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.
I posted my bugfixes in the HD mod section - well, I posted them for any players, not dividing them into people nobody needs and some conditional "navels of the earth" whom someone is trying to force something on (or conversely, somehow appease). If everything that is posted and written in the HD mod section always particularly sharply offends the feelings of online players and this is unacceptable - just say so. It used to be a normal forum where a variety of players communicated...
It's funny to hear about "navels of the earth" when the author himself asked for opinions and feedback. As for your bugfixes - we are all for them, but please don't touch the game mechanics. Ben80
Funny, but in HotA - isn't he playing into other people's thoughts there?
This is a completely different situation. HotA/WoG/ERA/WOG - these are initially other games, they are mods, by downloading which the player already agrees by default to play a different game. This plugin, like others, is positioned as some kind of SoD balance, which nobody needs at all. Sinot
Heroes 3 is a masterpiece of a game. It's like a painting by Leonardo da Vinci.
The game is undoubtedly a masterpiece, but it's a single player game, and it's poorly designed for multiplayer, unfortunately. sir Davos Seaworth
Exactly. Only HotA compared to Heroes 3 is dirty cheap nasty porn,
When you read something like that, you always want to insert a screenshot from one game that's important to me. After such quirks, I'm even inclined to look at cheap porn. You can cover it up with lofty words about the greatness of the game, but what's the point? Yes, I've said many times that I prefer playing SoD to HotA, but the map generator differs by leaps and bounds. Armageddets
The statement is of course bold, but the very fact that players play with these plugins and even participate in show tournaments with them says the opposite (we had tournaments on them). Those who are interested, are interested; those who aren't, aren't. The reason we don't use them on HW is because almost everything is met with hostility here, it's much easier to work with those who are interested. Forcing things is bad.
Armag, no offense to you, of course, but those tournaments you run don't feature a high level of play, so the opinion of such players doesn't matter. Some people like playing in WOG, so what? :confused: Armageddets
Forcing things is bad.
And here, I agree with you. Visuals, bugfixes, interface - all of that is very cool and great. But I definitely won't play with a new balanced Eagle Eye (or any other skill). Kventin
What's the fun in getting a skill that's never used anywhere?
The point is that not all skills should be equally useful and playable. There are bad skills, and there are good ones - that's normal. I can immediately list 10 options for "balancing and boosting" bad skills. But who's interested in that? Kventin
But КЗ, КВ, kettle, 15 vampires, troglodytes for the Dungeon, 2-3 average clues near the road, Luna, early control from the guild, etc., etc. - don't they give insane tempo?
And if you add diplomacy to this insane tempo (e.g., Shakti or Galthran)? I really don't know why I'm trying to argue. Kventin
Many possible random factors, as it happens, balance the game.
I completely agree with this. Those who agree play without rules. There are quite a lot of people who like to play this way, tournaments without rules traditionally gather a good quorum. But bringing diplomacy back to the regular game is a terrible idea.
P.S.: Therefore, I advise splitting FreshMod into two parts: Bug fixes, interface, etc.; and Gameplay.
When you read something like this, you always want to insert a screenshot from one game that is important to me. .. After such absurdities, I'm already inclined to watch some cheap porn. You can hide behind high-sounding words about the greatness of the game, but what's the point? Yes, I have said many times that I enjoy playing SoD more than HoTU, but the map generator differs significantly.
.[/B]
If a player, trying to get an advantage for themselves, spends all their restarts and gets a bad generation, then it’s their problem, not the generator’s. If all starting positions are equivalent and groomed to be the same, why even bother with restarts?!! Play with what you got, or leave. But when you manage to pull off something like this (/topic/at/1146584/) - it's an incomparable feeling.
And the arguments that good roads exist in HoTU remind me of the arguments of neo-Nazis that a certain famous figure was good because excellent highways were built in Germany under his rule. Roads may be good, but when everything else is done as it is, they don't matter much.
"There's no need to execute me,sir Davos . I'll be dead before dawn." ICQ 716748479
Ben80
Auto-translated
Dirty_Player
Armag, no offense, but the Tournaments you host don't feature a high level of gameplay, so the opinions of those players don't really matter.
