Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Maybe this build is non-canonical, and you can suggest another build and manual on how to properly configure everything. Maybe it wasn't possible to change the path and folder name when unpacking the archives, which is why it doesn't update the mod (doesn't see the folder)?
And here's another question: if I buy the game on Steam, will I be able to add all the expansions, mods, and settings so that I have everything for the various options used by pro players online? Has anyone done this? Share your experience: does everything work normally? HotA, for example, is an unofficial expansion...
In general, maybe there is some FAQ/article (up-to-date) with links and explanations about different expansions, mods, and plugins to clear up this confusion? I played before, but back then everything was through Hamachi and only with the HD mod over SoD; it was somehow simpler. But now they made everything very cool in the sense that you don't need to arrange anything separately regarding Hamachi because there is an online lobby. As far as I understand, HW now hosts its own server where all of this happens? Am I right that now you can just create a game in the lobby and wait for another newbie like me? Now, if only it would all work for me. :-D
Marmot
7 years ago
Auto-translated
To avoid confusion, it’s best not to install the “Winnie the Pooh and everything” mega-pack, but rather the regular “Complete Collection” and then apply the HD mod to it. The download links were on the previous page of the thread (posts 2035 and 2036).
Henum
7 years ago
Auto-translated
I recently started playing SoD and while watching streams/recordings of games, I noticed that many players have a quantitative range of creatures displayed in the crypts/treasure rooms of dwarves/griffon conservatories. That is, when they visit them, the battle doesn't start immediately, but a range of creatures present there is shown. Does anyone have a link to a plugin that allows displaying this information?
But to make the game complete, you need to add at least 2 AI players with 200% difficulty.
Brilliant. To make the game complete, you need to add 2 AI players with 200% difficulty and set the map size to M. Facepalm. Ben80
The L+U size is too large for the 2sm4d3 template; M+U is better, and this is what online players often do wrong. Also, it would be interesting to play with the participation of not 2, but 4 human players (each for themselves).
So, the game would end in the second week. Then it would be complete. Uh-huh. And who will dig up the best mage and who will cast more spells, like arrows and lightning. That's what "completeness" means.
Brilliant. To make the game complete, you need to add 2 AIs at 200% and set the size to M. Facepalm.
That is, so that the game ends in the second week. Then it will be complete. Uh-huh. And who will dig up the best mage and who will throw more archers, lightning bolts. That's what "completeness" is.
The fact that luck plays a big role has not been canceled. Well, in general, the possible scenarios can be different. If desired, the game can always end on the 2nd week for this template, just a couple of extra days of travel, compared to the M size, and voila. But online players rarely play like that. They always prefer their boring routine with endless beating of neutrals, 100500 battles with defenseless monsters. Online players avoid real difficulties. Take, for example, the 6LM10a template, there are supposedly 6 AIs. Only, for some reason, no one thinks about why each AI plays with a maximum of 2 heroes, and in essence is not a full-fledged participant in the game. And that's because there is a general limit on the number of heroes on the map, which the AI takes into account, unlike a human. This limit is approximately 20 (depending on the selected difficulty). We subtract 16 heroes hired by people, and there are only 4 left. That is, only 1 hero for each AI. Has anyone bothered to increase the limit? No, of course. Why play difficult games, "lose momentum"? That is, in essence, online players play in "self-satisfaction", with the exception of one single final battle. Well, and, accordingly, they do not have an understanding of Heroes, which they imagine, and taking into account which, all sorts of their proposals for improving the game appear. They have long been playing in their own version of Heroes, far from the original idea. Well, and all sorts of proposals - in the same direction. The most important point, according to which there is a discrepancy with the original idea of the game, is that for one real participant in the game (AI at 160% is not one, of course), there is too large a piece of the map, and, accordingly, too much of everything. Including hives, cans, drowned. Problems with a large number of skeletons in Necromancer - for the same reason.
Regarding the 2SM4d3 template. Yes, with an appropriate map size (M-U, M+U), there may be a rather early encounter. If this does not suit you, there are many other templates, including those that you can come up with yourself.
With this approach, the factor of luck, of course, still plays a greater role than in the approach of online players. But if you take some sufficiently large tournament segment, the strong one will still score more points. But in games on elimination, the factor of luck would, of course, decide a lot.
