Posts from Falcon Sokol Auto-translated

Just a note from myself: previously (long before 2019), before posting a map on the forum, the authors of excellent (later) maps would invite beta testers via private message. As a result, after the map was posted on the forum, there was significantly less criticism. And there were no reviews bordering on outright rudeness. Although, perhaps, such responses were removed by moderators.

Just a note: back then (long before 2019), authors of great (later) maps would invite beta testers via private message before posting the map on the forum. As a result, there was significantly less criticism after the map was posted. And there were no reviews that bordered on outright rudeness. Although, it's possible that such responses were removed by moderators.

Yes, there were at least testers back then. Now, no one wants to test. And moderator activity was definitely higher at that time.

It's strange why my comment stirred up some players so much. These words were addressed not just to a novice author, but to a rather experienced one who is deliberately stripping the heroic spirit from the game. Personally, this repels me, hence such a reaction (by the way, in a rather polite form). Here, one of the indignant players, noting the strengths and weaknesses of the map, wrote that he would not "touch upon the strategic and tactical aspects." But how can it be without that? Since when has the cover become more important than the content? Because of this approach, good "heroic" maps are practically not being made anymore, and most likely, it's because they can no longer meet the standards, as they say, the bar has been lowered. The author was told all of this above, but there was no response. I must say directly, I am frankly tired of the game processes imposed by some authors, which exclude the manifestation of tactical and strategic moves on the part of the player, plus, as a rule, in such maps, the enemies are static and meekly await their defeat. In general, I ask you to treat my comments not as malicious attacks on map creators, but as a call to revive the old, good traditions.

Antik, since when are design, videos, and scripted mechanics considered the cover? I understand that combat is the most important thing for you, but let's take a more objective benchmark for the authors, for example, a public opinion poll (screenshot attached). I agree with you that it's interesting to play when there is tactical and strategic depth. But maps can be great in other ways too. This is just my personal opinion, you don't have to listen to it.

The answer reflects the question. It strongly resembles our official statistics. I repeat, in my opinion, the most important thing in the game is the "heroic" spirit. That is, the ability for the player to implement a strategy for development and tactics for completing the map, and, of course, the balance of power, implying adequate actions from the enemies. However, to each their own. Wishing all authors creative success.

Yes, everyone has their own preferences.

These words were addressed not just to a novice author, but to a rather mature one, who is deliberately stripping the heroic spirit from the game.

A strange statement. What exactly is the "heroic spirit"? For some, it's tactics and strategy; for others, it's visual design and plot; and for others, it's atmosphere and musical accompaniment. How exactly is the author killing this very spirit?

Here, one of the disgruntled commenters, noting the strengths and weaknesses of the map, wrote that he would not "touch upon the strategic and tactical aspects." But how can you do without it? Since when is the cover more important than the content?

The map cover is just a preview, title, and description, nothing more. Everything else is the content. I didn't evaluate the tactical/strategic part because it has already been commented on by others. I thought it would be more appropriate to evaluate the map from a technical and plot perspective.

Because of this approach, good "heroic" maps are practically not being made anymore, and most likely, it's because they can't anymore; the bar has been lowered.

The fact that you like hardcore maps doesn't mean that all mapmakers should adopt this and make it a standard. And it's also strange to make such demands; did the author state that the map was created for ultra-hardcore players? If the author's goal is to create a map that is difficult to complete, then that's what they do. In this case, as far as I know, the author did not have such goals.

The author was told about all of this above, but there was no response.

What did you expect? That as soon as you express your dissatisfaction, the author should immediately take everything and redo it? Reviews and comments are just suggestions, not an order to be carried out. The author has the right to either listen and change or leave things as they are; it depends on the person and their beliefs in this matter.

I must say directly that I am frankly tired of some authors imposing game processes that exclude the player's ability to make tactical and strategic moves, plus, as a rule, in such maps, the enemies are static and meekly wait to be beaten.

Who is so brazenly imposing them on you? You can play the map if you want, or not play it if you don't want to. The decision is always yours. I have also encountered situations where, during the game on some maps, I realized that I was not interested. In such situations, it was enough to simply drop those maps.

In general, I ask you to treat my comments not as malicious attacks on mapmakers, but as a call to revive old good traditions.

Actually, I understand the reason for your indignation. High-quality and complex maps are rarely made these days, but what can you do? It depends on the authors' desires and their experience. Trying to blame them for not making exactly what you or I want seems not very right to me.

Walkthrough of the "Falcon Falcon" scenario (hero difficulty): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5A9iRK6Gwo

Thank you for the scenario! I enjoyed playing it. The map's landscape is very carefully and beautifully designed (I picked up some interesting landscape techniques for myself, and I was pleasantly surprised). The story is coherent, although simple. Overall, the map lacks complexity (not the kind of complexity that makes it nearly impossible to complete without repeatedly replaying the map and saving 100,000 times 😅, but rather branching storylines and secondary events that allow the world on the map to extend beyond its limited size, i.e., to expand the universe in which the events take place). The last point is personal and subjective.

Regarding the map's lighting, I agree with those who didn't like it. However, I think the problem lies more in the point light sources: they are very bright and positioned low, which causes the image to blend into a colorful mess of light and shadow, making it physically difficult to distinguish objects. For example, here's how the planetarium could look if its light source were at a height of 12 (on the right) instead of 1 (on the left): In fact, I simply changed the lighting to daytime in the editor before playing the map. I don't know how much the map has changed since its first version, but the first stage of the map, with joining units and battles with minor mobs, didn't seem too unappealing. It's not too long, so it doesn't get boring, either in game time or in real time. I decided to try playing with suppressing stacks using soldiers, considering the large number of farms and barracks on the map, as well as the limited city building and, therefore, the difficulty of accessing other control methods. In general, the map gave me a rather unique experience playing as a Knight, mainly using infantry: armored warriors and militia (who, however, were soon converted into bone warriors in the Necropolis). In fact, the army after capturing the Necropolis and until the end of the game consisted of armored warriors, bone warriors, archers, and spirits. I don't know how effective the chosen strategy was, but at least it was fun and, at a minimum, workable. There were interesting battles (with the 1.5k dancers and with Vittorio), but there were no particular difficulties during the playthrough. I completed it in 85 days, on Hero difficulty. Of the serious flaws in the map, I would only note the quest system - the quests are given very untimely. For the most part, I had to wander blindly without any active goals, except for "the Hero must survive." I was quite engrossed in the game until I noticed after capturing Ship that there were no active tasks, and the game wouldn't end. The situation looked as if something was broken in the map, and the game, seemingly, should have ended, but due to some error, it refused to do so.

I rarely write negative reviews, but this one deserves it. It's pointless and frustrating. I only finished it because of my own stubbornness. The amount of work put into it is huge, but the enjoyment is zero. The goals aren't clearly defined, and for most of the game, the main character wanders around without a clear objective. Why is the final task to destroy necromancers (presumably, undead creatures), if simply approaching the castle allows you to end the game (which I did, with a sigh of relief)? I also didn't understand what I got for the crystals. It's a slow, depressing walk-and-collect game. As for bugs, the angel quest is impossible to complete (the counter for the number of wolves killed doesn't go past 1/2). I could probably list more for half a page. But I won't – it's as tedious as the mission itself. It's a shame for both the author's work and the time I spent on the game.