That's completely wrong. The strength of a player doesn't always correlate with their understanding of the game. After watching streams and reading posts from top online players, I personally came to the conclusion that their opinions are precisely what shouldn't be taken into account. Because, unfortunately, their understanding of the game is weak. And most importantly, they have huge blind spots that offline players don't have. Playing 1-on-1 on large maps without AI, or with very weak AI, without trying to improve that AI or put it in advantageous positions, is a complete misunderstanding of the original concept of the classic game. This is where all the problems of online play originate, and the distortion of the classic game as an attempt to solve these problems – additional artificial rules, restructuring of guilds, replacing bonus creatures in conservatories, etc.
Dirty_Player
Bringing diplomacy back into the regular game is a bad idea.
I once read a few pages from the Heroic Corner forum archive. It discussed regular diplomacy (paid and free), and it was subtly noted that allowing diplomacy might be an attempt to provoke the player into a losing tactic. Sometimes that's exactly what it is. And, of course, it was about maps that aren't very large (or if the map is large, the presence of AI players who could compete with human players).
igrik's plugin for protecting neighboring objects with neutrals is very good. It's an excellent temporary solution until there's a real fix for RMG regarding unprotected (shifted) objects. It also solves the problem of stealing objects using Flight.
The plugin only slightly changes the basic mechanics of the original game, and this change isn't jarring – unlike replacing bonus creatures in conservatories. By the way, if anyone didn't know, AI, unlike humans, can't steal shifted objects; it considers any objects near monsters to be protected, just like in the plugin. https://postimg.cc/hJMxwGyX
The plugin is well-made, on par with the HD mod and HotA, and it's much less jarring than HW Rulez.
That's completely wrong. The strength of a player doesn't always correlate with their understanding of the game. And after watching streams and reading posts from top online players, I personally came to the conclusion that their opinions are precisely what you shouldn't base your judgments on. Because, unfortunately, their understanding of the game is weak. And most importantly, they have huge blind spots, which offline players don't have. Playing 1v1 on large maps without AI, or with very weak AI, without any attempts to improve this AI or put it in advantageous conditions, is a complete misunderstanding of the original concept of the classic game. This is where all the problems of online play arise, and the distortion of the classic game as an attempt to solve these problems – additional artificial rules, restructuring of guilds, replacing bonus creatures in conservatories, etc.
:smile04: :smile20: You have a unique level of self-confidence, sir, judging the understanding of top players:smile54: Just out of curiosity, how do you reconcile in your head the fact that the best players in this game have a poor understanding of it and its balance? And why can't someone else, who understands the game like a god, come online and explain to everyone how flawed they are? Instead, it turns out that some noobs think they're top players :smile04:
discord: LuckyF#3482 icq: 681350680
Ben80
Auto-translated
Could you, for example, understand the fact that not all football players are good coaches?
Or the fact that not all military leaders are authors of groundbreaking works on strategy?
Or that the creators of opening systems in chess or the authors of excellent new ideas are more often players of average strength, rather than champions (and if they are champions, it turns out that they have an analyst somewhere on their team)?
Couldn't you understand, for example, the fact that not all football players are good coaches? Or the fact that not all military leaders are authors of groundbreaking works on strategy? Or that the creators of opening systems in chess or authors of excellent new ideas are more often players of average strength, rather than champions (and if they are champions, it turns out that they have an analyst somewhere on their team)?
The first example is silly. Football combines teamwork with individual skill in motor skills and ball control, and coaches are needed both to develop team strategy and to properly develop physical skills. A football player doesn't necessarily need to understand all of this. And besides, a coach is also, to some extent, a teacher, which is a completely separate skill, and naturally, not everyone possesses it.
The second example is closer to our situation. But the fact that not all the best military leaders wrote treatises on strategy doesn't mean that they don't understand strategy, does it? There also needs to be a desire to write, which lies in a somewhat different area, right?
