Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
What was the final result, after all? In days and points. What difficulty level was it played on? Was a starting hero chosen?
The map is weak, suitable for beginners. On day 2, you have 40,000 gold, and you can already have Jeddite with expert wisdom and earth magic... It's not worth more than a 4 out of 10. Typical for Heroexportal – a pile of easy rewards...
Any map is played only on the most difficult level (that's how I play). As far as I remember, my result was 62 days or so. (Again, I repeat that it could have been improved by 10 days if played with losses, i.e., in 52 days). Unfortunately, I don't remember the points (of course, with an Archangel). No starting hero was chosen. I, as a rule, don't replay the same map several times, because after completing it, I lose interest in playing it again. And what is your result, may I ask, and in which version of Heroes did you play?
Why wouldn't it be? A very common competitive format! It is much more logical than playing for points. Only the maps need to be special for this. Maps like Kyrreland, for example.
I agree that it's more logical, but what about the gameplay process itself? I don't really like skipping necessary or unnecessary towers, as well as not visiting essential locations that I sometimes really want to visit to increase my hero's stats, and instead just rushing forward blindly to achieve victory. Well, I just don't like that strategy, although if needed, I could play for time of course, but as a rule, I don't have the time for it, alas. It seems to me that points should be looked at first, and if they are equal among several players, then naturally look at speed. This is just my personal opinion. And if it's not too much trouble, please post the map here and we will all try to evaluate it, ok;)
I also don't like playing for speed, but playing for points is also a race against time, but with ridiculous criteria. There, regardless of its feasibility, you have to dig for the Grail, take unnecessary castles from a strategic point of view, etc. And what does it mean to not rush? I like to solve tasks on the map using the most efficient methods possible, but when the army is huge and the game turns into beating up opponents, it's no longer interesting.
I agree (about the tasks), but as for the gameplay, well, as they say, there's no accounting for taste. Your tournament format doesn't suit me very well (too little time for the tournament, too many complications). Could you at least make one tournament like this: 1. Duration: 1 month. 2. Play for points, then for days (if the result is the same). 3. Play Heroes 3: The Shadow of Death, and only this one (because this version is the most suitable and has the fewest bugs). natasha, no offense, of course. I want to see what will happen and how many people will play, I think it will be quite a few. It shouldn't be difficult for you (to organize) this:) Best regards, VDV_forever
I would support VDV_forever; playing under time constraints isn't very enjoyable for me either! I always prefer to play for fun, taking my time. But if there are going to be competitions based on who finishes faster, then I probably won't participate...
Points are just numbers. IMHO, when a game turns into statistics, it becomes uninteresting.
I agree, the pursuit of numbers turns players into monsters, ready to earn more points at any cost. Why, esteemed gentlemen, why... Play for fun... ;) (tournaments don't count).
I agree that it's more logical, but what about the gameplay itself? I don't really like skipping necessary or unnecessary locations, and not visiting important places that I sometimes really want to visit in order to increase my hero's stats, but instead just rushing straight through and achieving victory. I don't like this strategy, although if necessary, I can do it for a while, but usually I don't have time for it, unfortunately. I think that you should primarily look at the points, and if several players have the same number of points, then, of course, you should look at the speed. This is my personal opinion. And if it's not too much trouble, please post the map here so we can all try to evaluate it, okay?
The gameplay depends largely on what the map contains. Very often, to complete it faster, you need to choose the right route and priorities. However, maps like "Forward, Vikings!" are also very interesting, even though the game boils down to constantly hiring new and new heroes. The player's task is to choose a plan for the game and implement it. Otherwise, the tournament competition is meaningless. The same goes for playing for points; the statistics of point-based tournaments have finally convinced me of this. Another point is that to evaluate the completion of a map, a starting save is still needed; otherwise, comparison is impossible. Regarding playing on SOD. I've already tried completely disabling TE settings in the starting save... We can try this system again, where it becomes completely irrelevant what you play on. But in any case, if a player can play, they will play. The time for preparing the save will have to be increased, but for slightly different reasons. However, increasing the game time will lead to the need to hold single-round tournaments. I'm not sure that's a good thing. I still don't quite understand what, besides the time, you don't like about our system? Playing in an arena tournament boils down to the main hero visiting all the upgrade locations, fighting with minimal losses (but this applies to the troops that will be needed in the arena), and choosing the right buildings. And the difficulty of creating arenas is just a minor thing.
kanabizz
20 years ago
Auto-translated
I like fun maps, that is, maps that are made with humor and parody some modern movies or games. When it's fun to play, everything becomes more interesting.
LynX
20 years ago
Auto-translated
Yeah... Many maps were simply downloaded from a well-known website...
Yeah... Many maps are simply downloaded from a well-known website...
And what exactly bothers you, may I ask? This is where the most interesting and challenging maps (and not only) are discussed. And where they are downloaded from is not important here.
Hi, I read your comments on maps… Try playing mine – I uploaded it just yesterday; I made it myself. You don’t even need to enable quick battles, and you can explore everywhere… In short, I tried my best. (newpor.zip)
/attachments/252/
And regarding that stupid map (Four Worlds), I agree – I didn't have the patience to wait either!
As for timed gameplay… The point of Heroes is lost! You have to rush forward like an idiot, ignoring all the interesting things…
Title: Four Worlds Size: 72x72 (M) For Heroes: Heroes 3 [RoE] Description: What a terrible map!!! Author: serg007 A mockery of Heroes. 4 zones: one player and 3 computers, separated by border guards. There are tents on the territories that allow you to remove one guard, but then you have to wait for them to let you in... My patience lasted for 6 weeks... but the passages remained closed. I could also not write about the disproportionate guarding of mines and their location, the abundance of unguarded artifacts...
Hi, I read your comments on maps here... Try playing mine – I posted it only yesterday; I made it myself. You don't need to turn on fast battles, and you can explore everywhere... In short, I tried my best. (newpor.zip) /attachments/252/
And regarding this stupid map (Four Worlds), I agree – I didn’t have enough patience to wait!
Regarding playing against the clock... The point of Heroes is lost! You have to rush forward like an idiot, ignoring the most interesting things...
Merzavecc
20 years ago
Auto-translated
Only an idiot would rush forward if all they want is to achieve a high rank in the Highscore. I prefer XL maps; you can settle in for a long game, rather than just developing quickly and winning.
Uke-by_HoMM![Zавулон]
20 years ago
Auto-translated
Yeah, definitely! The charm was all in the HL maps! And if you wanted to relax and lift your spirits, the S maps were the way to go. They're quick to complete, and that's it...
