Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession 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.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Hands off 6lm! Ruining the most interesting and diverse template?! Never!
Generally correct. But something should be changed. Sadness in point 2) described an error in the template: an extra connection 13–13 (village near the orange). There are often 4 pairs of one-way entrances and exits. This connection is not needed at all.
With the new balanced paths, both colors should also change another error in the template: the strength of the guards in the passages 15–24 and 16–25 should be changed from 3000 to 6000 (in the corner treys with a village). The symmetrical ones in the template are 6000. With the bad roads of blue, this somehow made it easier for him, but with the fresh mod, this is unnecessary (there will be bidding for blue then).
Isn't it possible to achieve this without a mod? The algorithm for connecting zones hasn't changed. It's possible that the increase in the number of two-way monoliths could have indirectly influenced this. It would be best to provide a save file with an example so that the problematic situation is clear.
Multiple connections between zones mean several paths leading to the same zone.
If these are two adjacent zones on the same surface, it will result in several paths leading to the same zone. For example, one path along a road, another along an unpaved path:
Another common example: if one of the zones is underground, it means that several underground gates will be generated:
And here's a new one, which only appeared thanks to Fresh Mod (I haven't encountered such connections before) - several monoliths leading to the same zone:
The save file and the map from this example can be found .
Kventin
Regarding the size of the zones - there is currently no understanding of what exactly needs to be changed and whether it's even worth doing. Specific cases are needed.
It definitely needs to be addressed. Each RMG template has a specific size defined for each zone. For example, for the standard 8xm8a template, the size of each zone should be 20 "parrots." I don't know what this unit of measurement is.
We generate any map using this template and get a practically standard result:
This can happen to anyone. You can notice that the blue and brown zones, which are in equal conditions (all have a size of 20 "parrots"), have noticeably larger respawn points.
It has long been observed that such inadequately small respawn points are found in the center, while on the edge of the map, there are often inadequately large respawn points. That is, one person might get something like this, while another might spend a week and a half collecting and clearing. And this is all with equal content and size.
This problem occurs in almost every XL+U template, and in many others, with the exception of JC and similar templates. This is an RMG problem. I can assume that RMG starts generating zones at the edges, then fills in the remaining space. Thus, the closer to the center, the less space remains, and the number of zones for the template is fixed. This creates the need to cram a lot of zones into a small space, and this is how small respawn points are created.
I assume that somewhere in the code, there might be an interval for the number of cells within which a specific zone should be generated. For example, 200-250 cells. Then, RMG analyzes the template, looks for zone sizes in rmg.txt. If they are the same, it starts generating zones of 200-250 cells, and so on, until it fills the entire surface. Naturally, taking into account that with each iteration, there is less and less space. If the zone sizes are different, a rule of proportion is probably used, but in my opinion, it should work even worse. Then, the zones that should be large could easily turn out to be small central zones. Maybe someone else knows any facts about this...
Multiple passages are a result of the original algorithm. Those same gates to the underworld are always generated in sets of three. I don't see anything wrong with that; it's always good to have an alternative.
Regarding multiple monoliths in one zone, in the example, this is zone 21. I generated the same map without changing the monoliths, and zone red also has three monoliths leading to it. This means it's the original algorithm. This happens because the template specifies a double connection between 1 and 21.
Regarding the size of the zones, it's much more complex.
Multiple passages are a feature of the original algorithm. The same gates to the underworld are always generated in sets of three. I don't see anything wrong with that; it's always good to have an alternative.
Regarding multiple monoliths in one zone, in the example, this is zone 21. I generated the same map without changing the monoliths, and zone red also has three monoliths leading to it. This means it's the original algorithm. This happens because the template specifies a double connection between 1 and 21.
I never argued that it's the original algorithm. The question is that there have never been so many two-way connections on a 6LM map, and now the logic is changing slightly. Underground gates are more or less close to each other, not always, but in most cases. But the monoliths are usually scattered chaotically. Kventin
Regarding the size of zones, it's much more complex.
