Breathing new life into Heroes of Might & Magic

[ThunderTitan]

My comment was more a reference to where the emphasis should be – the superb game play features rather than the mechanics with which they are implemented. If we have a firm grasp of what makes a game tick, we can refine or replace the mechanics that it uses and reasonably expect to create a better game. Without such understanding, tinkering with the mechanics becomes a hit-and-miss affair.

Gameplay features and mechanics aren't different enough to be considered two different things imo...

I'm guessing you're thinking about replacing one mechanic with a similar one, while i'm thinking that's just fixing the gameplay feature...

Teaming up heroes exponentially increases tactical play and allows even low level heroes to play a decisive part. The fact that heroes are strong compared to creatures, while considered flawed by some (definately not by me!), reduces the 1-decisive combat thing and allows for a more strategic game.

The problem with the Heroes in H4 is that they flip flop between being too weak at the start (and without combat they die too easily all the time) and too strong at a certain point.... then at another point where creature numbers are high they're too weak again (unless they're mass status casters).

It's certainly not ideal, no matter how fun they are to use when the conditions are right...

To me, H4perfect example of how less objects create more strategic and tactical possibilities.

No, the reason why less objects seem to do that is because it's easier to avoid having OP strategies the less factors are influencing the outcome...

[wimfrits]

No, the reason why less objects seem to do that is because it's easier to avoid having OP strategies the less factors are influencing the outcome...

I'm not sure I get that. Could you explain?

What I meant is e.g. that 1 generic hero system combined with multiple heroes in combat raises tactical possibilities by a couple of dimensions.

As for heroes being too weak at the start and end of game and too strong in the middle, often true. If the map's balance is not tuned to the player's skill. A human problem, not with the mechanics.

[Groovy]

I think the feature with the most room for improvement is hero development and -balance. Most versions have the 1 superhero, resulting in reduced strategic play, reduced tactics, the 1 combat decides the game thing and secondary heroes with unhero-like tasks. H5 tried to reduce the last syptom by increasing costs for secondary heroes.

The only game that came with a good solution for the basic problem is H4. Teaming up heroes exponentially increases tactical play and allows even low level heroes to play a decisive part. The fact that heroes are strong compared to creatures, while considered flawed by some (definately not by me!), reduces the 1-decisive combat thing and allows for a more strategic game. No need to visit weekly resource structures and creatures able to pick up resources kills the secondary hero syptom.

To me, H4 is the perfect example of how less objects create more strategic and tactical possibilities.

My favourite H3 map is Reclamation. What I really like about it is that it doesn’t suffer from the Superhero and One-battle-wins-the-game syndromes. It achieves this by banning Town Portal, Dimension Door and Fly spells, and by starting the player with two towns, on different sides of the map. To be able to hold onto his isolated towns, let alone expand, the player has to balance their development, as well as that of the heroes that are servicing each town. There is simply too much ground to cover and too many areas to defend for one hero to be able to do it all without the use of the banned spells. I usually end up with 4-5 strong heroes when playing the map, each one leading an army on a different part of the map against the local enemies.

I’m sharing this because it has demonstrated to me just how much adventure map spells like Town Portal and Dimension Door change the character of the game and contribute to the shortcomings that you’ve mentioned. Without them, it becomes quite difficult to rely on a single superhero. I’m curious whether you think that H4 would have suffered from the same shortcomings had it allowed these two spells to be used to the extent that H3 did. I raise the question because I share vhilhu’s sentiment – H4 didn’t feel like Heroes to me either, for the exact same reason.

I would prefer to solve the problems that you’ve mentioned, even tap the benefits of H4’s multi-hero combat, without doing away with a core gameplay feature of the HoMM series.

[Groovy]

Gameplay features and mechanics aren't different enough to be considered two different things imo...

I'm guessing you're thinking about replacing one mechanic with a similar one, while i'm thinking that's just fixing the gameplay feature...

