Posts from Wind of Change

for making it so you can't jump into unexplored areas with DD kappa

Quite often there is a situation where one opponent spots another from their line of sight and, upon receiving Dimension Door, covers them. Similarly, treasure hunters sometimes get spotted beautifully from the line of sight. It will work both ways again. Some situations will be covered, while others will once again play into the hands of whichever side was luckier (with the line of sight).

------------

I recall another idea that was mentioned on this forum about 5 years ago.
Another simple and logical way to balance is to increase the cost of spells so that it is closer to the actual power of the same.
Currently, it is clearly undervalued.
Set the cost of Dimension Door around 50-60. Town Portal and Fly around 30-40.

I don't quite understand the logic of people who simultaneously insist that parties must not be prolonged under any circumstances, yet suggest increasing the mana cost of control, limiting the number of Town Portals, the range of Dimension Door, and so on. It seems as if one contradicts the other. The prolongation of parties due to such restrictions could be measured in weeks, whereas if the start time for using day control is limited by 3-4 days, parties would only lengthen by 2-3 days.

Another option, since Baratorch is with us and technical difficulties don't scare us—significantly increase the drop rate of control spells in all guilds. This won't eliminate, but will substantially reduce the probability of a large gap between opponents in the number of rebuilds. The advantage of this option is that many people might not even notice the changes :D And the average duration of parties would decrease.

Whew. Glad it's not about me, but about Dirty and Baratortche. :rolleyes: Because I didn't insist that increasing the game duration is absolutely out of the question. And I wouldn't mind slightly increasing the game length at the cost of reducing overpowered elements. But only very slightly. By 1-2 in-game days, for example. And by the way, let me clarify the idea that my proposal to fix the restructuring point where a player gains control – its meaning is actually closer to averaging rather than increasing the time to gain control. So that one player gets it on the 1st attempt, and another on the 6th – make it 4 for both. Yes, 4 is more than the average (1+6)/2=3.5, but it's the lesser of two evils. You could even make it 3. And if someone thought that this idea directly leads to an increase in the game duration, then I suggest you think again. You can also make it 1. Then it would be a direct acceleration. There is a general idea separately, and a specific solution regarding the number of restructurings applicable to a particular template.

Whew. Glad it's not about me, but about Dirty and Baratortche. :rolleyes:

Okay, if you want to talk specifically about you, then go ahead: D
I don't understand the logic of people who, seeing numerous categorical objections against increasing the duration of matches in the thread, don't challenge them, but instead suggest increasing the cost of control by a significant amount. I don't think this will be resolved in just 1-2 days.

Regarding fixing the number of rebuilds, the problem isn't about lengthening or shortening the duration, but about eliminating one of the random factors, which inevitably increases the importance of the remaining ones.

If you're talking about me, I don't see any need to change anything. :rolleyes:

I don't quite understand the logic...

...seeing numerous categorical objections in the thread...

hint - categorical objections are not proof of anything at all, even if 10 different people write 10 identical categorical objections in a row
they are not even indicative in a vote, there are enough examples in the forum's history
(for example, some of those who categorically objected to the ban on digging for the Grail, after a considerable time, even more categorically complained that it was being dug up and unearthed)
and in this thread, it's not even a vote, but a discussion, an exchange of ideas,
so there is logic in expressing different ideas, we don't know yet what is right, and we are considering what paths we have.

Why should the weakening be indirect rather than direct?

And you yourself adhered to the idea that the game should be saturated with additional measures rather than being cut down.

What are reserve regiments?

That was even in school history pictures, just an analogy (for when main forces are depleted)

Introducing additional features into the map is difficult and not particularly welcomed by many, for example you.

No problem, only who will do it. And I've never been an opponent, but a critic - yes.

Well, while sm-s were playing, there was no imba. On hl+u the imba is obvious without rebuilding.

Everything played perfectly in vt. But that has its own gameplay.
And here the imba is not obvious. It's just a type of gameplay

Many say there is, I also believe there is. You yourself don't deny it, you just consider the existence of an imba to be normal.

