Posts from TBM - Tournaments balance mod

You seem to forget that no one is going to pick them for the final battles. But they significantly boost the Warlock in early game skirmishes with minimal losses.

In this regard, we should take into account the opinions of professional players. And the "Hunter" is generally considered overpowered in Dungeon.

I don't know about you, but I prefer archers because they deal damage and inflict a 3-turn poison effect, which is very effective against minotaurs, and if you also have furies, no one will reach you.

Why? Can you give a couple of examples of battles?

It's obvious - reducing initiative or duration will only work well against a player, not against neutrals.

Okay, guys, let's stop rehashing the same thing. We'll play the original version with invisibility for the hunters, if necessary. After all, this is a tournament mod, and it's being made by the tournament organizers. Maybe we're right, and then they'll fix it, most likely. Well, I think the tournament participants will get used to the changes.

Our mod is well-structured in the video, and I can find the detail I'm interested in within 4 minutes. But if you sit down and write out time codes, you'll go crazy – 8 factions with 7 creatures each is already 56 time codes, and you need a time code for each spell, so I don't want to write 150-200 time codes. It will all be cumbersome. Please spend a couple of hours, write me the time codes, and I will gladly publish them.

Only this structure is invisible to those who haven't watched the video yet. How will they know, for example, that the league starts at 30:00?
You don't need many timestamps, just for the main sections and Factions.
Timestamps solve the problem of a huge video because they allow you to break it down into several small parts, on a topic that interests a person.
For example, a person disagrees with a particular change and can quickly find arguments about it.

My friend, write the timestamps in the description of the stream, then people will be able to find the review of a Faction by the code (I would do it that way, but you have more experience, so decide for yourself).

But a brief summary wouldn't hurt (and for more details, you can watch the video).

Or here's another question: why do things like Battle Pathfinding or early invisibility break the game? Because they significantly simplify clearing the map. And why is that bad? Because clearing the map is the main element of the game.

Or here's another question: why do things like early-game Blood Dragons or early Invisibility break the game? Because they significantly simplify clearing out neutral creatures. And why is that bad? Because clearing out neutral creatures is a core element of the game. The game continues to be built around clearing out neutral creatures, but that doesn't mean you can't try to build a Multiplayer mode in such a way that clearing out neutral creatures doesn't play a decisive role, and in this way, the problem of overpowered neutral creatures will be solved. Specifically, either weaken the factor of clearing out neutral creatures through a general weakening of neutral creatures and speeding up the game, or specifically weaken the problematic neutral creatures so that other races can also clear them out with acceptable losses in the 2nd-3rd week. In the game, it was already suggested (by me or someone else) to generate a reduced number of neutral archers/casters in the guards.

I've always disliked this in Multiplayer – the main element (in my opinion) should be the interaction between players (by the way, this should also remain the main element when playing in Singleplayer, with the only difference being that the human player now interacts with the AI player), but instead, we're used to the fact that 90% of the game is just clearing out mobs – it's not a very appealing experience, and the cherry on top is a couple of clashes between player armies (sometimes it even comes down to just one final battle – which is absurd, because it's no longer a strategy game!).

Although I believe that the map should be tailored to the gameplay, rather than patching it up with quick fixes to improve (supposedly!) the balance, which isn't always necessary.

Actually, for a game where the strategic aspect is more prominent than usual, I sometimes play large single-level maps with a large number of towns and players (and if you also limit the maximum hero level to 15-20, it turns out that the key to victory is maximizing territorial control, achievable through several strong heroes, whose strength also depends on their army, because it won't be possible to create uber-strong heroes due to the level limit, which means the role of towns increases again, and therefore also mines and resources, which are needed throughout the game)
Um... well, I think I've strayed from the topic - sorry:D

Yes, yes, considering that IRMG took quite a while to develop. But if it's a piece of cake for you, feel free to do it.
P.S. If this was sarcasm, then never mind.

No, it's not sarcasm. But I also didn't say that I would be doing it. I just wrote that it's not difficult.
It's a large amount of monotonous routine work, and I don't want to spend time on it.

Basically, you're just a chatterbox, aren't you? You come, criticize, tell everyone how easy it is to do things, but you don't do anything yourself. Okay.

First of all, I don't give a damn about other people's opinions.