Posts from Wind of Change

As Vitaly aka Gomunguls already wrote, this will lead to a terrible economic imbalance, with the player who simply gets more resources dumped on them winning every time, which is even worse than the current state of affairs, since collecting resources requires no skill whatsoever.

Resources cannot be completely absent; the phrase "no resources were dumped" simply means you'll have to run around to collect them, spending an extra day or two. For XL+U this isn't exactly fatal.

The player who gets a bunch of Dragon Fly Hives dumped on them will still have a greater advantage.

I disagree that resource management requires no skill, but it is true that fixating control in guild will lead to imbalances and frankly, it removes some of the thrill in the game, especially if guild becomes the only way to get control.
About making TP and DD accessible for all schools of magic like magic arrow, I don't think it is a good idea. Right now, I think the balance between might and mage heroes is quite good, might heroes are necessary for main hero purposes, and good mages are also needed for control wars, and in many cases mages make good main heroes. Making TP and DD to every magic school would make might heroes stronger again, since it does not matter which schools of magic you have.
The problem of 2 players getting control 7-10 days apart exists of course, the way we approach this is the question. I could imagine trying out increasing movement cost of TP and DD, this would increase usefulness of fly, because right now it is really inferior compared to the other 2. Also it would not create so many imbalances where one player just takes all enemy towns in a couple turns and it is game over. This would make games longer of course, but it is a trade-off to be considered.
I would prefer that we keep the game close to it's roots by not changing it too much. So I would not take a radical approach like completely removing control outside guild, or fixating control spells in 1-2-3-4-5th build, it takes away from the diversity of the game.

Come on, everyone, wake up!
As soon as someone gets upset by random events, the complaints start flooding the forum: "Let's change the balance!"

When will you finally understand that your so-called balance changes can very easily ruin the gameplay in Heroes, and permanently turn away most players?! And it will be almost impossible to revive it!

Heroes 3 is starting to remind me more and more of poker.

^ The idea of increasing movement points on Town Portal and Dimension Door is actually good.
Besides, Dimension Door has a not bug but a feature in its mechanics, allowing it to be cast with the last movement points.

Regarding the weakening of the Town Portal – *at least in online play*, it might be advisable to implement it in the same way as with the Dimension Door: no more than 1/2/3/4 jumps per day, regardless of mana and movement points, but depending on the level of the Earth Magic skill.

Heroes 3 is increasingly reminding me of poker.

As I mentioned before: Heroes = Chess + Poker. But the rules of specific mods and tournaments "bend the curve on the Skill/Luck scale" in different directions. Of course, I would like a reasonable balance between the two, and also that "no one leaves feeling cheated." Dreams... :)

Everyone suddenly felt the urge to change something—either the OH or the 6th guild. However, it must be noted that the implemented guild restructuring is already a serious intervention in gameplay on its own; it has reduced the likelihood of "burning" various spots for the veterans and also decreased the chances for newbies to take down those same veterans—which goes against the principles of the game: play with what you're dealt. Meanwhile, no one is bothered by the red orb with armor or logistics, which are a much greater evil. And as a side note, this restructuring somehow disadvantaged citadels-swamps with castles.
The issue with roads and connections needs to be resolved. For instance, 6LM10 grants one road of 500 mp leading to the monolith, while the second path is off-road toward the swamp adjacency. Or recently—several different types of teleports into a neighboring zone... while elsewhere they were exactly what was missing.
For variety's sake, two DD could be allowed for those with Eagle Eye—it would fit the theme.
There was an unimplemented feature called the time market, where you could pay money to forget a skill. Now that is a truly useful thing.
And why don't the scholars—Rashka, Octavia, Sinka—have a book, and why does Torosar lack artillery?
Why are Uland and Dimmer so advanced in their skills?
Why does anti-morale trigger much more often than morale?
Why was the neutral layout changed (already in the mod)?

I might be missing something, but it seems obvious that the problem isn't with the control spells themselves, but rather with the overpowered nature of obtaining them so early against an opponent who gets control at the usual time. Therefore, it makes sense to solve the problem not by changing the spells, but by adjusting the timing of their use.
However, I don't like the idea of a fixed number of rebuilds required to gain control. In my opinion, this is only acceptable in a mirror match, where the maximum possible randomness has been removed, and the player who doesn't get a favorable starting position loses (I'm exaggerating for clarity). Fixed control could work here, and it wouldn't make things worse. In HotA+, random factors should not be removed (increasing the importance of the remaining ones), but rather added to, so that they are distributed more evenly. If a clear imbalance is found among the many random factors, it is more useful to weaken that imbalance than to remove it.
Therefore, I suggest once again discussing the possibility of limiting the use of spells by timing. In my opinion, this quite effectively solves the problem of weakening the imbalance and is easy to implement. It would also look more or less organic in the rules (a similar practice has existed for many years regarding the Grail).

Obviously, everything written above applies only to HotA; I'm not ready to participate in a discussion about HotA+.

So just add factors that weaken the imbalance — but not directly (by setting deadlines), but indirectly — through some additional features (introducing reserve troops), that's exactly what you're talking about.
You see, without reconstruction, there was an imbalance.
They introduced reconstruction, but it still exists.
Further on, the score will increase for some other far-fetched reason.
This is a game. The variance (spread) of the imbalance will eventually distribute evenly. It's just that one person got a bit more (at some stage) — and he's already shouting "help, save us." A scroll of Flight-Dimension Door, Dragon Fly Hives, Griffin Conservatories, Dragon Utopias, etc. within quick reach — all are perks from the same set. Why deprive players of using them? Then you need to play "Balance" or M200

Well, then add factors that weaken the overpowered element – but not directly (by setting time limits), but indirectly – with some additional features (introducing reserve units). That's what you're talking about.

