PDA

View Full Version : Gameplay improvement suggestions



DreaDlorD_666
01-11-2011, 11:42 AM
Strategy game's "strategic depth" and re-playability depends on the amount of choices player has to make in order to achieve game's objectives, would it be to complete a campaigning mission or to beat his opponent in multiplayer. So, there are some suggestions that in my opinion would enhance HOMM gameplay
Unit specialties and abilities (especially active ones) that would make some good combinations between units, units and certain hero skills or spells. Some good examples of unit-unit, unit-spell interactions are implemented in recent Katauri's King's Bounty.
In siege combat, walls and/or gates should be destroyed by units and not by catapults alone. This would give players more choices how to spend their unit action points. Special defense towers (maybe similar to those in HOMM IV) also would be nice, because players wold be forced to choose whether to, lets say, block a hole in the wall with their grunt units in order to protect their more vulnerable (ranged, spellcasters) from an attack or to occupy a bonus giving battlefield spot.
Leadership system (again, similar to King's bounty), which would limit the amount of soldiers in a troop - in all previous Heroes games low tier units wold become obsolete pretty soon in game. In late game they usually die form one-two hits from a top level creatures and therefore are almost good only to soak up retaliations (well, maybe a skeleton being an exception http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).In contrast, in King's Bounty leadership system adds unit cap in each stack and because of that low level units remain useful (and in some situations with combinations of their specialties and hero spells indispensable) throughout entire game (low level creatures serve as heavy damage dealers, but their strength diminishes fairly fast as they take loses, whereas high level creatures might not be that strong at the beginning of the battle, but, as battle progresses, their strength increases due to smeller loses). More balanced unit system would make payers choose their army composition more carefully bearing in mind their hero skills, spells and enemy's army composition, whereas in previous heroes games, choosing between archangel and pikeman in later game on bigger maps was kinda no-brainier. Furthermore, adding a unit cap, depending on leadership/hero level would force players to have more than one developed hero, which would result in more human versus human battles in multiplayer (I don't know what about You, but for me satisfaction in multiplayer lies in fact I get to play against or in cooperation with a human which, no matter his/her skill level, is always more unpredictable than AI, no matter how smart it might be). In contrast, in previous HOMM games multiplayer matches usually ended with one "grand" battle and loosing it usually meant loosing entire game.
So, thats it for now. Please, don't hesitate to comment my suggestions ant post Yours http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DreaDlorD_666
01-11-2011, 11:42 AM
Strategy game's "strategic depth" and re-playability depends on the amount of choices player has to make in order to achieve game's objectives, would it be to complete a campaigning mission or to beat his opponent in multiplayer. So, there are some suggestions that in my opinion would enhance HOMM gameplay
Unit specialties and abilities (especially active ones) that would make some good combinations between units, units and certain hero skills or spells. Some good examples of unit-unit, unit-spell interactions are implemented in recent Katauri's King's Bounty.
In siege combat, walls and/or gates should be destroyed by units and not by catapults alone. This would give players more choices how to spend their unit action points. Special defense towers (maybe similar to those in HOMM IV) also would be nice, because players wold be forced to choose whether to, lets say, block a hole in the wall with their grunt units in order to protect their more vulnerable (ranged, spellcasters) from an attack or to occupy a bonus giving battlefield spot.
Leadership system (again, similar to King's bounty), which would limit the amount of soldiers in a troop - in all previous Heroes games low tier units wold become obsolete pretty soon in game. In late game they usually die form one-two hits from a top level creatures and therefore are almost good only to soak up retaliations (well, maybe a skeleton being an exception http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).In contrast, in King's Bounty leadership system adds unit cap in each stack and because of that low level units remain useful (and in some situations with combinations of their specialties and hero spells indispensable) throughout entire game (low level creatures serve as heavy damage dealers, but their strength diminishes fairly fast as they take loses, whereas high level creatures might not be that strong at the beginning of the battle, but, as battle progresses, their strength increases due to smeller loses). More balanced unit system would make payers choose their army composition more carefully bearing in mind their hero skills, spells and enemy's army composition, whereas in previous heroes games, choosing between archangel and pikeman in later game on bigger maps was kinda no-brainier. Furthermore, adding a unit cap, depending on leadership/hero level would force players to have more than one developed hero, which would result in more human versus human battles in multiplayer (I don't know what about You, but for me satisfaction in multiplayer lies in fact I get to play against or in cooperation with a human which, no matter his/her skill level, is always more unpredictable than AI, no matter how smart it might be). In contrast, in previous HOMM games multiplayer matches usually ended with one "grand" battle and loosing it usually meant loosing entire game.
So, thats it for now. Please, don't hesitate to comment my suggestions ant post Yours http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

