HeroesWorld
  • Log in
  • Create account
  • Mode
    Interface scale

    Loads video thumbnails from YouTube, which lets it see your IP address. Off until you turn it on, and remembered in this browser only.

    Recolours text in posts that would be hard to read on this theme. Off by default, so posts look exactly as their authors wrote them.

Favorites, into battle! - 11.

Tournament History
No ratings yet — be the first to rate!
In reply to Dirty_Player
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#62
Auto-translated
Dirty_Player
Only 9 people voted for the option that strictly excludes Overlord's Hall.
And how many didn't vote to avoid drawing attention to themselves? (because why bother? just to end up like with the Warlock? ) :rolleyes:
Read my last message carefully.
You think one thing, but each individual person thinks something else, and if they think it would be better without Overlord's Hall, then that's how it is. Even if they didn't vote or voted for the third option (which I think should be interpreted exactly as written - "better without Overlord's Hall," but you simply dismissed it as unimportant; why? Based on this poll, the ratio is 75/25, and we add those who didn't vote).
https://www.twitch.tv/grando__
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Dirty_Player
Offline Dima Surmay
Registered:
Posts: 2,067
#63
Auto-translated
Dirty_Player

What should be done with those who believe they have the right to play without restructuring? Or without a chess timer? How about their hurt feelings?
If you remember, there were many opponents of various innovations, but in the end, people were forced to accept them, and no one died. Now, no one plays without these options anymore. The same will happen with the Overhaul, it's just a matter of time.
I completely agree. I used to be strongly against removing the red rush strategy, but it turned out I was wrong. But until it becomes a mandatory requirement, we shouldn't force those who want to use the Overhaul to do so. And before even playing with the Overhaul, we need to establish rules for it.
0
⚖️
0
Offline Vinceras
Registered:
Posts: 780
#64
Auto-translated
I think it’s better not to use the library upgrade at all. The library already provides a spell re-shuffling for 5th-level spells and one 4th-level spell for a lower price. Control plays too big a role in the game to give spell re-shuffling even to the starting tower.
0
⚖️
0
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#65
Auto-translated
The discussion about restructuring the town should be approached differently.
There are clearly top-tier, favorite towns. First and foremost, these are Necropolis, Conflux, and Dungeon. We apparently can't reduce their power.
Castle with Elves is consistently strong.

The question is whether to leave the Tower with its library restructuring, so it has one more chance to get closer to these top tiers.
I don't see any significant reason not to do this. Because
Will the Tower even become a top-3 town because of this restructuring? I believe the answer is a definite no. Especially top-2. If I'm wrong here, someone needs to correct me.

If it were possible to somehow strengthen Swamp, Barbarian, and Inferno, then it would be worth doing that instead of thinking about how to prevent the Tower from getting closer to the top tiers.
And, by the way, in this direction (regarding Swamp, Barbarian, and Inferno), we can also think about it.
Is it possible to give, even artificially (but reasonably!), some bonuses to these three towns to increase their chances?
https://www.twitch.tv/grando__
0
⚖️
0
Offline ffoolabezlp
Registered:
Posts: 172
#66
Auto-translated
I looked at the template breakdown, and it made me laugh. Diamond is for gambling, while mt_diamond is for combat. Jeb is for combat, not gambling. This breakdown is ridiculous. Just leave the regular template for all templates, otherwise it smells like complete nonsense.
0
⚖️
0
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#67
Auto-translated
There's nothing to discuss regarding the standard template distribution. It's outlined in the Regulations, and there hasn't even been a hint that it could be changed. (There was a suggestion that it was being considered, but it was rejected – the idea of trading templates, and even then, it was only considered theoretically with mutual consent as an experiment to see how it would work). The rest doesn't even warrant comment. *FailFish* When I said I was interested in hearing opinions about grouping templates, I certainly didn't mean opinions like these. You need to at least have some understanding of the pros and cons of specific templates and the probabilities of winning or losing easily.
https://www.twitch.tv/grando__
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Grando
User Avatar
Offline korovka1987
Registered:
Posts: 362
#68
Auto-translated
Al Feyn

