Posts from Ideas and suggestions.

training reduces the required experience points by 5, 10, 15 (instead of increasing the experience gained), meaning that level 8 requires 10,000 experience points, but with expert training, it will require 8,500.

Is it possible to configure the game so that the timer is not added when loading a BATTLE?

Indeed, a timer has been added. I wrote to baratorch.

I encountered a bug where I could navigate the world map without holding down the left mouse button, and I found this to be incredibly convenient.

I encountered a bug where I could navigate the world map without holding down the left mouse button, and I found it to be incredibly convenient.

This is a feature that's been around for ages.

And? Tell me more. It happened when my opponent killed a computer-controlled unit; a window popped up and disappeared, and at that moment, I was moving around the map.

If possible, it would be great to implement a system on mirrored templates that allows for rebuilding structures in the game map according to the "WarCraft" principle, i.e., with the ability to rebuild structures even after building a level 1 structure. This would provide greater strategic variability and, consequently, improve the balance.

OH Algorithm: everyone sees the heroes of the enemy from the previous day; if someone attacks, OH rolls back to the moment of the attack (the turn is interrupted on the one who was attacked, and the turn of the one who was attacked is rolled back one day); this will make it possible to play with OH throughout the game and in tournaments like 1x1x1x1.

so that it would be

A couple of suggestions:
1. Increase the damage of fire spells, especially Inferno.
2. Dendroids are designed in a way that makes them burn well – why not give them additional vulnerability to fire spells and extra damage from gogs, magogs, fire elementals, ifrits, and phoenixes? This would slightly weaken the already quite strong/overpowered Fortress.

Interface suggestion: reduce the size of the window that displays which player's turn it is, in order to increase the number of castles displayed. For example, from 7 to 10. This would be very useful on some map templates.

Turn-Based Algorithm: each player sees the opponent's heroes from the previous day; if someone attacks, the turn-based mode reverts to the moment of the attack (the turn is interrupted for the player who was attacked, and the turn of the player who attacked is rolled back by one day); this will allow you to play with turn-based mode and Tournaments like 1v1v1v1 throughout the game.

Please, before making any suggestions about the turn-based mode, first understand how it works now (and how regular turns work in Heroes in general).
It must be understood that during the turn-based mode, the blue (synchronous) player's turn does not yet exist. It will only exist after the red (previous) player completes their turn.
In Heroes, players take turns, and this order cannot be violated; otherwise, how do you transition from turn-based mode to regular gameplay, and how do you end the game? How do you resolve conflicts? For example, both players capture the same neutral Castle in one turn; do you roll back both turns, and then what? Do they both capture the same Castle again? Or should someone graciously yield?
Are you, DaU, suggesting juggling the order of turns?
Therefore, currently, in case of a conflict (or contact), the blue player's turn (the turn that doesn't yet exist) is rolled back, and the red player continues as they were. Because the red player would be doing the same even without the turn-based mode.

An aspect that is not obvious to many, even experienced players:
During the turn-based mode, the blue player is behind the red player in terms of intelligence data about them. That is, during the turn-based mode, the blue player has information about the red player that is one day old (compared to regular gameplay).
And during the rollback due to contact or conflict, having the opportunity to replay the last turn, the blue player does not gain any advantage.
On the contrary, the ability to replay the last turn is not enough to compensate for the outdated information about the red player before the encounter. The blue player would still have made a different move in the replayed turn in regular mode, having up-to-date information about the red player. Moreover, having up-to-date information, the blue player would have made different moves in the previous turns leading up to the contact. Therefore, a more balanced option than the current one would be, for example, rolling back two turns for the blue player and one for the red player.
For the sake of balance, it could be suggested that the red player also be one day behind the blue player in terms of information about the opponent. But in games against AI, this is impossible (think about why).
At the same time (if we understand that the blue player is in the red player's past but in their own unconfirmed future), the blue player may receive intelligence that they would not have been able to obtain in regular gameplay, for example, scouting the red player's hero, who is actually already in a location that is inaccessible to the blue player's view or who is actually already without an army. But this will have a role-playing (enhancing the blue player) effect only if the red player is ahead of the blue player in the pace of scouting the area and is moving not towards the blue player but past or away from them. And it still won't be able to compensate for the blue player's overall lag in information from the red player before the contact. Those who disagree, write examples refuting these statements, even if they are hypothetical. The topic, as it turns out, is not as simple to understand as it may seem.

