Posts from Autosaves: Should they be enabled or not?

I don't ask for automatic wins myself, but sometimes they are offered. After that, you want to play with such a player again. Let's consider 2 scenarios: 1) The player lost and asked for an automatic win. 2) The player lost, disconnected from the internet, then reconnected and said that the power went out or something similar. In the first case, we are dealing with an honest person, and in the second case, it is unknown. Everyone experiences situations where: the power goes out, a wife (lover, someone from the family) turned off the computer, there are connection problems, heroes crash during their turn, and many other things. It is impossible to accuse a person of losing and blaming it on internet problems. We always grant an automatic win in the second case. So why not grant it in the first case? Why should a player, if they want to win and lost, have to choose between two options? I am in favor of granting an automatic win. Nevertheless, I believe that "automatic win" and "internet disconnection" should not happen often. Allowing a player to restart 5 times in a game is, in my opinion, wrong. However, the author of the topic mentioned this in the first post. Another thing is when a player uses both restarts due to a lack of bee hives, conservation areas, ranged attack positions, or something else, and then asks for a restart for the third time because of a blockade. I would never grant that! I also like this: 1 unspent restart = 1 automatic win.

I also like: 1 unplayed restart = 1 auto-win

At first, it seemed brilliant! But after thinking about it, I realize what happens: one player gets blocked and one stack instead of three (or various Lorelei/Pikedragon units), while the other player gets an easy win without having to spend any restarts, and also gets 2 auto-wins on top of that????:confused: lol:)

I had an idea about combining restarts and autosaves:smile20:! What if we remove 111 and 113, but instead offer one restart at 112 and one autosave (in the 1st week!! or before meeting the opponent) for each player. In my opinion, this would be noticeably faster! Regarding restarts before turn 116, I suggest limiting them to one time per game; there's no need to regularly exploit this loophole if something goes wrong:smile42:! If anyone is interested, we could conduct a couple of experimental games or a mini-tournament with about 8 players and immediately start the playoffs. Also, I'm interested in the statistics on restart times under the current rules: if it's not too much trouble, roughly track them so that we have something to compare with actual data later (in my last 3-4 games, it took less than 2 hours to restart, but sometimes it took up to 4, think about it: 4 hours of restarts - do we need that?!:smile21:). In this format, even I, despite my dislike of autosaves, would fully support them!;

Let's apply some arithmetic:) How long does it take for two normal players to complete a turn in the 1st week on average? Depending on their skill, it takes about 10-20 minutes (it can take longer for experienced players), so let's take 15 minutes (this is an approximate figure). Now let's estimate the maximum possible restart period under the current rules and under the rules I propose:

1) 2*1.1.1 + 2*1.1.3 + (approximately) 2*1.1.5 (these can be replaced with 1 1.1.6 + a couple of level 10 encounters + and other circumstances like humanitarian restarts, etc.) = (2*30-15) + (2*90-15) + 2*150 = 45 + 165 + 300 = 510 minutes, which, as you can easily calculate, is almost 9 hours (this is no joke and no mistake: there have been cases of even longer restarts, ask Lebron:D!);

2) 2*112 + 1*1.1.6 + 30 minutes (approximately) for 2 autosaves = (2*60-15) + 180 + 30 = 105 + 210 = 315 minutes, which is almost 2 times less:smile13: :smile14: :smile49: :cool:, i.e., even in the worst circumstances, it will still take no more than 5 hours to restart!

Draw your own conclusions;)

Kostya, please remove this noobish behavior; what kind of auto-pick are you talking about? For me, for example, merging with neutral players and then fighting for victory is shameful!
Rejecting re113 is indeed a wise idea, but simply rejecting it, not replacing it with auto-pick!

Kostya, get rid of this noobishness, what the hell do you mean "auto"? For me, for example, losing to neutrals and then fighting for victory is a disgrace!
Giving up on re113 is indeed a wise thought, but just giving it up, not replacing it with auto!

In the context that I proposed, auto won't be "humanitarian aid" for noobs and losers—it will simply be a substitute for a restart, and a clearly diminished substitute at that, because during restarts many strive to fish for something sweet, but with an auto instead of a 2nd restart, that trick no longer works:). Well, in what cases would it be acceptable? Not necessarily even after a wipe (if in the format I'm proposing): for example, you took the long road and at 115-117 you hit some nasty ranged block with a heavily damaged army, whereas a day before you could have turned toward another secondary—so why not take an auto here? I would boldly take it under my rules; tempo in the 1st week is an extremely important thing...

Auto will simply continue to be given as it has been—and since they are currently unregulated, it's a legal right of the players. Some take 2, some 3, and some even up to 5 per game:D . I want to end these unlimited indulgences forever by setting strict limits on them in the rules. One auto for each person and only during the 1st week or before meeting the other player's heroes. Why is this bad—I can't understand?:confused:

P.S. Believe me, I don't like autos myself, and perhaps even more than you do, Kostyan;) . Just read my posts in the thread. But it's one thing to have an auto in a 3-4 cons on the 2nd or in the Dragon Utopia on the 3rd, and something completely different—auto as a replacement for a restart:cool: .

