Also heroes look a bit same. I really loved the idea like it was realized in HOMMV (wizard sitting on an elephant and smoking some shit, brutal demon heroes, elven on unicorns etc.). In HOMM6 heroes were ugly imho.
dude, youre totally right! it does look a lot the same as heroes 6 . I think that if ubisoft wants more money from the fans they should make something different not a copy of heroes 6 with several changed units
people decide what you want already if horses look like in older games bad, if games looks like heroes 5 also bad jesus...
iWellplay, bad jesus could be kinda lvl 7 unit of inferno.
@Corchthemighty I hadn't really thought about this until what you said. It really worries me now that maybe ubi is gonna give all teams horses and sell stuff like alternative mounts as DLC for those who don't want all the things to remain same and boring -.-
Please devs, listen to this honest request.
Heroes were so awesome in HOMMV !!!
A 12x10 map ? Maybe too small for a battle map...
It does seem very small, but the champion moves only 2 squares. I do however want different sized maps. This isn't standard-size map I hope, but just a possible map. I'd rather see much bigger maps than small-ones(I want both of them). This one has too many objects for such small map to me.
Well they said there is gonna be a lot of different battle maps. Some smaller, some bigger, with obstacles or none, so i guess everyone will be happy. :p
P.S. thank you, developers. Now I believe in HOMM7 a little bit more. =)
One of the first things I noticed on h7 was the unit-sizes. There are crazy size-differences and this is part why some seem so un-natural for me. The rider and haven champion are the height of walls, they are almost like titans or giants. Some units are way too small while some look way too big. I know this is work in progress, but this needs to be pointed out.
If you fit an ingame option to adjust the grid transparency everyone will be happy - 0% - invisible ; 100% - opaque.Someone may prefer to see more of the landscape,others may prefer to see the field as a chessboard.I think this way everyone will be happy with the grid.
Men those creatures look dull and soul less.... there is something missing there... See a battle screenshot of MMH6 and you'll see the diffrence (i know, i'm comparing a pre-alpha screenshot with a released game).
What i DO love of this new MMH7 is the random battlefield you get depending on the place the battle begins. I like the terrain thing, i hope that, since you making a difference in the terrain heights, it has some effect on the battle as well
Menemist I actually had that problem a bit with h6. Playing the game wasn't as much fun, the battles felt so mechanical and soulless to me. It's kinda hard to really describe the feeling I had as I don't remember h6 battles that well. The mechanical and soulless are really the only feelings and memories that pop in to my head when I think about h6 battles :/
I agree completely, HOMM V had so much soul! III as well. I missed thet from VI. It wa too soulless, and artificial.
Makes me kinda sad that you mention that ramborusina... in my opinion, when you looked at H6 units you could see their personality perfectly characterized. For instance, Inferno/stronghold. In every unit you could see the defiance, the strenght... they randomly grunt, roar, provoke the enemy (when is not even their turn) and that was really cool. In the other hand you have the honor and resolve of heaven units, who look always confident and protective... that's the personality work i need to see
Menemist we are talking partly different things here. What you say about haven being team of honor/holy and so forth I agree. I think they had theme that made them fit together and they felt "natural" as a team. It's the mechanics themselves that felt so cold and empty. They worked, but the battles somehow felt so artificial or robotic to me. I don't have the real words for how I felt, but it was kinda like watching lifeless chess-pieces knock each other out(with better graphics).
Sorry I can't really properly explain what I mean.
I think the graphics of this game are good, great even. However that part only applies to environment in my eyes. The units don’t feel natural in the picture for me, they stand-out in bad way. The grid/movement are both in too bright colors for me, but this can be something fixed by options so that’s not a big deal.
_Sure I think the same so much bright... It seams that is allways a great sun over the units and landsecape.
Will there be different size battle-maps btw? I would love to see bigger and smaller maps also in random battles(and maybe different shapes). In the past only battles of different size were basically special battles like ship, castle and bridge-battles.
