Posts from Experiment with restarts. Volunteers needed!

in my last game with Hermit, sometimes I didn't even have enough time, only 4 minutes left, but it actually makes the game more interesting when you're focused on the match, and nothing distracts you, especially since the timer is ticking! :) And besides, this is a seasonal game, so it can be played in 4 minutes, of course, we're not talking about tournaments here; in tournaments, the player is free to think about their move for as long as the tournament rules allow!

If nothing distracted...:rolleyes: And I appreciate Heroes because it's a calm and unhurried game, which suits me. Although, less than a year ago, I thought that 2 minutes per turn was enough, but now I've come to appreciate long turns... I repeat once again - even with no time limit, you can play quickly and dynamically if you respect your own time and the time of others.

Generally, most players have decided to play with a 6-minute time limit, and the rules have been amended accordingly. So, if anyone wants to play with a 6-minute time limit, they should play with a 6-minute time limit. I only played with a 4-minute time limit because I want to learn how to play with a 4-minute time limit, and once, I didn't even have enough time and asked to load my save... But overall, 6 minutes is much better than 4, and "unlim" (unlimited time) is also not bad. It actually takes almost as much time as playing with a 6-minute time limit, but it's more comfortable to play. And there's no disrespect to the opponent because the rules state that you should play with a 6-minute time limit.

Some prefer a calm lake, while others prefer a turbulent river! There's no accounting for taste! Thanks for sharing your opinions, guys; I'll gladly play even on a 6-minute map, as long as people learn to value their own time and the time of others. This applies not only to Heroes! ;)

Some people prefer a calm lake, while others prefer a turbulent river! There's no accounting for taste! Thanks for sharing your opinions, guys, I'd be happy to play a game that ends in 6 minutes, as long as people learn to value their own time and the time of others. This applies not only to Heroes! ;)

If you don't respect your opponent, you can end the game in 1 minute and go to the store, for example. I wouldn't allow myself to do that without warning and the opponent's consent, even in an unranked game.

Added 3 minutes later

There's no disrespect to the opponent because the rules state that you should play with a 6-minute time limit.

Playing with an unlimited time limit is actually a sign of respect and trust (although, of course, this doesn't mean that only those who don't trust each other play with a time limit; not at all). And if this happens regularly, it means that the trust was justified. IMHO.

I used to think the same way, but now 4 minutes feels like a nightmare; it's just enough time to finish a mug of beer :) ... ).

I actually enjoy playing for 2 minutes with a beer, but generally, I play for 6 minutes. If the limit is 6 minutes, no one will force me to use the full time. I usually make almost all my moves in 4 minutes (without battles), and 6 minutes feels like an unlimited time. In general, it's better to play in TE-lite (or TE, but there are differences from SOD), where time continues to pass even during battles, so there are no thoughts like "why are you taking so long?".

Regarding the poll, I'm in favor of restarts on maps 111 and 112 because I usually know that I'll take map 113 if my opponent doesn't take it first.

The topic has stalled, but the poll clearly shows that **the rules NEED to be changed** (20 against 9, even 8 for obvious reasons...). Regarding optional restarts, I think the most compromising option for everyone would be: **"a total of 3 days for each player,"** and let each player decide how to use those 3 days: either 3 restarts on day 111, or 111 and 112, or 1 restart on day 113 – this will provide some flexibility in decision-making, which is definitely a good thing:smile20:! By the way, for SOD, where it's critical to have a built-up level 2 structure at the start or 2-3 stacks of specialized units, ballistae, etc., the possibility of 3 restarts on day 111 would be great:smile13:! Regarding the meeting – this is a more delicate issue, as people are afraid of the "Shahtyora" map. What can you do?:( I like my proposed wording: **"only if the goal is not on the way,"** but we still need to discuss whether to **gradually reduce the time limit**, i.e.,: **after taking 116 by meeting, then only up to 115, then up to 114, etc.** – otherwise, it could drag on indefinitely, and we don't need that:smile48:!

I have a suggestion for restart rules during a match:

-If you attack an enemy castle, capture a mine, or attack a hero with an army, then restart.

-If you attack a weak enemy (let's say, an army with less than 50 hit points), then there is no restart.

This option allows for both maneuvering and aggressive gameplay, as well as the chance for an intentional restart if there are no other prospects. It also avoids silly situations where you have to start over because someone attacked your scout in a corner.

I've played about 20 online games with this rule. The result is excellent.

You know, Javdet, you're right, and I completely agree with you! I'm also in favor of this approach; it definitely saves time, at least an hour or two.

