Hmm... Interface looks rather 'consolistic'.
It is that way in alpha. Of course it's going to be reworked, and it actually is right now, i'm sure.
Again, it's ALPHA screenshots and trailers.
Like, I was furious at first when I saw a battle screenshot with *SQUARES*. Now I hear they are going to stick to the hexagons. Phew...
Now what I hate about Nival is their forum. Damn, just like week ago I came there, posted a huge topic about my thoughts on HOMM5, what should there be and how, ya know, usual "suggestion" stuff -- mostly just for discussion, cuz devs won't really adhere to any advices now that pre-produciton phase has long passed. I posted it as a separate topic, just because of its sheer size, but the moderator deleted the topic and moved the post to one huge "suggestions" scrap-topic. I said "well, that's not a very good idea, but hey -- it's your forum, so you know better". Then i posted a little offtop post because the previous poster asked why the post was moved, the moder considered me the offtoper and wrote something on my post. I edited it and wrote back "cmon, delete the post already."
So, summing this all up, moderator thought that I "repeatedly rebuked moderator for his actions" and banned me for 2 weeks. That was just LAME. That mod's got problems with self-worth, i guess, so he tries to use his mod-club to show teh powah. I'm a moderator myself in several forums, so I know the routine, and fuck I hate when people get obsessed with this "power".
I already sent him a PM from another acc, asking him to abolish this sanction. It doesn't matter to me if it's eternal ban, or for 2 weeks, it's a matter of principle.
Plus, the forum itself is ugly and badly scripted.
It was interesting there some months ago, cuz the Nival devs showed up occasionally, but these days they don't post there.
Now, about the things that I really want/hate to see in HOMM5 (a summary of my post on Nival's forum):
- i don't want to see wandering units (like in Homm4). This is just lame. Just how can, say, a force of 100 mercenaries really obey the player? They'd rather go on pillage spree or just desert. There always should be a hero in the force.
But wandering neutral forces is a good idea. Just not to make them wander randomly. Say, they should have certain movement patterns, territories that they consider their own, etc. Also, it would be good to have neutral heroes roaming around, and if you have a diplomacy or some other skill high enough, they might join you. It'll be better than getting a random 5lvl hero out of the prison.
-
Heroes on battlefield. This is arguably the most burning question. Some adore homm4's fighting heroes, for some, it smells bullshit. I pertain to the latter, because I really hate how it was implemented in homm4, but the idea itself is not bad at all.
I think the best way is to allow player to put the hero forward into the fray, but also make so that hero could stay in the background, behind his forces, as in homm3. The action of coming forth into the fray must be a separate action, requiring a turn. While behind the forces, hero is. of course, immune to any attacks (although magic could be used, but that's tricky, so it is optional). This is ideal for mages who'd rather assist their forces with mighty magical attacks from afar. Warrior heroes, however, will find it boring to just control the flow of the battle from behind their ranks, so it would be best of them to charge into battle. I think while hero is fighting alongside his troops, they should be granted morale bonus -- that's logical enough. Also, hero might cast all his spells and use abilities while in combat. Moreover, mages should be granted some field spells, like globe of invulnerability or polymorph, so that they could do well in battle. Warrior-heroes should have a lot of attack skills, too.
If all troops are dead, then the hero automatically steps into the battleground.
Now, of course, armies (creatures) should be hero-dependent. That is, if a hero is dead, the creatures is also lost (just as it is when hero flees in hmm3).
There are two ways to implement this:
a) hero and creatures are interdependent. That is, if a hero is killed in battle, while the creatures still remain, hero is considered "incapacitated". If the creatures is crushed, then the army is destroyed, else, the hero is revived and the army persists. Also, if all creatures are lost, but the hero wins the battle all by himself, the army, of course, army(hero) persists (that is, a sole hero is also considered an army).
b) if the hero dies, then the battle and remaining creatures are lost.
I certainly like the 1st option more. It is more homm3-ish, while incorporating a new and interesting feature of hero-combat.
As far as I know, though, Nival decided to stick with classic style of 'sanctuaried' heroes, but with some additional combat skills that allow a warrior-hero to (in one animation, one turn) charge into the battle and strike a target, and then return, with no threat of retaliation; basically, it's just a magic for warriors, pretty boring, but easiy to implement and balance, so it has its merits. I'm not sure, though, if they stick with this concept.
In case of the 1st option (which I liek the most), the heroes must be nerfed so that there would be no such imbalance as in Homm4, where a single highlvl hero could beat the shit out of a dozen of black dragons.
Also, even in homm3, some heroes were just way too uber-overpowered (Solmir and some others). No wonder that on all serious tournaments those heroes are banned, and if the player hires one, he gets disqualified (even if he gets it from prison, he still needs to dispose of that hero later). So, there should be some restrictions on skirmish/multiplayer game heroes. Of course, in campaign any hero will do.
- Diplomacy. First of all, let's differentiate between global and local diplomacies.
There was no such thing as global diplomacy in homm3. You could form alliances only on game creation. Of course, for serious games and tourneys, this is the best solution. But for friendly FFAs "dynamic" alliances work just fine, and offer lots of fun, despite being overly unfair at times.
This is not the question of balance. You can just make a switch at the game creation screen: dynamic alliance on/off and let the players decide.
Now, local diplomacy. As most of you know, it was one of the msot imbalanced features of Homm3. The diplomacy skill is banned on all major tournaments, and rightly so: with it, you could acquire huge armies in a matter of minutes, because the mechanix were fucked up. There should be restrictions of the number of forces, both of the player's army and that of the neutral force's. Also, there should be faction restrictions: it is just plain retarded when a group of zombies surrender to the holy paladin's army and gladly unite with them. On the other hand, an arch-lich hero could easily bring zombies under his will, given his powers alone.
Graphic design. I'm quite concerned with it, actually. Despite of the prettiness of it, it's not as stylish as it used to be in HOMM3. I mean, it looks more like WarCraft3 now. But hey: I love WarCraft design, but ONLY in Warcraft, because it was the original concept. In Heroes, i'm used to those beautiful and grotesque creatures and cities, all very high-detailed.
So far, I haven't seen such things in Homm5 concepts or screenshots. Of course, they have time and might rework lots of stuff, but still i find it unlikely and that saddens me a bit. Well, we'll see.
Oh, alright, i'm tired of typing all this...
I wonder what ya'all think about it?
