Posts from For beginners and not only! How to download TE-Lite.

2) When playing a full game. If the opponent is new, you discuss every single option. It gets really annoying.

There are standard settings – the rules for Role-Playing and the rules for the Cup. They are available as descriptions and files. When I don't feel like negotiating every single option, I just say – we'll play according to the Role-Playing rules. If the opponent doesn't understand something, that's their problem.

Added 5 minutes later

And there's no upgrade stack in the Cons, Gnomes, Nagas, etc.!!!
That's why I was wondering, what's up with the Cons breaking so easily on the second week without an upgrade stack!!!!

Malchäg, are you talking to me or to the voices in your head?

Apparently, the latter, because the option to disable the upgrade stack only applies to neutral creatures on the map and does not apply to resource locations (you can check them without a fight).

The reason is to avoid situations like "attacked a group of giants (breaks on the 2nd week by any Castle), and half of them are Titans." Reducing the role of uncontrolled randomness.

And there's no upgrade for the stack in Conflux, Fortress, Necropolis, etc.!!!

Where did this nonsense come from? :) Roma, you need to tell your teacher that he gave you a basic lesson on the game mechanics :D

So there's also a grade. No stack in conservatories, gnomes, nagas, etc.!!!
And I was wondering what the heck is this, conservatories at 3 break so easily on the second without a grade. stack!!!!
It's a sham, keep joking around, you're doing great!!!:smile18:

:smile52: :smile52: :smile52:

The reason is to avoid situations like "attacked a group of giants (defeated in 2 weeks by any castle), and half of them were titans." Reducing the role of uncontrollable randomness.

That's the whole point!

If you're not sure, don't go!

But if you take the risk, then it's a 50/50 chance.

That's the whole point!

If you're not sure, don't do it!

But if you take the risk, it's a 50/50 chance.

Well, it's clear that what's good for a Russian might be death for a German. Some people immediately put a deer on a coin-flip after getting 44. But I don't really like this as an example to follow...

That's the whole point!

If you're not sure - don't mess with it!

And if you take the risk, then it's one in two.

A group of giants means they're guarding something tasty; surely you can scrounge up 2500 for an extra scout hero to check whether it's there or not. But having to report to your opponent afterward how many times you did it and whether you broke the rules is not the most pleasant task.
The other extreme - you deliberately left a stack of weak neutrals somewhere to split, but they had a Guard of the Sands (GS), you used them several times, so now should I have to techport?
By the way, the probability seems to be less than 0.5 - people once investigated the presence of GS on an XL map, they never found a pattern, but the matrix was always quite sparse.

Yeah, this is all nonsense!!! What’s the point of such a rule? It’s fun to kill hordes of Pokémon while leveling up a hero bought for 2500. Kill as much as you want. But playing with those overly competitive players who complain about you losing to neutrals several times is just not enjoyable!!

The reason is to avoid situations like "attacked a group of giants (they fall apart after 2 weeks, regardless of the castle), and half of them are titans." Reducing the role of uncontrollable randomness.

It's clear that slowing down and outshooting a bunch of clumsy pillars is not difficult and is quite enjoyable :) Again, there's no excitement. If we're talking about poker, even when you raise with AA, there's still something happening. Some idiot with 44 sets on the river – and it's pointless to get angry at him.

Firstly, if really needed, you can check for GS (Game State).
Secondly, if half of them are titans, it means we took too many troops against them and need to take fewer, so they form 7 stacks.

The latest post in this thread with the market woman:
Even though the battles are virtual, you still need to consider various factors: grade, stack size, morale, three stacks and two level-up units, simplification!!!
The guys just wanted to and simplified the game for themselves, it's their right. I can give many examples, but I won't. You can give just as many. It all started with SOD, and it will live on in the rightful first place, both in the World and in the world.

Uncontrolled randomness - a new button in TE, I'm screaming, this is terrible!!!

A group of giants means they're guarding something tasty; you'll scrape together 2500 for an extra scout hero one way or another to check if it's there or not. But then having to report to your opponent how many times you did it and whether you broke the rules isn't the most pleasant thing.
The other extreme is deliberately leaving a weak stack of neutrals somewhere to bash, but they have a Growth Stack, and you used them several times — so what now, should I techport?
By the way, the probability seems to be less than 0.5 — people once researched the presence of Growth Stacks on an XL map, never found a pattern, but the matrix was always sparse enough.

That's not the point, it's about the principle itself.

There are games of chance (roulette), there are skill-based games (chess), and then there are semi-gambling games (poker).

Heroes in its modern incarnation falls into the semi-gambling category — that is, randomness significantly alters the course and outcome of a game, but over a long distance, skill still makes a difference.

There's just one problem — in poker, when you lose, you give up a pot whose size you control, and you spend at most a few minutes on a hand.

