G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

HOMM4 is not as bad as some claim, although its faults HAVEsent many
players back to HOMM3 despite its limitations.

Here are a few of my own frustrations with HOMM4.

1) One can't tell if one has visited an oracle or not. Why not? It is
indicated for other sites, why not for oracles. I just finished a
scenario with 12 sets of oracles with up to 10 in each set. It was a
real pain in the ass to try to find the last one (yes, it turned one
that it was the VERY last one that had the information to the grail I
needed to win - and it took me 5 hours to find it on the map: I had to
download the XL map to bitmap using a cheat then scan every inch
until I found the oracle that was missing...).

2) The magic scrolls are not labeled. Each time one gets a new scroll,
one has to try every scroll that the hero has because there is no way
to tell which scrolls have been tried before. Spells should be learned
automatically when the Hero gets the scroll and has the required
ability. Doing it by hand fifty times adds nothing to the game and
just adds frustration.

3) The spell and class system is MUCH too complicated: who can
remember which spell goes with each class, and is associated with each
level? And there are too many spells. Most of them are never used.

4) Spell buildings are almost useless: the probablility that a hero
has the required level and class when he reaches one is almost zero.
To get the spells is micro-management at its worst, shuffling heroes
back and forth (I don't bother myself and take whatever I get
accidentally). It was better in HOMM3 when most spells were obtained
in towns, and when heroes could teach each other spells if they had
the talent.

5) No zoom makes it difficult to find things. One should be able to
zoom out the map as in most other games.

Hopefully HOMM5 which is being worked on now will improve some of
these rather obvious (to me) mistakes.

Henri
 

David

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,039
0
19,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Henri H. Arsenault" <arseno@phy.*nospam*ulaval.ca> wrote in message
news:42618037.223561750@news.videotron.ca...
> HOMM4 is not as bad as some claim, although its faults HAVEsent many
> players back to HOMM3 despite its limitations.

You didn't mention my main problem with the game: the strategic AI is very
poor. Especially disappointing since the AI was so good in HoMM3.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <ktednS5yToCaXvzfRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, nospam@home.net
says...
> "Henri H. Arsenault" <arseno@phy.*nospam*ulaval.ca> wrote in message
> news:42618037.223561750@news.videotron.ca...

> > HOMM4 is not as bad as some claim, although its faults HAVEsent many
> > players back to HOMM3 despite its limitations.

> You didn't mention my main problem with the game: the strategic AI is very
> poor. Especially disappointing since the AI was so good in HoMM3.

Absolutely. This fault is so sever, no others count IMO.

Even the tactical AI is poor in HOMM4, but this at least has a simple
cause and a simple solution - bring back the big grid, or make an
equivalent simplification of the battlefield. And in the scheme of
things, it's less important than the strategic AI.

I hope that Nival will do well. Etherlords 2 was good in tactical
combat, but there was no strategic AI level in that game.

- Gerry Quinn
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <42618037.223561750@news.videotron.ca>, arseno@phy.
*nospam*ulaval.ca says...
> HOMM4 is not as bad as some claim, although its faults HAVEsent many
> players back to HOMM3 despite its limitations.
>
> Here are a few of my own frustrations with HOMM4.

I share some of them.
>
> 1) One can't tell if one has visited an oracle or not. Why not? It is

This one is a very big pet peeve of mine.

>
> 2) The magic scrolls are not labeled. Each time one gets a new scroll,

Ditto. I've seen games where there was some indication on the scroll
that helped tell if if might be useful. Different classes and/or
levels having different shapes/designs would help a lot. Even more
useful would be for the scroll to glow if it was useful to the hero, be
grey if not.
>
> 3) The spell and class system is MUCH too complicated: who can
> remember which spell goes with each class, and is associated with each
> level? And there are too many spells. Most of them are never used.
>

I like the spell and class system. As to the "too many spells", I
agree that many of them are never used by me -- but are those the same
ones that YOU never use? We each have our favorites.

