Well a customizable hero would be interesting without a doubt.
And yes i hadn't fleshed out the idea too much because i am still trying flesh out the idea even more.

@Justice: in what way would it take away focus from the heroes ? He would not be in the battles as i said in the first place, he would be working in the backgrounds.. a bit like the home city in age of empires 3 if you have to make a comparison.
The idea of the lord was to have someone to affect the faction as a whole and thus guide it towards something more your liking.

It shows that someone rules the heroes.

.. there isn't ? What about that big floating hand in the sky :P

I dunno, i can't really see the logic in what you are saying.

It's the one who is highest in the hierachy who takes the decissions. He controls the kingdom and he allows or orders the hero to fight/explore. To make him level up and activly contribute to the kingdom makes him an active part of the kingdom and someone you notice. Therefore the game will be mroe like "Lords and Heroes" than "Heroes". And, frankly, I think there is too much to do and specialise in if the Lords get so big a say as you propose... Or any say at all other than in the storyline

I see your point.. I was just hoping for some overall thing to tie together any visual changes to the army like i recall mentioning in an earlier wish.

Plus it would allow for mirror games where both haven factions didn't look the same at all

But i concede to your point...

quote:

Therefore the game will be mroe like "Lords and Heroes" than "Heroes"

Well we could say he is a hero too if it affects the name :P but overall i agree with you, they are kinda out of the background...

Justice, strictly that isn't true. The hero is almost always the agent of a higher power, in whatever strategy game you care to think of with few exceptions, such as AoW II. HoMM's campaign involved mostly elite heroes, but normally the hero is merely an agent of the throne, or whatever, or perhaps an independent. So I don't think Dane's idea is bad. The fact that the hero has tasks to fulfill lends itself to such a feature.

Heroes isn't just any game :P

And in Heroes the Lord has always been background story. Never a part of the game, never stolen the scene from the hero in any aspect.

But Dane's customisations could be implemented into the hero itself, by giving us the abbility to create our own hero and let it have some effects on looks and stuff.

hey the customization was my idea not dane's :P

Well then, you could have the customized hero act as the lord, giving him instead of the Racial hero skill.. a racial lord skill and then mix up the hero skills with lord skills.. how about that ? And you still get to make a few decisions on how your troops will look

quote:

Originally posted by ImperialDane:
Well then, you could have the customized hero act as the lord, giving him instead of the Racial hero skill.. a racial lord skill and then mix up the hero skills with lord skills.. how about that ? And you still get to make a few decisions on how your troops will look

That was what I said

@n4v32x, I implemented Dane so that he would not feel left out and that's why I said add to the hero, I don't think you talked about customizing the heroes creatures in accordance to the main hero

@Justice: sorry but i wasn't sure about what you were saying. I can't read your bloody mind !

also:

quote:

I implemented Dane so that he would not feel left

Thanks for the support :P

quote:

Originally posted by Justice:
Heroes isn't just any game :P

And in Heroes the Lord has always been background story. Never a part of the game, never stolen the scene from the hero in any aspect.

But Dane's customisations could be implemented into the hero itself, by giving us the abbility to create our own hero and let it have some effects on looks and stuff.

Yes, that isn't a bad idea.

I felt like this one wasn't tested properly so I'd like to see that fixed in the next game. In V, heroes take far too long to become marginally useful. I would acquire a new hero spell and it would kill around 6 low-tier units in a group of hundreds. Also why is it that on each level up, the game forces me to pick among only 4 abilities that more often than not, don't coincide with the way I want to build my hero? I would like to apply the mass effect to my Lv18 hero's haste spell but the game has decided against that. On the other hand my Lv8 hero who I use as a pack mule for bringing in fresh troops has that ability!

Well Lordship abilities could be mixed up with a single hero, that is for sure, and in the campaign it could be used to make that lordly hero.. a bit more like a king or queen and not so much a glorified hero :P

@Mr.Hardin: Some of the reasons for that are probably balance as to prevent heroes getting too powerfull all too easily.

@ImperialDane
Thank you for your words.