If desired, the game can always end on the 2nd week for this template, just a couple of extra days of travel compared to the M size, and voila.
For which template? 2sm4d3? Please clarify how it should be played, with two AIs or with 4 people. And how do you imagine it? Players guarded by an entity worth 6000? That fights on the second day? Have you considered that encounters will happen on the first week? Completeness?? Ben80
But online players rarely play like that. They always prefer their boring routine of endlessly killing neutrals, 100500 battles with defenseless monsters.
The game is designed that way. To encounter an opponent, you need to find something, take it, level up, gain an advantage, and then meet to realize it in a fight. Ben80
Online players avoid real difficulties.
You're so tasty and juicy. Do you really think that adding AI to the map in a skirmish will make it "harder"? )) Ben80
Take, for example, the 6LM10a template, which has 6 AIs. But for some reason, no one thinks about why each AI plays with a maximum of 2 heroes, and is not a full-fledged participant in the game. Because there is a total limit on the number of heroes on the map, which the AI takes into account, unlike a human. This limit is approximately 20 (depending on the selected difficulty). We subtract 16 heroes hired by people, and there are only 4 left. That is, only 1 hero for each AI. Has anyone bothered to increase the limit? No, of course. Why play difficult games, "lose momentum"?
>and is not a full-fledged participant in the game.
Because it's the dumbest bot, not a DeepMind or OpenAI neural network. And no matter how much you try, you won't become a musician. No matter how many heroes you give it for ransom, nothing will change globally. Because the AI doesn't know how to fight, the AI doesn't know how to build chains.
(by the way, here's an idea to throw in for new features in HotA: expand the pool of AI heroes, at least just for online play. Or ND+)
Of course, you will most likely be ignored because there will be more running around for experience, and that's it. This is obvious, even if not to everyone)
> Why play difficult games
Haha)) You really cheer me up)) Pure naivety, to be honest. Ben80
That is, in essence, online players play in "self-satisfaction", with the exception of one single final battle.
What are we even talking about? Of course, any game is fun. Or is there another analogy? Put 2 AIs on 200% = invited luxurious furies? Or at least familiar mermaids to the bathhouse? Ben80
And, accordingly, they do not understand Heroes, which they imagine, and based on which they come up with all sorts of their suggestions for improving the game.
I see you know a lot)). It's immediately obvious)) Add AI and play on 200% = completeness. And of course, online players are to blame for the fact that the developers limited the pool of heroes for the Artificial Idiot, so they are noobs. Ben80
They have long been playing in their own version of Heroes, far from the original idea.
You probably know the "idea" better than anyone else. And maybe even better than the creators themselves. I don't even doubt it) Ben80
And all sorts of suggestions - go to the same place.
what?? Ben80
The most important point, due to which there is a discrepancy with the original idea of the game, is that for one real player (AI at 160% is, of course, not), there is too large a piece of the map, and, accordingly, too much of everything. Including hives, cans, and undead. Problems with a large number of skeletons in necromancers are due to the same reason.
And yes, AI at 200% IS A REAL PARTICIPANT IN THE GAME!! )) Ben80
Regarding the 2SM4d3 template. Yes, with a proper map size (M-U, M+U), there can be a fairly early encounter. If this is not suitable, there are many other templates, including those that you can come up with yourself.
Yes, everything is fine, encounters on the second, third, fourth day - this is completeness. The main thing is that it's 200% and with two AIs. That's it! Enough)) Ben80
The factor of luck, with this approach, of course, still plays a greater role than in the approach of online players. But if you take a sufficiently large tournament segment, the strong one will still score more points. But in games for elimination, the factor of luck would certainly play a major role.
You've completely lost it. What are you talking about? Luck, approaches, online players, tournament segments. Everything is mixed together.
and, in essence, is not a full-fledged participant in the game.
Because it's the dumbest bot, not a DeepMind or OpenAI neural network. And no matter how friendly you become, you won't become a musician.
No matter how many heroes you give it for ransom, nothing will change globally.
Because the AI can't conduct battles, and the AI can't build chains.
