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.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Built-in autosave feature (for the TE version).Auto-translated
But when it comes to entertainment (which is what a game is), this approach suddenly loses its meaning. Because the stakes are not that high (at least due to the lack of clear criteria).
There is also a cost. It's the time required to master the game. To switch to TE from SOD and play, say, at your level or Samurai's level, how much time would it take for some abstractly very good SOD player?
You have interesting views on the development of TE. But this is a specific choice. Where balance comes at the cost of impoverishment and standardization. I have a different approach. Let there be randomness and unpredictability, at the level that is inherent in the rules of SOD. I get more pleasure not from building a chain through 10 heroes in the first week, but from finding some unconventional move, for example, developing a mage in parallel in the first week, building a GM, and defeating enemies there with a Light Bolt or Meteor. In TE, I haven't seen any original game endings in reports for a long time.
Although, in reality, I don't see a problem in promoting both versions. It's hardly that difficult, especially since Asm has already taken on simultaneous turns.
There's also a cost involved. It's the time required to learn the game. If someone were to switch from SoD to TE and aim to play at your level or Samurai's level, how much time would it take for an abstractly very skilled SoD player?
There's a belief that each person has a certain "heroic potential," meaning a predisposition to Heroes as a sport in general. And it weakly depends on the version, rules, and settings (within reasonable limits). I think that the same Samurai would become a top player on fixed rules, SoD, or any other conditions if he set that goal.
The example of LeBron and Pete shows that retraining from SoD to TE doesn't present a big problem, and one can reach the same level of effectiveness in TE in a relatively short time as they had in SoD.
The main problem here is that the level of effectiveness sufficient for a normal game in the SoD sandbox is insufficient for a normal game in the TE sandbox, simply because the players there have a slightly higher "heroic potential" (on average). This is why there's a feeling that it's difficult to learn to play TE.
You have interesting views on the development of TE. But this is a certain choice. Where balance comes at the cost of impoverishment and standardization. I have a different approach. Let there be randomness and unpredictability at the level that is inherent in the rules of SoD. I get more pleasure not from building a chain through 10 heroes in the first week, but from finding some unconventional move, for example, developing a mage in parallel in the first week, building a GM, and crushing them there with a Light Bolt or Meteor. In TE, I haven't seen any original game endings in reports for a long time.
Not quite. I'm actually trying to fight against impoverishment and standardization, and many of my proposals for the development of TE are in this vein. For example, strengthening mages (so that they can be taken as starting heroes on par with warriors), strengthening alternative heroes, simplifying the acquisition of normal magic (so that you can already build the 4th level in the 2nd week), a modified filling of cans/hives, etc.
The point is different - the trends in the development of sports are such that in conditions of fierce competition, not only unviable but also semi-viable strategies are quickly discarded. This can be seen in traditional sports (football, for example, was much more strategically diverse 30-40 years ago), and in computer games (StarCraft, Warcraft, Quake, Counter-Strike, etc.).
And the techniques you describe are precisely from this series - semi-viable, not by the odds of the bank, that is. Therefore, top players, whose style was formed in fierce confrontations with their peers, do not seriously rely on them. And the situations when the situation favors them still happen quite rarely, both in TE and in SoD.
Continuing this logic, one can recall RoE, where there was a lot of diversity. You could build a Capitol in the 1st week, Titans in the 4th week, and crush everyone with Loins under mass pre-war. Only this is not a consequence of the game version, but a consequence of the level of players.
Although, in reality, I don't see a problem in promoting both versions. It's hardly that difficult, if Asm has already taken on simultaneous play.
My vision here is this - let there be a SoD sandbox, where new players will come (because SoD is much better known), get used to it, and in parallel, a TE sandbox, where these players can either switch or not. That is, I believe that the active existence of more than 2 versions of the game is meaningless (for the same reason, I am skeptical about TE-light).
The point is different – the trend in the development of competitive games is such that, in a highly competitive environment, not only unviable but also semi-viable strategies are quickly discarded. This can be observed both in traditional sports (football, for example, was strategically much more diverse 30-40 years ago) and in computer games (StarCraft, Warcraft, Quake, Counter-Strike, etc.).
And the techniques you describe fall into this category – they are semi-viable, not based on the odds of the game. Therefore, top players, whose style was formed in tough competitions with their peers, do not rely on them seriously. And the situations when the odds are in their favor still occur relatively rarely, both in TE and in SOD.
However, the shift towards standard strategies is undoubtedly detrimental to the game. I remember old reports on Battle.net. A Stinger game by Alagar, Old Man won something with Thorgrim. And now? He gains a development advantage, builds a lot of undead, and defeats his opponent.
