HeroesWorld

Posts from A program for determining luck/morality in Heroes 3!

Offline tournaments.
4.8 (4 ratings)
In reply to AlexSpl
User Avatar
Offline Dirty_Player
Registered:
Posts: 11,704
#214
Auto-translated
[QUOTE=AlexSpl;189841Please let me know if the program finds the address.[/QUOTE]
Everything works for me! Thank you! :)
You just need to be quick to catch the reaction!
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline AlexSpl
Registered:
Posts: 615
#215
Auto-translated
2Dirty Player: The more units on the battlefield, the faster the numbers change, but sometimes they "freeze" for about 1-3 seconds. Try to make the desired numbers "freeze," and then you'll definitely catch a lucky break or boost morale.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Kamikaze
User Avatar
Offline Catch
Registered:
Posts: 595
#216
Auto-translated
Kamikaze;189827
I specifically highlighted the main word. So, the idea is, let's suffer in order to win. No, thank you, I'd rather not play at all.

What do you mean? People get pleasure from different things. For example, I'm not interested in spending a month of real time generating morale/luck for a single battle; I don't consider this a skill. But others enjoy it, and I don't judge them at all. By the way, I didn't invent the term "вымучил" (literally "tortured out"), nor was I the first to use it. I like brilliant strategic decisions, as well as well-planned tactical battles that are won without unrealistic morale/luck boosts. All of this only inspires me.
The use of such programs as the ballista killer and the morale booster is an example of how the level of the game is reduced by interfering with foreign programs. In other words, those for whom the game is a torment, due to the desire to win and the inability to do so on their own, are breaking the gameplay.
1
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Fireball
Registered:
Posts: 863
#217
Auto-translated
Guys!!! What’s all the panic about?
It’s just that something that all strong players knew one way or another has been clearly identified: morale/luck can be generated through delays, negative morale drops twice as often, etc.
The program should be allowed; it will save time. But its use should be limited, like in the fourth installment, where negative stats have a 25% chance to dodge a physical attack, and cheats are not detected. So, to avoid battles like “I generated 7 dodges in a row,” there should be a rule that no more than 2 consecutive dodges are allowed between opportunities to save (for those who don’t know, you can save during a battle in the fourth installment).
All that remains is to sit down and clearly formulate how many morale/luck values are allowed in the battle description, depending on their value and the number of attacking stacks and rounds. We write this in the rules, and that’s it.

P.S. 2 vbn
Be patient, my friend, because there will always be people who, instead of being grateful for the explanations, will start to criticize and slander, without ever learning how to lose.
3
⚖️
0
In reply to Fireball
User Avatar
Offline Dirty_Player
Registered:
Posts: 11,704
#218
Auto-translated
And Fireball did a great job, I didn't expect that!!!!
Actually, you can limit the morale drop, for example, 2 morale for a +2 building, and three morale for a +3 building! For each stack, for the entire battle!!!! This will prevent morale farming, as well as those who previously used morale as an excuse :)
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Catch
User Avatar
Offline Senatоr
Registered:
Posts: 31
#219
Auto-translated
Catch;189855
Well-planned, tactically sound battles that are won without an unrealistic surge of morale/luck.
What is meant by "an unrealistic surge of morale/luck"? Playing a battle once and hoping that morale will appear just when needed. Then it's online play. But what if you spend half an hour on a battle and manage to make morale appear once for the right unit at the right moment? And if this significantly improves the final result, then half an hour is not a waste. So, where can we draw the line between forcing morale and battle strategy?

I think that everyone who made it into the top ten in this tournament tried to trigger morale at least once on the first turn. If you don't use additional programs, there is nothing wrong with such actions. And for victory, all LEGAL methods are good.
The use of programs like the ballista killer and morale booster is an example of how the level of play is diminished by interfering with foreign programs.
You initially have a prejudiced attitude towards such programs. These two, as well as the tree-farming and hero-farming programs, were created specifically to level the playing field for all players. And offline play is evolving towards reducing the amount of real time spent on monotonous actions. Now, in future tournaments, it will not be necessary to reload the save dozens of times for a month to trigger morale or luck. And that's great! More time for strategy and tactics!
SoD 3.2, 2SM4d(3), Full random
1
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Fireball
Registered:
Posts: 863
#220
Auto-translated
In reality, you can limit the morale drops, for example, 2 morale drops for a +2 creature, three morale drops for a +3 creature! for each stack, for the entire battle!!!!
This is probably too much. Imagine you have, say, 2 offensive stacks and 3 meat shields from the same castle in your army. You are suggesting allowing one morale drop on each offensive stack in one round, with a morale of 1. It would be difficult to generate this in an average case, except perhaps with a morale of 2. But, of course, there have been different cases. I remember in the 8th stage of the War of the Ancients campaign, I needed to take a dwarven stronghold with minimal losses. I timed the first attack to minimize losses, but after that, the dwarves started to drop morale in 3 out of 4 cases, so I had to play without relying on it. It was after this tournament that I understood a lot about the behavior of "randomness" in morale and luck. Although the situation there was the opposite; mainly, demoralization interfered, and luck was not needed more than once per battle.
I think the extra attention is caused by the fact that the last tournament required a lot of unit generation. Throughout my tournament experience (excluding the fourth game), I have never tried to time more than one morale/luck drop per battle and have not relied on it (except for one battle in 40+ rounds, but it somehow happened more than once). And this did not prevent me from taking quite high places.
In short, it's time to start a collective discussion about limitations.
For example, like this: one morale drop on an offensive stack can always be timed, and the maximum total number of drops, according to its probability, should not exceed twice (three times? your suggestions...) the mathematical probability that logically follows from the values of morale, luck, and the Bernoulli distribution.
2
⚖️
0
In reply to Fireball
User Avatar
Offline Dirty_Player
Registered:
Posts: 11,704
#221
Auto-translated
Fireball;189867
For example, like this: it's always possible to time a single occurrence on a damage stack, and the subsequent maximum sum of occurrences, based on its probability, should not exceed a doubled (or tripled?) mathematical probability, which logically follows from the values of morale, luck, and the Bernoulli distribution.
The following difficulties may arise:
1. There will be difficulties with the concept of a "damage stack," as various interpretations of this concept will emerge....
2. Something needs to be done about morale for units with a single morale value; otherwise, all units with a single morale value will block all enemy ranged units in the first round...
3. What if, after a permissible occurrence of N morale values, N+1 morale values occur completely randomly?
4. For some, words like "terver," "mathematical expectation," and especially "Bernoulli distribution" or "Gaussian distribution" are considered offensive :D
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Kamikaze
Registered:
Posts: 1,700
#222
Auto-translated
There are many options.
For example, one main attacking stack, and morale is only generated for it (for the others, only in rare cases). Let's say a battle lasts 10 rounds. I think 4 times (morale +3), 3 times (morale +2), 2 times (morale +1). And a mandatory interval of 2, 3, and 4 rounds, respectively.

