limits, my feeling is that each choice is consiederably less important.

Basically, skills and abilities will become prioritized - you'll be taking the ones you want the most, and leaving the ones you don't want until last

Of course. But I also won't have any way of making sure that those I don't want will never be offered to me again, and I won't be forced to make hard choices to decide which I want enough to use my valuable slot on.

It's only the last two level up's that should matter, GC. The level requirements for Tactics and Urgash's Call are vastly different, but given that neither ability advances with levels, you compare them if the choice comes at any level. So, is the choice a balanced one if it comes up at say 3rd? What about 10th? What about 20th? What about 30th? What about 100th?

UC having more pre-reqs matters enorumously. If the map is small, I Can safely say that Tactics is better. The larger the map, the more viable the other choice becomes- and the less meaningful the choice becomes with your system.

That may seem fine, but think about when you gain options you have no choice over. You take Power of Speed over Tactics trying to get Urgash's Call. But something happens, like you visit a witch hut or you don't get the skill or ability you need, and suddenly, you've lost the ability to get Urgash's Call. You're left with a weak ability and nothing you can do about it

This is actually what happened when I played through the Inferno campaign. I never got offered Luck on a levelup, and couldn't get there.
It's part of the gamble for the ultimate. And No starting hero that I know of comes with three abilities, so I'll always be able to get tactics if I want.

If you're playing an opponent who has had the luck not to have this happen to him, then suddenly, your hero is below par, and that can make or break your game for you, right there.

Of course. But I doubt that very many MP games will be played where you get to the levels needed for the ultimates anyway.

But, without the limits, this isn't a problem - if the Witch Hut gives you a skill or ability you don't want, you can suck it up and move on, because you can still get Urgash's Call

I could anyway. My hero was perhaps not exactly how he could have been, but for me, that's part of the fun.

Not to mention that if you are able to pull of a victory in spite of not having the "best" abilities, then clearly you had some other advantage, which means that the abilities of your hero probably didn't matter anyway. Like, lucking out on a weekly event and ending up with more creatures than your opponent, or finding a powerful artefact. Or you were just very lucky in battle.

Or I'm simply better.

The very fact that there are "best" abilities at all means that there are abilities that are unbalanced - and these should be fixed. A very popular saying in D&D and similar systems is that if people are taking a feat just because of what it leads to, it probably isn't actually worth a feat. This same notion should apply here - if people are only taking Arcane Intuition because it leads to an Ultimate, then it should be upgraded so that people have a reason to take it anyway.

Believe me, I feel the same way. I just think that the abilities that it unlocks can be part of why you choose it.

Not neccessarily. Like I have been saying, the limits on the number of abilities and skills you can take gives the slots worth. While this continues, Navigation needs some worth on non-water maps. However, if there are no limits on skills and/or abilities, the slots themselves would have no worth, so it's not neccessary for Navigation to have a use on non-water maps. If you're on a water map, you can take Navigation. If not, you don't. If you get it for free - it doesn't matter because it hasn't cost you anything.

Acutally, Navigation needs worth on land just because water travelling isn't a very large part of Heroes gameplay. As I said, I wouldn't be taking it even if it didn't lock anything else, simply because it costs a level-up.

Thinking ahead has you planning whether you want Urgash's Call or not. Adapting is taking Light Magic because that's what has appeared in your mage guild, taking Howl of Terror because you're facing Haven opponents (which you never knew about because the enemy is set to random), or taking navigation because you're on a water-based map (without knowing that beforehand - if you know before hand, then it becomes planning).

THat's what I mean with thinking ahead. Not thinking ahead would be just choosing whatever you think is cool at a levelup. Taking something early on and then complaining that you really wanted something else isn't thinking ahead, and it isn't strategy.

Bad documentation isn't the true issue here - it's a convenient arguement to deflect the discussion away from the true issue - limitations of the Skill and Ability system.

Let me quote you again. I'll emphasise your complaining about bad documentation:

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.

Maybe not half, but enough of it. And the game does allow you to adapt to things as you learn about them, but that depends on whether you foolishly spend your ability slots early on or wait until you know what you're up against.

But ultimately, what really annoys me is that you don't just have to plan ahead, you need to be able to predict the future. You not have to gamble that you will get the ultimate, but you also have to gamble that you won't be able to get it either. There is nothing more annoying than thinking you won't get a skill, and then picking it up for free at the Witch Hut or having it offered a couple of levels later when levelling up.

How on earth would you gamble on not getting the ultimate? If you made the decision not to go for it, you don't go for it. If you suspect your opponent goes for it, try to catch him while his hero is in the middle of his development. It's all part of the game.

[Da' vane]

See, that's the attitude I mean: Nival is lazy and incompetent and Ubi doesn't care as long as they can put something into a box and write HoMM V onto it. That IS ranting, not more. What's worse, that kind of attitude really makes it difficult to pluck out the resonable points. I don't think this is helpful, because if it was true this whole thing would be pointless anyway.

And this is ranting against ranting, right? I can so see how that is so much better...

Seriously, people have reasons to belive nival is lazy and/or incompentent, and that Ubi couldn't care less. Stating the bottom line is NOT a rant, especially when you can provide those reasons.

Nival is either lazy because the left out things that should have been in there - documentation, dialogue boxes for decisions, and so on.