It's an old topic about restarts, but it's still relevant and controversial. My opinion, as a newbie, can be ignored, but I'll still express it. I've played no more than 15 games, but restarts, especially with experienced players, are getting annoying. I myself took two restarts, once with a level 10 hero, and the second time, I couldn't leave the castle because a group of titans was blocking the way (it's obvious from the start on map 111), and practically no time was lost. The other scenarios were sometimes better, sometimes worse, but all were playable. I watched several videos, and I'm sorry, the restarts there weren't out of necessity, but simply a search for the best possible start, and my opinion is that you have to pay for good luck!!! My suggestion: leave the number of restarts the same as in the rules, but for taking a second restart on the first day, you transfer 4000 resources to your opponent, and for a third restart, 8000. I think and hope that this will reduce the number of unsatisfactory scenarios by an order of magnitude.

I wanted to move my suggestion to the rules discussion section, but I decided not to, because I think the reaction will be the same – zero. People want to believe that they will be luckier than their opponent when rolling dice, and no one will refuse the chance of getting an advantage, even if it's just a gamble, whether it benefits them or harms their opponent. Mandatory restarts are more than enough to ensure a normal, fair game. Subjective reasons, however, seem to contradict one of the main rules, namely fair play. What can you see on the map on the 2nd or 3rd day, after 15-20 minutes of pure game time? Nothing, except that you played poorly and made a lot of mistakes. But what does the opponent have to do with it? Imagine a situation in a card game, dominoes… (or even football, volleyball…) when the opponent asks for a rematch on the 2nd or 3rd turn because they don't like the way the game is starting. I think after the second or third such request, their face will swell from "shame," and eventually turn purple. Let this be a crude, incorrect comparison, but how does our game, our COMPETITIVE matches, and, in general, just a way to relax from everyday worries, differ from other games?

But what makes our game, our COMPETITIVE play, or rather, just a way to relax from everyday worries and other games, different?

It differs in that the layouts generated by the computer are random. This situation can be compared to card games. In poker, you don't necessarily have to bet all your chips on the first hand dealt by the dealer. You can fold and wait for a more favorable hand. But in chess, it's the opposite; the initial conditions are known to everyone, and there can be no transitions or restarts. If we draw a parallel with Heroes, playing on random maps is like poker, and playing on fixed maps is like chess. By the way, there are no restarts on fixed maps.

Thank you! Yes, the map layouts are random, but they are random for both players. We are not playing against a state or a casino where the odds are 75% against us. I am not advocating for the removal of restarts; mandatory restarts will remain, as they are necessary. However, subjective restarts, where one is allowed, and subsequent ones require payment, should be reconsidered. It's difficult to start with 6000 against an opponent with 14000 (let's say after 2 restarts), but that's not critical yet. But why pressure the Stronghold in the hope of getting a 50, and if it's 100 and it goes badly, take a restart? The game will simply be more balanced and cautious. If you want to play riskily, on the edge of adventure, go ahead; no one is stopping you, but the opponent shouldn't suffer because of it. If you choose a random map, you should play with a random strategy.

Mandatory restarts are sufficient... but to make the transition less abrupt, I suggest adding 111 or 112 optional restarts... P.S. Auto-moves should not be allowed at all – it will only make everyone too relaxed, like in chess: "you made a move – now it's your turn!" There's even a rule for that.

Thank you! That works too; the main thing is to avoid excessive restarting.
Regarding auto-resolve, it's a slightly different topic. I would offer auto-resolve to a player even if I feel like I'm losing. Victory is secondary (not entirely, of course); the main thing is the GAME (my opinion may differ from others). A while ago, when I wasn't yet retired, some young people at work got me into computer games. We formed a group, played Heroes on one computer, then over a local network, and visited a friend's house on weekends for overnight gaming sessions. We had a system where if an opponent quit in the middle of the night, we couldn't start a new game because we wouldn't have time. So, we used auto-resolve as a mandatory option. But to discourage it, the opponent had to pay a penalty, sometimes up to a week's worth of resources or an artifact from all their castles. The system was quite flexible, and it ensured that the opponent was held accountable for their actions in the game. This system wouldn't work here because the games are relatively short, the players are more skilled, and there probably aren't any problems with auto-resolve.

If the gameplay itself is more important than winning, then what's the point of playing when you have a respawn point covering half the map with nuts, while your opponent has 1 secondary town and enough gold for 1-4 units in a Fortress + 3 heroes? This is where respawn points save the day, eliminating imbalance.

Of course, those who constantly exploit this are annoying, but then you should choose an opponent who has the same attitude towards respawn points as you do.

Converting resources into gold requires building a market, which is critical in itself.

But 111 is quite enough for me. However, no one is trying to reduce the number of respawn points, although, no, they've already reduced it from four to three. Maybe in a year they'll be ready to make it two?