Oelm
Auto-translated
Regarding the previous post: "amazing book" is just a platitude—one of many like it.
An attempt to console losers, which only makes them even greater losers.
As for the discussion of TE on the bay, I'm somewhat surprised by the approach where many obvious things are ignored. For example, in the chapter "why TE is better," it is claimed that in SoD you could play each race with 1-2 heroes. And now, supposedly in TE, you can choose from 3-4 equivalent ones.
This is not true, because it's fundamentally untrue. We are playing random, and naturally, there will be 1-2 heroes who are better than the rest! I mean, everyone has their own features, and these features can definitely be ranked by their significance. And at the top, in principle, there will be 1-2 heroes. A substitution simply occurred. Instead of Tazar, people play Broghild; Tiraxor became the best for barbarians, etc. Therefore, I don't understand why discuss the idea of how to make it possible to play several at once. On fixes, I understand that's a different matter. But not here.
I actually like the SoD feature where some castles have no good heroes, like Inferno for example; i.e., you take Pyrra and then look for various options from there. That is, you can try to compensate for the lack of good heroes with the strength of the castle, for instance. But I don't think the developers are going in that direction.
And generally, it's impossible to create an "ideal" game. I don't understand if people are trying to create some new game or simply working on fixing flaws. For example, there was a proposal to reduce the percentage of Necromancer. An absolutely sound proposal aimed at correcting imbalance. And there are several other useful ones like that.
But if you follow the path of creating a new game, you need to somehow separate it from the original. And overall, it's more logical to start with some general idea, preferably a new one. Because if there isn't one, there is a great risk of getting some kind of "monstrosity." A ton of effort will be spent, and the result will be zero.
An attempt to console losers, which only makes them even greater losers.
As for the discussion of TE on the bay, I'm somewhat surprised by the approach where many obvious things are ignored. For example, in the chapter "why TE is better," it is claimed that in SoD you could play each race with 1-2 heroes. And now, supposedly in TE, you can choose from 3-4 equivalent ones.
This is not true, because it's fundamentally untrue. We are playing random, and naturally, there will be 1-2 heroes who are better than the rest! I mean, everyone has their own features, and these features can definitely be ranked by their significance. And at the top, in principle, there will be 1-2 heroes. A substitution simply occurred. Instead of Tazar, people play Broghild; Tiraxor became the best for barbarians, etc. Therefore, I don't understand why discuss the idea of how to make it possible to play several at once. On fixes, I understand that's a different matter. But not here.
I actually like the SoD feature where some castles have no good heroes, like Inferno for example; i.e., you take Pyrra and then look for various options from there. That is, you can try to compensate for the lack of good heroes with the strength of the castle, for instance. But I don't think the developers are going in that direction.
And generally, it's impossible to create an "ideal" game. I don't understand if people are trying to create some new game or simply working on fixing flaws. For example, there was a proposal to reduce the percentage of Necromancer. An absolutely sound proposal aimed at correcting imbalance. And there are several other useful ones like that.
But if you follow the path of creating a new game, you need to somehow separate it from the original. And overall, it's more logical to start with some general idea, preferably a new one. Because if there isn't one, there is a great risk of getting some kind of "monstrosity." A ton of effort will be spent, and the result will be zero.
