What is your opinion about Heroes IV? — General

shnurov_hl

4/22/2008 4:10 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Night;171828

Wow, I read those conversations we had 2 years ago :) Nostalgia... And you read pages 1-3 of the thread, maybe you'll learn something :)

I reread it specifically.
I didn't find anything even remotely interesting, let alone something educational. Just ordinary flame. Heroes X vs. Heroes Y. Which, by the way, is prohibited on all the Heroes communities I know. Because it's unproductive. Well, not anymore. :D

Модератор форума Лиги Героев (http://forum.heroesleague.ru)

In reply to shnurov_hl

Dirty_Player

4/22/2008 4:25 PM UTC

Auto-translated

shnurov_hl;171826

I sincerely don't understand why someone would go into a subforum for a game they don't play just to express themselves rudely about it. Why don't I write in all the anime forums, for example, what I think about anime as a genre? Why don't I go into religious forums with insults towards believers? Because there are boundaries of decency. That's why.

Okay, I agree! You know how to argue!!! :-)

shnurov_hl;171826

tribunu

Thank you, I've corrected it.

Венди

4/22/2008 5:33 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player, I think it's partly because using all caps is considered rude. For example, I really don't like it when people write to me in all caps – I equate it to raising their voice.

Секрет в рассказе,а не в рассказчике

In reply to Венди

Нэйко

4/23/2008 8:28 AM UTC

Auto-translated

I want to apologize to all of you for my harshness towards the fourth installment of the Heroes series. I did allow myself to say too much, and I thank you all for pointing out my mistakes. I also want to thank Dirty_Player for his support and shnurov_hl for his words (I could never have expressed my opinion as well as you did). I am truly ashamed of what I said about the fourth Heroes game, and even though I don't particularly like it, that didn't give me the right to speak about it so rudely. This has been a big lesson for me (I will never speak so rudely again), and I hope that no one will ever repeat my mistake. Thank you all again.

Графомания путешественника

In reply to Нэйко

Shogun

4/23/2008 10:52 AM UTC

Auto-translated

And yet, since the topic is about the forum users' attitude towards the fourth game, and not the fans' attitude towards it, I will express my negative opinion. The fourth game was, to put it politely, an unsuccessful project (IMHO). Most fans of the series did not accept it. And this is an undeniable fact. Each installment of the Heroes series has its flaws, but, personally for me, there are critically many of them in the fourth game. Since listing everything would be extremely tedious and lengthy, I will only focus on a few: 1. The heroes, not as a game, but specifically the heroes in the game, lost their individuality. And not only within the framework of a race, but also within the framework of the game as a whole (Maybe this is a plus for some, but not for me). 2. The developers never managed to find a balance between troops and heroes. 3. All these immortality potions, coffins. 4. The siege/defense of a castle is just... something else. No comment (it's impossible to be politically correct here). 5. The lack of the ability to upgrade creatures. 6. The drawing of units. The most striking example is the elves. These are not elves – they are some kind of swamp sprites. Now I'm playing the third and fifth games. Sometimes, with my student friends, I play the second game, and when nostalgia overwhelms me, I turn on the first one. I don't feel like playing the fourth game at all. I'm not saying that the fourth game doesn't have its good sides or ideas, but it's the implementation that's the problem. IMHO, the developers released an unfinished product, and they didn't have time to fix it later.

Порою люди не со зла
Творят настолько черные дела,
Что до таких блистательных идей
Не вдруг дойдет и записной Злодей

Темный адепт клана GODS

oxygen_hl

4/23/2008 12:00 PM UTC

Auto-translated

It's good to see a well-reasoned analysis. I'll try to go through the points and share my own opinion, as I haven't really done so before. The main drawback of Heroes 4 is the overly raw and buggy version 1.0. In fact, this is what caused a large portion of the series' fans to turn away from the game. Even now, when talking to experienced Heroes 3 players, it's clear that the impression from version 1.0 still lingers. Further exploration of the game didn't change this, and a strong stereotype formed. "Sad but true." :( Next.

1. Heroes lost their individuality, not just within a race, but within the game as a whole (This might be a plus for some, but not for me).

I completely agree. Individuality was lost. Modders are still brainstorming ideas on how to bring it back. Instead, we got advanced classes – which is great, but doesn't replace individuality. On one hand, this step saved Heroes 4 from the headache that plagued all the other parts – hero grinding. But at the same time, one of the game's unique features was lost.