They still won't be suitable for musicians, that's true. Having several AIs at 200% is certainly not a good thing. But the possibility of at least conditionally making the AI a full-fledged participant in the action.
By the way, I assume you haven't seen how the computer plays for a while, starting with a small respawn. It's quite adequate. Especially when each computer has several heroes – they quickly clear the respawn and go to the neighbor. But what we see in streams, say, on 6LM10a, is indeed a pathetic sight. One hero wanders around the respawn. In general, valiant online players put the already not-so-smart AI in a terrible position. Lider1
(by the way, here's an idea to throw in for new features in HotA: expand the pool of AI heroes, even just for online play. Or ND+)
No, it's simple here. One number in memory changes for this, and that's it. I have quite a few of these "mini-plugins" ready. At some point, I'll put them all together in a release. I hope so, of course. I'm not counting on HotA in terms of improving the Heroes, because I have a much more conservative approach, but unfortunately, much smaller opportunities.
It's quite suitable for HD+, though. Lider1
You definitely know the "idea" better than anyone else. And maybe even better than the creators themselves. I don't even doubt it)
Of course, that's the beauty of it.
Seriously, the game is largely untapped for one reason – weak AI. Theoretically, this situation can be changed in the future.
Added 26 minutes ago Lider1
What is this idea?
I'll try to answer this question approximately. It's roughly what Gelimer wrote about.
In it, players essentially compete as they do offline, only arranging a "Final" at the very end, after which they go their separate ways. I miss the confrontation, with city battles, sieges, positional warfare, destruction of chains, gradually pushing the opponent off the map, etc.
That is, it's roughly the kind of game that existed when we were all just starting out in Heroes. The AI was a full-fledged player back then, because we all played poorly, you can't deny that? Well, the point is not in the AI, of course, but in a sufficiently high density of full-fledged players. Not like sardines in a can, of course, but not as in online play.
As in Vysotsky's song:
And the cold past will speak Of campaigns, battles, and victories.
About campaigns and battles, not endless beating of defenseless monsters.
I'm really surprised by the players – they complain about a number of things in the game (and write suggestions for its "improvement"), not realizing that a huge number of these things are determined by the format of the game they play. You can list them endlessly – too weak skills, too strong skills, etc. They want to replace the Angels in the reserves with who knows what, or some other "wonderful" wish.
Returning, again, to the original idea of the game, I believe that the developers meant a balance between the creatures from the player's castles and the creatures from the outside. And such a balance exists with a normal game format (simply increasing the ratio of the number of castles on the map to the number of outposts and reserves – to the level of balance, it also becomes advantageous to develop castles).
Sometimes thoughtful and understanding Heroes players formulate this as "Heroes were designed for M maps." In fact, it's not for M maps, of course, but simply for a sufficiently high density of full-fledged players (on XL – 6-8). Lider1
You've gone off on a tangent. What are you talking about? Luck, approaches, online players, tournament stages.
Everything is mixed together.
They wouldn't make good musicians anyway, that's true. Several AIs on 200% - that's not out of a good life, of course. And the possibility of at least conditionally making the AI a full-fledged participant in the action.
AI has always been and remains a bystander on random maps. There are gimmicks like the "orange computer" or giving it a head start, but their influence is minimal. It's on single-player maps that it can show itself with a wild handicap. Or in speedrunning. But even there, the competition is with people, who can beat the bot faster. Not against the AI as such. As for a full-fledged participant, those are far-fetched stories. Ben80
By the way, I suppose you haven't seen how the computer plays in a while, starting from a small respawn. It's adequate enough. Especially when each computer has several heroes - they quickly clear the respawn and head to the neighbor.
I don't watch heroes in gosolo mode at all. When I still played, what mattered to me was how I played and how my opponent played. But definitely not how the bot played. (All I cared about was whether it built me a municipality, a capitol, and how many troop levels it had)
And what do you mean by "quickly"? in your understanding. Ben80
But what we see on streams, say on 6LM10a - that is indeed a sorry sight. One hero, loafing around the respawn. In short, the valiant online players put the already not-so-bright AI in a completely hopeless situation.
For valiant online players, the AI is just meat. The only thing that matters is whether it built a municipality or not))
But what is the point of the accusation? I don't quite understand. Is it the online players' fault that it's programmed that way? Should online players worry about expanding the AI's hero pool?