As for chess champions... all the world chess champions who were active before the advent of computers made their mark with opening innovations and their own variations. But chess, for a person, before the advent of chess programs, was so vast that it is absolutely logical that it is simply impossible for one person, or even several dozen, to cover the analysis of all possible openings. And what does it have to do with who came up with a new idea in an opening and understanding the game???
And returning to the original question, according to what parameters did you assess the understanding of the game of top players, or rather, their weak understanding of the game? And I'm a little embarrassed to ask, but why did you decide that you yourself understand anything about it? Because so far, it looks very much like another armchair analyst, of which there are many on various streams.
And what does it have to do with who came up with a new strategy at the beginning and understanding the game?
That's definitely nonsense.
Instead, think about whether I really mean 100% what I said – about top players understanding the game. And if not 100% – what caused it. Maybe it's a case of action and reaction?
Added 1 minute ago LuckyF
And it turns out that some noobs think they're top players :smile04:
I know that you always have the same answer for everything. Noobs, noobs, noobs everywhere. It's not interesting.
Ihromant
Auto-translated
No need to argue. It’s good that there are modders in the community. It’s bad that they are following the path of HotA (accepting whatever they are given). The difference between Fresh Mod and HotA is that HotA succeeded, while Fresh Mod didn’t. HotA succeeded because they lured players in with flashy features and patiently waited until they became monopolists. That’s how it is. Some can create, others can criticize.
P.S. I’ve noted that Fresh Mod 2.0 will be in the Blitz-Debus.
Мой любимьій размер - тройка. Будь то конса, утопа или сиськи ICQ:5676388
Ben80
Auto-translated
As an armchair analyst, I assert that the solution to 90% of your online problems lies in improving the AI. Not excessively, and in smaller battles (the AI's siege tactics certainly need improvement).
But that would be a different game format – and unfortunately, you can't quite imagine that yet....
By the way, if anyone didn't know – unlike a human, AI cannot steal moved objects; it considers any object near monsters to be protected, exactly according to the plugin.
Yesterday, during a game with Gunar, the computer stole two resource piles and opened a dungeon from under guarded units that had been moved. It was on turn 121: And then it became turn 122:
As an armchair analyst, I assert that the solution to 90% of your online problems lies in improving the AI. Not excessively, and in smaller battles (the AI's siege methods should, of course, be improved).
But this will already be a different game format – and unfortunately, you can't even imagine that....
This is even worse than an armchair analyst; with this statement alone, you demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the online game. A slight increase in AI strength won't change anything at all; a large increase will only change the fact that sometimes, in difficult situations, the computer will kill the player, and that's it. People have already written about the most pressing problems in the online mode, but you apparently consider it beneath you to try to understand what they are trying to convey. After all, you seem to be convinced that you know and understand everything better than people who have played hundreds of games against strong opponents and encountered problems with the online generator based on their own experience.
discord: LuckyF#3482 icq: 681350680
Ben80
Auto-translated
Then it can be said that you are demonstrating a complete lack of logical thinking. And also blind self-confidence, of course. However, all this is not new; once upon a time, chess players spoke dismissively about computer games. I wasn't surprised that you wouldn't want to destroy your cozy little house, or rather, the turtle shell from which you see nothing.
Regarding the generator, everything is clear – but this is not a problem at the conceptual level. It is simply a technical problem that is solved in a straightforward way – by making changes to the generator's software code.
Added 13 minutes later The question is not who will kill whom, but what price and time it will take, and how the game will change as a result. And most of the "problems" that you constantly write about (imbalanced necromancy, diplomacy, and a lot of other things) cease to be problems if the game returns to the original balance of power between "human player" and "AI player," which was intended when the game was created.
The strength of a game doesn't always correlate with its understanding. And after watching streams and reading posts from top online players, I personally came to the conclusion that their opinions are not what you should rely on. Because, unfortunately, they have a poor understanding of the game. And most importantly, they have huge blind spots that offline players don't have.