wdcryer
01-11-2011, 01:06 PM
Some of your suggestions have been implemented on some level. Units can attack fortifications. Units can be placed on top of fortifications, sort of acting as special towers. There are only 3 tiers of creatures now, so creatures becoming obsolete should be less of an issue.

It would be nice if they came up with some sort of leadership system to encourage you to split your armies.

Check out the FAQ thread. (http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=33655)

D.Jaskowski
01-11-2011, 01:29 PM
I for one hope they don't. I like to look as my armies grow bigger and bigger, while I go steadily through the map. Having leadership and limiting the amount of units you may have would make each map boring after a while.

wdcryer
01-11-2011, 01:49 PM
I see where you're coming from. I feel that it is more exciting to divide your attention between multiple heroes and fronts, though. It seems like it would require more strategy and planning.

edit: It's particularly boring when your hero is going back through conquered territory to get units or come back from a dead end. Having multiple heroes would hopefully mean some of your heroes would have more to do than just move on your turn.

GoranXII
01-11-2011, 02:33 PM
I'm against most units being able to target siege walls, I disliked it in Age of Empires, and I like it no more here, because a castle is meant to be a fortress, impregnable to all but the most determined and resourceful armies.

I agree that there does need to be a limit on army size, but the KB method was way too simplistic and uncompromising, so I'd like to propose a new system which limits only the total Power Rating of the army:
Max. Army Power Rating = (S*Ne-Le)*(0.9^(L-1))
Where S is your hero's Leadership skill proficiency (5 for no skill, 5.5 for Basic, 6.5 for Advanced and 8 for Expert), Ne is the minimum total experience your hero would need to level up, Le is the minimum experience your hero would have needed to get to the level he's at, and L is the level your hero is at. The penalties for exceeding this limit are a reduction in movement, and a reduction in the attack/defence bonuses provided by the hero.

As for the relative importance of creatures, I'd say, let all Core creature dwellings be built with merely a Fort, so that they get both of the growth bonuses, make the Elite dwellings require a Citadel, so they get the latter growth bonus, and make the champion dwelling require a Castle, so that they don't get either of the growth bonuses.

wdcryer
01-11-2011, 03:06 PM
I guess there is always the possibility someone will fill up their army with the champion units rather than splitting it up between all 3 tiers, but I guess that's not such an issue.

GoranXII
01-11-2011, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">is always the possibility someone will fill up their army with the champion units rather than splitting it up between all 3 tiers, but I guess that's not such an issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh sure, they might, but really, maxing out on Champions wouldn't be that hot, when you consider that for Every Archangel you'd get more than:
* 8 Imperial Gryphons
* 21 Squres
* 30 Marksmen
* 87 Peasants

wdcryer
01-11-2011, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GoranXII:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">is always the possibility someone will fill up their army with the champion units rather than splitting it up between all 3 tiers, but I guess that's not such an issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh sure, they might, but really, maxing out on Champions wouldn't be that hot, when you consider that for Every Archangel you'd get more than:
* 8 Imperial Gryphons
* 21 Squres
* 30 Marksmen
* 87 Peasants </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They might max out on which ever units they consider to be the most powerful. If 8 griffins are better than 1 archangel, they might rather stock up their main army with as many griffins as possible and ignore a lot of other units. Hopefully the desire for a versatile army is a sufficient counter to this impulse.

Basically, certain units might be ignored in favor of units that have a better ratio of utility compared to the amount of leadership they require. Not having unit caps or penalties means you can just include all of your faction's units in your army, but having unit caps/penalties will trigger a lot of min/maxing that may be pretty formulaic. I'm all for a system that encourages multiple armies, but that potential problem popped into my head.

edit: Perhaps armies with more balanced distribution would incur a lower leadership cost, but that may reduce creativity with army composition.

Phoenixzs84
01-13-2011, 10:57 AM
Instead of capping the whole army why not penalize with movement points.

