HeroesWorld
  • Log in
  • Create account
  • Mode
    Interface scale

Posts from Built-in autosave feature (for the TE version).

Tournament Edition / TE
No ratings yet — be the first to rate!
In reply to Alex_R
User Avatar
Offline Wicc
Registered:
Posts: 5,099
#46
Auto-translated
Alex_R
Typical simulation of professional sports, but with a huge loss in the quality and variety of enjoyment.
The concept of enjoyment, as you know, is different for everyone. It's strange to project your own taste onto others. I laid out my criteria above, and they differ from yours. That's normal.
For example, I believe it's better to give players the ability to conduct all battles with neutrals as if it were one player against another. In this case, the player's skill level would have a greater effect than 50% of everything else in the game.
I suggested this idea to Horn. He refused, arguing that the games would drag on much longer. Plus, you wouldn't be able to step away from the computer. So, this is a feature only for specific fixed maps. Although there is something to it, yes.
And I am categorically against disabling morale for neutrals... I consider this a degradation!
Well, that's your opinion. As for me, randomness that doesn't depend on the player but is critical to the result is undesirable in the game (imagine if in chess a queen suddenly decided to fail a morale check).

Heroes isn't poker, where with skillful play over the long run, rare bad beats are offset. There is no concept of "the long run" here—many Tournaments are usually played in a best-of-three format. And there aren't that many tournaments, while the duration of the games is considerable.

Here, you sometimes have to risk your entire stack several times per turn, and you can't just fold; the advantage or deficit grows in geometric progression. Therefore, according to a competitive approach, things like neutral morale should be removed.

If you use a casino approach rather than a competitive one, then there's no argument—morale is very useful and provides drive. But for some reason, morale brings me either frustration (if the opponent gets it) or dissatisfaction (if I get it). Plus, it increases the number of auto-battles taken.

Yes, with a skillful approach, you can fight so that neutral morale isn't particularly critical. That is also part of the skill. But it only mitigates, not eliminates, the factors mentioned above.
Attacking a Lizard horde or any other battle with neutrals in SoD and in TE are two different things.
And beating up low-level neutrals isn't much of a skill indicator—it's more about knowing micro-bugs and AI stupidity.
I attacked from the same save, with the same hero and the same army. The ability to fight neutrals is a very important skill indicator. Just like the ability to assess their numbers, danger, and predict the outcome of the battle.

For the most part, you can be unable to conduct final battles, not know a mass of nuances, but win games effortlessly thanks to smart scouting, resource gathering, army building, and hero leveling. Which is actually what happens regularly—a full-scale FF doesn't happen in every game.

Added after 7 minutes
bRitvo4kA
I disagree; if errors or slips do not affect the result, it means they are trivial and can be neglected, and success was brought about by a better chosen development strategy, etc.
No.

Regarding most errors/slips, you cannot say in advance whether they will affect the result. How many FFs were decided by one person having 5 extra mana while the other spent it in the previous battle? How many times was a unit just one cell short of reaching its destination? How many times was the last hit on the last unit missed or landed?

Among the more frequent things—how many times while clearing the map in the 1st week did the units used for kiting run out? How many times did the "eating" for Hives/Undead run out?

That's why top players, whose gameplay I've had the opportunity to observe live many times (Alex, Mike, Sil), play very cleanly, with refined battle techniques, map movement, and chain building, saving every butterfly, every move point, every single point of mana. Because you don't know in advance if you'll be punished for trying to cut corners. Or perhaps, conversely, you'll be the one doing the punishing.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline Lider1
Registered:
Posts: 3,371
#47
Auto-translated
Wicc


...
Therefore, according to a sporting approach, things like the morale of neutral creatures should be removed.

If we use a non-sporting, casino-like approach, then there is no argument; morale is very useful and provides excitement...


If we follow this approach, then leadership should also be removed! Or left only so that the hero's troops don't lose morale, but the troops themselves don't gain morale in battle!