Alternatively, they are inept, because they missed out things like flagabble resource locations and dialog boxes and toher things that you really have to question their judgement and ability. Sure, some people don't like flaggable resource location (not that I can really see why), but Nival specifically stated that they wanted to speed up the game, yet they missed this out when it is the most obvious candidate. It's hard to come up with any other logical reason why they would have left this out besides not understanding, because it directly goes against their own aims as they had stated.

As for Ubisoft - there is direct evidence that Ubisoft wanted this game rushed. There was that big campaign by the community to get it delayed, and they only set it back a month because so many people threatend to boycott H5 completely.

Not only that, but Ubisoft would have checked over Nival's work, wouldn't they. Even if Nival missed the flaggable resource locations, the documentation, and the Witch Hut dialog option, surely Ubisoft should have picked it up? But they didn't, and this can only mean that Ubisoft just wanted to get it in a box and start on the EP for more coins.

I'm sorry, JJ - especially with you being on their pay-roll, but this is not JUST ranting. You can try and dismiss it as such, but these factors are there.

But you know what's more interesting? The number of design decisions that begin to make sense when you consider that Nival is inept/lazy, or Ubisoft jsut want something to sell. For instance, why Nival decided that "more like H3 then H4" actually meant a H3 clone. It means they can tweak the graphics, because everything so has to be 3d, and they've got the shell of their game right there. None of that messy stuff like creating a new system. It's much eaiser for them to shoehorn in abilities to the skills system (many of which are simply H3 skills).

As for the ability limit, it is an arbitrary construct created by the lazy solution of one ability per skill level. No thought about requirements, just dodgy balancing by forcing either/or choices (especially when many heroes simply can't get their ultimates because of their starting skills and abilities) of things you might not even be able to get.

Whether or not you choose to look at the evidence that's there is up to you JJ, but I've provided reasoning, whether you agree with it or not, and that makes it more than a rant.

[Gus]

all this talk, when it's so easy to just put in a frigging yes/no box =S

JJ, it's disappointing seeing you defend this option... especially when there are no arguments for it. It reminds me, in a way, of the "let's not give them out the skill tree, it's much more fun that way"-thing. No, it's not. It's tedious. It's not the least bit of fun, and games are about fun. I get my fun from thinking of a strategy, not from having to literally gamble, and while i like H5 a lot, there are definitely too many things where gambling is involved. Ghosts can trash your army or drop like flies. A Hut can give you something excellent, or something which (hut, haha ^^) utterly blows. The random order of creatures and heroes at the beginning of the combat can mean a win or a loss.
All those things need to go, because they make the game a bit pointless.

[DaemianLucifer]

@Jolly Joker

Im not going into all that nival/ubi is bad rant.But your example for witch huts doesnt stand.You are saying that it doesnt need a dialog box because it can offer an imbalanced skill in some maps? Thats like saying "When you decide to buy a car,you shouldnt have an option of which model you want to buy,because not everybody has the money to buy the car he desires".

[Jolly Joker]

all this talk, when it's so easy to just put in a frigging yes/no box =S

JJ, it's disappointing seeing you defend this option... especially when there are no arguments for it. It reminds me, in a way, of the "let's not give them out the skill tree, it's much more fun that way"-thing. No, it's not. It's tedious. It's not the least bit of fun, and games are about fun. I get my fun from thinking of a strategy, not from having to literally gamble, and while i like H5 a lot, there are definitely too many things where gambling is involved. Ghosts can trash your army or drop like flies. A Hut can give you something excellent, or something which (hut, haha ^^) utterly blows. The random order of creatures and heroes at the beginning of the combat can mean a win or a loss.
All those things need to go, because they make the game a bit pointless.

But this is exactly what makes the game. The whole game is a game of chance and probabilities and taking risks. No strategy is foolproof. Luck and Morale and Witch Huts and Ghosts are only some aspects of it. There are many more, in fact the whole game is that way. Each single attack will produce a damage within a certain range and so on and so forth. Which doesn't reduce the amount of strategy at all, it just leaves room for gambling. That's the good thing. You can play straight for the percentages and if you are a good player you'll win a clear majority of your games. However, if you stumble upon some bad luck - an unlucky streak of attacks against Ghosts resulting in (too high) losses, a couple 1000 gold chests, bad picks offered for hero levelling and so on, artifacts for the same slot, even a bad Witch Hut offer (no matter whether you risked to go in with the main hero or sent a secondary to scout it out) - you can try to make up for it by taking a gamble at another point. Or you may not, but land a lucky hit in the decisive fight. THAT kind of game is heroes and has always been. It's a game of chances and probabilities and it is absolutely possible that you will lose against an inferior player because of luck or bad luck. But if you play ten games against said inferior player you'll win, say, 8 times - which is enough.
So you see, we have contradicting views about the game - me, I like the character of the game, you don't.

[Gus]

"small" probabilities. if the game is going to continue into this "let's flip a coin to know who wins" system, then i'll pass on H6, thanks.

there's a difference between calculated risk and complete gamble. You've got a damage range, you can calculate risks. You know there's between 50 and 99 creatures in a stack, it's a huge difference, but you can calculate. How do you calculate the starting order in battle or the skill you get in Huts? You don't, that's why it stinks in a TBS.

Oh, and besides, i'll say it again: it's just a yes/no box