Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Introduction of Haven in the Stronghold vs. Dungeon tournaments.Auto-translated
Wanting something isn't harmful; go ahead and do it.
I wanted to do this, but for now, I'll leave the initiative to the creator of these wonderful videos. HellLighT
m-200, as practice shows, is an unbalanced thing due to its size, and even mirroring won't help there. There will be enough dispersion in morale and heroes for a clear victory, even for not entirely equal opponents.
The point here isn't about revealing skill, but about creating a spectacle for the viewers. I don't understand why every game has to reveal skill? Heroes is primarily about enjoyment; why not create enjoyment for yourself and the viewers by playing a small map on a stream?
The point here isn't about showcasing skill, but rather about putting on a show and creating entertainment for the viewers. I don't understand why every game has to be about demonstrating skill. Heroes of Might and Magic is primarily about enjoyment, so why not create enjoyment for yourself and the viewers by playing a small map on a stream?
As an experienced viewer, I can say that watching a clearly one-sided match isn't very enjoyable.
For optimal entertainment, some element of randomness is desirable. There's no need to turn it into chess, but the degree of imbalance introduced by this randomness shouldn't be too great; both players' positions should remain "viable."
When I think about Alex and Pete's game in the final of the m-200 tournament, I get emotional. It's amazing what players are capable of and what they can show in such seemingly limited conditions. The effect of minimalism also creates a certain atmosphere, and the struggle can be very interesting (not always, of course, but it's worth a try, as I think).
Added 2 hours 42 minutes later
Besides, within the framework of the modern template editor, you can create a template where both players will have a playable starting situation (for example, create a set of mandatory objects on the starting respawn points). Unfortunately, my template editor doesn't launch because the computer only works in safe mode, so I can't create such a new template yet. It would be great if someone took on this task; it would be a new game mode, unlike anything else.
Besides, within the modern template editor, you can create a template where both players start with a playable situation (for example, by creating a set of mandatory objects on the starting spawn points). Unfortunately, the template editor doesn't launch for me because my computer only runs in safe mode, so I can't create such a new template yet. It would be great if someone took on this task; it would be a new game mode, unlike anything else.
As far as I know, that template editor creates templates exclusively for the HotA version, where the Overlord expansion is already integrated. But here, we're discussing the Overlord expansion in SoD. It does have a template editor, but it's very limited, and you can create templates without it, but with the same limitations. Unfortunately, you can't do what you're talking about in SoD. There, the placement of objects is based on value. And for the same value, a lot of different objects can appear.
In general, anyone can create templates. There is plenty of information available for this.
M200 is an interesting format for some, but many don't like it because of the small number of zones, and you can't really explore much in the late game. And if you're unlucky with the layouts and heroes, it's extremely difficult to succeed. But there are interesting games sometimes, of course. I personally like this format, but for now, it's just like that. In general, tournaments are sometimes held in this format, so if you want, you can watch and participate.
Of course, the future belongs to HotA; there's no need to even discuss it. I wrote this here because the discussion turned to saving time. As for tournaments for Might & Magic: Heroes VI, they haven't been held for a long time. If they were, I wouldn't have written all this.
Of course, the future belongs to HOTA; there's no need to even discuss it. I wrote this in this thread because the discussion turned to saving time. And there haven't been any M200 tournaments for a long time; if there were, I wouldn't be writing all this.
We've heard this before, many times.
As for tournaments, for example, Peter organized offline events for M200. True, last year, in addition to Skirmish, they decided to add more familiar templates to the pool. If there were more demand among players and viewers, or more desire among the organizers, there would be more tournaments.
Regarding saving time. Here, they are discussing saving time in tournaments in general, not in a specific format. M and S maps have their own specifics – there is no control, and there are their own restrictions. If it were that simple, people would play regular S maps without Dungeon, meet in the first 2 days, and play the final match. It is necessary that saving time does not reduce the game itself (or reduces it to a minimum) and that entire game formats are not discarded.
Even ignoring the ambitions, potential, and development pace, what's already there ensures a great future for it. The new template editor, for example, opens up a lot of possibilities for innovation. I personally am itching to create a new template, but the blasted safe mode keeps messing things up; I hope to figure it out soon. By the way, it's strange that after six months, fans haven't created a single new template (or maybe I just haven't seen them?), and no tournaments have been held using the new templates that are included in the pool. We waited and waited for this editor, but there's no activity. I feel like it's time to take the initiative into my own hands.
and no tournaments have been held using those new templates that are in the pool.