If we talk about volleyball, for example, this game was definitely more diverse. Now, due to the exceptional growth of players, the emphasis is on the power of the opposite hitters + powerful serves. But with football, I don't see a difference. They used to sometimes play the 4-2-4 formation, but they don't play it now (although in the middle of the game, even top teams sometimes use it). Players have become more versatile – yes, but not at the expense of diversity; I would even venture to say the opposite. Cristiano Ronaldo shines just as brightly as Cruyff did (I watched the games on recordings). In chess, for example, non-standard moves and solutions to positions are still valued, while computer chess is boring.
I think that the release of the third version of the game is a good thing. Because players will have a real choice. Because this version will actually take into account the problems of the previous ones. We read the "problematic" reports. What do we see? One of the typical problems is desynchronization in a key battle. Why is this a major problem? Because morale/luck/abilities are not fixed initially. It needs to be fixed, and some of the problems will go away... The funniest thing I've seen is the recognition of the Naga Bank as a bug, while the Leprechaun's Garden is not recognized as a bug :))) SoD is very good in many ways, and in particular, because of the people who play it. And if there is a SoD version that will be more convenient for online play, it will definitely gain supporters. A couple of well-organized surveys, such as "What guides you when choosing a castle," "Which castle do you usually not leave for your opponent," "Which castle would you definitely choose for yourself if your opponent allowed it," "Which castle do you try not to choose for yourself," "Which castle would you like to give to your opponent when choosing," followed by analysis, plus analysis of tournament game statistics, can reveal imbalance nuances that can often be adjusted.
A couple of well-organized surveys, such as "What factors guide you when choosing a Castle?", "Which Castle do you usually avoid letting your opponent have?", "Which Castle would you definitely choose for yourself if your opponent allowed it?", "Which Castle do you try not to choose for yourself?", and "Which Castle would you like to give to your opponent when choosing Castles?", followed by analysis, along with an analysis of tournament game statistics, can reveal imbalance nuances that can often be adjusted.
Everything has already been studied before us. And partially implemented.
About a year ago, I proposed a system of betting on a Castle/color on the Bay (which was quickly implemented in tournament practice) precisely to record the public's opinion regarding the balance of the Town Editor.
The criterion for balance is as follows: if, in a pair of Castles, players prefer to bet on the color, then the difference in the strength of the Castles does not exceed the difference in the strength of the colors, which can be considered a sufficient criterion for balance.
Experience (I was often asked to accept bets) showed the following: 3 groups of Castles emerged, within which bets are often placed on the color, or a small bet on the Castle. And between the groups, fairly significant bets on the Castle are possible.
1) Necropolis-Swamp-Fortress (closer to the 2nd group) 2) Stronghold (leans towards the 1st group)-Dungeon-Castle-Rampart-Inferno (a wide range of opinions) 3) Tower
The same applies to starting heroes. When generating identical Castles, bets are usually placed on the color for the following Castles: Castle, Rampart, Tower, Inferno. For the remaining Castles, the bet is only on the hero.
This is where many suggestions for balancing the Town Editor come from: to nerf chip leaders, to buff Tower, to nerf overpowered builds.
The main problem here is that the notorious level of efficiency, sufficient for a normal game in the SoD sandbox, is insufficient for a normal game in the TE sandbox, simply because the "heroic potential" of the players there is slightly higher (on average). Hence the feeling that it is difficult to learn how to play TE.
I would make an amendment! It's not that the players have higher potential, but the game version implies a more aggressive style, and accordingly, the difference in the level of play or the presence of minor errors in geometric progression affects further development and the result... Moreover, if you compare the reports and achievements of TE and SoD, it seems that the level of play is higher for TE players. But this is all misleading... you forget to take into account the features and nuances of the game, which are known less in the TE sandbox than in the SoD sandbox. Having a loan bank, scrolls in gold, monster experience, and other differences between TE and SoD, taking all the best and developing in general should, of course, be faster and stronger.
There is another objective point - hotkeys and a convenient interface. These things truly improve the game, as well as the speed and efficiency of learning. The player doesn't have to click through units one by one; it's simple to build chains for transferring armies and artifacts. I've noticed this several times when launching SoD: here I'm too lazy to separate the 1s, there I'm too lazy to transfer artifacts, etc. In short, the player begins to concentrate on tactics and strategy rather than the interface.
Wicc made a somewhat arrogant and unfounded statement that the primary target audience for the World Tournament is TE players.
If we don't move in the direction of SOD, we will see even greater differences between the versions, and the gap will only widen without significantly increasing the influx of new players.
- Differences between versions
- Significant differences in rules
- In tactics
- In everything
That's why such incidents occur, like the "why I switched to TE" situation... with all the consequences.
