Should we ban the Griffin Conservatory and the Hive of Serpents? — General

Wlk777

5/30/2009 8:25 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Wicc

The next step will be "banning Dragon Utopias, because one guy gets boots of levitation and a bag of gold, while the other gets a teapot and a book of air, it's actually imba"

Then (after banning utop) we'll start banning external dwellings: "well what is this, he got an angel external dwelling on his respawn under guard with lots of one-//wood, it's just imba, there's nothing to counter it".

And so on ...

Let's just cancel all the bans then? Of course, upgraded pixies are much stronger than free angels and have a much greater impact on the course of the game, I don't deny that :D :D :D
Now seriously—external dwellings of levels 5-7 under minor guard aren't encountered that often when the opponent lacks something similar, and as I've grown tired of repeating, there are few troops in them and they cost money. Regarding utop—here too, everything will be balanced by the fact that taking them will become much harder without a bunch of free troops. So it's not as simple as it seems. Today I played a game with Britva with an agreement to ban canned uliks; we both liked it. And recalling other games, I'll say that as a rule, when the imbalance of free angels and ducks doesn't have a significant impact on the course of the game—simply put, both get very little or manage to take very little—the games often become more interesting and dynamic, often with a good finale or even several.

Medium_HP

5/30/2009 8:55 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Even if one player gets 3 minimal Gnomish units, and another gets 7 more powerful ones, it's hard to argue that this is less critical.

How does this support the statement

In my opinion, weaker bonuses are distributed much more evenly.

?

Then let's cancel all the restrictions.

The current restrictions, unlike what you're suggesting, are designed to eliminate imbalances that exist regardless of randomness. Without them, Necropolis and Fortress would barely be playable, except against each other.

In reply to Medium_HP

Oelm

5/30/2009 10:08 PM UTC

Auto-translated

It's a different story when (and this happens too, I think about 20% of the time) one player gets lucky in something, while another gets completely unlucky in everything.

I formed my opinion precisely because I haven't encountered situations where someone is completely unlucky in everything, in about 60 online games. The two worst scenarios I remember were when I was playing as Blue Necropolis and was rushed twice by Elves, but in that case, I apologize, it's the price to pay for the additional bonuses of that faction. Since then, I haven't allowed myself to play Necropolis-Rampart as Blue. In all other cases, losses were the result of mistakes.

In reply to Medium_HP

Wlk777

5/31/2009 8:33 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Medium_HP

As this confirms the phrase:

"And in my opinion, less powerful bonuses are distributed much more evenly."

Moderated: FLOOD in the message

if you randomly distribute a few coins worth from 1 to 5 rubles to two people, the difference will be less significant in the case of uneven distribution than if you distribute random bills worth from 10 to 5000 rubles to them.

Moderated: FLOOD in the message

Wicc

5/31/2009 8:49 AM UTC

Auto-translated

You can take a look at the quintessence of comrade 777's approach: http://www.forum.heroes.by/viewtopic.php?t=630&start=0 These are the rules of the Polish Heroes league. There are no "conserves," "hives," "dungeons," or "hidden spots," and there are many other restrictions, and the template is "Balance." It's an extremely dull game...

In reply to Wicc

Wlk777

5/31/2009 8:55 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Wicc

You can take a look at the essence of 777's approach:

http://www.forum.heroes.by/viewtopic.php?t=630&start=0

These are the rules of the Polish Heroes league. There are no Conserves/Hives/Dungeons/Hidden spots, many other restrictions, and the template is Balance.

An extremely boring game...

With an overly zealous approach, any normal idea can be brought to complete ruin, I don't argue.

Moderated: FLOOD in the message

Wicc

5/31/2009 9:07 AM UTC

Auto-translated

It didn't even take much effort here. It's a perfectly logical continuation of your idea. And it is quite competent (for the goal they set), as far more nuances were taken into account than in yours.

Since there are no free angel-ducks, you accumulate troops for taking the Dragon Utopia with great difficulty; you manage to get in on the 3rd week if you're lucky (though usually the 4th is needed), and you lose a significant portion (well, it's a weak army, there are no tanky stacks like angels and vivs), and as a result... you're out of luck, time to surrender, because even if there are enough troops for a second Dragon Utopia, they will be severely depleted there. Dragon Utopias must be banned, definitely.