And by the way, I think we should also consider this direction (regarding the Barbarian swamp and Inferno).
Could we give some bonuses, even artificially (but reasonably!), to these three towns to increase their chances?
If anyone needs to be strengthened, it's the Inferno, and there's a small balancing maneuver:
Playing with random heroes will weaken all castles, but it will hardly affect the Inferno.
0
⚖️
0
Offline Iamsamstan
Registered:
Posts: 1,771
#69
Auto-translated
Since everyone is expressing their opinions here, I would suggest that all castles, except for Necropolis, should be prohibited from training Necromancers and gathering skeletons, while Necropolis should only be allowed to train Necromancers. (I know it might seem like a small thing, but please don't rush to analyze it or throw too many negative comments.)
435-191-039
Discord Iamsamstan#6087
0
⚖️
0
In reply to korovka1987
Offline kamukag3e
Registered:
Posts: 928
#70
Auto-translated
korovka1987
If anyone needs to be buffed, it's Inferno, and there's a small balance maneuver:
Playing favorites with random heroes will weaken all towns, but Inferno will hardly be affected ;)
I second that, more randomness will add interest to many games. Everyone will be able to beat everyone:)
Regarding OH, Jelen is absolutely right:
Jelen117
Tournaments on HotA — OH is mandatory, on SoD — optional. And soon SoD will die on its own, so this is a great idea to not introduce OH into SoD tournaments. Sodomites will finish themselves off :smile54:
Mandatory OH is the same thing that Kostya Lizard once proposed about restructuring the GM; many were against it, but in the end they still came to it and wrote it into the HeroesWorld rules.
I think enough time has passed to test OH in SoD, and a vote should be held on including mandatory OH in the HeroesWorld rules, specifying the OH duration. By the way, the fact that the OH duration is not specified in the rules only leads to disputes among players in season games.
艰难获胜 herolwy
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Grando
Offline Vinceras
Registered:
Posts: 780
#71
Auto-translated
Al Feyn
The discussion about restructuring the library should not be conducted in this manner.
There are definitely top-tier, favorite cities. First and foremost, these are Necropolis, Conflux, and Dungeon. We apparently cannot reduce their strength.
Castle with Elves is consistently strong.

The question is whether to allow Tower to restructure its library, giving it one more chance to approach these top tiers.
I don't see any significant reason not to do this. Because
Will Tower even become a top-3 city because of this restructuring? I believe the answer is a definite no. Especially top-2. If I'm wrong, someone needs to correct me.

If it were possible to somehow strengthen Swamp, Barbarian, and Inferno, then it would be worth doing that instead of thinking about how to prevent Tower from getting closer to the top.
And, by the way, it's also worth considering this direction (regarding Swamp, Barbarian, and Inferno).
Is it possible to give, even artificially (but reasonably!), some bonuses to these three cities to increase their chances?
To really strengthen or weaken someone, you need to change the game. Currently, this can be done through trading. Restructuring the library, in my opinion, is an overpowered mechanic and should be banned. For example, on the popular 6lm10a map, Swamp, Barbarian, and Castle have a serious drawback: they don't have a full-fledged guild; could we create one for them? But this is pointless; we will make changes to the game, but essentially change little. There will still be many other factors and random events in the game. Changes must be more profound and have a real effect, or they are not needed at all.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Vinceras
User Avatar
Offline korovka1987
Registered:
Posts: 362
#72
Auto-translated
The gate to the Inferno castle (currently useless), but if it were possible to make it so that it could lead to any of your own cities, it would increase its rating. I wonder, is this possible, even hypothetically?
0
⚖️
0
Offline kamukag3e
Registered:
Posts: 928
#73
Auto-translated
Here are some messages from Kostya Lizard from 2015 about restructuring the Guild of Mages (he was spot on):
=Lizard=
The question here is whether such possibilities are discussed at a serious level, or whether they are immediately dismissed, like Tibetans dismiss the European way of life.
=Lizard=
I really don't understand where these conclusions come from. Leading esports disciplines are constantly being modified and balanced. But for some reason, Heroes cannot be touched at all – it must remain sacred and medieval, right? :smile28:
=Lizard=
Restructuring the Guild of Mages is not about balancing, but about saving at least 20-25% of games on large maps, which could be interesting and mega-strategic, but turned out to be dull and one-sided. However, if the majority of the forum clearly prefers not the game itself, but victories due to the initial setup, then I will stop all explanations and discussions.
艰难获胜 herolwy
0
⚖️
0
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#74
Auto-translated
I don't think anyone is against Online Heroes (OH) itself. There are only two real reasons (that I've seen) why people objected to OH: 1. The already fast timers in OH become even more restrictive. And for some players, it becomes simply impossible to showcase their best gameplay. And that's not something anyone enjoys. 2. For some reason, a person refuses to use the "purchase OH in SoD" action (ideological or financial reasons). OH itself doesn't cause negativity. Why bring up quotes from Lizard and talk about progress when no one is objecting to that? The issue is either with the timers or the paid lobby. Arguing about progress is just a waste of everyone's time. Has anyone, anywhere, denied the progressiveness and inevitability of OH eventually becoming dominant?
https://www.twitch.tv/grando__
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Grando
Offline kamukag3e
Registered:
Posts: 928
#76
Auto-translated
Al Feyn
Has anyone anywhere denied the progressiveness and inevitability of the coming of the OH kingdom in the future?
We are discussing here the rules of the Tournament Favorites, Fight! - 11, in which you, as the organizer, prescribed a rule to play without OH in certain stages of the tournament. So why shouldn't we discuss the progressiveness of OH here? Proving once again that OH should be prescribed as mandatory not only in tournaments, but also in the rules of HeroesWorld in general?
艰难获胜 herolwy
0
⚖️
0