Use the same equation but which army exceeds it first has a decrease in movement points by %25 then if a second threshold is reached it is penalized by %50 which is very significant.

This way you could "softly" encourage getting less troops or travel lightly

wdcryer
01-13-2011, 12:33 PM
That's a cool idea. It's easy to understand, and it could scale really well.

mcgslo
01-14-2011, 03:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm against most units being able to target siege walls, I disliked it in Age of Empires, and I like it no more here, because a castle is meant to be a fortress, impregnable to all but the most determined and resourceful armies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> i do agree that some lesser creatures cant harm walls and also not archers... but then again its not middle age castle and we dont just have knights in army :P

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Instead of capping the whole army why not penalize with movement points.

Use the same equation but which army exceeds it first has a decrease in movement points by %25 then if a second threshold is reached it is penalized by %50 which is very significant.

This way you could "softly" encourage getting less troops or travel lightly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This could result that players would simply mass army in more heroes and than just before he attack he will join armies in one hero... result will be the same, just player will take more time to tranfer armies from heroes to one hero.

Lets presume that Leadership or Hero level limits your armie, what would happen?
(my opinion)
e.g Hero is at level cap and max Leadership

Pros:
-player will use more heroes
-player will try different tactics with diferent armies
-one fight wont determine winner
-it would fit in design of more castles and keeps and area of control

Cons:
-magic would have to be limited since "might" is limited.
-hero strength will be determined by artifacts he is wearing (wich maybe isnt so bad)
-you wouldnt be able to collect Legion of armies

Well actually Leadership or limiting armies would work good for multiplayer but for single player there shouldnt be limit.

If you look at how it is now, at later game it doesnt really matter if you have 500 lesser creatures or 800.. strong heroes can kill them all with ease (just a thought)

~mcg

Sokramor
01-14-2011, 04:39 AM
mcgslo is right, if you cap might, you have to cap magic also.

I see the problem with all power combined in one army. First time you loose all power is gone. Maybe there should be a posibility not only to retreat with the hero, but also with part of your army.

wdcryer
01-14-2011, 08:10 AM
That's a good point about combining armies at the last minute, mcgslo. It would be funny if the opponent just took one large army and killed all of those heroes one by one, but that counter is unlikely.

My only sticking point with the unit cap is that main heroes might stack their armies with the one or two units that seem to be the most powerful per point of leadership they require, while the secondary heroes take the rest. Without a unit cap, heroes can have one of each unit from their faction, but without it, they will probably just take the units that do best. For example, in Heroes V, I would almost never use units like horned demons and zombies in my main army if they reduced the number of other units I could take.

I fear that this kind of thinking would become almost formulaic, with certain units being almost universally agreed upon as better for your main army. Maybe some sort of rock-paper-scissors system (ranged-melee-caster) could help encourage balanced armies.

I really do want some kind of system like this, though. You could make units consume more leadership the more of them there are in your army (divided by something like their weekly growth). This would encourage balanced armies, but that might just mean stifling creativity with your army composition.

As for damaging castle walls, I'm all for it. I found it really frustrating trying to get into castles with more melee focused factions, especially when I didn't have siege weapon skill. It was really lame having a bunch of melee units twiddling their thumbs outside the walls until my terrible catapult finally made a dent. This will help make various army compositions viable for attacking castles. Granted, it shouldn't be easy to break down walls this way, but it should be possible. Upgraded fortifications could have higher hit points, too. If moats still work the same way, walls will still be a pain in the butt.

Phoenixzs84
01-23-2011, 05:03 AM
If there was a time penalty or movement penalty for combining armies as well I think the idea could still work(half of the movement point maybe).Maybe even attacking castles should require half movement point.

Traveling with multiple heroes is still huge disadvantage.People can ninja your heroes and once it starts.A level one hero carrying devils facing the main hero of the other faction is not a good sign http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.Easy exp in my book.It's not highly unlikely such cases would happen.

