HeroesWorld
  • Log in
  • Create account
  • Mode
    Interface scale

Posts from Round table

Online Tournaments
5.0 (2 ratings)
User Avatar
Offline StickyFingaz
Registered:
Posts: 1,486
#1144
Auto-translated
Another creation of my overactive imagination.

Template 3x. Size XL+U.


General description. Players start with three Castles. If you choose a Castle before the game, all 3 Castles will be the same; with all-random, the Castles are generated randomly. The contents of the starting zones are identical to the contents of the starting zones in the standard map. The contents of zones 7-12 consist of almost entirely piles of gold. Zones 13-15 are poor trading zones; the contents correspond to the contents of the central zones in 8mm6. Zones 16-18 are like treasure zones from the small maps. Guardianship: between zones 1-6 and the corresponding zones 7-12, it is weak, value 3000. between zones 7-12 and the corresponding zones 13-15, it is 6000, as on the small maps. the passages to treasure zones 16-18 from the starting zones are 12000. There are no guardianships between zones 13-15, as well as 15-16, 13-17, and 14-18.

My own additions. Created after Avern's post. As can be seen from the diagram, the starting respawns are separated by only one respawn, and the passages are weakly guarded. Encounters with weak heroes will begin on day three and will occur throughout the map. If you choose all-random (I recommend it), the starting hero will most often not be native to the Castle-homeland. That is, situations like "Merist was born in Inferno" will be frequent. The size of the troops with the starting hero will no longer be as important - less whining and more difficulty. Mages will be included in the game, as they will be relevant in the early days. The game will start with at least three main heroes. Don't worry about losing one, or even two, starting cities in the first week. Don't worry too much about the limit of 8 heroes - deaths of weak heroes will be frequent. I think the difficulty should be set to 130%; on the first day, you will have to buy many heroes. Later, money is usually abundant and is collected by weak heroes in the zones adjacent to the starting respawns.

What do you think? :smile26:
Attachments 1
1 file attached • Total size: 5.0 KB
1
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Wicc
Registered:
Posts: 5,099
#1145
Auto-translated
The idea is good, but the template needs to be tweaked: 1) The number and size of zones are chosen incorrectly, which leads to a significant imbalance in zone sizes, and the underground feels empty. 2) The guards are also not chosen very well – there's a strong passage, and then a parallel weak one; what's the point? 3) The diagram is drawn in a way that makes it difficult to understand – the lines overlap, creating an artificial feel. It would be better to draw it more attractively. 4) It's better to replace neutral cities with neutral villages – this will reduce the imbalance in case of a native secondary town. 5) It's desirable to place a village in all intermediate zones – to speed up the process, reduce travel distances, and create support points (including for skirmishes), and also to avoid having areas with no roads (where you only go on XL templates on holidays). 6) The generator often forgets to create unguarded passages. I don't know why. It's best to set the guard to at least 3000 (because it sometimes forgets to create a guard of 2000 as well). I encountered this effect when creating templates for 2x2 games. I'll comment on the rest when I see the TPZ file
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline StickyFingaz
Registered:
Posts: 1,486
#1146
Auto-translated
1) The number and size of zones are chosen incorrectly, which leads to a significant imbalance in the size of the zones, and the underground area is also empty.
I'm not very good at this (( Can you help?
2) The guards are also not chosen quite correctly - there is a strong passage, and there is a parallel weak one, what is the point?
The point is that you can pass through one passage in the first week, and it leads to a secondary location, while the second one is usually cleared in the second week, and it leads to the treasure room.
4) It is better to replace neutral cities with neutral villages - this will reduce the imbalance in case of a native secondary location.
Okay.
I will comment on the rest when I see the TPZ file.
There isn't one.
6) The generator often forgets to create unguarded passages. I don't know why. It is desirable to set a guard of at least 3000 (because it sometimes forgets to create a guard of 2000 as well). I encountered this effect when creating templates for 2x2 games.
Okay. Anything else?
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Wicc
Registered:
Posts: 5,099
#1147
Auto-translated
Come out on ICQ.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Avern
Registered:
Posts: 749
#1148
Auto-translated
I think it's great. It would be nice to find an opponent who would agree to play on the new template.
Regarding the connections, maybe it makes sense to set them to 13-16, 14-17, 15-18, and also place guards with 3000-6000 hit points on them.
And the rule about resetting after each encounter still needs to be refined.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Avern
User Avatar
Offline PReDS
Registered:
Posts: 1,494
#1149
Auto-translated
Avern
I think it's great. It would be nice to find an opponent who would agree to play on the new template.
Regarding connections, it might make sense to make them 13-16, 14-17, 15-18, and also place guards with a strength of 3000-6000 on them.
And the rule about resetting after each encounter still needs to be refined.
The idea is good, but ultimately, a contact-based game depends not only on the structure of the template but also on the playing style of the opponents. I suspect that they will still resort to turtling and engaging in petty tactics. To prevent this, either remove them altogether or make them weak enough. I might be wrong.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Avern
Registered:
Posts: 749
#1150
Auto-translated
I don't understand. Heroes start a game and immediately begin milking the generation with their opponent, playing four-handed, spending 5-6 hours without seeing each other. Then they meet with 1-2 FBs and that's it. Is this really considered an interesting game?
Personally, I find it boring — I expected a different kind of thrill from online play.

