KobRa_RR
Auto-translated
I'll start with the last point, perhaps. Although overall, this is a collective response.
Any vote in the vein of "bad or good" already carries a negative aftermath in the form of a schism of opinions.
In about a year (after the May holidays), we can expect a push that logisticians need to be nerfed (like in WT), since they run way too fast, and that's such an imbalance. And Tazar shouldn't be touched for now... although if he's on the opponent's side, and with a red orb... well, what balance is that. Although getting "freebies" of +30% durability or lethality (Crag Hack) is so unbalanced when he's not on my side. And they will need to be nerfed. There just hasn't been a reason yet. And we'll bring balance to normal by playing anarchy in key matches at the May festivals; it's better to play those than to have no guild restructuring.
For those who don't understand, I'll clarify. The topic advocates for restructuring, yet without motivating its position at all (see its first post) — we have a very weak thesis essentially, and only then it engages in polemics (swaying to its side with unproductive arguments), and does not conduct a discussion in a mutually beneficial manner. And this despite the fact that in the recent matches of the finalists of the last offline event (one true, the other "hidden" :)) anarchy was played :eek:
In short, there's a bit of a mess in the topic starter's head. Advocates for one thing, but plays the complete opposite.
And overall, there's some strange trend. People try to show that they are the strongest in the game, fight for balance to demonstrate their skill, but in the end they try to fish in troubled waters with anarchy. They didn't have the spirit for a mirror match. But then they can always justify it: "anarchy was played after all"!:D Like, the spirit of SoD has triumphed!
And it is true that no one will bother with this. And someone was talking about that coveted checkbox. I even know that if restructuring were suddenly implemented, there would be enough people who would play with that restructuring. After all, that's already happened with quick. So let the topic starter motivate the programmers and play with whoever they want under their own rules. Only the organizers have enough wisdom (non-intervention policy) to not make hd+, quick (reworked, but with the addition of other bugs) and the dubious "chess" timer mandatory — some see more points in "saving" time with the latter, although these are essentially gameplay things. Skilled players (the bigger tryhards) will just assume they can't be bothered with "noobs" and will want to find the fastest way to kill them, and restructuring will help them more with that. And when playing among themselves, they will somehow avoid mirror matches.
Voting on such issues is akin to voting in political elections with all sorts of manipulations and other "tricks", and divides the community. Gameplay practice in this particular matter has absolutely no effect on the understanding of the processes. A user-player (and there is an overwhelming majority of them here) does not fully understand game nuances, has poor knowledge of theory, while programmers (there are few of them) — on the contrary, do not see game inconsistencies. Those who see both sides, especially without medal ambitions — are even fewer. Their arguments are quite convincing and well-reasoned.
• There is WT, where this has long been implemented.
• The game has more dispersed things (for heroes — Crag Hack, Tazar, Dwarf, Galthran, logisticians; for artifacts — orb, cloak of surrender, medal, armor of the damned, angel alliance; for objects — some have Dragon Utopias and Dragon Fly Hives with conservatories, while others have blocks and no wood at all, and those morale rolls...), and one unfortunate misclick, or a lack of 50 MP or one second, or a small artifact accidentally not equipped — indeed, the whole game is built on them. And in Heroes, any little thing can be fatal, and cannot be fixed. Because it's a GAME, not a means of proving who is better than whom, especially if it leads to :smile35: or :smile17: And so that in such a GAME every participant would have the opportunity to use luck and beat a conditionally strong player. Ask Maretti what keeps him playing again and again, despite the abundance of medals.
• Since you want balance in the game, why not play mirror templates. Or what stops you from generating a map where there are many towns and villages that you control. And why isn't Diamond suitable or something similar?
• Finally, what prevents you from organizing a tournament with exactly such a condition/regulation. It's no big deal.
The mirror template was not included due to being untested in SoD. Naturally, I would have preferred it over playing Jebus/anarchy with Hell. Perhaps we should have moved to Diamond (also not the most balanced template, but that's beside the point for now :D ), but what is there to say about it now.
I think among those who voted against, there are two main groups of people:
those who shout "keep your hands off SoD" and "don't ruin the game" — I believe it is pointless to negotiate with them. They don't listen to anyone's arguments, and in their heads there are only morale rolls and upgraded stacks) :p
And the second group, who haven't tried playing with restructuring (there's one piece of advice: you need to try it; perhaps there haven't been situations where you have resources and stats, but no control and nowhere to get it, and you just watch turn after turn as the opponent with control outplays you...) or players who love freebies (and who doesn't?!) and are used to winning because of them — you do you, but don't forget that sooner or later there will be payback))
