PDA

View Full Version : H6's simplified Resource System : comments



Gnecromancer
02-15-2011, 10:03 PM
Why is the resource system being dumbed down ?!

What is the point of this ? This seems like a huge dumbing down of the strategy aspect of the game ; as well as having certain resources be more important for certain factions.

The old resource system encouraged early exploration and also meant you had more locations in your territory to defend and manage. You also had to prioritize what you were going to go after first.

It sounds like it is going to be a lot easier to maintain a flow of resources earlier on and later into a map.

Not a fan of this change at all. No need to simplify and dumb down the resource system.

Gnecromancer
02-15-2011, 10:03 PM
Why is the resource system being dumbed down ?!

What is the point of this ? This seems like a huge dumbing down of the strategy aspect of the game ; as well as having certain resources be more important for certain factions.

The old resource system encouraged early exploration and also meant you had more locations in your territory to defend and manage. You also had to prioritize what you were going to go after first.

It sounds like it is going to be a lot easier to maintain a flow of resources earlier on and later into a map.

Not a fan of this change at all. No need to simplify and dumb down the resource system.

dchalfont
02-16-2011, 12:52 AM
Complaining about less resources has about the same logic as complaining about how you can backup more files onto a blu ray than a dvd because you used to get a thril out of putting in a fresh dvd...it was an exercise in futility.

"The old resource system encouraged early exploration"

Well you sure as hell are going to have to explore fast now because instead of just building/upgrading a dwelling that used resources that you had left after expending other resources, now ALL your bases will need that resource so you will actually be compelled to explore even more with one resources. It also means more competition over each resource dwelling as their impportance is exponentially increased instead of 'meh sylvan doesn't need sulfur' etc.

Less is sometimes more.

Less juggling, more exploring, more fighting, you know the good stuff.

I guess I should be upset that I can drive to the shops to get food which saves me time because I used to get so much joy from pointless preparation. ( this is borrowing your train of logic again )

Dark-Whisperer
02-16-2011, 01:17 AM
@dchalfont
I agree with you that new system should be better then six resources one but you came a bit strong on Gnecromancer. He just stated his opinion.

Anyway 4 resources should fasten the pace of the game. And as dchalfont said some resources were just redundant for certain factions, now all factions will need same resources and keeping them will be much more important.

GoranXII
02-16-2011, 02:54 AM
The new system still doesn't solve the biggest issue of the old system, namely that all but 1 of the resources (other than gold) becomes useless except as a trade-good once all the towns are fully built.

You're also going to be hard pressed to make a system like Artificer work with the new system.

ivaninp
09-20-2011, 04:37 PM
Removing the resources is very bad idea. The beginning of the game is the most enjoyable part of the game and the most strategically important. And the most important decision is do I fight this guards and experience some loses to capture that mine or wait for more troops, but hinder my town development.

Game designer:
Hmmm, strategic decisions… They are too hard for the players, let remove them and make the game suitable for kids. We will sell more $$$

Nightmus
09-20-2011, 04:38 PM
Can't say that decreasing the quantity of resources is an outright bad idea (it may turn out great), but I miss those H3 gems. In H3 I usually played as Casle or Tower and I absolutely loved the icon of gems, which are these factions' main resource. In H5 the gems were tinted in one color and in H6 there are none of them. A little sad that is.

nanogasm
09-20-2011, 07:20 PM
This just in.. Civ VI is streamlining resources from 27 to 1. Apparently previous renditions gave unfair advantages based on map layout and was considered boring. The new resource should provide a more strategic and quicker moving game experience..

RottaranOwain
09-21-2011, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nanogasm:
This just in.. Civ VI is streamlining resources from 27 to 1. Apparently previous renditions gave unfair advantages based on map layout and was considered boring. The new resource should provide a more strategic and quicker moving game experience.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never saw anyone complain about Starcraft 2 having only two resources. (Though them always being right next to each other I always thought was silly)

drdreamz
09-21-2011, 01:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I never saw anyone complain about Starcraft 2 having only two resources. (Though them always being right next to each other I always thought was silly) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please don't compare SC with HOMM!

I think the ressource reduction was a very bad idea and I'm saying it again: I don't think that real HOMM fans are working on HOMM 6, because I can't see how they would have taken such decisions.. to change/remove essential parts of the HOMM series. (I played since HOMM 2).
Too much marketing, too much commercial, too focused on profit..

RottaranOwain
09-21-2011, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by drdreamz:
Please don't compare SC with HOMM!

I think the ressource reduction was a very bad idea and I'm saying it again: I don't think that real HOMM fans are working on HOMM 6, because I can't see how they would have taken such decisions.. to change/remove essential parts of the HOMM series. (I played since HOMM 2).
Too much marketing, too much commercial, too focused on profit.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SC has more in common with HoMM then Civ does. Even if SC is an RTS and HoMM is a TBS.

Either way, my point was that comparing games Civ to HoMM was illogical because they aren't the same game.