2. The developers failed to find a balance between units and heroes.

I agree with this too. Moreover, I would say that the developers have never found this balance in any of the Heroes games. The base versions of all the games are considered unbalanced. There's no need to look far for examples: for Heroes 3, Horn is developing the Tournament Edition, for Heroes 4, the Dalai team is working on Equilibrium, and for Heroes 5, Moz and his team are implementing the TE. And this is perfectly normal because professional players should be the ones tweaking the balance – it's logical; the developers simply can't fine-tune this balance without sufficient gaming experience. Therefore, this is just a normal phenomenon. By the way, there is no balance at all in Heroes 2. No one, ever, can do anything about the combination of a Chaos Dragon and a Barbarian. That's the balance (referring to Price of Loyalty). :)

4. Castle siege/defense is just… something else. No further comments (it's hard to be politically correct here).

Yes, the siege is different. In my opinion, it's not better or worse, just different. Therefore, I won't comment further, as it's purely subjective.

3. All these potions of immortality, resurrection spells.

The common opinion that potions of immortality trivialize the game and turn it into a battle of one super-hero has long been refuted by tons of online battles. If we talk about micromanagement in general, then this is both a minus and a plus. Resurrection spells, monsters on the map, delivering artifacts, and so on – all this greatly deepens the game, thereby increasing the difficulty. But at the same time, it increases the time spent on a turn. As a result, we get increased complexity and interesting gameplay on the map at the expense of time. To each their own, as they say.

5. Lack of the ability to upgrade creatures.

Again, this is purely subjective. I'll try to answer like this: Heroes 4 is so much more complex than the other parts (again, a fact recognized by fans of Heroes 3, so as not to start a flame war here, for example, Horn), that upgrading creatures would make the game even more complex. From my own experience, I can say that the available range of creatures is quite enough to make you think. I think I'll refrain from commenting on point 6 :D In conclusion, it can be said that yes, NWC released a raw, revolutionary version 1.0, which is bad. The game was subsequently refined, of course, both by the developers and by the players in Equilibrium, but many didn't see this, unfortunately. At the same time, the game turned out to be much more complex and deeper than the other parts, which is good on one hand, but on the other hand, it scares away newcomers and increases the game time. That's it. :)

Я в мечеть не за праведным словом пришёл.
Не стремясь приобщиться к основам пришёл.
В прошлый раз утащил я молитвенный коврик,
Он истерся до дыр, - я за новым пришёл.
© О. Хайям

shnurov_hl

4/23/2008 12:20 PM UTC

Auto-translated

2Oxygen_HL
Well, the Elves are certainly... unrealistic.
:D

Модератор форума Лиги Героев (http://forum.heroesleague.ru)

In reply to shnurov_hl

oxygen_hl

4/23/2008 12:25 PM UTC

Auto-translated

shnurov_hl;172026

2Oxygen_HL
Well, the elves are certainly something. They're just too unrealistic...
:D

Don't even get me started, Fry would be a much better choice. Centuries of drunkenness, now that would be a sight to behold :D

Я в мечеть не за праведным словом пришёл.
Не стремясь приобщиться к основам пришёл.
В прошлый раз утащил я молитвенный коврик,
Он истерся до дыр, - я за новым пришёл.
© О. Хайям

In reply to oxygen_hl

Shogun

4/23/2008 12:30 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Well written, it was very interesting to read. I'll allow myself to make a few comments.

oxygen_hl;172019

The main drawback of Heroes 4 is the too raw and buggy version 1.0. In fact, because of it, a huge part of the series' fans turned away from the game. Even now, when talking with professional Heroes 3 players, it is clear that the impression of version 1.0 still dominates. Further study of the game did not happen, and a rigid stereotype formed. "Sad but true." :( :)

But the basic principles of the game haven't changed.

oxygen_hl;172019

I agree with that. Moreover, I will say that the developers have not found this balance in any part of the Heroes series. The basic versions of all parts are considered unbalanced. You don't have to look far for examples: for Heroes 3, Horn is developing the Tournament Edition, for the fourth game, Dalay's team is working on Equilibrium, for Heroes 5, Moz and his colleagues are introducing the TE. And this is absolutely normal, because professional players should adjust the balance – it's logical, the developers are simply not able to fine-tune this balance without proper gaming experience. Therefore, this is just a normal phenomenon. By the way, in Heroes 2, there is no balance at all. No one, ever, and nothing can be done about the combination of Dark Knight + Barbarian. That's the balance (we're talking about Price of Loyalty). :) :)

It seems that on this point, we have a situation where either you don't understand me, or I don't understand you, or vice versa. I'll try to clarify. I actually meant the balance in using the heroes themselves and the units from the castle in the army. And not the balance between races (it's flawed in all parts).