Understanding is determined not so much by strength (although it is certainly important), but by experience. As an offline player with vast experience, I can say that online and offline are two completely different gaming worlds. And for representatives of one world to interfere in the other with advice is simply foolish. This becomes very clear when a top online player completes some Paragon or campaign on stream, or a top offline player loses to an average online player. This is natural and there is nothing wrong with it. But you can adapt, but you need practice to develop that understanding. Ben80
A 1-on-1 game on large maps without AI, or with very weak AI, without trying to improve this AI or put it in advantageous conditions - this is a complete misunderstanding of the original idea of the classic game.
Again, let's not mix things up. Indeed, the original idea of the classic game was player versus computer, completing campaigns, etc. But a 1-on-1 game is a battle between people; let it remain that way, and the computer plays the role of a spectator.Ben80
As a "couch analyst," I claim that the solution to 90% of your online problems lies in strengthening the AI. Not excessively, and in smaller battles (the methods of conducting sieges by the AI should, of course, be improved).
But this will already be a different format of the game - which, unfortunately, you don't realize...
Regarding "putting the computer in more favorable conditions," we have already gone through this stage. Take a look at THIS thread. A template was created with unrealistically strong armies for the computers. But this idea only lasted once; no one else wanted to play like that. There are great single-player maps available to fight against the computer.
Ben80
I read several pages from the archive of the Heroic Corner forum. It discussed ordinary diplomacy (paid or free), and it was subtly noted that allowing diplomacy might be an attempt to provoke the player into making losing tactical decisions. Sometimes that is indeed the case. And, of course, it concerned not very large maps (or if the map is large, there were AI players who could compete with human players).
Just understand how absurd your paragraph sounds. "Heroic Corner Archive"!!! The website existed, if I remember correctly, from 2002 to 2005. Back then, online gaming was on a completely different level. Fifteen years have passed, hello! Diplomacy really struck a chord with me, and I want to discuss it in more detail. Kventin
1. Diplomacy has been returned to the game; it works even with the "HW rules" flag enabled, but with one limitation: neutral factions whose "AI Value" > 25,000 cannot join, for M and S maps, "AI Value" > 8,000 (with the help of igrik, RoseKavalier, Ben80).
[igrik]
Online players, tell me: why can't you just remove only free joining, while leaving the paid mechanic untouched? What is the problem or catch? And then diplomacy doesn't need to be reworked; it can remain original and pristine.
These two posts show how incompetent mod creators are when it comes to practical issues in online play. Such suggestions come from people who haven't played a single game with diplomacy. I already answered about the first quote that the main joins are monsters up to 25,000, and this change almost does not change diplomacy at all. Diplomacy provides a good boost when there are joins of 3,000-6,000 in the first week and 6,000-9,000 in the second. It is wrong to think that the biggest benefit is GO joins (this is only late game, which rarely happens). As for diplomacy only for money, this can also help a lot at the beginning. Experienced players, when attacking small and necessary guards, always try to keep 3-4 thousand gold in reserve for paid joins. Yes, this will definitely hurt diplomacy because you won't be able to fly around and collect everything. But on templates where money isn't an issue, after many defeats, it will depend on whether someone found a secondary diplomat or not. The endgame will become a game of economics, where money will turn into troops. In general, this idea has been discussed more than once. We have several strong players who have played a huge number of games with diplomacy, such as BISHOP, HellLighT, Redwhait. Why wouldn't we ask one of them for advice? Ihromant
It's bad that they are following the path of HotA (eat what they give you). The difference between Fresh mod and HotA is that HotA succeeded, but Fresh mod did not.
And do you know why? Why did HotA succeed? Because the creators of HotA consulted with strong players about what to add and what to remove, albeit poorly. And the creators of the fresh mod follow the principle: eat what they give you, or my friends play and it's fine. That's the whole difference. Ben80
igrik's plugin about guarding neighboring objects by neutral factions is very good.
I don't disagree with this; moreover, I am sure that igrik has vast experience in creating mods and plugins, and he is definitely good at it. Therefore, I urge you to separate bug fixes from gameplay. Ben80
Or are debut systems in chess or authors of excellent new works more often created by average-strength players, rather than champions (and if there are champions, then suddenly it turns out that they have an analyst somewhere on their team)?