Thunion
01-23-2011, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">adership system (again, similar to King's bounty), which would limit the amount of soldiers in a troop </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
NO,NEVER.Whats the diffrence you fight in one big battle or there is line of heroes waiting for theyr turn..This would make it more time consuming and more boring.Even if there would be a choice:To go with all armies in one place so they can defeat enemy armies or spread your heroes to take more territory..It got it bonuses BUT again NO.It would get to boring also heroes would lose theyr use..I mean you rised a hero for the whole game he is max lv allready...And there goes 4 your opponent maxed armies of which 3 are destroyed but 4th finally beats ur hero:The Computer sacraficed 3 opponent heros but got ur 1 superior.Or you got one Very powerful hero with his maxed very powerful army.You can kill any other army with low casulties if theyr hero is very low lv.Imagine your main hero is out for conquest then opponent comes.You got 5 times bigger army at home but all heroes lv1 and opponent army is lv20-25 he beats your 8-9 armies 1by1 and conquers ur town...Its not logical,not wise,NOT Used to heroes.Yes in real life it maybe possible to beat 5 times bigger army if diffrence between commander experience is very great.BUT its never was possible in heroes(Unless you hero is a good mage,which is other story)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I see the problem with all power combined in one army. First time you loose all power is gone. Maybe there should be a posibility not only to retreat with the hero, but also with part of your army.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are right but only in case you were totaly crushed and hadnt done much casulties in which case it was over anyway.Even if you lose with average army fight you take at least half of enemy army in which case you still have a chance to ge enought army in town repel attack and make both players start at same army.Reatreating wth half of the army isint good idea couse it would partly destroy the effectivness of strategies like cuting down reinforcments.Also there would be a need to hadly change strategies:Lets say i beat enemy squshy units with sacrafice of my most taughtes units what would happen next:Enemy Tought untis gonna beat my squshy ones.What would happen if i would be able to reatreat:I can just destroy theyr squshy ones quickly and reatreat by gaining no disadvantage from mine opened squshy units and seperated forces at battlefield.And last thing:There would be very viable harrass strategy:Take group of fast moving ranged units/malee units Attack with as much as you can of them and before any strong enemy units attacks retreat.

Metamagician
01-23-2011, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There are only 3 tiers of creatures now, so creatures becoming obsolete should be less of an issue.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Creatures becoming obsolete was never an issue in King's Bounty/Armored Princess/Crossworlds.

Combination of leadership requirement, item properties, creature's abilities and spells always made sure of that being the case.

GoranXII
01-23-2011, 09:52 PM
The fact that you were only allowed 5 stacks at a time helped I suspect

Niphire
01-24-2011, 03:11 PM
Thunion: But if you have 2 heroes with maxed stacks, one shouldn't easily be able to leave the scene with less than 30% casualties, even if the hero levels differ by a lot. So 1 Hero shouldn't be able to beat 3 full heroes in one blow without reinforcements. There would only be a problem if the maximum limits were sett too low, but that shouldn't be hard to see with a bit of beta testing. Also you could vary the limits according to map size, which would make it really troublesome even more rarely. That way small maps would be more about skirmishes and large maps would be more about large epic battles. There are downsides to this unit limit idea, but I mostly see upsides.

belgarath21
01-25-2011, 02:26 PM
I really like having racially oriented factions. Of course each race should have a couple of related animals as well (i.e. humans have horses and griffins; elves have unicorns and pegasi; orcs have wolves?)

I don't do multiplayer, so I have nothing to add to those discussions.

I like the idea of a movement penalty for larger armies (that makes it more real-world). I also think that uniting different factions together in the same army or using a hero from a different faction should continue to carry some penalty. Otherwise, there's no real reason to not fill your army with the most powerful creatures from all factions.

Historical castles have typically been conquered by a combination of siege engines, archers, mounted, and melee troops. I think that should continue to hold true for HOMM. (Of course, flying/teleporting troops weren't historically available)

I like the idea of fewer resources. It makes it a lot easier to build structures (you don't have to waste 4 months looking for a blankety-blank gem mine in order to finish your town's construction, while you already have 3 or 4 of all the other mines). It also means that everyone has to focus on the same resources, instead of basically ignoring half of them.

Just a few thoughts,

blackbeard4
02-07-2011, 01:37 PM
Hello everyone. I am a long time heroes fan and have been playing since Heroes 2. I love heroes, but my friends and I rarely finish a game. It just takes way too long. I understand Heroes V had a feature where you could take simultaneous turns and I thought long and hard about how it could work. I then read about it and found I was right on the money, although it fell a little short. Below I have written my idea on how it could possibly be improved for Heroes VI. It is somewhat technical and a little lengthy, and I would be happy to elaborate on any parts that might seem understand

*Improved* Simultaneous Turn Feature

As I understand it, Heroes V had a simultaneous turns feature that would let you take turns at the same time as long as there wasn't a possibility of conflict at the start of the turn. Conflict being where one player could affect another player. If there was a possibility of conflict, the game would switch to turn based gameplay.

