Posts from Autosaves: Should they be enabled or not?

So, you decided to find out what the players think about this issue. For example, as far as I remember, I have never refused anyone a requested autosave (and I often ask for one myself, although it's not always granted :mad:). Although, I don't always offer it if the opponent gives up. But I still believe that losing in an interesting battle is better than winning without a fight by default. I suggest introducing a rule, or at least unofficially, that each player has the right to one autosave per game. If both players have used one autosave, they each have the right to another, so the difference in the number of autosaves should not exceed one; otherwise, it's an automatic loss. Something like that. What do you think about this?

I think it's better if everyone takes fewer risks.

Added 4 minutes later
I managed to win twice against a strong player this way, but I probably wouldn't have been able to do it in a fair fight...

Some might suggest introducing the opposite rule – a ban on autosaves after a loss! And they would be right in their own way: firstly, how can we talk about improving the level of play if a player is constantly thinking – “I’ll attack and see what happens, if I lose, the autosave will give me another chance” (the rules state this, after all!!!); and secondly, as a rule, losses occur when attempting to capture certain objects – failing to capture them on the same day is equivalent to a loss, so in about 3 out of 4 cases, these autosaves are irrelevant to me; and I’m already considering completely stopping offering them to opponents (although I’ve only offered them once or twice in my limited online experience) – and once, because of such generosity, I lost in a way that completely ruined my mood and made me not want to play for a long time:smile35:)...

I usually do. And I also take accordingly. But only in the non-contact development phase – fighting monsters, exploring the territory. But when active combat and various maneuvers begin, there is no longer a place for autosaves. That is, if the opponent hasn't reached me by a couple of squares due to some mistake, forgot to replenish mana, etc., then I won't let the autosave happen.

There aren't many interesting games, and winning by letting the opponent lose is just pathetic. Plus, it provides some kind of insurance against fatal accidents.

I did it several times when I had a good setup or felt like I had an advantage; once, I lost because of it. In general, I'm against giving auto-wins, as this encourages opponents to play risky games. You can still win even after completely losing on creeps. I had a game with El Magnifico Sonic where I lost my entire army at the end of week 1 during a passage to secondary resources. But I didn't give up, and even after my opponent took Dragon Utopia, I pushed through, achieved GO, and captured his capital. As a result, I won without logistics

You can even win a game after completely losing against creeps. I had a game with El Magnifico Sonic where I lost my entire army on the secondary resource passage at the end of week 1. I didn't give up even after my opponent took Dragon Utopia, broke through the Gate of the Underworld, and captured my capital. As a result, I won, and without logistics.

In games with serious opponents, this happens so rarely that you could say it doesn't happen at all. Losing your entire army (no matter what week it is) almost always results in losing the game. It all comes down to pace – losing sets you back 5-7 days in development, which is too long.

I'll state my opinion. How I personally handle it: Very often, almost always, I offer auto-cast, sometimes even insist on it. I sometimes suggest something like this, so the opponent doesn't feel obligated: take auto-cast now, but in return, I'll also have one auto-cast in reserve. But I can also refuse to offer auto-cast, and I won't bother explaining why. In general: It shouldn't be a strict rule, and I don't think it's worth discussing further (we'll just clutter the thread, and they won't change the rules anyway, and that's a good thing). Unofficially – why not? It's like a rule of good etiquette, that's fine. But we need to immediately preventively shut down the mouths of those who, if they don't get auto-cast (well, the opponent doesn't want to give it – it's their right, maybe they think you don't deserve auto-cast in this situation), will start whining and putting pressure on others, saying something like, "Player X is losing, he's being stingy, etc."

I already wrote about this topic :) Definitely give it in the seasonal mode – it’s a pleasure to play.

My IMHO.

Whether to provide autosaves or not is the absolute right of the person providing them.

If autosaves are provided, consider yourself lucky.

If not, all whining should be completely avoided. No complaints. You lost, so you already lost! And autosaves are a second chance that your opponent has graciously decided to give you (or not).

That's all.

This is just my opinion.

Whether or not to offer autosaves is entirely up to the person offering them.

If they offer autosaves, consider yourself lucky.

If not, any complaining should be completely avoided. No complaints allowed. You lost, so you already lost! And an autosave is a second chance that your opponent has graciously decided to give you (or not).

That's all.

The problem is that, as a rule, people don't discuss autosaves in ICQ before the game. And when an opponent asks for an autosave, and I've already lost a lot but didn't ask for one, it's unclear what to do; it feels awkward to refuse. Therefore, I think there should be some generally accepted practice regarding this issue, even if it's just an informal one.

In my opinion, don't take it and don't give it!

The negative consequences have been verified through personal experience.
1. When you know what they'll give you in auto-combat, you'll lose concentration, and this will become a habit over time – then it will be very difficult to readjust in tournaments or other games with different rules.
2. You'll never learn to calculate the outcome of a battle before it begins, the number of monsters, the size of the stack (!), the probability of morale, etc. This is a step towards a higher level of gameplay.
3. When you give auto-combat, you psychologically relax again and expect a response – this shouldn't happen. If the game is more for fun, then it's a different story.
4. If I take auto-combat, then I can't consider the victory to be complete :smile50:

P.S.: I still give auto-combat, and I try not to take it, even when offered – it's very difficult at first, but then it becomes beneficial.

I was waiting for a survey like this! Well done, VLK! Regarding the topic: NO AUTOS!!!!!!! Neo explained everything clearly! P.S.: This is about tournaments. For casual gameplay, it's a different story. Although it's not desirable there either... Auto-attack is a bad habit. If you risk attacking, it means you know what you're getting into! If you don't know, learn! It's that simple... Of course, there is such a thing as a misclick, but that's up to each individual.

And Neo is right... and Dirty is right...
but sometimes you just want to finish the game, it's a bit of a weakness.

I think there's nothing wrong with giving an auto-win, because the skill level of the opponent who asks for it will only improve as a result. I don't ask for it myself. When someone asks, I almost always give it, unless I see that the opponent has a significantly weaker secondary army. I'm in favor of giving auto-wins.

If, during the first week, an opponent asks for a favor after losing a difficult block, it would be a sin not to grant it, as such a victory is worth very little. But, for example, if Shaktii, in the early stages, tries to destroy more than one unit without checking and loses – in this case, I'm sorry, that risk should be punished, otherwise a good opponent will pay the price. :smile51:
And there's nothing to say about tournaments – no rests.
Everything depends on the situation, of course. Sometimes there are very interesting games, and a stupid coincidence ruins everything.