I try to explain myself better (suposing my english is good enough ). I assume i play a multiplayer game with a very limited amount of time for turn: how i want to be the adventure(strategic) map form maximizing both efficiency and feeling?
a) for efficiency, i must see as much as possible of the map, so i think is preferrable to see the the supposed 3D Adventure map from the highest altitude possible. In practice i think every 3D landscape or map when is viewing from high altitudine becomes a 2D one. Because i have a very limited time per turn, i don't have time for scrolling the altitude(moving down) for viewing the sparkling grafical details of the 3D model(and i don't have time neither for changing the angle of camera for viewing the 3D model), but i'm very interested about the aspect of the objects when are see from high altitude. Are those objects(monsters, artifacts etc.) clearly distinguished from this highest altitude of camera, or for recognising them i must scroll moving down to see the details (and wasting time for this)?

b) for feeling: how i prefer the adventure map to be fill up when i see them?: with many and huge elements of landscape(trees, mountains etc.) designed in details, or with tiny and schematic elements of landscape but plenty of goodies (gold, treasure, monsters etc.)?
An example, suppose we have 2 capture screen of the adventure map(from the same camera altitude) of the future Heroes VI, what version do you like more:
1. The adventure map is filled with: empty space 20%, 1 huge castle (20% of the map), 2 heroes (2*5%=10%), a lot of mountains and trees (30%), 4 monsters that guars the related goodies (4*5=20%).
2. The adventure map is filled with: empty space 20%, 1 castle schematic designed(10%), 2 tiny heroes (2*2.5=5%), mountains and trees (15%), 20 goodies guarded (or small unguraded) with related monsters(20*2.5=50%).

I personally prefer the second variant, with the mention that all the object must be designed to be good looking and distinctive from this high altitude of camera. I think that sparkling and detailed grafic must be kept for battles (with an very useful option for disabling ).

Another idea i'd like to be in Heroes VI is experience on stack/units. I like very much Sid Mayer's Civilization, and this concept is implemented very well in this wonderful game too (and in Disciples, and in Heroes WOG). Experience on units raise the feeling of the game, and implemented with moderation make the low level units (that are available early in the game) to be more than cannon fodder in the final battles in a HoMM game.

All the best.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: aurel.ion,

For Heroes of Might and Magic VI I am hoping for a better AI.
Not that I want to game to be as difficult as Tribes of the East was (I found the campaign quite diff. due to lack of ressources/units etc.) but instead an AI player that takes action when I start taking his mines, moving closer to his castle etc.

In Heroes V the computer sometimes played the game plainly stupid, leaving it's town undefended, not seeing the player as a threat on the map, or even comitting suicide, or at least that's what it looks like it's doing
All in all I wish for an improved AI like the one we had in Heroes of Might and Magic III

How would experience for stacks work? It was okay in Disciples because technically there was just one unit. But Heroes has stacks of multiple units, some old, some fresh from the city.

Well that is the main problem, and would ruin things i think.
Would be better if instead you bought unit equipment like i mentioned in an earlier idea..

Experience for stack is implemented pretty well in Heroes III Wog, for example, and principle is like this:
Suppose we have 20 griffins with experience 6000XP and we recruit another 10 new griffins from the town(with 0XP because they are not yet participating to any victorious battle), then we have a stack with 30 griffins with a total experience of (20*6000+10*0)/(20+10)=4000XP
And there are thresolds associated with bonuses. For example: at 6000XP the unit is level 3(Ace), and for 3000XP the unit is level 2(Veteran). In the example abobe, initially we have 20 griffins level 3(6000XP), and after mixing with 10 new recruit griffins, we have 30 griffins level 2((4000XP).

Experience is associated with every stack/slot of units(the stack of peasants have his own level, and the stack of griffins another XP level, related with the battle of every stack - how early is available for battle in the army of a victorious hero) , there is no problem with this. Only problem is that the bonus received when the stacks becomes (let' say) veteran or expert must not be overwhelming.

In Civilization, experience for units is implemented in a quite similar way: we can have in the same army a veteran warrior (with a possible bonus of 10% of strength, but bonuses can cover a large area of possibilities, even they are pretty small) and a regular spearman with no bonus. Of course that an expert warrior(speaking of Civilization IV), even that he will acquire all the possible bonus of experience, will never kill a tank; and (speaking of HoMM) a peasant, even that he will acquire all the possible bonus of experience, will never kill an angel or a dragon.

But experience on stack give to the player the same satisfaction that is obtain when the hero is level-up grants to his battle experience, and obtain some bonuses. And make the peasants and other low level units capable to be better than cannon fodder in large battles. Anyway if we analize the formula of mixing experienced troops with fresh ones, is easy to observe that is pretty dificult to have huge number of troops and with great experience bonus. So come out interesting strategic choice in some battles: we want a great stack with little experience bonus or a smaller stack with a greater experience bonus (and so on)?

All the best.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: aurel.ion,