Um, sorry for interrupting, but
KostyaN, with that rule, you're limiting those who don't give or take auto-attack. Any loss due to trying to break through something is the player's problem, meaning they shouldn't have tried in the first place, just like leaving the battle on the wrong path.
And as for those who give auto-attack, that's also their personal decision. They allow it at their own risk. There's no need to mix up tournament games and casual fun.

Um, sorry for interrupting, but
KostyaN, with that rule, you're limiting those who don't give or take auto-attacks at all. Any loss due to trying to break through something is the player's problem, meaning they shouldn't have interfered, just like leaving through the wrong path. And regarding those who give auto-attacks, that's also their personal decision. They allow it at their own risk. There's no need to mix up tournament games and fun games.

That's exactly the point, ZYbr, that even in tournaments, auto-attacks are given, and some real geniuses do it:D!! And there's no need to confuse ranked seasonal games and fun games – they are completely different:rolleyes:!

What can I even suggest here? People keep writing and writing... about some congress, some Germans... it's making my head spin! Just take everything and divide it... :D
I'm playing more and more on rest servers, with a total of 112, at most 113, maybe even introduce it to the seasonal servers... ;

That's exactly the point, ZYbr, that tournaments also offer rewards, and some unique players even do! But don't confuse ranked seasonal games with casual games – they are completely different!

Well, I'm saying that it's their problem. And regarding the difference, it's one thing to give an auto-win in a casual game. There, it's not shameful to take or give one. And it's another thing in a tournament game. There should be some responsibility for one's own game... Imagine, in football, you score a goal from a free kick because the goalkeeper positioned the wall incorrectly. The scorer celebrates, and then the referee says: The goal doesn't count! The goalkeeper got an auto-save!:D

As for your rule, it doesn't affect those who give auto-wins; it only restricts those who don't. So, it only works negatively.

I think it’s perfect as is. If there’s even a hint of auto-combat, it will lead to complacency, and something like this will start happening: “Where can I take a risk now, or the auto-combat will disappear?” :) I personally feel much more at ease when all the rests have been used up; it immediately focuses you on the game.

Hmm...
It seems like no one is interested in trying something new; everyone would rather keep playing on these 111 and 113 maps, just to avoid any changes:D! I guess I'll have to create a special thread; maybe then people will notice:rolleyes:.

My friends and I have a tradition. Each of us has an autosave (you know, sometimes you get carried away and make a mistake). For each subsequent save, one unit of level 7 is removed (if there aren't any yet, it's removed immediately upon the first purchase). But sometimes things happen differently. Recently, I was playing as a Knight, stepped away to eat/smoke, and got distracted from the game. I forgot that I had left the hero with 4 Pegasus for speed, and he just went into battle, and even without a spellbook!

I have an interesting idea, not for casual gameplay, but for tournaments or serious games.

Each player keeps a recording (or, if there are no technical possibilities, warns in advance) of the game screen. Any auto-battle, or any other action (or even cheating, like claiming a hero is level 10 when they're actually level 11) or any other subtle detail can be requested by the opponent after the game in the form of a video clip or screenshot from that video.
In such cases, the player will think twice before using the console (or anything else), as they risk a real loss if the opponent later reviews the recording and sees that the requested auto-battle was risky. In that case, I think the opponent would be justified in declaring the other player's defeat.

The option of requesting a replay of a strong block can also be explored by the opponent. There are many other things that can be thought of, up to tracking the execution of the rules, because you can't always judge by the save files (at least regarding the use of multi-defense).

In general, I think this is a worthwhile idea to include in certain regulations, and of course, taking into account the players' capabilities and testing this method (some forum users already have a certain skill in working with videos and online broadcasts).
Also, videos can be used later as a basis for tutorials to help new players

*In my opinion, multi-defending in online mode is a complete waste. It requires a huge amount of resources, it's easier to just give up. And who are you even defending against? Haven? It's somewhat justifiable, but it's already being defeated without any major problems. As for defending against, say, an army of spearmen with upgraded units, I won't even comment. It's a joke.

:D

Money is more important.

Laughter in one word

For example, the Panic template, playing as Tower, we have a guard at the passage from the Necropolis village, a horde of Storm Elementals on hand, Nielka at level 6 and Solmyr at level 5. The army is standard for the start of the second week — building Nagas in the city, but since the starting hero was Pikadrim, there are a bit over 100 Gremlins, and overall the pace is slow... I pull off 2 tricks.
1st: Solmyr crashes into the Storm Elementals and also slices them up with the Teapot, then I buy him back at home, replenish mana, and with him I check the Griffin Conservatory with a Throne stack at 30 or 40 in the stack, also tricking once and using the Teapot on them.
As a result, I take the Conservatory on week 3, slightly battered (~130 Griffins), with Nielka with minor losses (without Mass Slow)...
Meanwhile, Solmyr has already been bought back in the secondary Necropolis town, and after getting 1 Angel, he heads toward the Storm Elementals and crushes everything in his path, while Nielka with the rest of the main force goes in a different direction where there's a lot of Ducks...
And what would have happened without these tricks?
And this is on Panic, a poorer template than which I personally have never played