Also will there be destructible environment/objects? And regarding that, will it be possible to build obstructions on the battle-map or on adventure map that comes to battles in area(could be something left to dwarves for example later on.)
yes, what you say, is what i would ask or say ;-)
Real trouble with the proportions of the models. Swordbearer so big! Is he a Titan or Giant? I think - no. Big size of unit not mean his brutality or rank in Town. I hope this mistake will be corrected in final version.
Horse so little? Indeed strange!
I really have to point out few things from these pictures so far so please don't comment in the middle before I have finished myself in the replies. I will tackle one subject at a time(maps/obstacles/graphics/scaling/units).
This is small map. I would very much like to see maps with different sizes and hopefully there will be just that in random battles:
Very large maps
Very small maps(this or squeeze one more square from both sides)
Now the problem I see with this map-size (if this is standard) is that distances are too short. If you have item that gives +1 speed/movement it makes huge difference. Then you add to that skill or two, possibly even set-item bonus and you will walk across the map with some tank or heavy-hitter that isn't supposed to move that much.
This small map as possible map, but definitely not as standard-size. 2nd problem to me would be ranged units. With objects that low and enemies so close even half-range units should hit max damage almost everywhere on map like this.
I don't know if this would work. Battle maps can't be random. You as a player have to know what type of map your fighting on. Its a cool idea, but its seems hard to balance.
The way I see it, you could use 2 easy variables for different size battles. You could have skill basically to have bigger(far-sight) OR skill for smaller battles(ambush). Other ways to implement it would be to have the radius from which battle starts 3,2 or 1 points. When you move past unit even at the 3 or 2 radius it won't begin battle, but if you click to move/stay to that 2 radius for example you get medium size battle. If you move to 1 radius automatic battle with small map and so on.
rsurdal. Battle maps are not random, they take the environment from the surrounding map... for example, if you are crossing a bridge, the battle map will be THAT bridge with the objects (obstacles) on THAT particular bridge, and not a pre-modeled bridge for every bridge battle. You cannot be more aware of battle map than this... you know exactly what the battle map will look like by looking at the surroundings, i believe this is a great idea.
To the devs : It is a matter discussed on HeroesCommunity - the creatures on the battlefield look too small, we barely see them. Please fix this ! :D
in H3 ranged units were brokenly overpowered because of large battlefields, i think developers did best to make it smaller with different kinds of obstecles. its much more tactical and balanced now. this is very important. i wish i could downvote you. and btw i m a heroescommunity member too, dont speak like i want what you want.
Cleglaw: He was only talking about the size of the creatures, because they are too small and you can't see the details on them (and the details are really nice). Theres nothing wrong with the size of the battlefield, and the obstecles.
@ Cleglaw : Range units supose to be powerfull (as they are easy to kill). In fact most fun game is when everything is OP. Making archers weak and spels weak and everything else also week and batlefield small and units slow leads to another boring game (after H6) when specialisation didnt do anything as all choices were roughly equivalent (skilling logistics gives you 3 movemepoints wow). Please ubi dont do same mistake again.
You can stone me later, but I don't get why everyone wants the elephants back. They looked hilarious in H5 because they had the same size as the other mounts.
To the picture: Looks good. Gargoyles are improved to their last incarnation, the golems look... well, I prefered the H5 version. But in the end that's a personal oppinion, like with the elephants ; )
To me the elephants were cool, they had their unique looks. I'd hate to see all heroes riding same old horses as h6 lost all the personality of heroes and teams on that department. In h5 all teams had their own thing/look, though I do hope they improve that by adding magic and might heroes to each team rather than only one or the other.
As for golems, I'd also rather see h5 version. I don't care for the new look and h5 had classical look. Gargoyles are way better than in h5(the flying bricks!)
I agree with ramborusina, I liked the elephants because they were unique. But it can be anything new, just please not only horses! Gagoyles are MUCH betterthan in V, I hated them it that game, they vere ugly, slow and really annoying. Thes ones look pretty great. Also, I love the new golems, In mithology and other arts they are always little rounded, more monster and artificial than human. I always imagined them like this, not humanoid shaped.