oxygen_hl;172019

In summary, we can say that yes, NWC released a raw, revolutionary 1.0, which is bad. Later, the game was brought to perfection, of course, both by the developers and by the players in Equilibrium, but many did not see this, unfortunately. At the same time, the game turned out to be much more complex and deeper than the other parts, which is good on the one hand, but on the other hand, it scares away newcomers. That's it. :)

In my opinion, there are more tactical development options in the fifth game. In the third game, it's more interesting on the battlefield. IMHO. But you are right - all our opinions are initially subjective, and I do not claim to have the ultimate truth. P.S. Thank you for the informative discussion

Порою люди не со зла
Творят настолько черные дела,
Что до таких блистательных идей
Не вдруг дойдет и записной Злодей

Темный адепт клана GODS

Fireball

4/23/2008 12:37 PM UTC

Auto-translated

At the same time, the game turned out to be much more complex and deeper than the other parts,

than all the previous parts, because the fifth installment is largely an evolution of the fourth, which, for commercial reasons, was disguised as a "third installment with a twist." The fourth game was the first in the series to feature a well-structured and adequate magic system; finally, the units had their special abilities properly developed, which made the combat part of the game more complex. All of this was later incorporated into Heroes 5.

which, on the one hand, is good, but on the other hand, it scares away newcomers and increases the game time.

Besides the 1.0 patch and the game's overall difficulty, I would also note the mediocre set of standard maps, but at the same time, the campaigns are quite decent. A paradox.

oxygen_hl

4/23/2008 12:47 PM UTC

Auto-translated

But the core principles of the game haven't changed.

The point is that they have changed, and significantly, almost radically. Completely different logistics and micromanagement (no chains, red rush, growth, but with flag capturing, fog of war, etc.). Completely different methods and priorities for clearing the map (emphasis on development and leveling up over economy, unlike the third game's mechanics).

It seems that we have a situation where either you don't understand me, or I don't understand you. I'll try to clarify.

I meant the balance in using heroes and units from the Castle in the army. And not the balance between races (it's always been flawed).

Ah, that's what you mean. But this is exactly what plagues the second game. Because in the army, there can only be a few types of troops: archers, titans, minotaur kings, phoenixes, and skeletons. The rest are useless. And the hero is definitely a combatant.

But in the fourth game, the balance between heroes and the army is quite clearly defined. But! It should be noted that the fourth game is the most sensitive to the quality of the map. That is, the balance of the army depends entirely on the map. If it's a rush map, you'll have a combat hero and a scout; if it's too closed and rich, monsters will be used with a tactician. It's very difficult to find a middle ground, and that's why only maps created by online players or edited by them are played. And the lack of a random map generator also has an impact, of course (I'm not talking about Salnikov's generator, you can't play on it). The problem of maps is very acute. You start a fan-made map and start encountering imbalance after imbalance.

In my opinion, the fifth game has more tactical development options. The third game is more interesting in terms of the battlefield. IMHO.

I won't argue about how interesting it is. Tastes differ. But there's no point in arguing about invariance and depth. In the fourth game, on the battlefield, the heroes, that is, in one turn, a completely unimaginable number of actions can be performed. I don't consider myself a specialist in probability theory, but Horn, for example (I keep remembering him today), being a teacher of this discipline, didn't hesitate to calculate it. The battle in the fourth game is much deeper. Again, if you're interested, this can be easily illustrated with one game against a pro.

Added 3 minutes ago

All the previous parts, because the fifth game is largely an evolution of the fourth game, which, for commercial purposes, was disguised as "the third game with initiative."

The fifth game is too. Because the battle mechanics are from the third game. I'm not saying that's bad, but the third game's battle mechanics are objectively less invariant, what's there to argue about, even though it's complicated by creatures. The same applies to logistics and micromanagement. The fifth game greatly surpasses the previous ones in castle development, that's true, it's hard to argue with that. But the other aspects remain the same.

Я в мечеть не за праведным словом пришёл.
Не стремясь приобщиться к основам пришёл.
В прошлый раз утащил я молитвенный коврик,
Он истерся до дыр, - я за новым пришёл.
© О. Хайям

Fireball

4/23/2008 1:21 PM UTC

Auto-translated

The same goes for the fifth installment. Because the combat mechanics were inherited from the third game.

Allow me to express my polite disagreement; the mechanics are, at the very least, hybrid, drawing from the third, fourth, and its own elements. Let me try to explain:
- The damage calculation system was the same in all parts in principle (everything was determined by attack, defense, luck, etc.), only the formulas differed. If luck works the same way in the fifth game as it does in the third and fifth, then morale is different everywhere (by the way, has anyone noticed the similarity between the Retribution perk and the fact that in the fourth game, after Morale triggers, damage is increased?)
- In terms of magic, the fourth and fifth games are, if not twins, then sisters. There you have access to high-level spells only from the specialized school (and not just an expert in Wisdom), there you have the concept of friendly (neighboring) schools, and there are also perks that enhance magic itself + a strong dependence of damage on skill, unlike the third game. The fourth game stands out only by the absence of the concept of SP, and accordingly, "permanent spells," but this was not a very successful idea.
- Bonuses from the hero to the armies are common to all, such as Attack and Defense skills, similar to the third game (adding the hero's stats), and again, its own (Resilience, BB, etc.)