P.S. I said it wrong - I meant the very fact that the hero's army gains morale.
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/
За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Lider1
User Avatar
Offline Wicc
Registered:
Posts: 5,099
#48
Auto-translated
Lider1
If you follow this approach, then leadership should be removed completely! Or left only to prevent the hero's troops from losing morale, but the troops themselves should not gain morale in battle!
Initially, Horn wanted to do just that. More precisely, not to remove it, but to make it predictable, so that morale/luck would be determined by a specific algorithm and become another factor in the calculation. Unfortunately, the ERM tools were not sufficient, so he limited himself to disabling them for neutral creatures.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline Dirty_Player
Registered:
Posts: 11,032
#49
Auto-translated
I was initially against disabling morality for neutral creatures, but after playing in the test environment, I started to think that it was actually a good move.
The advantage is obvious. For example, today I was playing as Fortress and attacked a stack of 20-49 gargoyles. There turned out to be more than 40 of them, and the first two stacks immediately lost their morality and wiped out 20 of my gremlins... What did I do to deserve that? So, in this case, I'm in favor.

BUT... Also, playing as Fortress in the test environment, I reached level 111 and easily captured a major dwarven town, chasing the poor dwarves around the map for 40 rounds!!! This is definitely more like nonsense...

Unfortunately, it seems that there is no golden mean to be found.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Dirty_Player
User Avatar
Offline Wicc
Registered:
Posts: 5,099
#50
Auto-translated
Dirty_Player
BUT... While playing as Fortress in The Restoration of Erathia, I reached level 111 and easily captured the maximum number of Dwarves, chasing the poor creatures around the battlefield for about 40 rounds!!! This is definitely more like nonsense...
It's not nonsense, but rather an exchange of resources for time. That's why chess clocks are useful.

Similarly, you can capture the maximum number of Dwarves on level 111 as Dungeon – upgrade the Harpies and chase the Dwarves for who knows how many rounds until you eliminate them all.

I've done it myself; the timer is completely depleted, so it's still unclear whether such battles are profitable.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline Oelm
Registered:
Posts: 2,556
#51
Auto-translated
Nevertheless, with a standard army, without group stacks, and without morale, the battles of the first week become routine. Plus, there's no choice: either sacrifice part of the army to defeat the neutrals earlier, or wait for the next reinforcement.
1
⚖️
0
In reply to Oelm
User Avatar
Offline Alex_R
Registered:
Posts: 1,766
#52
Auto-translated
Wicc
I suggested this idea to Horn. He refused, arguing that games would drag on much longer. Plus, you wouldn't be able to step away from the computer. So this feature is only for specific fixed maps. Although there is something to it, yes.

Battles will take more time on average - but this is exactly where TE-style clocks will act as a stimulant, ticking for both sides in battle and preventing them from relaxing. And we will gain speed in the fact that each of the opponent's heroes won't have to conduct 3 fights, or they will simply surrender more often after a loss.
There will also be a gain in that it will slow down development and increase the overall game duration and the development of the Castle/troops/heroes.
Again, the balance of magic schools will change, as stupid lures in crypts or taking cons from mass low will simply no longer work... not to mention utopians.
If it is technically possible to activate the battle for neutrals - then Horn's refusal seems unconvincing (it only expresses his taste)
Wicc
Well, that's your opinion. But for me, randomness in the game that doesn't depend on the player but is critical for the result is undesirable (imagine if in chess a queen suddenly just failed a morale check).
We know the rules of chess and the nature of the moves... if we are to project chess pieces onto heroes - then they are undead (and without luck), so they can't fail a morale check.
On one hand, a strong player finds the element of randomness undesirable because it's the only chance to lose to a weaker player, but there is another side to it: sometimes the one considered weaker simply plays more reliably (Qwerty already tried to say this), and that is exactly the indicator of skill—playing slightly worse but not collapsing. And you often play very riskily, even if 90% of the time it's justified - but if you made a mistake, it's no big deal... the practice of taking and giving autos is widespread.
I often see 1, 2, 3, 5 autos per game in your reports and I don't understand it! Because it contradicts the indicator of skill and professionalism.
I have never taken an auto myself, and I calmly accepted the loss of a hero, a lack of time, or accidentally building a silo instead of a market.
But winning after a loss (without an auto) is the indicator, regardless of whether someone was unlucky 3 times and another was lucky... it's just like the random gold in chests, artifacts, and so on. Probability is a neutral indicator ;)

