Posts from [HoMM IV DUEL TOURNAMENT ON] "Snowstorm" Auto-translated

Esteemed rivals, I am ready to play:smile25:. Specifically, according to the draw, I should be playing against Luchik, but as I understand it, the order is not critical at this stage – therefore, I call upon any of my group's opponents to step forward:D.

As I understand it, only 3 games are played in each group before a winner is determined. This seems unfair to me. Why didn't they implement a system with six games in a group, like a home-and-away format? Otherwise, it turns out that, for example, I might host in two games, while someone else is the "non-host" in two games. And the host, in my opinion, has an obvious advantage in choosing a race. The only thing that could justify this tournament organization is reducing the time spent on this stage. But on the other hand, we're not playing full-fledged games, but just duels, so the time spent is reduced not just by a factor of two, but by a factor of ten. Therefore, I suggest conducting a poll among the participants regarding the addition of "away" rounds. Of course, I understand that many may not like the increase in the number of games, because most of us are adults with our own concerns and a lack of time. Therefore, I suggest conducting only a poll for now. Moreover, there aren't that many of us. Look at the "trios" or "fives" – the number of participants in their tournaments is in the dozens. So, that's it. P.S. Please don't be too harsh if I'm wrong. And preferably, I'm waiting for approval. :)

I would suggest scheduling return matches, but it's up to the participants to decide.

Personally, I'm all for it! Otherwise, there really aren't enough games for one stage, and I want to play!

That’s great! Four are already “FOR,” we’re waiting for the others to weigh in. Let me explain where the four came from: Me – as the initiator. Luchik – …\/ \/ \/ Zubr – …\/ \/ \/ Leshiy – I asked him.

A five-player game is a good idea, let's have more games.

I agree. The more games, the better. Besides, the time spent organizing them is negligible compared to a regular game. It would be even better if there were more participants.

Hooray, comrades! Only two signatures are left – I think we’ll get them soon.

Guys, I don't think this arena needs to be played with retaliatory attacks enabled. The experience gained from such arenas won't be useful in the game. But if the majority wants it, then we should enable retaliatory attacks. Since we're going to the second round, maybe there are suggestions for making some changes? Should we unlock reserve units for Haven or something else?

Graals need to be removed to give weaker factions at least some chance. Especially those that lack tactics (Haven and Chaos). I understand that this is a feature of the map, but in some cases, you can surrender after the draw, simply because there are no chances beforehand, and to win, you need the opponent to make not one or two mistakes.

By the way, I disagree about the experience. In general, it trains the logic and tactics of direct battles quite well. Of course, with the current approach, most games on maps are played "according to a plan," so it's not so important, but, in my opinion, it's worth developing the theme of duels, at least because, as you can see, such battles don't take much time, and you often get more enjoyment from the game.

Grails don't really matter. I'd say that tactics are what matter. And Order and Chaos don't have any tactics at all. In the first rounds, on a small map, Life and Death can defeat anyone with the right approach, maybe only Nature can compete with them, and Barbarians, but even that's doubtful. But that's only half the problem – never mind the first round, the real problem is that Chaos and Order have absolutely no tactics. For example, I wouldn't risk choosing them, because if you can somehow manage to win with them in the first round, then in the second and third rounds, it's a guaranteed loss – because everyone else will have tactics. And that means I won't be playing with them in this tournament. Which is a shame, because I'd like to.

Grails need to be removed to give at least some chance to the weaker races. Especially those that don't have tactics (Order and Chaos). I understand that this is a feature of the map, but in some cases, you can surrender after the draw, simply because there are no chances, and to win, you need the opponent to make not one, but several mistakes.

I repeat, it's not about the grails, because if everyone has them, then it's all the same. But about surrendering after the draw – I think you're exaggerating. Out of 4 playable races, you'll get at least one in any case;) (meaning non-host).

In my opinion, Chaos and Order need to be adjusted – get rid of the Thief and the Lord – what are they even needed for? Does anyone take a pure Lord into battle? And does a pure Thief-runner have much to do there? That's what I mean. Okay, let them be there for the first round to maintain tradition – we'll survive. But on the standard and maximum maps, they need to be given tactics. Otherwise, neither Order nor Chaos will go into battle (at least, not in my case).

You see, the Grail gives a 50% bonus to magic, and in the case of Death, it creates an overpowered combination. Let's be honest, it even allowed me to destroy 12 creatures with a single attack. Plus, "Call of Death" summons so many units that you could fight twice. Here, you struggle, trying to kill them once, despite all their tricks, and you also have to either quickly throw acid or stand on a corpse, which isn't always convenient. Life also has a pretty strong resurrection ability, but I wouldn't consider it one of the strongest races because it has few troops. You can compare it to the Barbarians, Death, and Nature. The only reason to keep the Grail is for Chaos, because they have almost no units to fight with, and the opponent can overwhelm them with sheer numbers. As for the Lord and the Rogue, they should definitely be included because that's a specific feature of this map. The question is which secondary skill to give them, and why it absolutely has to be combat. In the case of Mages and Tacticians, it's a definite plus, but the Lord and the Rogue don't need combat skills (except for the Barbarian, where both need it).

As for the Lord and the Rogue, they should be present, as this is specific to this map; the question is which skill to give the second one, and why it must necessarily be combat. If, in the case of Mages and Tacticians, this is only a plus, then the Lord and the Rogue don't need this combat skill at all (except for the Barbarian, where both need it).

Why is a Lord needed in battle, even with any non-combat skill? Will he survive for long? And the Rogue?

Well, I would be happy with a combination of scouting and tactics, or nobility and tactics. It will be more challenging to defend, but that just adds to the puzzle. At least the army will be combat-ready.

Or maybe, to avoid disrupting the map's structure and specific features, but to make the weaker factions more playable, we could add some useful artifact to the Hero? For example... a Legendary Axe (a bonus for the army, replacing the missing tactic)... or something else. Shields, unfortunately, are not suitable, because a Mage cannot use them, and giving them to a Lord or a Runner is dangerous – they would then become an easy target for the opponent, and killing them is not difficult. Although... In general, this is my idea.