In the fourth game, heroes are on the battlefield, meaning that an unimaginable number of actions can be performed in one turn. I don't consider myself a specialist in probability theory, but Horn, for example (for some reason, I often remember him today), being a teacher of this very discipline, didn't hesitate to calculate it.

In the fifth game, the hero can wait, cast spells, and attack. He just can't take the hit, but there's a stack for that, and the hero takes its place in the army. Since I also understand something about probability theory, I would like to see Horn's calculations.
The greater variability of the fourth game compared to the third (in terms of combat) is obvious, but I don't know how to adequately compare it to the fifth.

In reply to oxygen_hl

Shogun

4/23/2008 1:30 PM UTC

Auto-translated

oxygen_hl;172039

That's exactly the point – they changed, and changed significantly, almost radically. Completely different logistics and micromanagement (no chains, red rush, growth, but with flag-based mechanics, fog of war, etc.). Completely different methods and priorities for clearing maps (emphasis on development and leveling up over economy, unlike the mechanics of the third game).

Hmm... are we really talking about the differences between version 1.0 of the fourth game and the latest versions of the fourth game? If so, give me a link to the version you're playing. And let's take a break.

Otherwise, you'll end up in the position of someone trying to explain to a blind person what the color red is.:D

Порою люди не со зла
Творят настолько черные дела,
Что до таких блистательных идей
Не вдруг дойдет и записной Злодей

Темный адепт клана GODS

In reply to Shogun

oxygen_hl

4/23/2008 1:42 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Shogun;172052

Hmm... are we really talking about the differences between version 1.0 of the 4th game and the latest versions of the 4th game? If so, give me a link to the version you're playing. And let's take a break.
Otherwise, you'll end up in the position of someone trying to explain to a blind person what the color red is.:D

Yeah, I guess I didn't quite understand what you were talking about again :D
Of course, the mechanics didn't change from 1.0 to 3.51. But bugs were being fixed. And the most annoying of them was the memory leak. And there were countless others in 1.0. It wasn't very enjoyable to play, it felt like an alpha version.

Fireball, when I was talking about the combat mechanics, I was, of course, referring to the presence of heroes on the battlefield. And I only mentioned Horna as an authoritative example. I doubt there are any calculations on paper, but I think no one will stop us from repeating them :)
If we take a standard situation from the fourth game: 3-5 heroes and 4-2 monsters. Then, in principle, you don't even need to calculate much, the number of possible combat behaviors is simply overwhelming.

Я в мечеть не за праведным словом пришёл.
Не стремясь приобщиться к основам пришёл.
В прошлый раз утащил я молитвенный коврик,
Он истерся до дыр, - я за новым пришёл.
© О. Хайям

Fireball

4/23/2008 3:58 PM UTC

Auto-translated

When I was talking about the combat mechanics, I was, of course, referring to the presence of heroes on the battlefield. And I only mentioned Horna as an authoritative example. I doubt there are any calculations on paper, although I don't think anyone would stop us from repeating them.

Mathematics doesn't recognize authorities; it only recognizes the rigor of arguments and transformations, which is why it doesn't always get along with models.

If we take a standard situation from the fourth game: 3-5 heroes and 4-2 monsters. Then, in principle, you don't even need to calculate much; the number of possible behaviors in combat is simply overwhelming.

You call it standard? Maybe on the narrow maps that are popular among hardcore online players, that might be true, but even for the standard maps, I doubt it. Or has the situation changed so drastically in the Versus mode? Well, let's leave that aside. From my experience communicating with "trash talkers," I know that for most of them, the world boils down to 3-4 templates and a couple of variations in the rules, and arguing with them is pointless.
If you have 4 heroes with magic and three types of monsters (and even better, each with their own spellbook), then it creates the illusion of a huge number of options, but it's only an illusion because, in reality, the choice for each unit will not be too great. When comparing the third and fourth games, it can be said that all the options from the third game are, in principle, also available in the fourth, but the reverse is not true. Compared to the fifth game, only various kinds of "potions" stand out, but the theory of combat in the fifth game is complicated by a much more developed system of skills. That's why I said that I don't know how to compare them in terms of complexity on the battlefield.