+ while writing this answer, I realized that with the current turn-based mode, if there are AI opponents between the players, for example, if one player is red and the other is green, then the green player will be able to move before the blue and beige AI opponents. Which shouldn't happen and will inevitably lead to "temporal paradoxes," violations of the natural logic of the game. Therefore, for games with the current turn-based mode, players must be in a sequence (blue-red / green-orange-purple / turquoise-pink, etc.).

+ While writing this response, I realized that with the current turn order, if there are computer-controlled players between human players (e.g., one player is red, and the other is green), the green player will be able to move before the blue and beige computer players. This shouldn't happen and will inevitably lead to "temporal paradoxes," violating the natural logic of the game. Therefore, for a game with the current turn order, human players must be placed consecutively (blue-red / green-orange-purple / turquoise-pink, etc.).

Even without the turn order, the green player will move before the blue and brown computer players. In a game, the second player to move will be blue, but with a green flag; even on the template diagram, they will be in the blue zone. Therefore, temporal paradoxes shouldn't occur... Although, I might not have understood the essence of your post correctly...

...

if both capture the same object, a check is performed (to see if only one player entered the object). If both players are involved, the system interrupts the turns, giving the opportunity to replay the turn without Overmind for red (with changes made by blue), then a turn without Overmind for blue;
after this, the game continues with Overmind;

(our time spent is a higher priority than minor nuances with scouting I proceed from this principle)

if blue attacked red on the previous day, it interrupts and rolls back his current turn; red re-plays his turn that he was playing; and blue continues his turn at this moment, but he still sees red's heroes as they were on the previous day (roughly speaking, red becomes blue, and blue becomes red in terms of turn priority), and if at this moment red attacks another of blue's heroes, blue's turn is rolled back, and he re-plays his current turn with the changes inflicted by red, but red retains the changes inflicted by blue

In Heroes, players take turns, and this order cannot be disrupted. Otherwise, how do you switch from Overlapping Turns (OT) to the regular game mode, and how do you end the game? How do you resolve conflicts? For example, both players capture the same neutral castle in one turn. Do you roll back both players' turns, and then what? Do they both capture the same castle again? Or should someone graciously yield? Are you, Dau, suggesting that we juggle the turn order?
Therefore, when a conflict (or contact) occurs, the blue player's turn is rolled back (that turn, which technically doesn't exist yet), and the red player continues to play as they were. Because the red player would have played the same way even without OT.

Fifth, there are no rollbacks: the game calculates the shortest distance between opponents (that can be traversed) and includes alternating turns when they are "too close." As a result, conflicts are impossible. Is that not possible here?

Well, even without Overlord Hero, green will move before blue and brown computer players. For the game itself, the blue player will move second, but with a green flag; even on the template map, it will be in the blue zone. Therefore, there shouldn't be any temporal paradoxes... Although, maybe I didn't understand the point of your post...

That's right. I didn't know that humans move before computers, even in normal mode, regardless of the colors they play.

Added 1 hour 11 minutes ago

In the fifth game, there are no rollbacks: the game calculates the shortest distance between opponents (that can be traversed) and includes alternating turns when they are "too close." As a result, collisions are impossible. Is it impossible to do that here?

It's possible. And it was initially planned. But it's not easy.
I don't know exactly how it works in the fifth game. But how do you think we should determine whether the distance is traversable?

Here, you need to take into account a lot of things. - the possibility of being destroyed and resurrected, control, the possibility of gaining control in that distant utopia, and whether the player will take that utopia; how to calculate whether the player will break through the block or not? After all, there are quite a few maps and templates where the opponent is within reach from day one, but the Overlord Hero doesn't allow them to meet for a relatively long time. If you don't take something into account, collisions cannot be avoided. If you make such an intelligent interruption too rigid, the Overlord Hero will end without really starting.

Added 18 minutes ago

...

The only thing I understood from what you wrote is that you didn't understand what I wrote.

For convenience and to save time, before an intelligent interruption is made, the only thing that can be done is a manual interruption and resumption of the Overlord Hero. The nuances of scouting are not minor. These nuances can change the course of the game. By the way, with a hint, I came up with a situation where you can significantly sabotage the blue player's replay: when replaying, the blue player will not go to that distant utopia to lose half of his army for the sake of boots of resistance.