Even when reading reports and looking at TE statistics, a pure SOD player doesn't understand much, just as they don't understand discussions about development tactics and capturing something.
Another important point is the possibility of creating a single, universal version that can then be promoted beyond the ru, net, and by websites.
Inter-portal and inter-resource matches and combined seasons with foreigners are what we should strive for.
And in the overall dynamics of the game, we shouldn't be afraid of increasing the average game duration in days/weeks.
Because in its current form, it is significantly reduced. And justifying this reduction by saying that it reduces the real-time cost of a game is not entirely fair and even foolish.
How many Gold Dragons, Black Dragons, Archdevils, Ghost Dragons, or, for example, Titans do you encounter in your games? ... and this is despite the fact that upgraded Bears, Archs, and simple Hydras are quite common... and should we even talk about Wyverns and Angels, when 50% or more of the army in each game usually consists of them!
P.S. By the way, there is a suggestion to change the reward in meat-based objectives (clues/conquests).
Either based on the principle that for 30 snakes, for example, we get 4 random monsters of level 6, and in a conquest, at least a random monster of level 7.
Or diversify by class.
In the maximum conquest, you get a monster of level 7.
In the triple conquest, you get monsters of level 6.
In the minimum, level 4, and so on.
Another important point is the possibility of creating a single, universal version that can then be promoted beyond the ru;net;by websites. Inter-portal and inter-resource matches, and combined seasons with foreigners – that's what we should strive for.
Exactly! That's why I'm creating a unified chat. You launch the game, enter the Unified Heroic Chat, and from there, click the "Start Game" button. And, of course, I want to make it a multi-language application. SAG also had a great idea: to introduce standard phrases into this chat and gradually translate them into other languages. He estimated that about 70 phrases would be enough for the Heroes game. That is, I write in the chat in my language, and the opponent sees it in his language. Alex_R
P.S. By the way, there's a suggestion to replace the reward in the "meat" objects (clues/conquests). Either based on the principle that for 30, for example, "snakes," you get 4 random monsters of level 6, and in the conquest, you get at least one random monster of level 7. Or diversify them by class. In the maximum conquest, you get a monster of level 7. In the triple conquest, you get monsters of level 6. In the minimum, you get monsters of level 4, and so on.
I would make an amendment! The potential is not higher for the players, but the game version implies a more aggressive style, and accordingly, the difference in the level of play or the presence of minor errors in geometric progression affects further development and the result... Moreover, if we compare based on reports and achievements, TE seems to have a higher level of play than SoD. But this is all misleading... you forget to take into account the features and nuances of the game, which are less known in the TE sandbox than in the SoD sandbox. Having a loan, scrolls in gold, monster experience, and other differences between TE and SoD, taking all the goodies and developing in general should be faster and stronger.
I wasn't talking about that level. Imagine some starting conditions (or better, a series of conditions). And some ideal level of development, say, in 2 weeks. Let's take it as 100%.
Then, we give these conditions to different players and see what percentage of the ideal they achieve (in a real game, not offline). This is the infamous level of efficiency. We average it across the conditions and compare.
I have analyzed the saves of many players, and I have a pretty good understanding of the level of play of many players. So, with top players in SoD, I often see a lot of mistakes that are not typical for top players in TE.
Recently, I watched Vitalik's game against Sirus, which he posted in the interportal thread. He was afraid to attack a group of lizards on the grass with a flux with 7 basilisks from Bron, a flux army (with water elementals), and a devourer from a castle hero. I, on the other hand, broke them with the loss of 2 air units and 2 water elementals, without magic (and with a spellbook and haste in it, it would have been even easier). In real games, I have also broken these groups of lizards many times for flux, even without basilisks (for example, in a game with Inviz).
And this is a player who has something like 90% in tournament game statistics in SoD. I still have a lot to grow...
[/U]Alex_R
Another important point is the possibility of creating a single, universal version, which must then be promoted beyond the ru;net;by sites.
Unrealistic. Are you yourself ready to study this new version without groaning and complaining? Your colleagues in the craft? Poll the people, listen to what they have to say.
And in the dynamics of the game, we should not be afraid of increasing the average game duration in days/weeks. Because in its current form, it is significantly reduced. And justifying this by reducing the amount of real time spent on a game is not entirely fair and even stupid.
I agree with this. I have thought a lot about this issue. A resolution on the 2nd week is not quite what the game needs. There is too much dependence on the starting conditions. That's why I'm thinking about a way to slow down the pace of development - by reducing the starting money, the amount of money on the map, and cutting the most powerful heroes. As well as improving the templates.