I tested the 3x template. It turns out that one of the starting respawns will have to be abandoned. Each starting respawn will require 2-3 heroes — you can neither build a chain nor explore the valley. Moreover, if some respawn ends up blocked by 20-49 dead men or something similar, then a single hero won't be able to break through it (unless a ballista arrives).
Maybe it makes sense to cut one castle from each player. Remove zones 5,6,12,18, and connect zones 7 and 11 with a passage. The size L+U would probably work. That way, the idea of the template is preserved, and intensive gameplay begins across the entire map.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Avern
User Avatar
Offline Wicc
Registered:
Posts: 5,099
#1151
Auto-translated
A few templates based on this idea:



For size L+U.

Full-contact fighting, without treasure zones. The template is forcibly contact-based; it's only possible to get from Castle to Castle by passing through enemy territory.

All passages are weak - 3000.

Plenty of money, allowing for the development of several castles. Dragon Utopias may occur, although they can be removed entirely.



For size XL+U.

This template is more generous; there are treasure zones, both poor (yellow) and rich (orange).

However, the path to the treasure zones is often in plain sight of the opponent, who may also want to reach them.

Thin lines - 3000, medium - 6000, thick - 12500.

Plenty of money here as well.
Attachments 1
1 file attached • Total size: 56.6 KB
1
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline StickyFingaz
Registered:
Posts: 1,486
#1152
Auto-translated
The first one is good, but the second one has too many castles. I'm testing my own template now, and it's really cool and interesting. It's good to have three castles when the heroes are stationed in the garrisons. Yes, having only 8 heroes for 3 castles is a bit too few... But having only 2 starting castles is also too few, in my opinion.

Added after 2 hours 21 minutes
I just noticed that the first template also has 4 starting castles. No, having only 2 heroes per city is really too few. Maybe you could make it a hyperpyramid instead of a hypercube?
0
⚖️
0
In reply to StickyFingaz
User Avatar
Offline Wicc
Registered:
Posts: 5,099
#1153
Auto-translated
StickyFingaz
I just noticed that the first template also has 4 starting castles. No, but having only 2 heroes per city is really not enough. Maybe you could make it hyperpiramid instead of hypercub?
Well, that's fine. It provides room for maneuver.

On the first day, we send out one hero from each castle and see which of the respawn points is worth clearing more thoroughly. You know, hidden spots, crypts, the absence of obstacles along the way, etc.

Then, depending on the situation, we buy a hero with troops and do something. I was able to consistently compete on 2 respawn points, while the other two yielded only 1 or 2 small loot hauls.