What is their "GUILT" then? that they suddenly became so "valiant".
Well, I'll repeat myself, do you really think that if you allow the AI to hire more heroes, it will actually play better??? (Given that it doesn't know how to conduct battles or build chains).
For online players, the gameplay between two players is important. Not playing against bots. Although a bot can create certain inconveniences, and sometimes you can even throw the game against it. Still, it doesn't make the lion's share of the difference. It is NOT a competitor. You can throw the game against any other object too, like the Naga Bank, Griffin Conservatory, Dragon Utopia, etc.
The struggle is between two people. Bots are just bystanders.Ben80
No, it's simple here. One number in memory is changed for this, and that's it. I have quite a lot of similar preparations (mini-plugins). At some point, I'll gather them all together as a release. I hope so, of course. I don't count on HotA in terms of improving Heroes, since I have a much more conservative approach, but alas, much smaller capabilities. For HD+, yes, it's quite suitable.
I can only wish you good luck. May it become easier for you. Since it troubles you so much. Most people won't even notice it (the expansion of the AI's hero pool). Or they will notice but not immediately. In any case, it's not substantial, personally I would be for it. Ben80
Seriously, the game is largely unexplored for one single reason - the weak AI. Theoretically, this situation could be changed in the future.
I'll try to answer this question approximately. This is roughly what Gelimer wrote about
In them, players essentially compete as if offline, only arranging a "Finale" at the very end, after which they go their separate ways. For me, what's missing is confrontation, with city battles, sieges, positional warfare, breaking chains, gradually pushing the opponent off the map, etc.
If you want denser contact, then you should play more contact-oriented templates. And PvP with neutrals.
What's stopping Gelimer from doing this if he wants it so badly?
//And as for others not doing it on streams, (maybe the way he wants) well, excuse me, everyone does what they like, someone plays Jebus Cross, someone plays HotA, and someone... Ben80
That is, this is roughly the type of game that took place when we all were just starting out in Heroes. The AI was a full-fledged player back then, because we all played poorly, you wouldn't deny that, would you?
I do miss those times a bit. When I played Heroes in binges. It was very interesting. Now playing with the AI has exhausted itself. For me, at least. Ben80
Well, yes, the point isn't about the AI, of course, but about a sufficiently high density of full-fledged players. Not like sardines in a barrel, of course, but not like in online either.
Understand that your urge to shift everything to an M map will lead to absurdity. Encounters will be quick, which will increase variance, and cut the player off from any development. Players will essentially be fighting with starting armies Ben80
I am genuinely surprised at players - they complain about a number of aspects in the game (and write suggestions for its "improvement"), without understanding that a huge number of such aspects are precisely determined by the game format they are playing. The list could go on endlessly - skills too weak, skills too strong, etc., etc.
To understand this, you need to go through this path yourself. Otherwise, you won't understand. Play at least 50 online games with guys no higher than 1500 rating and you'll understand in your own skin that there's a point to it. When they give you Eagle Eye to choose from with Navigation/Mysticism, and your opponent gets Earth Magic. Ben80
One moment they want to replace the angels in conservatories with god knows what, another they have some other "wonderful" wish.
Well, that's true, it's not canonical. Ben80
Returning, again, to the original idea of the game, I believe that the developers intended a balance between the creatures from the player's towns and the creatures from external dwellings. And such a balance does occur in a normal game format (the ratio of the number of towns on the map to the number of bushes and conservatories is simply increased - to a level of balance, making it also profitable to develop towns).
What balance on random maps, really? There isn't any, not even close. People play Heroes not for the balance, but to realize the luck of the draw. Everything else is just excuses. For some reason, one of the most popular templates is Jebus Cross, not a mirror. Well, I don't know for sure, of course, but that's how it seems to me. Ben80
Sometimes thinking and understanding Heroes players formulate it as "Heroes was designed for M maps".
And these "thinking and understanding Heroes players" - are they talking about online? And they themselves haven't played online? Who are we even talking about?? Ben80
Actually, not for M maps, of course, but simply for a sufficiently high density of full-fledged players (on XL - 6-8).