Could be. I find it useful to consider the distinction when looking for ways to improve a game that doesn’t seem to be in need of fixing.

[ChimTheGrim]

Mixing all the good stuff from all the best HoMM games...? You are a genius! Why hasnt anyone thought of this before?
Panda Tar for Ubisoft President! Then maybe we can get what we all want, the perfect TBS game.

And let Nival do it. They are the true masters of copy&paste. Let them put everything together and call it a day.

Hey now, make sure they rush the programming before its done and put a memory leak in there just for the fans! We love buggy games!

[Kristo]

My favourite H3 map is Reclamation. What I really like about it is that it doesn’t suffer from the Superhero and One-battle-wins-the-game syndromes. It achieves this by banning Town Portal, Dimension Door and Fly spells, and by starting the player with two towns, on different sides of the map. To be able to hold onto his isolated towns, let alone expand, the player has to balance their development, as well as that of the heroes that are servicing each town. There is simply too much ground to cover and too many areas to defend for one hero to be able to do it all without the use of the banned spells. I usually end up with 4-5 strong heroes when playing the map, each one leading an army on a different part of the map against the local enemies.

You've hit the nail on the head. The superhero and final battle "problems" are a mapmaking issue, not a game mechanics issue. I've had the most fun on maps where you can never completely close off each new region you conquer. Without DD or TP, the only effective way to defend new towns is to post a hero in the area. That hero tends to see a lot of action and can't help but level up. Before you know it, you have two or three strong heroes on the map as opposed to one superhero. And you didn't have to change any game mechanics besides banning a couple of overpowered spells.

[Pitsu]

It is not that simple to say what is a problem of mapmaking and what of mechanic. As long as heroes give (attack, defense, spell ) bonuses it is better to build a superhero than divide. Logistics is, and should be, one of the main hindrances for single hero use and that is why logistic specialists, spells and chaining are so powerful in h3. But beside making larger maps/limiting logistics there are other not very well used possibilities for game mechanics to limit the superhero strategy.

[Groovy]

As long as heroes give (attack, defense, spell ) bonuses it is better to build a superhero than divide.

The same holds for armies – a single unified army is more powerful than several smaller ones.

But beside making larger maps/limiting logistics there are other not very well used possibilities for game mechanics to limit the superhero strategy.

You can’t divulge an appetiser like that and then leave us begging for more.

[ThunderTitan]

No, the reason why less objects seem to do that is because it's easier to avoid having OP strategies the less factors are influencing the outcome...

What I meant is e.g. that 1 generic hero system combined with multiple heroes in combat raises tactical possibilities by a couple of dimensions.

Yeah see, that's not having less stuff... it's actually having each unit do more...

As for heroes being too weak at the start and end of game and too strong in the middle, often true. If the map's balance is not tuned to the player's skill. A human problem, not with the mechanics.

You've hit the nail on the head. The superhero and final battle "problems" are a mapmaking issue, not a game mechanics issue.

To answer both of those:

Making the map go around problems with the mechanics is not fixing the problem, is patching it up as best as you can...

The fact that you need to adjust the map to it is the best sign of it being a problem actually.

[Pitsu]

You can’t divulge an appetiser like that and then leave us begging for more.

First, there are robust ways. Limit the size of stacks (like kings bounty) or have only few slots for each army (H1-2 had 6 tiers but 5 stack armies). Second, there is the area of hero-creature synergies. Instead of a hero boosting attack and defense of every creature in army, it could only few. Why should a beastmaster increase the attack and defense of monks? You immediately have to figure whether to keep the non-boosted units in this army or build another one, where their efficacy is maybe doubled. There can be even very specific hero and single stack synergies like the dracogeddon or tief heroes. Neither benefits from additional uncompatible stacks, but are a pain for enemy as they are. I think it was you who recently suggested that all-flyer armies should be able to fly. Not that i see it working and balanced in HoMM, but it is an example how creature-environment synergies can be used to encourage multiple armies.