Why is it necessary to weaken it indirectly rather than directly? What are reserve units? Introducing additional features into the game is difficult and not particularly welcomed by many, including you.

You see, without the restructuring, there was an overpowered element.

Well, while the CMs were testing, there wasn't an overpowered element. In HL+U, the overpowered element is obvious without restructuring.

They introduced the restructuring, but it's still there.

Many people say it's still there, and I also believe it is. You don't deny it either; you just think that the existence of an overpowered element is normal. Your argument, as I understand it, is that a weak player should have a chance to miraculously beat a strong player. I disagree with this argument; I believe that a weak player should either become stronger and compete with strong players or play with equals for fun.

There are undoubtedly balance issues, but I have serious doubts that tying control to a specific timeframe will solve them. What parameter should be used to determine this timeframe, from which point control can be exerted? To give players a chance to catch up if they're unlucky with the game master's decisions, it should ideally be no earlier than the middle of the third week, as I understand it. But what about games where both players successfully gain control at the end of the second week? Should we artificially prolong this? What about situations where one player has accumulated a lot of resources, while the other's only chance to compete is to gain control slightly earlier? I completely agree that there is an excessive amount of frustrating randomness in Heroes, to the point where sometimes you just want to give up and only play mirror matches, where the disparity is at least limited to the quality of the heroes and very rarely extends to some overpowered direction. I would probably do that if mirror matches didn't scare off weaker players so much (and sometimes also because of the complexity of the gameplay, which doesn't allow for relaxation) – the disparity is just too obvious there.
In general, I'm saying that in your proposals, you should at least try to imagine what consequences a particular balance change might have from different perspectives. What looks good on paper at first glance is not always good in practice.

What should be done with games where both players successfully gain control at the end of turn 2 or 131? Should we artificially prolong the game?

There is a downside, of course. But early control isn't always that common for both players, and a delay of 2-4 days, in my opinion, won't be too high a price to pay for reducing the number of unbalanced games. During these 2-4 days, in these rare games, you can play without control and prepare for its use.

What should be done in situations where one player has a lot of objects in their "mooshna" (presumably meaning a large number of resources or advantages), while the other player's only chance to fight back is to gain control slightly earlier?

There will be some chance to gain control earlier; the size of the chance is regulated by the duration of the ban (ideally, it should be implemented based on the principle of the "Out of Harm's Way" spell, so that it can be agreed upon with the opponent). There is likely no chance of gaining control a week earlier and winning easily.

In general, I'm saying that in your proposals, you should at least try to imagine what consequences a particular proposal to change the balance will have from different perspectives.

Well, in general, I always try to do that. That's why, for example, I didn't propose a fixed number of rebuilds, although that's the first thing that comes to mind.

I don't consider myself an experienced or skilled player enough to offer any suggestions. I think we should discuss it calmly. After the discussion, we can make changes, leave it as it is, or even revert to the previous version. I think the restructuring of the game mechanics has made significant changes to the game. In my opinion, it has increased the chances of weaker players beating stronger ones, but on the other hand, the restructuring of the game mechanics has also significantly reduced the duration of the game. Perhaps we need to consider both the balance of the game and the game time (time consumption as a negative factor in Heroes). Yes, the mirror map has appeared, but it hasn't made things more balanced. As Wiss wrote, it's either Necropolis for one player or leveling up a hero (Earth, to put it simply), but it has reduced the element of surprise in the map. There don't seem to be any easy answers.

I think the changes to the game mechanics have significantly altered the gameplay, and in my opinion, they have increased the chances of weaker players defeating stronger ones.

Um, what? :eek:

Yes, the mirror map has appeared, but it hasn't made things more balanced. As Wiss wrote, having a Necropolis player or leveling up a hero (Earth, to be more specific) is still advantageous, but it has reduced the element of surprise in the map. There don't seem to be any simple answers.

Specifically, the mirror map works well in HotA; the balance in this template is good.

Once again, the problem with Time Stop and Dimension Door is that there's nothing to counter them.
It would be great if there was something (not necessarily a spell or something similar in effect) that wasn't Time Stop or Dimension Door but would allow you to compete on equal footing with an opponent who has Time Stop/Dimension Door.
And ideally, it shouldn't be the only such counter. More precisely, the more such counters there are, the more balanced the game will be, and the more these counters differ from each other, the more interesting the game will be.
But the creators of Heroes should keep this in mind first and foremost.

Delaying the acquisition of control is a very bad idea from all sides and without exception. The game time cannot be extended by anything!

The problem with control spells is also that they are amplified by other forms of control imbalance – the Logistics spell and the Boots of Swiftness. Ideally, Time Stop and Dimension Door shouldn't depend on the number of moves at all, in my opinion.

In my opinion, a very good balancing practice is the use of balancing negative effects. This technique is very rarely used in Heroes, and that's a shame.
For example, here are some options:
Radical: the attack and defense of the caster of Dimension Door drop to 1 until the end of the day (mages benefit!).
Less radical: the defense of the caster of Dimension Door drops to 1 until the end of the day.
Also: Slow increases the attack/damage/defense of the target. Well, this isn't as good an example as with Dimension Door, but I think the point is clear.
I think there are many potentially good balancing ideas that could be implemented here.
Suggest your own options, including options for Time Stop, Haste, etc.