The less rare resources encourages people to actually fight over the resources rather than just caring about wood, ore, and one other resource specific to the faction.

nanogasm
09-21-2011, 04:20 PM
My Civ comment was really just some sarcasm. But in a round about way, you've hit on an interesting point.

While Civ and HoMM may not be the same game, they do share a similarity in their design.

SC is built ground-up to be multiplayer. It supports and has a robust singleplayer, but its design vision is rooted in multiplay.

Civ is built ground up to be singleplayer. It has multiplay options, but these options are bolted on to a singleplayer focused experience.

HoMM, of past, was built ground up to be singleplayer.

I think many of the concerns about changes that are being raised is that HoMM VI seems to have taken the leap to become built-up as a multiplayer game. Or at least a hybrid (which could be worse because it is neither nor).

So much speaks to this, from resource reduction, hero skill advancement, healing across all units, speeding up turns, etc.. this sorta stuff appeases the multiplayer crowd probably more so than the single player one.

RottaranOwain
09-22-2011, 01:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nanogasm:
My Civ comment was really just some sarcasm. But in a round about way, you've hit on an interesting point.

While Civ and HoMM may not be the same game, they do share a similarity in their design.

SC is built ground-up to be multiplayer. It supports and has a robust singleplayer, but its design vision is rooted in multiplay.

Civ is built ground up to be singleplayer. It has multiplay options, but these options are bolted on to a singleplayer focused experience.

HoMM, of past, was built ground up to be singleplayer.

I think many of the concerns about changes that are being raised is that HoMM VI seems to have taken the leap to become built-up as a multiplayer game. Or at least a hybrid (which could be worse because it is neither nor).

So much speaks to this, from resource reduction, hero skill advancement, healing across all units, speeding up turns, etc.. this sorta stuff appeases the multiplayer crowd probably more so than the single player one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to mention the lesser reliance on luck by the players. Off the top of my head I can't think of any creature abilities that work off chance to activate.

In Heroes 3, basically everything had something like a 20% chance to activate. Basilisks, and Medusas petrifying, Wyvern Poison, and Ghost Dragon's aging etc.

I think I saw somewhere in a Q&A or an interview somewhere that Heroes 6 was designed more to be a multiplayer game, which was the basis for many changes.

There's still luck via damage spread, morale, and well...luck though.

Dasher3
09-23-2011, 03:33 PM
When you get down to actual game play, more resources is not more complex. A particular map has a shortage of crystals, everyone needs to solve that problem. Whereas with more critical resources, one player might be at a severe disadvantage. This blows for PvP, where you want to start everyone out in fundamentally even circumstances.

And the choices you make to deal with the shortage are not more complex. You still have to deal with the trade offs of fast construction vs possible troop loss or other trade offs.

They even introduced Pillage and Sabatoge to disrupt your opponents resources while taking some for yourself.

As for what you do with your resources when you're done building... there is the market place which now sells artifacts. Personally, I think that's too powerful and they should save the real good stuff for adventures. But at least you can equip a secondary hero.

Anna-_-
09-23-2011, 03:51 PM
Speaking of Pillage and Sabotage has anyone seen the AI doing that? Is it capable of doing it?

Astasia
09-23-2011, 09:49 PM
The point about fewer resources equating to more conflict over them is moot because of how easy it is to abuse the market. Actually the market is absolutely required and your controlled resource points are just a tiny percentage of what you use. Losing or gaining an extra node is of no consequence, especially once you have 3+ cities built up decently and you are swimming in gold and can buy resources for practically nothing.

mastgrr
09-30-2011, 05:55 AM
HOMM6 is a much more strategic game than the older HOMMs. It plays quite differently. Not only because of less resources to manage and find, but also by using Dwellings and dividing the map into zones that players capture.

I'd say it definitely feels more like a more modern, philosophically. It's meant to create tension between players in the game and encourage division and conquering.

With 4 resources that all races share, it creates more of a reason to invade them and take over their stuff.

flashn00b
09-30-2011, 03:14 PM
I can imagine some good and bad points in regards to this.

Having to get your necessary resources in the previous games can be an annoyance, though if you have an excess of a resource you don't need, you could use the marketplace to buy your needed resource.

TragicManner
09-30-2011, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nanogasm:
My Civ comment was really just some sarcasm. But in a round about way, you've hit on an interesting point.

While Civ and HoMM may not be the same game, they do share a similarity in their design.

SC is built ground-up to be multiplayer. It supports and has a robust singleplayer, but its design vision is rooted in multiplay.

Civ is built ground up to be singleplayer. It has multiplay options, but these options are bolted on to a singleplayer focused experience.

HoMM, of past, was built ground up to be singleplayer.

I think many of the concerns about changes that are being raised is that HoMM VI seems to have taken the leap to become built-up as a multiplayer game. Or at least a hybrid (which could be worse because it is neither nor).