There's a decent amount of free loot here, so you can slowly build up all 4 castles. Then, after 3-4 days, the built-up troops are bought, and the 3rd or even 4th front is opened.

Of course, heroes are regularly dismissed or defeated, and the number of heroes at the respawn points tends to change over time.

The first week is more of a scouting and gathering phase; there's no serious army yet, so there's not much fighting. Although, it's often possible to grab 1-2 villages.

And then it all depends on the situation - how the construction is going, which hidden spots have been taken, etc. Often, a hero who was leveling up on one respawn point during the first week is defeated in another during the second week and runs around with that army.

Mages rule, especially those with Mysticism. There's simply nothing to fight with, only ranged attacks help somewhat.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline StickyFingaz
Registered:
Posts: 1,486
#1154
Auto-translated
The first week is more about scouting and gathering resources; there isn't a serious army yet, so it's not really possible to engage in major battles. Although, it's often possible to capture 1-2 villages.
But some players want action and battles right from the first week. I once played on Hypercube, fighting on three fronts. It was challenging, but I managed to clear the respawn point (starting from the first day) with minimal losses and started infiltrating neighboring villages on the third or fourth day. Trying to manage four fronts at once is very difficult. I think a Hyperpyramid with three poor Trebuchets would be more interesting.

Overall, it's good to play with Stronghold and Swamp on these types of maps, preferably with a special ability focused on the tent; it's more difficult to play with Conflux. These factions have a decent respawn point that can be cleared. It's risky to play with Castle, Necropolis, and Tower in the early days; you can't do without a good mage.
1
⚖️
0
In reply to StickyFingaz
User Avatar
Offline Wicc
Registered:
Posts: 5,099
#1155
Auto-translated
StickyFingaz
People want blood already in the first week.
One should be more careful with bloodshed on day 1. If full starting armies clash, the winner of the battle will gain a serious advantage. Even if it's not as decisive as on standard templates, it still is. In the current version, a skirmish on day 1 is quite likely, although not mandatory.

If you want a slaughter from day 1 on all fronts, you can simply remove the intermediate zones and connect the opponents' zones directly. But such games will last a week at most, and the outcome will be largely determined by the starting distribution.

The implemented version is closer to my preference.
I once fought on three fronts on the Hypercube; it was tough, I cleared the respawn with small losses (starting from day one), and penetrated neighboring villages freely on the third or fourth day. But fighting on four fronts is just too difficult to manage.
And there's no need for 4 fronts. This was done to provide a choice—even if one Castle has a block at the exit, it simply becomes a gold mine while we develop the other 3 Castles. In fact, this is even better—the opponent won't be able to grab a Castle for free; they'll have to break through the block first.
I think the HyperPyramid with three poor treasure zones would look more interesting.
Treasure zones contradict the ideology of this template :). I'll still need to tweak the contents, remove various Dragon Utopia and so on.
1
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline StickyFingaz
Registered:
Posts: 1,486
#1157
Auto-translated
If full starting armies clash, the winner of the battle will gain a significant advantage.
Ugh, what about those starting armies? Or rather, what's left of them after battles with neutrals? If a reasonable exchange is made, the advantage will be small.
Treasure hunts contradict the ideology of this template.
Oh, come on...? Why not add another development option, diversify the template a bit? It will still be a kind of backup option; the main events will unfold in the first or early second week, and if necessary, you can try your luck in the treasure hunts. If they are poor, then no overpowered units will be created.
Perverts!
Bringing the heroes closer to Starcraft. ))
No, actually, it's an interesting template; it will add a lot of variety to the game and create a lot of excitement!
1
⚖️
0
In reply to StickyFingaz
User Avatar
Offline Alessandro
Registered:
Posts: 465
#1158
Auto-translated
StickyFingaz

No, actually, it's an interesting template; it will add a lot of variety to the game and make it much more exciting!
Excitement is when you play TE-lite/TE 600+300 with battles :D
Discord  5884
0
⚖️
0