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

The ability to see the opponent's army or estimate their location is more of a plus than a minus. It's a significant step towards a game with complete information (like chess).

If you add mirrored map templates to this, it would be even better.

I remember playing with friends on a hot-seat setup when I was a kid, and we didn't look away during the opponent's turn. Our battle and movement tactics were poor, but our strategic thinking was off the charts.

I remember playing with friends on hot-seat mode when I was a kid, and we wouldn't look away during the other player's turn. Our battle and movement techniques were terrible, but our strategic thinking was off the charts.

+1! For example, when someone told me about rushing, I didn't believe it at first :D
The most amazing thing is that I enjoyed the game ten times more back then than I do now.

Let me try changing the subject. After talking with Asmo, I gained some new insights into their views on the game. I came to the conclusion that they clearly lack analysis of game situations (at least in specific cases). For example, he wants to implement a balance of magic schools in the game according to "his vision," without the possibility of choice. But that's not even the main point. He believes that the slow pace in the second level is clearly more balanced, without the possibility of restructuring the guild. Does anyone else think that this will create balance (and if so, explain why) in this particular version?

The most balanced approach would be to have Mass Slow and Mass Haste as separate spells at level 4, similar to how they were in Heroes II. Mass Slow is arguably the most powerful spell among low-level spells. Therefore, it makes sense that it was nerfed in the Trial of Elements – making it harder to obtain by removing it from the starting spells of heroes and moving it to the second tier. This balanced the situation; now, in the Trial of Elements, it's not used as often, and is on par with other mass spells. Based on my personal experience, I use Mass Haste, Mass Shield, Mass Stone, and Mass Bless more often than Mass Slow. If there's a reason to take Fire for the future, Mass Cure would be added to this list as well (it's a significantly more useful spell than Mass Slow in that context). In Shades of Darkness, the presence or absence of Mass Slow is one of the central factors in evaluating the success of a build/development.

Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes balance. For some, a slow rate in the second guild is balanced, while for others, it isn't. Therefore, to avoid anyone feeling offended, I think it should be made optional or implemented as a SoD (Shadow of Death) feature!

In my opinion, without restructuring the guilds, a slow rate at level 2 is pointless; however, if the guilds are restructured, it's acceptable.

Added 5 minutes later
Another option: slow rate at level 3, and it's ALWAYS granted in the guild! IMO, this slightly buffs mages, just like the Wisdom skill! :cool:

Play only with rebuilding, sure. It's not even about the spell itself, but about the upper tiers – DD, TP.

Regarding the spell, I can recommend the following – play with a rule that prohibits its use. You'll quickly realize that there are many other spells that are just as useful. As well as combat tactics that are different from "cast mass spell and obliterate everything."

From my personal experience – when building the 2nd tier, I usually look for Blind, not Word. Especially in dungeons. I don't hesitate to rebuild the 2nd tier for Blind; I do it regularly. I rarely do it for Word, and more often for FF, rather than for neutral creatures.

The most balanced approach would be to have Mass Slow and Mass Haste as separate spells at level 4, similar to Heroes II.

In Heroes II, mass spells are indeed separate, but there are no schools of magic. And by the way, Mass Slow is valued more than Mass Haste.
Mass Slow costs 12 mana and is on the 4th tier, while Mass Haste costs 9 mana and is on the 3rd tier, just like Mass Bless.
Here, the question is whether to not interfere with the magic system from Shades of Darkness, or to change not only Slow if we do.

Heh... maybe for now, all warriors should be prohibited from leveling up Earth and Air magic to Expert? And Mages will rise, and the schools of Water and Fire will also rise :D ... and then come up with something more serious...

Asm suggested making many changes, but this is just a demonstration of the approach. I told him:

In my opinion, without restructuring the guilds, slow gameplay at level 2 is a dead end.

He replied, saying that I don't know how to play, and suggested we play for fun. I said, "No, I haven't played in Light mode for six months." I believe that if such obvious flaws are not recognized, then the whole idea, in its current form, is amateurish, and there will be at least 1000 bugs in the final product.

With this approach, he will be playing against the computer alone. :D
But on the other hand, he's the one making it, no one is paying him for it, so he has the right to do it however he wants.

he replied to me, saying that I don't know how to play.

IMO, if Oelm and Asm were to play, I would bet on Oelm... So now, because of such attitudes, we shouldn't consider the opinion of a player who plays frequently? It seems Asm is becoming more and more self-centered, hiding behind such words.

Oelm
and he replied to me, you don't know how to play

In my opinion, if Oelm and Asm were to play, I would bet on Oelm... now, because of such approaches, should we ignore the opinion of a player who plays often? It seems that Asm is becoming more and more selfish, hiding behind such words.
I look at these discussions and it makes me smile; nothing has been done yet, but everyone knows how to do it better.
My brother was right: DO IT AND DON'T INTERFERE WITH ANYTHING (don't argue with anyone).
And about Oelm, I won't say anything at all....
If I'm doing something, it means I've thought about it a little.
It is difficult to describe the entire concept of the add-on, because it is still only in my head and is based on many factors.
I can only explain a little, for example, using the word:
As Vic wrote eloquently, slow is perhaps the strongest first-level spell, and

In SoD, the presence/absence of mass spells is one of the central factors for evaluating the success of a build/development