This is not about elephants. Demons were also brutal with a couple of sculls on their picks and in diabolic armor. Dwarfes were on mammoth, dark elves were on reptiles, orc heroes on big bulls. The idea that they were very different and as rambo said, they had their personality. So all horses heroes with only color and some details differences is a crappy idea. It was too booring in h6.
Sempai_Mur: That's also true to the upgraded units. I don't want see uprades, where the only difference is some color change in the clothes, or a little change in details. Make a little bit more changes to them, that way it'll be more interesting!
Personal opinion:If i played academy i wouldn't like to ride an elephant or a cammel. However everyone is different so if a player could pick a mount at start of the game it would be great.
Banszien, welp, in hommV there were pretty nice upgrades to my mind. Some of them just totally changed the appearance of a creature. I just catch myself that I compare everything with HOMMV haha. Well, can't do anything - this is a perfect heroes game to my mind. ^_^
Sempai_Mur: I totally agree. In HOMM V, it was really great. In VI the upgrades were a little less distinctive. There weren't that much difference.
there was always horses and horses are fine, i dont want unrealistic high fantasy, such as elves riding dinosaurs making me lol. NO TO HEROES V MOUNTS!
just because russians and their neighbours met Heroes series with H5, doesnt mean H5 is best. there was H2,H3,H4 before H5, and they had awesome things to be remembered.
please no dinosaurs & elephants... no superwierd pls. i want my heroes feel like a bit of middle age, a bit of classic rpg just like in H2, H3 and H6.
I agree with you sempai. H5 set the par for heroes-series for me and it's the game I compare things the most. The alternative upgrades were a very nice idea, BUT they weren't all that different(for example inferno just got burned and turned grey). I would like to see some real difference in units(like between rashasas in h5 for example).
Here in h7 the upgrade seems to be more in range of just colour changing from grey to gold or upgrade getting extra jewelry instead of becoming more fierce.
and btw gorgoyles were REALLY UGLY in H5. me and my friend all laughed to uglyness of gorgoyles back in that time when we bought H5.
i hope developers read this, i m and old fan of series and i m also a musician, painter and architect.my whole life is about designing things, and i want to say i really loved your style. please DONT change your style. it has perfect balance between realistic/fantastic/mature elements as i seen. im happy and proud to have you work on H7!
I loved the elephants in Heroes V, as much as Unicorns, Reptilies etc. Every faction had unique hero look. And It was so much cool!
Cleglaw, actually I finished all heroes, starting from 1 and ending with 6-th. 6-th the ugliest for me. It's even crappier than 4-th. HOMM 4 actually was not that bad game. Just too far from the Heroes concept. So it's ok as a different game. Heroes 6 just made the classic game too freakin' booring.
I can say that HOMM 5 is the best in balance, story, gameplay. Heroes 3 are cool and classic, but you can't stay on the same spot for the whole life. So H5 is a good example of necessary progress.
ramborusina, yep. That I was talking about as well.I love some upgrades as an orcs for example. They looked just different.Some of them were not that cool (undead, inferno).In HOMM5 there were nice idea of color accent which was the uniting thing for one race and had shown the difference between upgrades (different accent colors). In HOMM6 for example that was a confusing thing.Because there was not a color accent, but there was just a whole unit one color. And the whole army looked same. Meh...
Hi, i play at Homm from 1 to 6, i'm fanatics of the game, i make tattoo on my leg of Efreet.... :-) guys..... i don't like this graphic.... i'm playng at homm 4 now..... the best homm ..... i think you must take look and ideas from here..... sorry
They did import some H4 ideas that were good.
But the hero on the battlefield(beeing able to die, was a terrible idea) and no upgrades for the different units were bad decisions in H4!
Just curious, how many heroes do you ideally want in your best army late game on large maps in Heroes IV?