Wicc
Here, sometimes you have to risk the entire stack several times per turn
And you decided to legalize such a thing by making it unpunished and not risky at all?
Wicc
Only it's just that for some reason morale brings me either grief (if it rolled for the opponent) or dissatisfaction (if it rolled for me). Plus it increases the number of autos taken.
Just don't take and don't give autos - it's a bad habit just like alcohol or smoking.
Wicc
Yes, with a competent approach, you can fight so that neutral morale isn't particularly critical. That is also part of the skill.
These are special cases of risky battles - which are completely distorted by the traditions of auto-taking. Moreover, no one controls when, who, and why asks for an auto.
Wicc
I went in from the same save, with the same hero and the same army. The ability to fight neutrals is a very important indicator of skill. Just as the ability to assess their number, danger, and predict the outcome of the battle.
The ability to fight is necessary, but let's not forget that this is AI, and we sat down to play not 1 against 7 computers, but against an opponent; the fact that one handles neutrals better shows a slight superiority in skill, but a very doubtful one. And I repeat, by having the ability to conduct all battles manually, we can much more effectively eradicate that same element of randomness in the game and, on top of everything, strengthen true combat skills. It's no secret that for many, the final battle is the most interesting element of the game (tournaments like Tactical Corners are built on this).

Wicc
For the most part, you can be unable to conduct final battles, not know a mass of nuances, but thanks to a clever spread, resource gathering, army, and hero leveling, win games in a landslide. Which is actually what happens regularly - a full-fledged FF doesn't happen in every game.
And it's a shame, because ideally, there should be either an equal amount or plenty of both. As it stands, if we exaggerate a bit, the strongest players at the moment are the best resource gatherers.
Wicc
More commonly - how many times while clearing the map in the 1st week did the units for luring run out. How many times did the fodder for hives/utops run out.
Doesn't it seem that this is the most tedious element of the game... this fussing, scraping for every butterfly and every little skeleton is what drags out the time.
One such battle between your army and my horde of neutral lizards and you'll have at least no units left, or at most, significant losses.
And the game will move faster.
Wicc
That's why top players ...play very cleanly, with polished battle techniques, map movement and chain building, saving every butterfly, every move-point, every single point of mana.
This is undoubtedly a class of its own - but also an enormous tension, which doesn't let you step away from the computer - or even blink ;)

P.S. Neutrals need to be domesticated! :smile51:
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Oelm
User Avatar
Offline Wicc
Registered:
Posts: 5,099
#53
Auto-translated
Oelm
However, with a standard army, without a group stack, and without morale, the battles of the first week become routine. Also, there is no choice when you need to either sacrifice part of your army to defeat the neutrals earlier or wait for the next reinforcement.
A competitive approach implies a certain maximalism, within which routine is somehow poorly compatible. No matter how typical the battles are, you still need to maintain concentration, find ways to save as many troops as possible, or as much time as possible on the timer (here is a great opportunity for optimization).

In addition, since the goal is to "devour everything," you have to fight not with one hero, but with all of them, which makes the battles a little more complicated.

Also, since the goal is to "build everything and buy everything in the market on day 121," you often have to go into various dungeons with a dubious army or a dubious hero.

I won't even talk about the difficulties of organizing chains. Two games with Cobra on Jebus were, perhaps, the two most interesting first weeks in my gaming experience. Precisely because of the maximalism in the tasks - to devour everything that can be reached, to build everything that can be realistically built, to buy everything in the market on day 121, and to reach the center. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In fact, the second week of the game on Jebus is much less interesting, as there is no such extreme.

Added 29 minutes ago
Alex_R
On the one hand, a strong player does not want the element of randomness because it is the only chance to lose to a weaker player, but there is another side to this, that sometimes the one who is considered weaker simply plays more reliably (Qwerty has already tried to say this) and the indicator of skill is to play a little worse but not to lose. And you often play very risky, even if 90% of the time it is justified - but if you make a mistake, it's not a big deal... the practice of taking and giving autos is common.
I often see in your reports 1, 2, 3, 5 autos per game and I don't understand this! Because it contradicts the indicator of skill and professionalism.
I have never taken an auto, and I calmly endured the loss of a hero or the lack of time or the random construction of a silo instead of a market.
But winning after a loss (without an auto) is an indicator, and it doesn't matter that someone didn't succeed 3 times, and another did the opposite... this is also like the random amount of money, artifacts, and so on. The probability is a neutral indicator.
And you decided to legalize this by making it a safe and risk-free business?
Yes, don't take or give autos - it's as bad a habit as alcohol or smoking.
These are isolated cases of risky battles that are completely distorted by the tradition of taking autos. Moreover, no one controls when and why someone asks for an auto.
The practice of taking autos is more of a defensive reaction of the psyche to overstrain. Because, for the reasons mentioned, the load on the brain is quite serious. And the ability to take an auto if necessary allows you to slightly reduce concentration, especially if the game is friendly or not very important in a tournament.