So much speaks to this, from resource reduction, hero skill advancement, healing across all units, speeding up turns, etc.. this sorta stuff appeases the multiplayer crowd probably more so than the single player one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would actually beg to differ here. Hotseat play and a dynamic, in-game client random map generator proved that the longevity of the Heroes games was rooted in multiplayer. Don't get me wrong, singleplayer is great, but some of my favorite memories playing games were from the days of hotseat HOMM with friends. Multiplayer was a much different beast in the past, and HOMM was pretty unique in how much it stressed multi play.

Having more resources is not a design choice that inhibits multiplayer games, either. I'm really not sure why you are paralleling the two.

That said, I do think that HOMM 6 is being driven more in the direction of quicker multiplayer, mostly to help drive a shorter decision making process for faster turns. Fewer resources help in taking shorter turns, and shorter turns means multi-play games are much more likely to be completed. I can't even count how many HOMM3 multiplayer games I've started and never finished. Hundreds, I'm certain.

And Astasia, your idea about Market abuse is interesting to me. There are fewer things to trade towards your main resource now, so less trading should be needed. If anything, the Market issue has more to do with causing problems with one player becoming far too powerful due to having more towns.

I am, ultimately, a little torn on the idea of fewer resources, but it is not a deal breaker for me at all. I think it will indeed help contribute to quicker games (and there are a lot of other things in the design choice that help with this, not just the resources) which will likely help with a more realistic multiplayer experience.

Borellun
09-30-2011, 03:41 PM
I think that this is a bad idea.
I played HoMM2, HoMM3, and Homm5. It was better with 7 resources than with 4.
What's next? HoMM 7 • resources: just gold. (just to make the game more "strategic")

Dasher3
09-30-2011, 05:24 PM
I challenge you to give one example where four rare resources is more strategic than one.

All the same challenges are there. The degree of how rare it is can be controlled by map designers. Rare mines can be placed in neutral lands where they can be fought over. With more resources, a shortage could easily effect one player much more harshly then others, making the game unbalanced. Now everyone fights on even ground.

The marketplace bug has been fixed. In the early game, the market place prices are steep... five common to one rare. You could argue for higher prices, or even the removal of the skill that allows a hero to count as a marketplace. These things could be easily adjusted.

If you have to buy your resources, you may not be able to recruit all your troops. Especially if you play hard maps with scarce resources. Meanwhile, you can pillage to steal resources or sabatoge to take more from your rival.

What exactly are you missing? Cool colors?

TragicManner
09-30-2011, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dasher3:
I challenge you to give one example where four rare resources is more strategic than one.

All the same challenges are there. The degree of how rare it is can be controlled by map designers. Rare mines can be placed in neutral lands where they can be fought over. With more resources, a shortage could easily effect one player much more harshly then others, making the game unbalanced. Now everyone fights on even ground.

The marketplace bug has been fixed. In the early game, the market place prices are steep... five common to one rare. You could argue for higher prices, or even the removal of the skill that allows a hero to count as a marketplace. These things could be easily adjusted.

If you have to buy your resources, you may not be able to recruit all your troops. Especially if you play hard maps with scarce resources. Meanwhile, you can pillage to steal resources or sabatoge to take more from your rival.

What exactly are you missing? Cool colors? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great points, you basically made a few points that I forgot to add in my post above. Scarcity of these resources depends completely on map design, and I was thinking about shortages of a single resource for only one player, which has happened to me before. All the gems in the world and no sulfur, and meanwhile my opponents have a huge pile of the resources they need. Trading does not make up for that, because it always results in a loss of sheer quantity, a loss that other people likely will not have to suffer because they control the resources they need directly.

So well said, Dasher. It will just make marketplace transactions quicker, and likely a few other things, and in turn do its little part in speeding up turns.

Pitsu
10-01-2011, 06:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dasher3:
I challenge you to give one example where four rare resources is more strategic than one.

The degree of how rare it is can be controlled by map designers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you say yourself, the rarity in sense of availability is a mapmakers choice and is maybe not even correct world. It may be better to say that we had 3 common and 4 faction unique resource system replaced by 4 common and zero unique system. It could be argued how it influences the unique feel of factions but from strategic point an example: If towns and armies would require different resources, then town conversion would be much harder choice. Depending on economy (mines and marketplace rates) it may be better to hire larger variety of monsters and have mixed or secondary armies than convert and trade resources for creation of a single superarmy.

nanogasm
10-01-2011, 10:04 AM
Hmm.. you say this..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TragicManner:
I would actually beg to differ here. Hotseat play and a dynamic, in-game client random map generator proved that the longevity of the Heroes games was rooted in multiplayer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you say this..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TragicManner:
I can't even count how many HOMM3 multiplayer games I've started and never finished. Hundreds, I'm certain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because you enjoy the MP side to game doesn't mean it was 'designed' as one from ground-up. The fact that you couldn't finish games is a testament to this. And the fact that HoMM VI has streamlined things to speed up play may be a sign that it is a shift in its vision to be a ground-up design for MP.