But in Heroes, with an unlucky morale proc, you can lose a game you spent several hours on. If Heroes games lasted half an hour to an hour — no problem, but as it is, it's a shame. After all, I'm a busy person and I don't have the opportunity to churn out games like hotcakes, hoping to overcome variance through sheer volume.

Moreover, if you constantly play around every morale proc and stack, your tempo will drop through the floor, which risks losing to a bolder opponent. In turn, he risks losing due to his own boldness in some battle before even reaching you.

This approach doesn't mesh well with the idea of determining the strongest player. Because ideally, competition should be directly against the opponent, not against the map. That is, the opening phase (1-2 weeks) is run on autopilot, a kind of mandatory program, and only then does the constructive action begin.

Alas, not everyone shares this view; many people like to flip a coin, run around neutrals, and then (if they haven't lost) compare in the Field of Fame what God has sent them.

Out of curiosity, you could compare the seasonal reports on HeroesWorld, HeroesPortal, and "Bay" — in the first two, a huge percentage of reports are like "117, game didn't work out" or "115, opponent lost to morale" or "at 216, showed the opponent a pack of Archangels, he surrendered." I used to glance at those threads, but in recent months I don't look there — at most one interesting post per couple of pages. But on "Bay," I regularly read the seasonal thread, and there are often interesting reports.

Or, from personal experience — I play quite often with TERM, both in Full and in Light. In Full, almost all games we played were long and meaningful. Regardless of template, settings, etc. But in Light, out of 6 games, 2 were conceded in the first week, and in another 2, we took auto-resolve due to completely absurd morale losses (like 4 stacks out of 5 getting morale in the first round). Who will be hit by such a distribution next is unknown, and there are also imbalances in starting armies. And this is on mm6; on a "sm" (simultaneous) map, with players of roughly equal and high skill, the swings are probably even wilder.

I often hear whining like "the first week in TE is a bit boring." Of course, it should be a bit boring; it's like in StarCraft/chess — the build order/opening — N minutes/moves where you just develop your economy/pieces and build troops, and only then does the meaningful part begin — battles with the opponent.

Right now, the technology for creating a fully symmetrical random (including the sizes of piles, banks, and artifact composition in Dragon Utopias) is ready. For now, I'm playing with people, testing it, looking for bugs.

This is a continuation of implementing the approach described above — randomness should strongly influence the course of the game but have little impact on its outcome. In this regard, mirrored random combines the best aspects of fixed maps and random maps — a random map, but with almost equal chances for the players.

Of course, in this technology, there is no place for morale, Growth Stack, significant variance in starting troops, or random level 2 dwelling construction. The only asymmetry that can't be eliminated is heroes in the tavern and skill trees. Oh well.

For these same reasons, there's no point in implementing it in Light — why, when its paradigm inherently contradicts the concept of equal starting positions?

Vikk, with such a philosophical approach, it will be difficult for you to come up with anything other than a Team Killing (TK-3) strategy :D

Vikk, with such a philosophical approach, it will be difficult for you to come up with anything other than a TK-3 map :D

Actually, TK-3 is a terribly unbalanced map; one player gets abilities and resistances, while the other doesn't:smile18:.

:D :D :D (for those who didn't get it - this is a joke)

In TC3, the potential for growth is very limited due to the small number of available options.

With a bit of grinding, you can easily reach a level where the outcome of the game is determined by the random appearance of abilities, resistances, and high damage values.

I carefully read your post, Wicc (No. 78), and concluded that you believe the most important thing is to balance the game, minimizing randomness.
I don't quite agree; I think the most important thing for a sport is its entertainment value, its intensity, and the fullness of the emotions it evokes.
In chess, there was a period when two antagonistic players, with different playing styles and different approaches to preparation and defining the main goal, repeatedly faced each other. Every time before their match, the chess world was in turmoil. Fans, specialized magazines, and textbooks multiplied like yeast. Sponsors lined up and offered $10 million in prize money, and both chess players (I won't name them :)) had the audacity to refuse: "Why so much? $4-5 million is quite enough." Then both players "got tired" of each other, and scandals and squabbles began. At the same time, they actively prevented new blood from reaching the top. As a result, the chess pyramid collapsed.
Competition is like a theatrical performance, and this is well understood in some sports. Let's work towards making it more entertaining, so that the community grows and strengthens, and players can't be dragged away from the game. For example, I find it tedious to play for 2-3 weeks without interacting with an opponent, but it's even more tedious to read posts about which version is better.
I want to see topics like: "The best strategy on the Divided Loyalties map" or "Starting hero for Stronghold. Who do you prefer?"

In TC3, the potential for growth is very limited due to the small number of options.

With a bit of grinding, you can easily reach a level where the outcome of the game is determined by the random appearance of abilities, resistances, and high damage values.

I disagree with this; it's a superficial and subjective opinion, and I won't bother arguing it. I think someone like Forrest could explain it better.