Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Should we ban the Griffin Conservatory and the Hive of Serpents?
It's not worth forbidding players from taking Ducks from the Hive, as they simply need to collect them and find them in the Treasure Zone, meaning both players have roughly equal chances of doing so.
Also, it's not worth forbidding players from taking Canned Goods (there aren't many of them to begin with) in the Treasure Zones.
However, whether or not to allow players to collect Angels from Canned Goods on "regular" respawn points is something that can be discussed, while still allowing them to defeat Griffons for experience. Regarding the ban on collecting Angels on respawn points.
Added 32 minutes ago Oelm
In general, all this talk about how the opponent got a lot of Canned Goods and Hives (I'm not denying that this happens, but it plays a decisive role in no more than 10%) is just whining.
I don't know, Pasha, you've underestimated the 10% dependence of Victory on Canned Goods and Hives. From my experience, they have a decisive impact of at least 60%. Also, with these factors, you'll be able to take the Undead, Artifacts, and other useful things faster, and ultimately defeat the player to whom this loot wasn't distributed.
Off-topic: And it's true that luck is needed in Heroes! Sometimes you get discouraged when you analyze games and realize that the outcome of the game depended on some "small step" that wasn't taken correctly.
Sometimes, I even have thoughts that when you do something "wrong" in the "real world," you're bound to make a mistake in the "game," in addition to the influence of objective factors.
In one of the games, my opponent had 3 Conservatories and 3-4 Hives on his home base. And even then, I think he shouldn't have lost, considering his gameplay, but he simply forgot to transfer the army from his third hero on the second day, and as a result, he lost almost everything to the Gold Golems (he didn't bother to resurrect units because of his home base's secondary skill). That's why he ultimately lost, and that's the main reason. That's why I'd give him a 10% chance of winning in that situation. Everything else is just details.
Generally, in Heroes there are many factors, and if one factor doesn't work out, another factor might bring luck.
There were games where the 2nd and 3rd native secondary skills, Консы, were not the deciding factor because the opponent had a Dragon Utopia on the Respawn with a Book of Earth – here the explosion decided the outcome.
There were games where one player got nearly 3000 magical damage in a single round from Dragon Utopias, but the other simply had the Красный Шарик, which decided the game.
The game is designed in such a way that if you're unlucky with resources, you'll be lucky with hives, or if not with those, then with artifacts, or a good hero will appear, and so on. The more such random events there are, the smaller the deviation from some average. Mathematicians could probably justify this with formulas. And that's why I'm against the TE approach (with it, the games become dull and routine).
The calculation is this: if you don't collect all the resources and hives from the spawns (and ideally also from the opponent's spawns) by the 2nd week, then what advantage can we even talk about?
The game is obviously balanced in such a way that if you're unlucky with conservatories, you'll be lucky with hives; if not with those, then with artifacts, or a good hero will appear, and so on. And the more such random events there are, the smaller the deviation from a certain average. Mathematicians will surely be able to justify this with formulas. And that is precisely why I am against the TE approach (with it, pacifist games become dull and routine).
The calculation is: if you don't collect all the conservatories and hives from respawns (and preferably also from the opponent's respawns if possible) by the 2nd week, then what advantage can we even talk about.
Agreed, Pasha.
It's another matter when (and this also happens, in about 20% of cases, I think) one player gets lucky with something, while another gets unlucky with everything.
And no matter what "level" a player is, you must agree, there is no counter to such a "broken" situation.
And it is precisely these, so to speak, 20 percent that I would like to eliminate in Heroes.
Have people already forgotten about Balan? I don't understand at all what the spawn density has to do with it? :confused:
The spawn is filled with objects up to a specific value. Whoever has a lot of cans and hives will have that value go to waste, while whoever doesn't have cans and hives will have something else to fill that same value.
The map is populated with objects, each having a specific value. Players with many cans and hives will have their value reduced, while those without cans and hives will have something else to compensate for the same value.
I might have missed something, but the total value on the 2sm4d(3) template is often not symmetrical for both players.
If you take the "Central" spawn points, you can see this without even using a calculator.
Has everyone forgotten about Balanase? I don't understand why the respawn rate is relevant here:confused:
Apparently, Forrest meant that if you know how to play, the opponent's artifacts and resources don't bother him much, and the respawn rate is always filled with what is useful to him:D.
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
The map is filled with objects, each with a specific value. Those with many Preserves and Hives will have their value reduced, while those without will have something else to fill that value.