An example of how this plays out would simply be in the beginning stages of the game--developing your castle and exploring your local area--everyone would go at the same time. As soon as I step near an opponents territory, and the game realizes that I would be able to affect my opponent this turn, the gameplay would switch to turn based at the start of that turn. This is great, but it falls a little short. What if I'm in a 4 player game and I'm only in conflict with one opponent who's also only in conflict with me? Why should everyone need to take turn based turns?

My suggestion would be to make it a little more elaborate..taking it one step further when playing with 3 or more players. Simply, in the event players A and B have a conflict but C does not, C should still be allowed to take his turn simultaneously. There is no reason player C could not continue to take his turn while the other 2 players take theirs, and continue to do so until he comes into conflict with one of the other players. So in other words: As long as you aren't in conflict with another player at the start of a day, you should be allowed to take your turn while the other players take theirs.

But why stop there? It could be taken one step further. Players who are not in conflict with each other & are not in conflict with a player who is in conflict with that player may take simultaneous turns. In other words, only your conflict needs to be turn based. So if player A is only in conflict with player B, and player C is only in conflict with player D, then A&C will go in order and B&D will go in order; Essentially there will be 2 "conflict groups" with players inside a conflict group taking turns independent of the other groups. In this example: A&B are in a conflict group and C&D are in a conflict group. The day starts with A&C taking simultaneous turns, then as soon as A clicks done, B would go since he's next in that conflict group; similarly as soon as C clicks done D would go--BUT B would not have to wait for C and D would not have to wait for A since they are in a different group. Finally, before the next day begins each group must be finished. Then the game will check conflicts again and assign groups, and the day will start.

But, if A is in conflict with B, C is in conflict with D, and B is also in conflict with C, then A&C would not be able to take simultaneous turns since C affects B which in turn affects A. Their conflict groups get joined together through B&C and they must all take turn based turns.

Finally, if the game changes so that players who once were in conflict no longer are, the game should switch them off turn-based and allow them to be simultaneous again. So for example say I take all my heroes into another territory and my opponent does the same and there's no way at the start of the next turn we could affect each other, then we would be no longer be in the same conflict group and allowed to have a simultaneous turn.

Conclusion:
The best way to implement all of this would be to have the game check at the start of each day which players are in conflict and then sort them to "conflict groups" appropriately where they will then take turn based turns within their conflict group; and not moving on to the next day until each player has finished their turn. Conflict groups would only be assigned at the start of each turn, and can change from turn to turn. Only players within the same group need to take turn based turns. It boils down to the following three rules:

1.Players who are in conflict with each other get assigned to the same group
2. Groups are simultaneous with other groups
3. Players inside the same group must be turn based

This would assure the least amount of time between turns and guarantee the fastest possible games without compromising anything in gameplay.

wdcryer
02-07-2011, 02:29 PM
That's a great idea, Blackbeard. I wonder if you could sort of figure out where your opponent is by noticing that when you go in a certain direction, you get into a conflict, and that conflict goes away when you go in another direction. It would only be a very general direction, though. That's a little issue, but I think it is greatly outweighed by the benefits.

blackbeard4
02-07-2011, 03:07 PM
Thanks for your feedback wdcryer. I can see what you mean about how that might slightly affect gameplay, even if only a little bit. Although in your example, who's to say that another player isn't approaching you which is what is setting it off? Certainly if you kept happening when you went back and forth then you'd be able to figure it out, and yeah in most cases you could probably assume that it's the case anyway. But like you said I think it would just be a general idea that you're close and not much more. Play testing would be the best way to see how it would affect strategy.

I'm curious on how the system affected games in Heroes V. When it switched to turn based, I would assume, unless you were only playing with 2 players, it would be difficult to determine who is in conflict with each other.

I think like the Heroes V system it would mostly only speed up the beginning part of the game--with this system carrying on some ways into the mid-game and speeding that up as well. Late game however will most likely always be fully turn-based.