Posts from Forum Auto-translated

You're resorting to demagoguery and twisting facts again... let me remind you that last year, about ten people showed up in each city for the Heroes of Might and Magic III (SoD) qualifiers.

Moreover, most of those who showed up were players of The Elder Scrolls (TES), who agreed to play on a different version to support the idea. And they were the ones who mostly made it to the finals. If the tournament was only for true SoD players, it simply wouldn't have taken place due to a lack of participants, or it would have gathered a frankly weak lineup.

There is a very good correlation between the "narrow-mindedness" of one's views and their preference for a particular version of Heroes of Might and Magic. When a lively, energetic player with a sharp mind, skillful hands, a resonant voice, and ambition appears, they usually don't stay in SoD for long.

Purely SoD-based teams, in terms of their temperament, the nature of their relationships, and the personal development of their members, remind me of isolated tribes that have become victims of inbreeding - low vitality, weak intelligence, low levels of expansion, both personal and collective, strong xenophobic and escapist tendencies, etc. Of course, there are exceptions, but they only emphasize the state in which the rest are.

Message from Wicc:
So much has already been done for VT that the developers will be working on it for many years to come just to catch up.

When asm comes out of his stupor, we will continue working. But for now, there is a period of calm. Which is also useful, as it allows us to consolidate what we have learned.

It is even more unclear why you connect this same "morality" with the rate of growth of new players. Chess doesn't have any "morality," but schoolchildren still regularly beat experienced grandmasters.

To increase something, you need to change the gameplay, and this is only possible within the framework of the VT paradigm. Because the SOD paradigm is "hands off SOD!". I've been telling you this for days, but it doesn't seem to be getting through to you. I'm starting to doubt your intellectual adequacy.

So, your posts are more likely to discourage people from playing on the Russian server, and I think that's wrong.

A kind of scandalous hothead... yes, thank goodness, there are far more of them on the Russian server than on the English one. I'm already full of loud voices and ambitions in real life. It's bad when this spills over into forums, where people are supposed to relax from reality.

controversial hotshots

The cornerstone there is the sporting aspect of the approach.

That's your lack of foresight. You still don't understand that I'm not advocating for the SOD paradigm or the VT paradigm. I'm advocating for unification. Do you get it?

At least because new players, after randomly winning a couple of times, become interested, and thus, whether they like it or not, they gradually become part of the Heroes community. Over time, they learn the basics and improve their skills. That's why people don't leave, so they can return. And if a person realizes that there is no chance, they won't play anymore. The key to the game's prosperity is the success of young players.

The competitive aspect you're talking about is only possible in perfectly symmetrical templates, down to the pixel, with identical starting heroes and armies.

But such a thing won't take root anywhere, and that's a fact.

First, before asking, tell me if you are ready and willing to increase the hero pool, but this will require making some compromises. What is more important to you: the development of the game or the path of isolation through the loss of popularity and players, but with the achievement of balance and a competitive aspect in the form that you envision?

This, by the way, is Eric, and it's clear from you – while you were observing the forum from the outside, you maintained the image of Leopold the Cat, but as soon as you started organizing the tournament, you started arguing and disagreeing much more, and the expressions became stronger. And, by the way, the latest squabbles in the tournament thread are probably an unconscious test by the players of you as an organizer. Like, to make sure that the organizer is adequate and generally understands what he's getting into. It seems they were convinced, and it should be easier from now on.

In Bay, several dozen of these scandalous guys gathered at one time, and this ensured their growth in overall skill, as well as formed the corresponding norms. I understand that they are not pleasant to everyone. But this is an evolutionarily more advanced model. From the above positions, of course.

It is these scandalous guys who drive any business forward. In all sports, champions usually have a bad character (much more often than in the average population), organizers and judges are usually also unpleasant and uncompromising.

I believe one does not interfere with the other. And so far, I see no arguments to the contrary.

SoD as a competitive discipline has hit its ceiling. To overcome it, something needs to change. If you change it, then it will no longer be SoD.

Essentially, the rigid position of SoD players on the immutability of the gameplay ties the hands of WT, allowing it to deviate from the original version as much as desired.

If TE had initially been a project for the entire Russian-speaking community, then perhaps the number of differences between WT and SoD would have been smaller than it is now. But what’s done is done; taking a step back is much harder than moving forward.