By the way, there is a suggestion to replace the reward in meat objects (clues/cons) Either according to the principle: for 30, for example, snakes, we get 4 random monsters of level 6, and in a con, the minimum, for example, is a random monster of level 7. Or diversify by class. In the maximum con, they give a monster of level 7 in the triple con, they give monsters of level 6 in the minimum, level 4, etc.
However, players have started to complain that this greatly affects double-build and the number of native lairs. With the old cons/hives, you can compensate for them, but with the new ones, you can't.
Therefore, I decided to give the opportunity to order the type of con/hive for money. For now, the working price for ordering = 1000 * + 500 * <number of previous orders for this race>.
I haven't gotten around to implementing it in the scripts yet.
By the way, yesterday I had a few ideas for TE-modding (influenced by the new Hive units).
So, let's leave the Cons without changes – the Castle will be slightly buffed.
Hives. The units inside will remain the same – dragonflies. The result: 4-6-8-10 (12) creatures of level 6 from any Castle (you won't know in advance). That is, it's not difficult to break them, but it's unclear what to do next. This will nerf the Swamp and generally make it more difficult to play on penalty maps, complicating the chains.
A new filling for the Hives was suggested for level 3. The idea is to make such a filling in the hidden units of level 7. It is also possible to experiment with levels 5-6. Because the most boring strategy is to take hidden units, and they are very powerful.
P.S.
Regarding Vitalik. Vic, you are wrong about his performance. Vitalik is the king of 4-minute games. Let him not be offended by me, but there are people who play better and more accurately in 6 minutes. + besides everything else, there are not many good games in SOD when playing as Flux, as the Castle is not often used. I judge this based on a certain number of saved games I've reviewed. And he practically doesn't play in 6 minutes.
I wasn't talking about that level. Imagine some kind of starting setup... This is that very notorious level of effectiveness.
I understand, I understand what you're talking about... the fact that TE players have a lot of experience and are familiar with templates and setups is a fact, and I don't argue with that, but there's no "player potential" here, as you wrote... I would say that this is already the upper limit, where the one who makes fewer mistakes wins and squeezes the maximum out of it with minimal intervention of random chance. A typical simulation of professional sports, but at the same time, a huge loss in quality and diversity of enjoyment. For example, I think it would be better to give players the opportunity to play all battles with neutrals as if it were one against one. At the same time, the indicator of the player's skill will give a greater effect than 50% of everything else in the game. And I am categorically against disabling the morale of neutrals... I think this is a degradation! I completely agree with the example given by Qwerty in the "controversial issues" topic. Going to the Lizardmen horde or any other battle with neutrals on SoD and on TE are two different things. And beating up minor neutrals is not such a great indicator of skill, but rather knowledge of micro-bugs and stupid AI. At the same time, sometimes there is a lack of knowledge of the basics. Wicc
Unreal. Are you yourself ready to study this new version without groaning and complaining? Your colleagues in the craft? Ask people, listen to what they say.
I won't speak for others, but as one of the staunch conservatives, I'll say that I was going to switch to TE-lite, but there weren't enough reasons yet... Wicc
It's a cool idea, but as I understand it, it needs to be tested, and there is nothing to test... it's just not clear what they are complaining about then :confused:
Regarding Vitalik. Vic, you are wrong about his performance here. Vitalik is a king for 4 minutes. Let him not be offended by me, but at 6 minutes, there are players who play better and more accurately. + besides everything else, there are few good games in SOD for the Flux faction, as the Castle is not often practiced. I judge based on some number of viewed saves. And he practically doesn't play at 6 minutes.
Qwerty
Wicc, I'm replying in this thread because otherwise it will be off-topic. I don't quite agree, and here's why. There is the result of vitalic in the Portal vs. Bay match. I remind you that the result was 2-0 in favor of vitalic. Therefore, I don't find this example very convincing. There are good players on Bay, no one disputes that. But playing for a team (!!!) with morale disabled for neutral creatures or in a real game is a big difference. You can take almost any online match and, by analyzing the saves, find opportunities for improvement, etc. The higher the element of randomness (and it is higher in SOD than in other versions of the game), the greater the risk, and the skill of a player in SOD also consists of assessing game risks...
Well, you can talk a lot about this topic. Therefore, I prefer to look at facts.
And the facts are that if one player often makes mistakes or blunders (not necessarily affecting the result), and the other does it rarely, then I consider the second player to be more skilled. And for some reason, it seems to me that I am right in this point of view.
The fact is that if one player frequently makes mistakes or slips (not necessarily affecting the outcome), while another does so rarely, I believe the latter is a more skilled player. And for some reason, I think I'm right in this view.
I disagree. If the mistakes or slips don't affect the outcome, it means they are minor and can be ignored, and success is due to a better-chosen development strategy, etc.
Oelm