For the tenth time, I will list more imba things - KS, cloak of renunciation, logistics, Crag-Tazar (on some templates), roads to nowhere, bugged passages, cons, hives, Dragon Utopia, 7th level neutrals, and on top of that relics or pandoras with magic over 20 from denders.
In your opinion and the opinion of others, everyone should be given the full set at the start and just play. Such a mechanism exists in linear games - Dotas and Warcrafts, but you don't play those. It's fully present there.
Any random game must have an imbalance - that is the driving force of a fun, exciting game. But you are trying to turn Heroes into a convenient pocket toy where it has long been necessary to click the mouse very quickly (this really puts me off - you win seconds here, and then lose hours in restarts, correspondence, arguments) and try to make a name for yourself in it

Your argument, as I understand it, is that a weak player should have a chance to miraculously beat a strong one. I disagree with this argument; I believe that a weak player should either become stronger and fight the strong, or play with equals for fun.

You have to play with what was dealt. And take fewer restarts, especially powerful ones (as encountered). Maretti didn't complain for some reason, Homungulus didn't either. At the same time, they show a very high level of play. That means they have enough arguments for victories, don't they? Unlike those constantly begging here.
Yeah, give everyone three cons, a couple of hives per respawn (must be mirrored), and Dimension Door with fly and Town Portal with 5 uses per game. And then suffer. But then it will be - white starts and wins.

For the tenth time, I'll list more imba items - own-castle, cloak of renunciation, logistics, Crag-Tazar (on some templates), roads to nowhere, bugged passages, cons, hives, Dragon Utopia, 7th level externals, and even relics or pandoras with magic from the 20+ denders.

There are not even close any more imba items on HL+U than a one-week lead in control.
I won't comment on the rest; it's just repetitions of what was previously discussed.

Added after 23 minutes

hint - categorical objections - are not proof of anything at all, even if 10 different people write 10 identical categorical objections in a row

Thanks, I'll take the liberty of giving a hint in return. If you ignore a trend that has clearly emerged in the discussion (repeated, categorical, undisputed statements), then there is reasonable doubt about the constructiveness of your goal in participating in such a discussion.

There are no items in Heroes of Might and Magic that are as overpowered as having control for a week.

Let's look at the statistics for games where control was obtained – from a scroll (with a built-up level), from a guild (including companies), from Pandora, from the Grail (including companies), from a Relic, or from Utopia (possibly also from a Scholar, although this is rare)?
Next, let's look at the statistics explaining why one player had control and another didn't – why didn't they look for it in the "right" places (this is after analyzing the map).
Why doesn't this factor prevent Maretti and Gomungulus from winning? (by the way, you deliberately omitted this point).
And how critical was the defeat specifically because the player who was behind in the search for control failed to catch up? Is this one defeat out of ten games, or five out of ten?
Avoiding the issue won't help. We need raw, dry statistics, not emotional outbursts or unconfirmed facts.
And then we can discuss in detail who is to blame.

Why doesn't this factor prevent Maretti and Homungulus from winning?

Because time and time again, in a huge percentage of games, they (and Vitaly in his case) gained and continue to gain control from the very first Dragon Utopia. It is hard to fight against this even with rebuilding, let alone in the times when it didn't exist. Vitaly is generally the only person out of everyone I have played with during my entire time on this portal who twice managed to pull wings+KZ from the first Dragon Utopia against me. There are people who are simply lucky in life or in some part of it.
PS A small off-topic.
By the way, I am not diminishing Homungulus's achievements and skill — regardless of the percentage of luck and skill, I am also subjective in my assessments; on 6lm he is certainly a very tough opponent. On Jebus Cross as well, but that is more of an outside opinion, as I myself hardly play Jebus Cross.
But I would still be very interested in playing a mirror match with Vitaly again, even though he claims it doesn't "equalize" anything. I also understand that besides the balance itself, experience on a specific template plays a role. Based on this, if Vitaly suddenly decides to play a mirror match for a stake, I am ready to give a 20% refund, i.e., for example, 1000 rubles from me if I lose, 800 rubles from Vitaly (the stake size is negotiable).

Let's look at the statistics for the games, where the control was taken – from a scroll (when the building is at a certain level), from a guild (including companies), from Pandora, from the Grail (including companies), from a relic, or from Utopia (possibly also from a scholar, although this is rare)?