Индивидуальный и клановый рейтинги Heroes World
Handmade
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Fireball
Registered:
Posts: 863
#223
Auto-translated
1. There will be difficulties with the concept of an "attack stack" because various interpretations of this concept will arise....
I propose my interpretation: a stack that is used to "ATTACK," i.e., deals damage. This formulation will immediately eliminate the desire to generate luck in retaliation from "meat" units.
2. Something needs to be done about the morale of single units; otherwise, all single units will have high morale, and we will block all enemy ranged units in the first round...
Stacks that NEED to travel a certain distance, for example, to block, are given the same status as attack stacks.
3. What if, after a permissible drop of N morale, N+1 morale drops completely randomly?
What "randomly," sir, if everything is controlled.
4. For some, words like "terver," "expected value," and especially Bernoulli or Gaussian distributions are offensive.
There are quite a few players in Heroes with a decent mathematical background, and if someone is not confident in their knowledge, it is easy to write a corresponding calculator for them.

There are many options.
We choose one that is more or less logical and write it in the rules. After a couple of tournaments, everyone will get used to it.
1
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Kamikaze
Registered:
Posts: 1,700
#224
Auto-translated
if you need to generate morale for single units (sometimes for two or even more, which will change the tactics – sometimes you can increase the size of one of the stacks), then, for example, in one round, 1 out of 6 (and it doesn't matter what the morale is, as long as it's greater than zero).

PS: This is all, and what was said above are just suggestions... let's create together.

Индивидуальный и клановый рейтинги Heroes World
Handmade
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Fireball
User Avatar
Offline Dirty_Player
Registered:
Posts: 11,704
#225
Auto-translated
Fireball;189875
Let's choose one that's more or less logical and write it into the rules. After a couple of tournaments, everyone will get used to it.
I would really like to hear the opinions of many players on this issue, preferably from other resources as well... But even if there wasn't a program, it would still be worth introducing some kind of limitation on this matter, and with the program, it is simply essential!

For VK, you'll have to choose a map without too many intense battles!
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Fireball
User Avatar
Offline Catch
Registered:
Posts: 595
#226
Auto-translated
Fireball;189867
Throughout my tournament experience (excluding the fourth game), I have never planned for more than one morale/luck boost per battle, nor have I relied on it (except for one battle lasting over 40 rounds, but in that case, it just happened more than once). And this didn't prevent me from achieving quite high rankings.
Here. These are excellent words that only confirm my point. In my opinion, no great player actually relies on a constant stream of morale/luck boosts when building their battle tactics; they focus on other aspects. With the advent of this program, everything else will simply have to be forgotten. Turn on the program, switch off your brain, and watch the semaphore.
In short, it's time to start a collective discussion about limitations.
For example, like this: one morale/luck boost per turn can always be planned for; the maximum number of subsequent boosts should not exceed twice (or three times? your suggestions...) the mathematical probability, which logically follows from the values of morale, luck, and the Bernoulli distribution.
On the forums, I suggested doubling it. Naturally, this should only apply to complex, long battles, because in battles that end in two turns, the probability of morale boosting in both turns is still significant.
1
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Senatоr
Registered:
Posts: 31
#227
Auto-translated
Attack stacks, non-attack stacks... Long, short battles. These concepts significantly complicate the understanding of the rules and their actual application. Shouldn't the appearance of Battle Dice (BD) and luck necessarily be plausible and reflect the times when they couldn't be predicted? Perhaps we shouldn't introduce limitations. Maps should be created taking into account the new possibilities. Reduce the starting army to make capturing treasure chambers more difficult. Significantly increase the size of enemy armies. And let Battle Dice and luck appear 7 times per round.

But what about verification? Should each player send a step-by-step description of the moves in each battle?
SoD 3.2, 2SM4d(3), Full random
1
⚖️
0
In reply to Senatоr
User Avatar
Offline Catch
Registered:
Posts: 595
#228
Auto-translated
Senatоr;189885

But what about verification? Does each player send a turn-by-turn description of each battle?

Not every battle, and not every player. Each map has key battles, and the organizers can request any player to provide save files. And believe me, a cheater, even the most brilliant one, will eventually reveal themselves sooner or later.
0
⚖️
0