[wimfrits]

I would prefer to solve the problems that you’ve mentioned, even tap the benefits of H4’s multi-hero combat, without doing away with a core gameplay feature of the HoMM series.

Everyone has a different idea of what the core gameplay is. Stepping away from the organizational unit hero can solve all the flaws that players do see but have started to love over time. And opens the way for expansion in strategy and tactics. I don't think tapping into benefits of H4's multi-hero combat is possible without sacrificing this 'core' feature of the series.

The H3 example you gave says it. Extensive patching to create a good game. But only in this 1 specific map under these specific circumstances. And the added strategy and tactics it brings is still child's play compared to the possibilities in a H4-like system.

Making the map go around problems with the mechanics is not fixing the problem, is patching it up as best as you can...

Sure, but the problem usually is not with the mechanics. For example, most maps hold too much stat boosters for a balanced game. This effect is larger in H4 than other installments.
A problem of mapmakers unable to properly balance a map, which has nothing to do with mechanics.

An exception is the horrible AI of H4. That did require a lot of patching to create a good game.

[Groovy]

Second, there is the area of hero-creature synergies.

Thanks, Pitsu. I like this avenue the most. If done well, it should be able to produce the desired effect without artificial means of limiting army size.

It’s only now that I clicked why spells like the overpowered version of Town Portal are bad for the game. It would be like having spells that temporarily turn all your creatures into dragons, or convert other towns to your own faction – really cool and powerful effects that end up impoverishing the game by reducing diversity.

[Groovy]

I don't think tapping into benefits of H4's multi-hero combat is possible without sacrificing this 'core' feature of the series.

I have suggested a way to do that in this thread. Briefly, by allowing battles to spread over several days, armies become able to reinforce each other. This makes it possible for several heroes and armies to fight alongside each other. Combined with Panda Tar’s idea from this thread to have heroes wander around the battlefield giving bonuses only to nearby troops, I think this could work better than either the H3 or the H4 approach.

[wimfrits]

I have suggested a way to do that in this thread. Briefly, by allowing battles to spread over several days, armies become able to reinforce each other. This makes it possible for several heroes and armies to fight alongside each other.

A refreshing idea. I like it, though I fear this would reinforce the 1 superhero strategy. Now the secondary heroes are not only picking up resources, but also boosting the effectiveness of the main hero in combat.
But what are we doing here? We're sacrificing two 'core' features (combat does not take 'real' time and 1 army per battle) to patch up some of the flaws of the real problem 'core' feature.

Imo true growth of the series lies in abandoning the organizational unit hero feature.

[vicheron]

They could make it so that a hero can have two modes, a combat mode and a command mode.

In combat mode, the hero operates as an independent unit but only gives a fraction of the attack/defense/luck/morale bonus to the army.

In command mode, the hero joins a stack of creatures and gives full attack/defense/luck/morale bonus to the army but has no action independent from the stack they are joined to, except the ability to cast spells and use skills at the cost of immobilizing the stack for the turn. If the stack is killed, the hero takes any extra damage. If the hero survives then they lose a turn and move into combat mode automatically.

You can choose which mode a hero starts combat with. Switching modes takes a full turn for the hero and the creature they join/leave.

There would also obviously be skills related to the different modes.

[Groovy]

A refreshing idea. I like it, though I fear this would reinforce the 1 superhero strategy. Now the secondary heroes are not only picking up resources, but also boosting the effectiveness of the main hero in combat.

Why do you think that there would be a single superhero in the absence of spells that enable him to reach all strategically important locations in a reasonable timeframe?

But what are we doing here? We're sacrificing two 'core' features (combat does not take 'real' time and 1 army per battle) to patch up some of the flaws of the real problem 'core' feature.

Not all features of the series are core features in the sense that abandoning them breaks the feel of the game. Choosing between creature dwelling build paths was one such change from H4. I don’t think it added enough value to the game to justify its presence, but it didn’t change its feel to the point where I wouldn’t call it a Heroes game anymore. The same for changing creature growth from weekly to daily.