In reply to Wicc

Alex_R

5/31/2009 9:39 AM UTC

Auto-translated

I repeat, the idea is quite interesting—the solution is nonexistent.
The fact that Dragon Utopia must be taken with native troops and later in time is more of a plus.
For example, Dungeon with its 1-3 in Stronghold + mushrooms, portal, etc., is an indicator of the degradation of castle development under conditions of free handouts.
With Necromancer, there's nothing to be done—they should also become worse due to the weakness of their core troops, but on the condition that necromancy itself is nerfed a bit.
Inferno players will probably rise, as they will remain "free-riders" regarding army growth thanks to demonology and will actually be the strongest in breaking through Dragon Utopia (except for Necromancers).
I'm not sure about Tower; on one hand, it was weak in structures like Clues or Canned Goods and should benefit from this ban, since simply walking across the field to fight armies is not difficult for them.
But at the same time, taking Dragon Utopia with native troops—on 131 maybe 9-10 nagas and that's it, the rest are offerees.
On 141, it's hard to imagine even taking the maximum with natives!
There are other pluses:
the role of shooters should increase, as well as the difficulty of besieging an enemy capital.
The variety of the finale—and overall more diverse and tense gameplay—will improve.
Magic heroes, the schools of magic themselves, and various spells will be more preferable than just Greg or Tazar or Shakti without a book :)
P.S. Thinking should move in these directions:
- replace these types of structures with something else (via script)
- reduce or replace the rewards within them
- implement a partial or full ban on them via rules

Dirty_Player

5/31/2009 10:10 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Wlk777

Why did you develop my idea so little? Let's finish it – play with only one hero and only with native troops, don't capture any objects at all, not even outposts and necropolises, don't use any artifacts, don't visit any skill-boosting locations, etc., etc. :D :D :D

Just a couple more steps like that, and we'll get to TK-3 :D

Wicc

5/31/2009 10:28 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Wlk777

Why did you develop my idea so little? Let's finish it – play with only one hero and only with native troops, don't capture any objects at all, not even mines and dungeons, don't use any artifacts, don't visit level-up locations, etc., etc. :D :D :D

No.

Mines, dungeons, and level-up locations are, using your analogy, coins worth 1-5 rubles. Let them exist.

But nagabanks, yes, those should also be banned. By the way, when playing according to Polish rules, the most critical thing is the number and size of available nagabanks. Because that's where you get the money to build a second castle.

Oelm

5/31/2009 11:04 AM UTC

Auto-translated

What kind of overpowered units are you talking about? You take Andru instead of Tazar at the start, and rush on the second level. I don't see any major problems with taking Utopia on the third level, even without free units.
+ Any Necromancer in the tavern is a bonus.

In reply to Oelm

Wlk777

5/31/2009 11:11 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Oelm

What kind of nonsense are you talking about? You take Andra as a starting hero instead of Tazar, and rush on the second week. I don't see any big problems with taking Utopia on the third week, even without free troops.
+ Any Necromancer in the tavern is a bonus.

All of this is relevant and doesn't violate any rules. I don't understand this panic about rushing on the second week; firstly, you still need to find a path to the opponent, and secondly, everything is quite balanced and doesn't involve free wins and angels (but with them, that's where the balance often fails; having about 7 angels on day 124 is quite imbalanced, no Andra can help with that), for every Andra, there will be a Gurney with mass haste.

In reply to Wlk777

Medium_HP

5/31/2009 1:20 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Wlk777

Since you don't seem to understand Russian, I'll try to explain it to you as simply as possible: if you randomly distribute a few coins, ranging from 1 to 5 rubles, to two people, the difference will be less significant in the case of uneven distribution than if you distribute random banknotes ranging from 10 to 5000 rubles. If you still don't get it, drink some poison :smile41: :)

Both of your examples confirm that uneven distribution of less important bonuses has less impact than the same uneven distribution of larger bonuses. But this doesn't mean that minor bonuses are distributed more evenly. I've highlighted the key word in your phrase again; put on your glasses, explainer.

In reply to Medium_HP

Wlk777

5/31/2009 1:43 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Medium_HP

Both of your examples confirm that the uneven distribution of less important bonuses matters less than the same uneven distribution of large bonuses. But this does not mean that small bonuses are distributed more evenly. I highlighted the key word in your phrase again, put on your glasses, explainer.

Try to understand the meaning of what they are trying to tell you, and don't nitpick individual words taken out of context. Although, if you think about it, I was right all along. If you remember the example with coins and banknotes, it is precisely because the items being distributed have less value that they are distributed less unevenly. Is it really that hard to figure out, or are you just not smart enough? :confused:

Added 6 minutes later

Medium_HP

P.S. Persistence in defending one's opinion is good, as long as it doesn't turn into stubbornness.

Maybe so, but I haven't seen any serious arguments to change my opinion yet; they are all superficial and VERY dubious and controversial.

In reply to Wlk777

Wicc

5/31/2009 1:58 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Wlk777

Maybe, but I haven't seen any serious arguments to change my opinion yet; they are all superficial and VERY dubious and debatable.

The situation here is a bit different. It's not up to us to prove the absurdity of your idea; it's up to you to prove its relevance. The voting shows that you're not doing very well at that. Besides, everyone has the right to their own opinion and the right to play with the settings they find interesting.

Moderated: OFF-TOPIC in the message