I don't even doubt it. But I'm just describing the problem; this applies to RMG in general, and I don't even know how to fix it. I just know that it's possible. :-)
We played against Dorsaj today and observed a strange bug. It was impossible to click on a cell to set a route. Everything else could be clicked. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/539137254 I'm not sure if Fresh Mod (version 5.3) is to blame, but it might be. The building was released, and then glitches occurred. Sir Davos (the judge) couldn't load the game because it crashed. It also crashed for me later when I tried to review the opponent's turn. I'm attaching the save file, and the passwords are in a private message.
It looks very much like a problem with incorrectly detecting the Shift key being held down.
A workaround in the game is to Shift + click on any other hero, or simply open the town screen.
To fix this, we need a sequence of actions; the video only shows the problematic situation itself, but not the actions that led to it.
By the way, the save file loaded without any problems; there are no crashes when passing the turn or viewing the opponent's turn.
It looks very much like a problem with incorrectly detecting the Shift key being held down. A workaround in the game is to Shift + click on any other hero, or simply open the town screen.
To fix this, we need a sequence of actions; the video only shows the problematic situation itself, but not the actions that led to it.
By the way, the save file loaded without any problems; there are no crashes when passing the turn or viewing the opponent's turn.
What is the deal with Shift + click on a hero, by the way? When I was trying to figure out what it might be related to, I read the changelog and noticed it. I tried clicking, but nothing happened (and I don't understand what the functionality is). Just in case, I was separating the demons with the mouse, not with Shift, and then it stopped happening (I noticed that it stops clicking when I separate the demons to send them to the dungeon). Perhaps it's worth checking the Shift + Click functionality after all?
Мой любимьій размер - тройка. Будь то конса, утопа или сиськи ICQ:5676388
What's the deal with shift+click on a hero, by the way? I was wondering what it might be related to, and I read the changelog, which caught my attention. I tried clicking, but nothing happened (and I don't understand what this functionality is).
You can see any inactive hero on the map, hold down Shift, hover over them with the mouse, left-click, and they become active. This is very convenient – you don't have to search for the hero in the list. Ihromant
(noticed that it stops working when separating demons for demonizing in the Hive).
I was able to reproduce it; I was testing by simply splitting the army using Shift, but you need to select a unit, then press Shift once to bring up the split window. I will fix it.
You can see any inactive hero on the map. Hold down Shift, hover over them with the mouse, left-click, and they become active. This is very convenient – you don't need to search for the hero in the list.
Thank you, yes, it's convenient. I'll use the timer less.
Kventin
I was able to reproduce it. I was testing by simply splitting the army using Shift, but you need to select a unit, then press Shift once to bring up the split window. I'll fix it.
I'm glad I found the bug. I was already starting to think something was wrong with my client.
Also: I think that completely removing all guards on 2sm4d(3) from the roads slightly spoils the gameplay. In fact, the roads become worse the closer you are to your starting area. I'm still in favor of limiting the maximum number of units on the roads, rather than removing them completely. I haven't played on JC yet, but often the more things there are on the roads, the faster you can build up momentum on 113-117 (in fact, you already have an army, and the half-units turn into free units, which are also quickly taken). Or maybe you could make some kind of dependency on the map templates. For example, remove units from the roads in the starting area on XL+U, but not on other maps.
For example, the old idea that a unit should only be removed from the road if it is > 1/2 of the maximum value of the zone.
Мой любимьій размер - тройка. Будь то конса, утопа или сиськи ICQ:5676388
Also, I think that completely removing all guards on 2sm4d(3) from the roads slightly spoils the gameplay. In fact, the roads become worse the closer you are to your own base. I am still in favor of limiting the maximum value of units on the roads, rather than removing them completely. I haven't played on JC yet, but often the more things there are on the roads, the faster you can gain momentum on 113-117 (in fact, you already have an army, and half-units turn into free units, which are also quickly taken). Or maybe you could make some kind of dependence on the map templates. For example, remove units from the roads in the starting map, but not in others. For example, the old idea that a unit should only be removed from the road if it is > 1/2 the maximum value of the zone.