How can it be said that "no tournaments have been held"... a tournament for mt-Jebus has been running for a long time, the Game of Thrones is underway with the Boomerang template in the pool, and just the other day, Mirrors-3 started with the mt_Andromeda and mt_Antares templates in the pool...
Ah, yes, the mirrored Jebus took so long to arrive that I didn’t even consider it. I also haven’t had time to read about the mirrors with new templates yet. In general, I meant tournaments on a single template, and I’m most interested in Nine-Day Wonder.
What I’m going to write applies not only to the Online Heroes Battle, but I can’t ignore this comment.
caliban
Regarding the Online Heroes Battle, which lasts 5-6 months and has no playoffs: it’s simple – just look at the history of such battles. As a rule, a player withdraws from the tournament after 2-3 losses. And if we consider the problem specifically for complete beginners, who else should receive these losses in the first place?
This is fundamentally incorrect reasoning. First, a personal example: I participated in the Online Heroes Battle four times, and I only made it to the Heroes Battle once. However, all four times I finished the tournament. Firstly, out of respect for the organizers’ work and for the other participants. Secondly, I understood that my result would ultimately affect the rating of other participants. And the fact that most of the participants finish the tournament, regardless, directly refutes the quoted message (yes, it’s enough to look at the history of such battles...).
Now, regarding beginners. It is important for them to play more in such tournaments with more experienced players, and this should be encouraged and cultivated, rather than suggesting that "they should withdraw after two losses."
Finally, the most important point from the organizer’s perspective. The quoted message implies that the monthly fee is an additional incentive to give up on the tournament if the chances of winning are lost, rather than finishing it. But the organizer is always interested in players taking the tournament seriously and striving to play their games to the fullest. Therefore, as an organizer, I set the participation fee for nine rounds, not two. And the suggestion that "the tournament can be stopped after 2-3 losses and the full fee is not paid" only shows me that it is not beneficial for me as an organizer to introduce a mandatory Heroes Battle right now.
That's a fundamentally incorrect argument. Let me start with a personal example: I participated in offline tournaments four times, and only managed to qualify once. However, all four times, I played the tournament until the end. Firstly, out of respect for the organizers' work and other participants, and secondly, because I understood that my result would ultimately affect the odds for other participants. The fact that most players who started the tournament eventually finish it anyway directly refutes the quoted message (yes, you just need to look at the history of such offline tournaments...).
Now regarding newcomers. It is important for them to play more in these tournaments with more experienced players, and this should be encouraged and cultivated, rather than suggesting that they "should drop out after two losses."
Finally, from the perspective of an offline tournament organizer, the quoted message suggests that monthly payment actually serves as an additional incentive to give up on the tournament if there are no chances left, instead of playing it to the end. But the organizer is always interested in having players approach the tournament responsibly and strive to play their games to the fullest extent. Therefore, as an organizer, I set the participation fee based on nine rounds, not two. And the suggestion that "the tournament can be stopped after 2-3 losses without paying the full cost" only shows me that introducing a mandatory withdrawal penalty wouldn't benefit me as an organizer right now.
Well, firstly, you don't represent everyone else. Secondly, I didn't say anywhere that it was correct. But the rules are structured so that people don't see the point in playing casual matches when there's no chance of qualifying. Let's take the last Offline Tournament -11; 56 people played the last two rounds out of the 108 who participated. Is this normal? Will you then tell me that I am making things up, and that what I wrote is "fundamentally incorrect"? I was talking about reality, and there was no mandatory withdrawal penalty. I don't think that a mandatory withdrawal penalty would radically change anything. If a player wants to withdraw, they will withdraw.
By the way, it's high time to introduce a register of these players who repeatedly lose; if they do so systematically, it would be easier to simply exclude them!
And you’ll tell me that I am making things up and that what I wrote is “fundamentally incorrect”? I was writing about the reality, and there was no OH there.
Your approach to these realities is fundamentally wrong. You write about it as if it were a normal situation, while you should at least condemn it. And the participation fee should be calculated based on the entire tournament, not just two rounds. Dark
By the way, it's high time to introduce a register of these players who withdraw after 2-3 losses; if they do this systematically, it will be easier not to include them!
I have also been thinking about this, and I even have an idea where to start. Withdrawal in OFB-9, withdrawal in OFB-10 (see the table at the very bottom), withdrawal in OFB-11 (there are two reports out of nine).
I was also thinking about that; I even have an idea of where to start. Removal in OFB-9, removal in OFB-10 (see the table at the very bottom), removal in OFB-11 (there are two reports out of nine).
I meant not just one tournament, but all tournaments in which a person participates.
Marcus Aurelius