Besides, the purpose of the changes that I suggested was to add depth and new possibilities to the game. For example, they allow us to design skill trees where skills are improved through use. This isn’t practical in the existing Heroes games because artificially prolonging combat to increase skill use carries no penalty. That they also give us the benefits of H4 multi-hero combat without abandoning the organisational unit hero feature is a side-effect, albeit a welcome one (for me ).

[wimfrits]

Why do you think that there would be a single superhero in the absence of spells that enable him to reach all strategically important locations in a reasonable timeframe?

Oh, we're also removing all transporting spells (core feature # 3) to accomodate the patching?
I think a game with too much dead-end paths will then become a drag.
But in a specifically multi-connected multiplayer map, absence of such adventure spells would work. Not in the rest of the maps though.

Not all features of the series are core features in the sense that abandoning them breaks the feel of the game.

Personal taste. Everyone has a different idea of what the core of the series is. The thing is, if H4 had been released as a more polished game and was more recognizable for experienced players (a clear combat grid and well decorated town screens come to mind for instance) a lot more players would be praising Ubisoft for their bold move. Then the series would have evolved along an entirely different path instead of reverting to polishing up H3.

Now unfortunately, we're stuck with the same flaws, the same broken system. As I said, I do like your idea for change. But I'd much rather think about how we could improve the H4 system to make it more recognizable to players.

I think there are no 'holy' core features. There is the combination of recognizable features vs player's openness to change that make up the degree to which a game feels HoMM-like.

[Groovy]

Oh, we're also removing all transporting spells (core feature # 3) to accomodate the patching?

Sorry, I thought you understood what this series of threads was about. If you have a look at the Heroic topic on spells, you will see that it has nothing to do with patching the H3 spell system. It is about reducing the number of spells while increasing the number of ways in which they interact with other game objects, all in an effort to increase the strategic and tactical depth of the game while still keeping it recognisable to HoMM fans.

The thing is, if H4 had been released as a more polished game and was more recognizable for experienced players (a clear combat grid and well decorated town screens come to mind for instance) a lot more players would be praising Ubisoft for their bold move. Then the series would have evolved along an entirely different path instead of reverting to polishing up H3.

Yes, sure. I’m not that mad about the design direction that Nival took with H5. I find it too similar to H3.

I think there are no 'holy' core features. There is the combination of recognizable features vs player's openness to change that make up the degree to which a game feels HoMM-like.

I’d be more reserved about that. Consider dropping heroes, for instance. Would it still be a Heroes game, then? It might be nothing more than personal preference to say no, but you’d probably find that personal preference to be almost universally held.

[Panda Tar]

Mixing all the good stuff from all the best HoMM games...? You are a genius! Why hasnt anyone thought of this before?
Panda Tar for Ubisoft President! Then maybe we can get what we all want, the perfect TBS game.

And let Nival do it. They are the true masters of copy&paste. Let them put everything together and call it a day.

Hey, am I being stung here? Did my personal taste hurt anyone?

[Torur]

Mixing all the good stuff from all the best HoMM games...? You are a genius! Why hasnt anyone thought of this before?
Panda Tar for Ubisoft President! Then maybe we can get what we all want, the perfect TBS game.

And let Nival do it. They are the true masters of copy&paste. Let them put everything together and call it a day.

Hey, am I being stung here? Did my personal taste hurt anyone?

Haha, how can a recommendation for being the Ubisoft president be a bad thing?

Oh, we're also removing all transporting spells (core feature # 3) to accomodate the patching?
I think a game with too much dead-end paths will then become a drag.
But in a specifically multi-connected multiplayer map, absence of such adventure spells would work. Not in the rest of the maps though.

At times I feel the same I guess. No, transport super hero everywhere in one sec would be nice. But nothing is more annoying than loosing X amount of mines or towns, just cause it takes a week to get your hero to the other end of the map.