I don't like being told "let's," but I'll try to answer. I don't keep statistics; I judge by the final result. If all of the above were sufficient for a balanced (from the perspective of playing Heroes) acquisition of control, then neither in SoD nor in HotA would the restructuring option have appeared. But it does exist. Moreover, almost no one uses the option to disable restructuring in SoD, even those who strongly opposed its introduction.

Why doesn't this factor prevent Moretti and Gomunguls from winning? (by the way, you deliberately omitted this thesis?).

I didn't just omit this thesis of yours; I also omitted many others, and I explained why – all of this has already been discussed many times.
Specifically regarding this thesis, if you insist. Even if we were playing the original SoD without any rules, someone would win more often. Perhaps it would be Gomunguls and Moretti. It is very likely that they would be satisfied with such a game, such is their nature. But in reality, we are playing a SoD that is far from the original, we are playing with rules, and sometimes we change them, and there are reasons for this. And if we change something again, then we can safely assume that Gomunguls and Moretti will again be satisfied, since they are willing to play with what exists.
This does not mean that those who see the possibility and desire to make improvements to the game (as has been done many times) are wrong, and Gomunguls and Moretti will most likely enjoy using these improvements.

To put it more briefly, perhaps this will be clearer. In any game, with any rules, at some point, someone wins more often. And opponents of making changes can use your thesis: "Players A and B are winning, nothing bothers them, so there is no need to change anything." But in reality, all games change from time to time, which means that this thesis is untenable.

I'm willing to give a 20% cut.

Russia is a generous soul:D

first of all, to use it you need 28 of all resources, secondly, it's cool when the dispersion of getting a full set is 28 of all resources in the best case and 154 of all resources in the worst case in a Conflux or Dungeon game?

In my opinion, the most accurate definition of the problem is an extreme dispersion; maybe we should try to reduce this particular parameter by limiting the range from above and below, i.e., exclude control spells from the spells that appear when building the corresponding guild level (or the 1st rebuild, specific values are not important at this stage) and set a maximum number of rebuilds before getting control, for example, rebuilt 4 times without result - on the 5th time you are guaranteed to get control. What do you think?

What if, after all the subsequent rebuilds, following the first (or second) one on a specific level, you don't take the precious resources?

Sometimes, the game feels completely rigged against you, and after such matches, you really lose the desire to play (I remember a game where I rebuilt the Town Hall 6 times to get Teleportation).
Now, to the point:

1. The idea of making Teleportation, Double Speed, and also slowing down units with multi-elemental spells, similar to Magic Arrow, seems to me the most acceptable. This will save us from leveling up the same heroes. I'm sure we'll see more heroes being chosen in pubs. Overall, this will make the game more dynamic, and in the endgame, we will more often see a different set of magic schools among the heroes, which will make these battles more interesting (Now it's almost a given that the Orc has Earth expertise). The value of the Earth and Air elements will not decrease because of this.

2. By the way, they removed the Red Ball and the Cloak of Negation, but why didn't they fix the Amulet of Valor, or does no one consider it overpowered?

3. Regarding obtaining control. It could be done as follows: after each rebuild of the Town Hall, level 4 or 5, the chance of getting Teleportation or Double Speed increases in such a way that on the 3rd rebuild, it will drop 100%. Or, the player could have the option to order the desired spell once per game at any level, but for twice the cost. (or cheaper or more expensive, it's debatable).
As an option, you could give each player scrolls of control at the start, but this would only be great for special templates, like the mirror match, where either the starting heroes are still the same (so that they gain magic schools at the same level) or control is in all schools. In other templates besides the mirror match, this would create even more imbalance (the number of cities available in a shorter time, a treasure nearby, and it's revealed through scouting, objects near cities, etc., are all different for everyone. But, if we follow this logic, then why should we equalize the chances of control for players at all if they initially have everything different?).

4. Should we introduce some kind of penalties for Double Speed and Teleportation? Something tells me that this is not the right way. Maybe it would be better to make it so that each use of Double Speed or Teleportation reveals that area of the map to the enemy? How many cells, we need to think about, as an option: 5x5. Repeated use in the same area will add +1 to the scouting range. Perhaps, make it so that with each Teleportation or Double Speed, part of the units die, like with the Whirlpool in the sea (Maybe it's worth returning water artifacts and changing their purpose?).