If you want more contact-oriented Heroes, then you should look for more contact-oriented templates. That's obvious. For example, this one /topic/at/441264/ Ben80
As long as the moderators haven't kicked me out of this thread, I'll continue writing here. Especially since it might genuinely be interesting to some newcomers.
Terminological introduction: Fat format - a game format common among "dads," with fat zones, a bunch of Dragon Utopias and other goodies, and a very low density of true players. Lean format - a more classic (in my understanding) game format, with a higher density of true players. Lider1
For valiant online players, the AI is just meat. The only thing that matters is whether it built a municipality or not)) ... Most people won't even notice (the expansion of the AI's hero pool). Or they will notice but not right away.
That's what I'm saying: AI players are almost pointless for online. Only if someone really wants a free municipality. Lider1
What balance on random maps? Really? It's not even close to being there. People play Heroes not for balance, but to get lucky. Everything else is just excuses. For some reason, one of the most popular templates is Jebus Cross, not Mirror. Well, I don't know for sure, of course, but that's how it seems to me.
I agree that it's foolish to look for the so-called "balance" in Heroes, and people don't play Heroes for balance. At least, if you understand balance as "equality." But if you understand it as "thoughtfulness," then it is needed. Regarding skills, this means that some skills can be of little use/rarely useful, but they shouldn't be absolutely and always useless. Jebus Cross is a natural (and sad) endpoint in the development of the entire Fat format (which is essentially online). Why natural? - because it's really not very interesting to play only against neutrals for 2-3 weeks, with many battles per day. The desire to shorten this period to 1 week is absolutely understandable. But Jebus Cross is so far from classic Heroes that I have no desire to play it.
Examples of the game "breaking" when transitioning from classic (Lean format) to Fat format: - Town Portal is always available, magic leaves our world - as a result, the Resistance skill is not needed - the Eagle Eye skill becomes absolutely useless - the Ballistics skill becomes of little use - Necromancy and Diplomacy become imbalanced - a number of Necromancer heroes also become imbalanced - Griffin Conservatories and Dragon Utopias rule (because each player gets many of them), level 7 units in towns aren't needed (except Titans and Phoenixes) - "inflation" of artifacts and spells - building "money generators" becomes unprofitable (generally, any construction loses profitability compared to the classic format, so it's time to rename this format to "Marauders of Might and Magic")
The pursuit of "fairness" (aka balance) in the Fat format led to the NЁH - the restructuring of guilds. So as not to offend anyone with control magic. Lider1
The AI has always been and remains a spectator on random maps. There are gimmicks like the "orange computer" or giving it a head start, but their influence is minimal. It's on single maps that it can show itself with a huge handicap. Or in a speed game. But even then, the competition is among people about who can beat the bot faster. Not against the AI as such. As for being a full-fledged participant, those are just cool stories. ... For online players, the gameplay between two players is important. Not playing against a game with bots. Although a bot can create certain inconveniences, and sometimes you can even lose to it. Still, it doesn't make the lion's share of the difference. It is NOT a competitor. You can lose to any other object too, like a Naga Bank, Griffin Conservatory, Dragon Utopia, etc.
The fight is between two people. The bots are just spectators.
I can understand that the AI player itself is of little interest to anyone. The real competition is indeed between people. It was the same in chess when computers played very strongly, but a bit weaker than humans - there was no particular interest in playing against computers. Just for variety.
I'm rather talking about this. A game with more than 2 true players (more precisely, there should be more than 2 coalitions) acquires a new quality, elements of nonlinearity that make the game very interesting. In such games, you can sometimes "rise from the ashes" after defeats, unexpectedly win by exploiting contradictions between stronger players. Specifically in Heroes, this gives, for example, the opportunity to run into a town and not fear that you'll never be let out of there - because the player pressuring you has other competitors, and even standing for a couple of days at your town is a luxury. By the way, in classic Heroes, even for 2 players, you can find such elements of nonlinearity - for example, Hill Fort, Cartographer, and partly the Grail. That is, objects that give a chance to turn the game around. And it is precisely these elements that are often banned in online play. Even many artifacts/spells have this capability, but under classic conditions, not under conditions of an overabundance of goodies characteristic of the Fat format.