So, yes, there is a certain double standard, I don't deny it.

However, people are trying not to abuse it, in particular, few people would dare to take 5 autos. For example, in the aforementioned game with Cobra, I was too embarrassed to take the 3rd auto and preferred to surrender.
And that was a mistake, because ideally there should be either an equal amount or enough of both. And if you exaggerate a little, then the strongest players at the moment are the best resource collectors.
This is a common problem, and I try to fight it. In particular, for this reason, a number of players prefer fixes, where there is less emphasis on mastering the map and more on battles with each other. And there are significantly more of these battles. Randomness (and SoD and TE) is more focused on one final battle.
And doesn't it seem that this is the most addictive element of the game... this fuss, squeezing out every butterfly and every skeleton, and it takes time.
The timer sees everything...

In the next version of TE, it is planned to give the starting time not 4000 seconds, but in portions of 1000 per week - in order to speed up the first weeks.

I'm not aware of the specific problem with the neutrals. I think it's also in the technical part. However, even if such a feature is made, it will be very difficult to convince people to use it... the strategies of battles will be turned upside down. Although maybe that would be for the better.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline Oelm
Registered:
Posts: 2,556
#54
Auto-translated
Playing against neutral factions will significantly prolong the game. I usually have 3-7 battles a day starting from day 1. And here, there will definitely be challenging battles. This means the game will be continuous and will take 2-3 times longer. Overall, it will be a completely different experience. And there won't be any surprises in the Facebook group. But there's something to the idea, and it would be interesting to organize a tournament like that.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Oelm
User Avatar
Offline Dirty_Player
Registered:
Posts: 11,032
#55
Auto-translated
Or maybe we could create KARMIC BATTLES based on World of Xeen, so life doesn't seem too easy? The thrill is unreal! I recommend it :D
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Oelm
User Avatar
Offline Alex_R
Registered:
Posts: 1,766
#56
Auto-translated
Oelm
This will significantly prolong the game when facing neutral creatures. I usually have 3-7 battles a day starting from day 1. But here, there will clearly be difficult battles. This means the game will be continuous and will take 2-3 times longer.
Believe me, if such a feature were implemented, the hero wouldn't be able to withstand 3-7 battles every day starting from day 1... Your army will be significantly reduced on the first ranged unit or fast infantry, and so on.
More likely, there will be a maximum of 1-2 battles a day, and a desire to just survive until Monday.
By the way, this should strengthen the role of Mage Heroes.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Alex_R
User Avatar
Offline Oelm
Registered:
Posts: 2,556
#57
Auto-translated
There will be fewer battles, but the number of game days will increase noticeably. No matter how you look at it, it will still take a long time. Indeed, the role of mages will increase.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Oelm
Offline asm
Registered:
Posts: 251
#58
Auto-translated
Oelm
There will be fewer battles, but the number of game days will noticeably increase. No matter how you look at it, it will still take a long time. Indeed, the role of mages will increase.
Overall, the idea with neutrals is interesting.
"-":
1. Simultaneous turn is not applicable.
2. The game will become similar to a game with an open map.
3. The game time will increase.
4. Imbalance may increase due to the layout - archers and fast melee units will become very dangerous.

"+":
1. Neutrals will not be ordinary zombies as they are now.
2. Battle and crypt-taking tactics will change significantly, and there will be no universal tactics.
3. Although the game will take longer and simultaneous turn will not be applicable, it may become interesting throughout, and not just during your turn, because the waiting opponent will be actively involved.

I think it is not difficult to implement this in the current version of the editor. We need to ask the scripting experts, for example, SAG. There are two options here: either it is not difficult to implement and can be done quickly, or it is impossible.
It would be interesting to test such a version.
1
⚖️
0
In reply to asm
User Avatar
Offline Alex_R
Registered:
Posts: 1,766
#59
Auto-translated
asm
"-":
1. Simultaneous turn is not applicable.