I also think it would be good to return small guards to the roads in the starting zones of the players. First of all, for psychological and visual reasons. In fact, the current situation has a negligible impact on the pace, because whether the desired object is on the road or 1-2 cells away is not a significant factor. It's just that a generation might occur in which the desired objects are located far from the road, and you might think that this is due to the absence of units. But if you do several generations, you can see that resources, clues, artifacts, etc. often appear near the road, at a distance of 1-2 cells. This is a matter of chance.
I would like to know if p1 (rebuilding the Guildhall is possible from any level) will finally be moved to "Gameplay changes" or not?
Such a simplification of the game's difficulty destroys the interest and multifaceted nature of the gameplay. Why strain yourself – collecting scrolls with scouts, checking shrines in search of the most important level 1 spells (slow, view land and air) – if you can get them in any town in 1 (maximum 2 turns)?
If this AI improvement remains as the default, it will completely negate all the positive work done on improving the user interface and fixing bugs in the map generator.
A good solution would be if individual AI improvements in the Gameplay changes module could be enabled or disabled via checkboxes, depending on the players' mutual preference.
If the answer is "no," then I will have to put a big cross on fresh mode for myself and never return to it.
"There's no need to execute me,sir Davos . I'll be dead before dawn." ICQ 716748479
Please answer whether p1 (Guildhall upgrade is possible from any level) will finally be moved to "Gameplay changes" or not?
Definitely not before the end of the WTC, to avoid confusion between versions. We'll see what happens after that.
The ability to upgrade from any level was implemented for the following reasons:
1. Players can strategically play around a low-level spell - curse, blessing, blindness, forgetfulness, etc. Currently, they are simply deprived of this opportunity.
2. Balancing the options for players. It eliminates the situation where one player has a slow spell in the Guildhall/scroll/Sanctuary, and the other player doesn't have it anywhere, and they go and lose on a strong guard because they simply don't have other options for building up their army.
3. It eliminates "forcing" the player, if the game situation requires them to upgrade to a 4th-level Guildhall, why force them to build an absolutely unnecessary 5th-level building for that? sir Davos Seaworth
Why strain yourself - collecting scrolls with scouts, checking shrines in search of the most important level 1 spells (slow, view land and air), if you can get them in any town in 1 (maximum 2 turns)??
It's not that simple. The upgrade isn't done for free; it costs money and resources, and it also takes a day to build. In the early game, this is very important - you might not have time to build a level 6 or 7 building in the first week, or you might delay the Guildhall upgrade by one day. And I've seen many times when a player doesn't upgrade Guildhall 1, but instead looks for the desired spell in a scroll, Sanctuary, or in the Guildhall of another town because it's cheaper.
Also, I would like to note that for most players, upgrading only after building a 5th-level building will seem like complete madness.
Trying to achieve any kind of balance in small scenarios (or when playing without rules) is pointless – randomness will still prevail in most cases.
Kventin
Also, I'd like to note that for most players, restructuring only after building the 5th level will seem like complete madness.
For most players who have played Heroes of Might and Magic III, the fact that you need to use your brain when playing already seems like complete madness :D (although they rarely admit it – they usually blame the map generator for everything). Those who were looking for an easy game have long since switched to Heroes of Might and Magic IV. And why should we cater to them? It won't bring them back, it will only alienate the old players.
"There's no need to execute me,sir Davos . I'll be dead before dawn." ICQ 716748479
So many people still don't understand that Freshmod without the checkbox is a godsend, and yet there's some aversion to it because of the GM :confused: And scrolls can still be picked up to be sold at the market, but that's a different story.
This could have become a reality if not for the negative aspects I mentioned above. But if the others are not so significant, then restructuring the game master in this way completely destroys the hero gameplay, which outweighs all the positive aspects of freshmod. Many cannot understand this now, and some will simply remain silent (they won't play).
"There's no need to execute me,sir Davos . I'll be dead before dawn." ICQ 716748479
Xocenk