Well, anyway, I'm returning to the AI. Since playing even with four players takes a long time (although it should be noted that in the Lean format, turns are made faster because there are fewer battles with neutrals), you can replace some players with AI. Or if you want to play a large map in Lean format - there would be too many players, so AI players are inevitable. As a competitor, such a player is uninteresting to anyone. One thing is required of it - to be dangerous for human players. So that there is a risk of losing not only to a human but also to the computer. Why is this needed? For the effects of nonlinear gameplay I wrote about above. That is, games with more than 2 true players. Lider1
Well, I'll repeat myself, do you really think that if you allow the AI to hire more heroes, it will actually play better??? (Given that it doesn't know how to conduct battles and build chains).
The answer is no, it won't play better. 1) It will get additional resources and money 2) Most importantly, it will be able to keep its main heroes busy, instead of collecting small change. Lider1
But what's the point of the complaint? I don't quite understand. Is it the online players' fault that it's programmed that way? Should online players worry about expanding the AI's hero pool?
Well, there are no "real" complaints, of course. Except for the departure from the classic line of Heroes (Lean format). There is a term "groupthink." This is what happens to any community. I think, for sure, some offline communities have figured out these points I've been writing about in this post, intuitively, or maybe even consciously. And so they play in the classic format, getting the maximum from the game that both the game and they deserve. Lider1
I also wish for the speedy implementation of this project, although I have doubts about its success. If the project reaches a stable version, I'll be willing to get better acquainted with it. For now, I'll continue doing reverse engineering. Lider1
If you want denser contact, then you need to play more contact-oriented templates. And PvP with neutrals.
I don't want PvP with neutrals, it's not classic. And I don't see much point in improving the AI of neutrals; I would only like improvements to AI players. It's just that, as I understand it, much of the game's balance initially stems from the stupidity of neutrals. For example, what's the point of an ammo cart or 24 shots for upgraded archers? It only makes sense against stupid neutrals. Or, for example, speed for units helps most in battles against stupid neutrals (to distract, lure, etc.). Inferno units on average have good speed, which slightly compensates for the faction's weakness. But against smart AI, good speed won't help much. The Land Mine spell is also based on predictable AI. If you know exactly which squares the AI units will move to, then Land Mines, starting from the advanced level, make sense. But against a smart AI with unpredictable unit paths, they don't make sense. Lider1
And "thinking and understanding Heroes players" - are they talking about online? And they themselves haven't played online? Who are they even talking about??
It's just that somewhere on HW I came across such a phrase, that Heroes 3 was made for M maps. And as for "haven't played online" - I agree that having personal experience is important. But you can be an expert in some sport without being an athlete. You can be a coach, a sports analyst, or just a spectator, after all.
I suggest we explore together the "nonlinear effects" of multiplayer games in Heroes. For example, 3-player games - we could find a third and play. For instance, on this template (L-U, 200% (!), 3 AI (!)).
...I just came across that phrase somewhere on HW, about how Heroes 3 maps for M size were made...
And I heard that Granny Galya told Granny Katya, who heard that Granny Tanya secretly told Granny Lyuba, that the third Heroes game was created to support all map sizes. :D It's hard to use your own brain, look, and see that since the very first release of Heroes 3, the developers included a set of standard maps ranging in size from S to XL. I don't understand what all this pointless chatter is about. What's the problem? There's nothing wrong with playing tournaments on certain templates. And who prevents people from individually agreeing on the game conditions? The leader probably thought he was throwing a curveball, but it turned out to be a laxative for Ben.
I heard that Granny Galya told Granny Katya that she heard Granny Tanya secretly tell Granny Lyuba that the third set of heroes was created to suit all map sizes. :D It's hard to use your own brain, look at what the developers have been doing since the very first Heroes 3 release – they included a set of standard maps ranging in size from S to XL. I don't understand what all this pointless chatter is about. What's the problem? It's common to play Tournaments on certain templates – where is the deviation from the true Heroes of Might and Magic? And who forbids individually agreeing on the game conditions? The leader probably thought he was throwing in a good argument, but it turned out to be a laxative for Ben.
Do you have even a drop of brains? Of course, I'm just asking, I understand that you don't. Reread what is being discussed when talking about being "tailored for M maps."