> 4) Spell buildings are almost useless: the probablility that a hero

I agree. Spell buildings are useful for my death character to
produce vampires -- but the scrolls tend not to help much. I forget
what the two types of scrolls are called (one teaches you a spell, the
second lets you cast the spell if you equip it), but the type that only
lets you cast a spell if equipped is especially useless -- except for
things like summon ship.

> in towns, and when heroes could teach each other spells if they had
> the talent.
>
You are quite right on that -- I really miss that ability.


> 5) No zoom makes it difficult to find things. One should be able to
> zoom out the map as in most other games.
>

Have you tried the V key? It has a zoom level.

> Hopefully HOMM5 which is being worked on now will improve some of
> these rather obvious (to me) mistakes.

You did not mention the one thing that most people say -- the lame
brain AI of the computer players.


--
R. Dale Shipp
dale@_delete_this_min.net
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

R. Dale Shipp skrev:

>In article <42618037.223561750@news.videotron.ca>, arseno@phy.
>*nospam*ulaval.ca says...
>> HOMM4 is not as bad as some claim, although its faults HAVEsent many
>> players back to HOMM3 despite its limitations.
>>
>> Here are a few of my own frustrations with HOMM4.
>
> I share some of them.
>>
>> 1) One can't tell if one has visited an oracle or not. Why not? It is
>
> This one is a very big pet peeve of mine.

I would like a map view that highlighted all places (including towns)
any given hero can benefit from visiting - i.e. altars and town magic
guilds with spells the hero don't know but can learn, unvisited stat
boosters and dream teachers, witch huts with skills not already
learnt, etc. And the other way - for any site, list all heroes who can
benefit from visiting.

>> 2) The magic scrolls are not labeled. Each time one gets a new scroll,
>
> Ditto. I've seen games where there was some indication on the scroll
>that helped tell if if might be useful. Different classes and/or
>levels having different shapes/designs would help a lot. Even more
>useful would be for the scroll to glow if it was useful to the hero, be
>grey if not.

Yeah. It wouldn't be too hard to put the magic skill symbol on the
scroll, would it?

I usually dump scrolls I can't use on a creature stack in the hero's
army. Helps keep track.

>> 3) The spell and class system is MUCH too complicated: who can
>> remember which spell goes with each class, and is associated with each
>> level? And there are too many spells. Most of them are never used.
>>
>
> I like the spell and class system.

Mee too. Though I would like a little more choice in skills. Perhaps
be offered more skills to choose from at each level up.

>As to the "too many spells", I
>agree that many of them are never used by me -- but are those the same
>ones that YOU never use? We each have our favorites.

The magic school system also creates some redundancy, as the schools
have similar spell. For example, both nature and chaos have spells
that confuses an enemy target, and spells that gives a troop first
strike ability.

>> 4) Spell buildings are almost useless: the probablility that a hero
>
> I agree. Spell buildings are useful for my death character to
>produce vampires -- but the scrolls tend not to help much. I forget
>what the two types of scrolls are called (one teaches you a spell, the
>second lets you cast the spell if you equip it), but the type that only
>lets you cast a spell if equipped is especially useless -- except for
>things like summon ship.
>
>> in towns, and when heroes could teach each other spells if they had
>> the talent.
>>
> You are quite right on that -- I really miss that ability.

With the amount of magic skills in hommIV, Scholar as a secondary
skill as in III wouldn't really be practicable. (A Scholar would need
not only scholar, but also most magic skills to be effective.) But the
game really needs a better way to distribute spells. Perhaps if spell
teaching didn't require any special skill so all heroes could do it,
or if there was a way to manufacture spell scrolls, or if heroes could
_learn_ any spells but just not cast them untill they got the skills.

--
Riktig sitering gjør meldingene dine lettere å lese:
< url: http://home.online.no/~vidaandr/news/OBSquoting.html >