1. Or maybe in the first few days, while simultaneous turn is active, this option shouldn't be enabled, but rather, for example, to allow controlling neutrals after switching to turn-based mode? This would even be better in terms of NOT peeking at the starting army and the opponent's setup, so they wouldn't take restarts. And from the second week, you can already meet the opponent or assess the army through a few taverns, etc.
asm
2. The game will become like a game with an open map.
2. Considering the answer to the first point, I think knowing the opponent's army from the second week won't be as critical, especially since the map itself remains hidden. In this regard, if strengthening secondary skills is planned, the scout skill could be enhanced by allowing viewing of the enemy camp. For example, a hero with the scout skill, if stationed in a city with a tavern, would replace the number of taverns with the scout skill level, or it could be tied to the hero's level, so that a level 10 hero with the scout skill is better than a level 3 hero.
asm
3. Game time will increase.
3. It's difficult to predict how this will affect the real-time cost, but if simultaneous turn (without neutral battles) is implemented, theoretically, the first week will be played twice as fast, and from the moment when simultaneous turn ends and real-time battles with neutrals begin, the battles will likely take a little longer, but their number will decrease.
I don't know the mechanics of the timer in battle; if it ticks separately for each side, you can encourage it by limiting the time for the player controlling the neutrals and making them do it as quickly as possible. In Heroes 5, there are 4 battle modes in this regard.
- normal (think as long as you want)
- dynamic (slow) approximately 15-20 seconds are given for each of your and the enemy's stacks to perform an action; otherwise, the stack is automatically skipped, the same applies to heroes, but the limit is slightly higher, about 20-30 seconds.
- dynamic (medium) the same as "dynamic (slow)," but the limit is smaller... about 10 seconds for monsters and 15-20 for a hero.
- dynamic (fast) 5 seconds for a monster and 10-15 for a hero.
I don't remember the exact numbers, and the system itself is flexible; that is, I noticed that a certain percentage of unused time is carried over as a bonus to the next unit. If you move quickly at the beginning, you can then take a little longer to think.
asm
4. Imbalance may increase due to the setup - archers and fast melee units will become very dangerous.
Well, besides simple gnomes, golems, and zombies, there's not much better protection than that - and all the other stuff will just be less harmless, which is fair and, in my opinion, even improves the balance, because it's not always possible to split up units in all situations, and not all monsters can be split up, but there won't be any splits at all. And in general, neutrals will take revenge for all these years... now their favorite activity will not be distracting with single units or unnecessary meat, but sabotage and terrorism.

P.S. In my opinion, if the goal is to improve gameplay & balance, things like this should be a priority.
And simultaneous turn and timers are more about convenience. But ideally, you want both.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Alex_R
Offline asm
Registered:
Posts: 251
#60
Auto-translated
Alex_R
1. Or maybe in the first few days, while simultaneous turn mode is active, it shouldn't be enabled, but, for example, so that you can control the neutrals after switching to turn-based mode? This would even be better from the point of view of NOT peeking at the starting army and the opponent's setup – so they don't take restarts. And from the second week, you can already meet the opponent or estimate the army after a few taverns, etc.
Quite an interesting idea.
Alex_R

2. Given the answer to the first point, I think knowing the opponent's army from the second week won't be so critical, especially since the map itself remains hidden. In this sense, if it is planned to enhance secondary skills, the scout skill can be enhanced by viewing the enemy camp. For example, a hero with the scout skill, if he is in a city where there is a tavern, replaces the number of taverns = the level of the scout skill, or it can be tied to the hero's level, so that a level 10 hero with the scout skill is better than a level 3 hero.
Well, it's basically the same as with an open map.
You can see:
1. The territory where the battle takes place – you can roughly (and often very accurately) orient yourself where the opponent's hero is on the map.
2. Seeing the army you control, you will understand if the opponent is searching the treasure or not. And if you control a strong army once, it means you have just taken something worthwhile.
3. By controlling the crypts, you will roughly understand the opponent's financial situation, seeing him in the utopia... well, it's clear here, any battle after the utopia will show approximately what he got (he is unlikely to remove combat artifacts).
Alex_R

P.S. In my opinion, if the goal is to improve gameplay & balance, then such things should be a priority.
And simultaneous turn and timers are more about convenience. But ideally, I would like both.

The idea with the neutrals is quite interesting and it would be nice to try it.
But first of all, I want to implement all the interface features that will significantly reduce the game time, and then we can seriously deal with features that change the gameplay.

For example, in the next version, I plan to make the following feature to speed things up:
- before each battle, you are shown the result of a quick combat
- you can agree or replay manually
This feature is designed for battles in which you will definitely not lose anything (a powerful army, you are beating weak units), and they take about 0.5-1 minute.
0
⚖️
0