Actually, not for M maps, but simply for a sufficiently high density of full-fledged players (6-8 on XL).
If you don't like something, respond with arguments and substance, and don't act like a market woman, with screams and hysterics. At least have some respect for yourself.
Marmot
7 years ago
Auto-translated
Esteemed "newbies"! Reading your correspondence is sometimes very entertaining, but perhaps you could move this dialogue somewhere in the "Forum"?
Gentlemen "newcomers"! Reading your correspondence is quite entertaining at times, but perhaps you could move this dialogue somewhere to the "Tribune"?
Marmot, the green nickname isn't with us, it's with you. That is true, it can and should be moved to another place.
@dnaop-wr @Ben80 Why resort to personal attacks? That leads nowhere.Ben80
I'm saying that AI players for online are almost pointless. Only if someone really wants a free municipality.
Well, I thought it was all about the +2 AI (at 200% of course). Because online players are looking for "easy ways."Ben80
Fat format - a game format common among "dads," with fat zones, lots of utopias and other goodies, with a very low density of true players.
The fact that these players prefer a game format you don't like ≠ does NOT make them non-dads or low-skill. They just play what they like and you don't.Ben80
But Jebus Cross is so far from Heroes' classics that I have no desire to play it.
Neither do I. I don't play it either. Nobody's forcing anyone. But online isn't just Jebus Cross, of course.Ben80
- The Eagle Eye skill becomes completely useless
This crappy skill is almost useless in any other format too. Unless in solo play against the computer you can find some use for it, and even then only in specific conditions/maps.Ben80
I rather mean this. A game with more than 2 true players (more precisely, more than 2 coalitions) takes on a new quality, elements of nonlinearity that make the game very interesting.
So you mean FFA mode. Well, it has a right to exist too. For fun.
I've played these modes in other games, and they were "broken" when two acquaintances would team up and attack a single player together. No more balance than in Jebus Cross.Ben80
By the way, in classic Heroes even for 2 players you can find such nonlinearity elements - for example, Hill Fort, Cartographer, and partly the Grail. Objects that give a chance to turn the game around. And these elements are often banned in online. Even many artifacts/spells have that ability, but in classic conditions, not in conditions of an overabundance of goodies characteristic of the Fat format.
Here you've fallen into a pit. And a deep one. They are banned because they are IMBA. In a relatively average competitive game, what does the game become after visiting the Cartographer? The same as playing with the map editor open. A cheat! Except here you can also get information about the enemy hero's army strength and location.Ben80
I just saw somewhere on HeroesWorld a phrase that Heroes 3 was made for M maps.
A lot was written on HW, including various nonsense, especially in old threads. The relevance of which is close to zero. You need to look at the context. And who wrote it.Ben80
As for "those who haven't played online" - I agree that having personal experience is important. But you can understand a sport without being an athlete.
You can, but you need understanding. This isn't a case where you don't have to be a cow to judge the taste of milk. Otherwise you get arguments that the Cartographer is OK. bAlance.Ben80
I suggest we explore the "nonlinear effects" of multiplayer Heroes together. Say, a 3-player game - find a third person and play. For example, on this template (L-U, 200% (!), 3 AI (!)).
200%, but resources could be given at the start, like on 160%, except gold. A simple plugin for that could be written quickly.
I've stepped away from the game, my current skill level is on the floor, and I don't feel like playing. Just dropped in to see what's happening. (the HD mod is noticeably developing, a bunch of plugins, freshes, SP, etc.)
Heroes takes up too much time. That's the main downside I see in them. And it's pretty dull.
On the other hand, something new and just for fun could be tried. Remember the old days, sort of. Send me the rmg in PM, I'll take a look at a few generations to see what's there. If it's like http://pixs.ru/showimage/velikayaza_6522270_31227039.png, then it's not worth wasting time.
dnaop-wr
7 years ago
Auto-translated
Leader, but that's not your concern. I'm amazed by your patience, how much you've reviewed and provided well-reasoned responses.
Конь
7 years ago
Auto-translated
Wouldn't it be possible to implement a different AI that plays like experienced players? Have the people working on the HD-mod and HotA considered this?