Very accurately stated!
Therefore, it needs to be changed.
Secondly, I want to bring scrolls back into the game, so rebuilding the lower floors will be less decisive.
Thirdly, I want to make all the balancing changes with minimal changes to the gameplay (relative to SoD), and rebuilding the guild is already a new gameplay element.
Fourthly, Vic's correct remark about the control problem, so we leave the option of rebuilding the guild (if this problem is solved, then rebuilding will not be necessary). For example, as an idea, a mage hero with some magical skill (such as wisdom, for example) can, for a fee (like rebuilding the corresponding floor), while in the castle with an already built floor, "re-learn" spells ONLY IN HIS BOOK. This will boost mages, which is what is needed, and "rebuilding" will be a personal prerogative of mage heroes (but all these thoughts and ideas are in the very distant future) (by the way, this thought came to me just now and I really liked it as an idea for Wisdom)
Fifthly, options are very flawed (if you're interested, I can also comment on that), so we limit ourselves to the first option of rebuilding the guild and do not make the slow spell option on the first floor.
Sixthly, in general, the T-based magic balancing, in my opinion, is very successful, and people played with it without rebuilding the guild (until version q).
Based on the above, we put slow on the second floor.
I can also answer specific questions, and I will ask the hotheads to calm down.
If anyone has suggestions/objections and can present them in an argument, like Vic, I will gladly listen.
And statements like
"without rebuilding guilds, slow on the 2nd level is a dead end, if with rebuilding, then it's normal"
this is not an argument.
And one more thing, the main direction of the add-on is to improve the interface, all balancing and gameplay changes are secondary - here I am just trying to find a compromise between balance, a minimum number of settings, simplicity and a minimum of changes relative to SoD.

If anyone has suggestions/objections and can present them in a well-reasoned manner, like Vic, I'd be happy to listen.

The same request applies to you, by the way. For example, we never heard a justification for why it should be done this way and not another. The option "because I want it that way" is, for obvious reasons, not suitable.

Watching all this boasting makes me smile; nothing has been done yet, but everyone knows how to do it better.
My brother was right: DO IT AND DON'T INTERFERE (don't argue with anyone).

A wolf is lying on a meadow, resting. A crow is jumping around him at a respectful distance and showering him with colorful insults. The wolf lies there, not reacting. A hare approaches the crow:
- Crow, what are you doing?
- Just showing off.
- Can I do it too?
- Well, if you really want to...
And the hare starts to insult the wolf after the crow. Suddenly, the wolf jumps up, the crow flies to a branch, and the hare is caught in the wolf's paws. The crow says to the hare:
- Why can't you fly?
- No!!!
- Then why were you showing off???

I'm saying that this approach is generally correct, and I often do it myself. But it's not because I'm some arrogant jerk who doesn't care about anyone, but because I know that it's the right and necessary thing to do, so if anything happens, I can convincingly justify all my actions and also find supporters and a support group. In the opposite case, I don't just jump in headfirst with my fly unzipped.

I have the same request for you, by the way. For example, we never heard the reasoning behind why it should be done this way and not another. The option "because I want it that way" is not suitable for obvious reasons.

It is quite difficult to outline the entire concept of the add-on, because it is still only in my head and is based on many factors.

I can only explain it a little, for example, using a word:
...

Well, why am I even making this add-on? In this case, the phrase "because I want it that way" is more appropriate.
The goals are approximately as follows:
- to create unified game rules
- to create a unified game hero space
- to continue the good work of Horn and create a worthy Tournament version of Heroes
- to maximize the distribution of the Tournament version of Heroes

Asm claims that OELM plays poorly. If that's the case, then he doesn't think it's necessary to consider his opinion. Asm's point was this: there's no room for misinterpretation here. This is coming from someone who then asks others to justify their arguments. But are his own arguments justified? Has he even looked at OELM's saves from 3-4 games? I've seen 2 of OELM's games, and I've seen some of Asm's latest saves from the beta: Asm plays SIGNIFICANTLY worse! Not only does Asm insult a random person for no reason, but it turns out that this is also an incorrect statement when compared to his own gameplay. And all of this is because, in Asm's opinion, "some unknown player" dared to criticize his vision of the game. Which, by the way, is very debatable due to Asm's skill level as a player, and because Asm doesn't play much, it's also unfounded.
After Asm insults a random person who, by the way, just wanted to contribute to a good cause, Asm still has the audacity to say things like "calm down, hotheads." You should first learn to treat other people with respect, then calm down yourself, and then say things like that!
If you really wanted to unite the Heroes community, you would never say such things to other players!

Please, take it easy. People often tend to overestimate their skill level. There's no need to get offended. I, for example, have had a couple of rather weak games recently.
But what remains unclear to me is this: if I were involved in creating a new version (which is impossible due to my complete lack of knowledge in computer science), I would definitely ask myself whether my skill level is sufficient to properly evaluate game mechanics. Am I making any mistakes in my conclusions? I would conduct an analysis, find out the opinions of different players, and then build the future framework. Whether to listen or not is up to the author (this is undoubtedly their right). But it is essential to understand the position, to understand why a person thinks one way and not another. To delve into someone else's vision of the game.
I tried to lead to this for 2 hours, but I couldn't make the person think about it. In a way, this is my failure. In response, I was told that they had already analyzed everything. The dissonance between this and the fact that the person hasn't played SOD for six months is huge.
Another developer immediately started explaining to me in detail how to build chains in Heroes. An insult? No, of course not – I found it quite amusing.
I don't think it's necessary to prove why it's not worth moving the slow magic spell to the 2nd level (without restructuring). After all, any decent Heroes player with an analytical mind can figure it out on their own. Otherwise, we are simply speaking different languages.
I would really like it if we could avoid harsh words here, and focus on constructive feedback.