I my opinion, when you looked at H6 units you could see their personality perfectly characterized. For instance, Inferno/stronghold. In every unit you could see the defiance, the strenght... they randomly grunt, roar, provoke the enemy (when is not even their turn) and that was really cool. In the other hand you have the honor and resolve of heaven units, who look always confident and protective... that's the personality work i need to see and feel in this new H7
I dont like Cabir. He looks like pokemon.
Nice job complaining about something that isn't even in the image presented. Par for the course as far as this community seems to be concerned.
Cabir was in the previous screen-shots on the siege-battle so it's something we've been shown and I agree with krayz, it looks like crap(and feels out of place with academy). No reason he couldn't give his critique here... There aren't pictures of h6 here or elephant-mount of h5 but you didn't attack those comments so I guess it's matters you like that shouldn't be criticized? It's free forum and you can point out freely things in here,even more so than in most places since no moderation here...
Oh, and look who it is, the king of people who like to complain over and over! WE GET IT! YOU DON'T LIKE THE ACADEMY'S ART STYLE! YOU DON'T NEED TO REITERATE THAT POINT EVERY TIME SOMEBODY TALKS ABOUT ANYTHING ACADEMY RELATED!
Correct, I do not like academy of this game at all compared to previous games. I have to thank you for bringing that up, better as many people write about it in any context with words like that and we just might get devs to see what I see^^
AND I GET IT THAT YOU DON'T LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE CRITICIZE ACADEMY! YOU STILL DON'T HAVE TO COMPLAIN TO WRITERS LIKE krayz1e2010 WHO IS STATING HIS OPINION ON THE MATTER. Also you can learn to use shift instead of caps so you won't look like a total moron.
Technically I did write that with shift, but that's semantics. Sorry for the e-yelling, but your nigh-omnipresent expressing of... what basically is the inverse of my viewpoint is difficult to ignore and I snapped after a bad day of unrelated issues. I apologize for my aggression.
But seriously, cut it out. Academy looks awesome. :P
The only picture with movement-grid I’ve seen with is the haven champion, 2 squares/1 big square. This seems really low to me. Any boost in movement will make crazy difference in comparison to past, +1 movement will mean basically +50% movement which is insane. In the past we’ve had movement like of 3-10 squares on bigger maps in which boosts made much smaller difference and seemed more natural to have that +1 boost.
Higher numbers(in stats) also allowed bigger differences between units(now movement looks like it will be something like 1-3 squares depending on unit).
I liked the idea of smaller maps so some melee units would feel more useful/viable as they could cross the map in 1-2 turns. This idea of putting small map with very small mobility ruins my vision of things. This keeps shooters in power all the same as before(I have nothing against them).
I was hoping that different map-sizes would’ve made people use different kinds of armies instead of just focusing to get those pesky hunters for example. This makes no real difference to past in terms of game-play, just lowers the numbers in stats and that is sad to me. It feels like it’s just giving us smaller mold to work with on different units and making items/skills godlike boosts(or that’s how I feel at least.)
The end, feel free to comment now.
Indeed, Swordbearer has too small movement.
Probably Swordbearer has second turn in round due to morale.
@Der_Held55 the bigger problem to me is that the effects of previous minor boosts make huge difference now. using tactics + skill + item for movement will make even the slowest insane tank move half the map because there is so little difference between units with quick assumptions I make and units that are supposed to move a lot will move barely just a little more in comparison. This will make some items godlike items that'll change the whole game in favor of the owner.
Let's say we have a treant that will move 1 square + green-dragon that move 3 squares. Now add to that + 3 to speed/movement as an example(from map buildings, skills, items and whatever). Now our treant will move 4 squares vs 6 squares of the Green dragon. Suddenly the dragon isn't all that agile mover compared to tank-unit that isn't supposed to move. In old model the extra movement didn't matter that much, but now it will by HUGE differential in per-centages(treant moves +300%, dragon +100%)