Even if we assume this is true (and looking at the layouts in competitive games, it's often clear that this isn't always the case), I estimate that a Preserve isn't much more valuable than a Necropolis. So, let's say 2 Necropolises and 1 Preserve are roughly equal in value to 3 Preserves, say on levels 2, 3, and 4. Doesn't it seem that removing the Preserves would make the situation much more balanced? It's clear that the internal content of the objects isn't taken into account when calculating the total value, and this content can vary GREATLY. While we can tolerate some imbalance between different types of structures like a Fortress and a Necropolis, the issue is different with the topic at hand. The inequality is often too large.
1. In my opinion, for zones, it's not the sum of the value that is set, but the maximum permissible value for each object and the density of objects. Thus, the sum will depend on the size of the spawn area and can vary greatly between opponents.
2. If construction trees are prohibited, there will indeed be a problem with the imbalance in the loot, as the value of trees is quite significant. But I suspect that this problem can be easily solved by prohibiting the generation of construction trees and hives, as is currently done with tents, cartographers, and upgrade forts.
3. Regarding "2 angels + 40 grand creatures vs. 9 angels." Stashes and construction tree hives are far from a complete list of imbalance factors. a) If the opponent receives Mass Slow early on, along with 40 grand creatures and 2 angels, and the map is suitable, while you don't have enough money for 121, you simply won't have time to gather 9 angels; he will arrive earlier. b) If the opponent has stables, boots, logistics, and convenient exits to the treasure locations, and you have nowhere to go with 9 angels, i.e., there is no quick route to the opponent, the map is strong, and the treasure locations are inconvenient, he can easily outrun you.
I'm not claiming that the distribution is always fair now; anything can happen. But with the prohibition, it will be even worse, because, as I repeat, with a decrease in the number of possible bonuses, the probability that the generator will distribute them evenly decreases.
But with a ban, it will be even worse, because, as I said, with a decrease in the number of possible bonuses, the probability decreases that the generator will distribute them evenly.
In my opinion, weaker bonuses are distributed much more evenly. Regarding everything else, the example with 9 (why necessarily with 9?, if a close pass is enough with 2-3 in the second week, it's just that here they constantly bring up an "irrefutable" argument in the form of a stash with elves and 40 grand on the 2nd week, yeah, "they saw a stash with elves and decided not to continue" - what nonsense :D.
In my opinion, it distributes less powerful bonuses much more evenly.
Nonsense, I'm sorry.
why does it have to be with 9?
The numbers 2, 40, and 9 are from your morning post; reread it, or try to remember.
if there's a nearby passage, 2-3 will be enough in the second week's rush
A Miner came to me with 3 Angels at the beginning of the second week and got crushed by the Grand Lords from their hidden stash; he complained about bad luck.
it's just that the "irrefutable" argument is constantly brought up in the form of a hidden stash with Elves and 40 Grand Lords in the 2nd week, yeah, "they saw the hidden stash with Elves and decided not to continue"
I didn't make that argument.
what nonsense, I'm sorry
You lost a parenthesis; it's up to us to guess what this phrase refers to, but in any case, the phrase is strange for someone who wanted to hear arguments.
Let me explain in more detail. Suppose we have 10 Gnomes and 10 Canned Goods, randomly distributed and with different contents. Let's say one gets 3 Gnomes with minimal stats, and another gets 7 with better stats. It's hard to argue that this is less critical compared to the same distribution of Canned Goods. :rolleyes: That is, the more valuable the objects, the more significant the difference in their uneven distribution, so I won't apologize. :D Medium_HP
A Miner came to me with 3 Angels at the beginning of the second week, got crushed by Grand Griffins from a stash, and complained about bad luck.
That Miner was a bit strange, it seems like an exceptional case to me. However, even 3 stashes with Elves won't help much, for example, when taking on Mermaids, but 5-10 Angels and 20-30 Ducks will help, and after that, even 300 Elves might not be enough anymore. ;) Medium_HP
You missed a parenthesis, so it's up to guess what this phrase refers to, but in any case, the phrase is strange for someone who wanted to hear arguments.
I wanted to hear convincing arguments, and the argument that a stash with Elves, in the absence of the subject of the dispute, will become an invincible force seems to me to be exactly what I already called it. ;)
Let me explain in more detail: suppose there are 10 dwarf dwellings and 10 cans, randomly placed and with different contents inside. Let's say one person got 3 minimal dwarf dwellings, while another got 7 "fatter" ones; it's hard to argue that this is less critical compared to the same distribution of cans :rolleyes: In other words, the more valuable the objects are, the more significant the difference in their uneven distribution becomes, so I won't apologize :D
The next step will be "ban Dragon Utopias, because one guy gets boots of levitation and a bag of gold, while another gets a teapot with a book of air—it's actually imba"
Then (after banning Dragon Utopias) we'll start banning external dwellings: "I mean, what is this, he got an angel external dwelling on his respawn guarded by lots of wood, it's just imba, there's nothing to counter it".
Дубровин Павел
