Posts from Information for moderators.

Vic, you'll laugh, but when you and I played SoD, you were sitting across from me. So, even the look in your eyes was different — not cynically ironic, but more human, if you will?

Ask yourself, would Heroes have become this popular if The End had been officially released after The Shadow of Death? Or WT?

I thought about this. I came to the conclusion that Heroes would most likely have eventually grown to the point of being represented at WCG. Fortunately, the gameplay allows it. Of course, it would be a mirror match with shortened time control — tailored to the requirements of cybersports competitions.

And have you seen the look in my eyes when I play BT?

Yura, if possible, I would like to introduce you to Chaos, he has worked for many years in the computer sports federation, including organizing WCG tournaments. I assure you, he has a different opinion regarding the prospects of TE. If we manage to carry everything out as needed, if Lyosha comes to the final, you will see for yourself.

I saw it. The first tournament, when you came to visit me — we played WT. You had the eyes of a pro. I don't think there was any need to look for a soul there; there was 100% confidence in victory. All IMHO, I have my own criteria.

Secondly, Heroes lacks two things from the perspective of WCG requirements – balance in card distribution and the speed of gameplay. Both of these factors are resolved, the first by using a mirror match format, and the second by controlling the time and structuring the template. For example, in blitz control (600+300), a match takes about 3 hours, which is very little, and even more liberal time controls can be used without the risk of not fitting into the schedule.

These won't be heroes, but a ridiculous mix with Barbarian.

Secondly, Heroes lacks two things from the perspective of WCG requirements: balanced matchups and the speed at which games progress. Both of these factors can be addressed; the first through mirrored maps, and the second through time control and a structured template. For example, with blitz control (600+300), a game takes about 3 hours, which is quite short, and even more lenient time controls can be used without risking not fitting into the schedule.

If all of this had been the case in 2000, they would most likely have been included in the WCG. But now, things are much more complicated – a very large "cultural layer" has developed, which hinders the competitive aspect.

These won't be the heroes we love.

the ability to instantly assess the situation and quickly click the mouse

In a normal game, with full effort, one game week takes 2 hours (complete all tasks, eat everything, using the maximum number of units). If you shorten the time limit, players simply won't have time to complete everything necessary.

Although... now the average age of players in StarCraft, Warcraft, and Counter-Strike at WCG is 18-20 years old. The average age of an online Heroes player is approaching 27-30 years old. The average age of tournament judges is much younger. Do we need this? Or should we go our own way, which is quite good in terms of possibilities?

Exactly, it's not
but

That's what I meant by the cultural layer – established habits and views. Plus, selecting players for whom this format is convenient.

It's clear that if Heroes had initially been developed in a blitz-like format, a large part of the current player base wouldn't have played it, or would have already left. But there would be others, who have experience with RTS and FPS games, for whom this is just part of their skillset.

In Heroes, it just turned out that for a game where you have to wait 2-3 minutes for the opponent's turn, where you have to sit for many hours, plan your time for the game in advance, accept the impossibility in some cases of finishing the game in the evening (or even in a day), etc., a certain mindset is required. Which, firstly, not everyone has, and secondly, even if they have it, not everyone's lifestyle allows them to play like that. That is, not only do players adapt the game to themselves, but the game also selects players for itself.

This is precisely the significant advantage of FPS and RTS games: the match lasts 15-30 minutes, which allows you to fit it even into a busy or unpredictable schedule. Plus, tournaments can be played in a day, which is also a significant plus.

Many newcomers have come to me, and many have dropped out simply because of the extremely long match times, without even having time to properly understand the essence of the game. We're arguing here about what's better, SoD or WoG, but for people on the outside, in most cases, they don't care; they look at other things.

And it's also clear that the further you go, the harder it is to get rid of

bad habits. Like SoDa.

Why is the strongest chess player in the world determined after many hours of play, not in blitz? - I think the parallel with chess is more relevant to Heroes than with shooting at targets.

reducing the time

Nah, I don't think so... I've watched many games by Alex and Stinger – a large portion of the time is spent on planning the turn's management. With such a moderate reduction in the limit, I'm not sure they will perform as well. It will depend more on the ability to quickly assess the situation and click the mouse quickly, plus the choice of faction, what guards you encounter, and who makes fewer mistakes. I'm not saying that such a time limit shouldn't exist, but these won't be the same heroes we love. It's like blitz tournaments in chess.

By the way, in chess, the current trend is to reduce the time allotted – to increase the entertainment value of the game. Not so long ago, in classical chess, each player was given 2 hours, now they are given 1.5 hours. In blitz, they used to give 5 and 4 minutes to each player, now it's 3 minutes. This is just an example.