Can you give a couple of examples where some innovation was invented by a weak player or novice? (not just 18th-19th century) Very interesting. Also, I would like to know which options are named after novices. Maybe there are any serious books written by first-category or candidate masters. This goes back to the question of game strength and understanding. As a chess player, I am very interested.
The point is that not all skills should be equally useful and viable. There are bad skills, and there are good ones – that’s normal.
I agree with this, which is why, for example, Mysticism and Logistics haven’t been touched; a simple numerical buff won’t increase gameplay variety. And a complete overhaul is the path of WOG.
I would slightly expand the classification of skills. There are weak, strong, and unused skills – the main function of which is simply not used in gameplay. I would like to bring these back into the game. Dirty_Player
And if you add diplomacy to this frantic pace (for example, Shakti or Galtaran)?
Other overpowered factors can also overlap. Fortunately, this doesn’t happen too often. I have some concerns about Galtaran and thought about adding another condition for joining – “All stacks in the army must have +1 morale or higher.” But a simple condition looks much more elegant, plus tests have shown that it’s not that easy to implement limited diplomacy, and diplomacy for the Necropolis is still rare. Dirty_Player
Bringing diplomacy back into the regular game is a bad idea.
Can you state the reason why non-overpowered diplomacy shouldn’t be in a regular online game? Dirty_Player
P.S.: Therefore, I advise dividing Fresh Mode into two parts: bug fixes, interface, etc.; and gameplay.
That’s exactly what is planned for the next version.
Again, there's no need to confuse two different things. Indeed, the original idea behind the classic games was player versus AI, playing through campaigns, etc. But a 1v1 game is a battle between people; let it remain that way, and the computer should play the role of an extra character.
I believe that’s not entirely correct. The original concept also included humans playing against each other with AI participation, which makes the game completely different.
And I am talking about battles between people. It's just that in this case, computers should be considered as a feature of the map. Dirty_Player
Come on, you have to admit how absurd your paragraph sounds. "The Heroic Corner Archive"!!! If I remember correctly, this site existed from around 2002-2005. Back then, online gaming was at a fundamentally different level. Fifteen years have passed, hello! Diplomacy really struck a chord with me, and I want to discuss it in more detail.
Well, that's what I'm saying: if people are unwilling to understand each other and assume they don't know anything, then those kinds of conversations and answers will result. It seems like everywhere I try to clarify that I'm talking about conditions where there is a balance of power between human and AI players. And back then, that was often the case. Players have become stronger since then – it makes sense to improve the AI players too.
We started testing AI features with Lider1 a few months ago, and he had great enthusiasm, unlike LuckyF, for example. Unfortunately, he disappeared almost immediately, and clearly not because the AI development wasn’t going well. He was last active on the forum at the end of March - has something happened to him?
Added 2 minutes ago Dirty_Player
Can you give a couple of examples of when a weak player or a Novichok came up with some new idea? (not just from the 18th or 19th century). It would be very interesting. Also, I would like to know which options are named after beginners. Maybe there are some serious books written by first-category or candidate masters. This relates to the question of game strength and understanding. As a chess player, I am very interested in this.
But I'm really not interested in what beginners came up with, because I clearly wrote about players of average skill.
As for "putting the AI in more favorable conditions," we've already gone through that stage too. Take a look at THIS thread. A template was created with unrealistically strong armies for the computers. But this idea only lasted once; no one wanted to play like that again. There are great single-player maps for fighting against computers.
Well, it is much better to improve the AI itself, and putting them in advantageous positions is just a temporary solution. Another example showing that you think using old stereotypes. The possibilities for modding have greatly increased recently – 1) thanks to Baratortch and his patcher, 2) thanks to the presence of a community of modders who are willing to share their experience. Take HW Rulez, which is full of flaws. They were invented when it wasn’t possible to programmatically correct certain things as easily as it can be done today. But now - it is possible, and HW Rulez is an outdated thing. And you keep clinging to the past. Hey! The world has changed.
Dirty_Player
