Posts from Ideas and suggestions.

there is nothing better than LUL; with a speed of 6, this unit becomes extremely powerful and requires reducing the number of golems to balance it with the cons.

I agree; the Mage Guilds need fixing – we should put mages there so that life isn't too easy.

Also, I would really like to see some development for HotA. For example, gameplay on a 6LM10A map is too monotonous because of the need to quickly build Mage Guilds. Perhaps it would be worth creating a similar HL+U template with a larger number of ruins, or perhaps changing how control is gained in the Mage Guild, to avoid such randomness. In short, SoD 6LM was much more diverse (although often quite unbalanced); I would like to see something similar, but already with a good HotA generator.

For true variety, we need random maps with water. When will we finally see water on random maps?

Well, there's no progress in that direction right now. But for the indefinite future (in 2020 or later), it's one of the possible and promising tasks. Actually, even at the current stage of development, templates with water that vaguely resemble something playable could be created for the GСК. But for now, it's still too far-fetched.

Add the ability to center any object, for example, by pressing the left mouse button + something. This would allow for faster and more accurate determination, for example, of damage dealt within a radius of a specific object.

When merging or reducing the number of units in a structure, why not display the exact number of remaining guards when hovering over the structure? In principle, this also applies to merging or splitting units on the map, but here there is the additional factor of weekly growth.

Perhaps I’ve already annoyed someone with my suggestions, but I have another proposal that gets straight to the point. I suggest reconsidering the rating system in the online lobby. The insane coefficient for games on G+U is complete nonsense. These games don’t last any longer than games on 6LM, on average. Moreover, the gameplay itself is even more simplistic and straightforward than in Jebus. It’s a simplistic game that awards 50-100 points. And some players have started to blatantly abuse this (under the pretext that they “like this format”).

Maybe I'm already annoying someone with my suggestions, but I'll get straight to the point. I suggest reconsidering the rating system in the online lobby. The insane coefficient for games on G+U is complete nonsense. The games don't last any longer than on 6LM. At the same time, the game itself is even more dull and straightforward than Jebus. A dull game for 50-100 points. And some players have started to blatantly abuse this (under the pretext that they "like this format").

Why didn't this bother you during the "red Anabelle" era?

Why didn't this bother you during the "red Annabelle" era?

Yeah, right, the "red Annabelle" era – that's, at best, Legends of Might and Magic, or even just Might and Magic. And secondly, these are games for newbies who won't climb above 500 anyway, and will just keep playing in their own little bubble. But the "Shades of Darkness" era specifically affected top players, and that's a real problem because it discredits Heroes of Might and Magic III as a strategy game, turning it into a card-based "poker" game. P.S. Merlin is the CIS champion in poker.

What exactly is being proposed? To make it so that XL+U templates are evaluated the same way as XL+U?

P.S. And could you also tell me where I can read about the current ranking system?

What exactly is being proposed? To make XL+U templates be rated the same as XL+U?

Perhaps, when calculating the rating, it would be better to make the map size less significant and rely more on the game duration (in game days).

Perhaps, when calculating the rating, it would be a good idea to make the map size less significant and rely more on the game duration (in game days).

Game duration is a bad idea, as games usually last noticeably longer for weaker players.

To start, it would be good to formulate the reason why a certain correction factor was introduced for the "value of the game."
What were they trying to take into account? What is the underlying idea?

Otherwise, everyone will suggest whatever comes to mind. And it will even be impossible to figure out what is better and what is worse.

A typical scenario ("they wanted to do something good, but it turned out badly") occurs when there was initially a more or less reasonable idea, but while implementing it, they misunderstood it / confused something / completely forgot the idea. Then they focused on a borderline situation, based on which some nonsense clearly emerged ("we are here" – this is what Lizard G+U currently indicates), then confusion begins, the original reasonable idea is not even remembered (everyone knows "how it should be"), several more shots in the dark, and a complete cancellation of the changes because everyone is already confused, and some nonsense has resulted.

Does anyone remember the initial idea – why was the coefficient introduced?

ps thanks to Hosenko for the link to the formula (additional question - how can I find it if I don't know where it is located?)

The initial idea is that games in short game modes (especially arenas) should award less rating, as it's unfair if a 20-minute game and a 6-hour game give the same amount of rating (those who play 20-minute games will gain rating much faster). In my opinion, ideally, the coefficient should depend on the map/template: on all maps/templates except for a few built into HotA, it would be minimal (or even zero), and on these built-in maps and templates, it would be set manually by the team depending on the usual game duration, the balance of the template, and the team's desire to popularize a particular template (judging by the G+U incident, the latter seems to have worked). However, only baratorch can make changes to the lobby, and he doesn't have much time, and also has his own views on things. Therefore, I wouldn't count on any complex changes, but simple adjustments seem realistic.