To overcome it, something needs to change. If you change it, then it will no longer be SoD.

Yura, are you serious? I've been in Heroes for many years, I'm known in the community, and many dozens of Heroes players have visited me. And suddenly, a check for organizational suitability... Wouldn't it have been easier to just read about my previous tournaments? Or ask Stinger, Horn, Yama-Dharma, PREDs, Napalm, Mizrael, Scorpio, etc.?

It was unpleasant for me to read phrases like "things aren't as bad as they seem at the upcoming tournament" and "it's a mess, not a tournament" about my tournaments.

You still haven't shown your exemplary tournament, so why are you writing this?

And the accusation that I was dishonest and helped Lyokha get 1st place in the Michurinsk selection – let that be on your conscience. There were 15-20 people in the club at the time, and they saw how the players drew the lots and how they played, who won and who lost.

Where did you get that from? You're making completely unfounded statements and considering them axioms. Let's go through this step by step. Let's take the Heroes community and the best organizers.

If you were told to choose the single most important factor of the Schism, what would it be? I think it's obviously morale.
QUOTE]

At first I didn't want to reply to your post. I hope you don't mind me quoting an excerpt again? But, as I understand it, morale is what you consider to be balance in Heroes. So here's the thing... Morale is not the balance between a strong player and a weak one, how can you not understand that? A strong player will beat a weak one, even if his neutral morale percentage is many times inflated. And he can also lose, but not because of morale, but because of:
1. Getting caught on the scatter.
2. Sitting in a castle without placing a scout hero in the garrison.
3. Crashing in handcuffs,
If we're talking about a serious tournament and the stakes are high.

Neutral morale is such an insignificant factor that I generally don't understand why you attach so much importance to it.

It's a different matter when strong opponents play. Development is built on tempo. A loss of tempo greatly impacts further development, so you have to conduct difficult battles that, in the presence of morale, you wouldn't conduct. Accordingly, the game itself speeds up. Is that bad?

I say it again, your previous claim that a weak player will beat a strong player due to neutral morale is a MYTH.
Therefore, the presence or absence of morale is NOT SIGNIFICANT.

Essentially, everything that happened afterwards looked more like a family scandal, with personal attacks, hyperbolization, and so on. Naturally, every available object and argument was thrown into the mix; people stopped holding back.

Well, the example of my tournament is too obvious to bring up. Except for the Vitalik-Pit match, everything else was done as it should have been.

I haven't even seen most of these people. Therefore, I can't judge. But for some reason, it seems to me that I would describe them quite differently than you do. Perhaps because you have such a generally benevolent image that people don't show their thorns.

Chaos, based on posts in the Dungeon and ProGamer, gave me the impression of a person with a difficult character who is not inclined to avoid conflict.

But even if you are right—what follows from that? That the same-era Heroes community was just a group of friends whose main goal was to have a good chat and who didn't care about all these games, sporting ambitions, or who would become champion. Hard to believe. Although anything is possible.

Here we need to rely on several other criteria. We are burying the game by removing all its original basic skills.

The Heroes game was fundamentally conceived as a struggle between absolutely different forces and capabilities; it's not for nothing that such diverse castles were created. Each is strong in its own way.

If you were asked to choose the single most important factor contributing to the Schism, what would it be? I think it's obvious: morality.

Where did you get that from? You're making completely unfounded statements and treating them as axioms. Let's go through it step by step. Let's take the Heroes community, the best organizers.
Lord Maniac. An incredibly kind person, a true intellectual from St. Petersburg. He never raised his voice. He was incredibly hardworking, writing reports, preparing maps for tournaments for hundreds of people. He worked for weeks.

Horn. A man with a big heart, very generous. He had a friendly personality, and I never saw him get into arguments.

Alan Prost. I don't even know what to write about Andrey Alexandrovich. He was the best of the Heroes organizers.

Dilvish. Very cultured and intelligent, a very smart person.

Maybe only Lesha Chaos fits your description; he was a fighter by nature and could swear. But only if he was really provoked; he wasn't aggressive.
Players would never follow organizers who are prone to arguments.

Based on participation in the forum, I would include myself and you among the organizers who are prone to arguments. :p

As for the players, I won't write much about Tyoma Stinger. Andre, Phil, Joker, Mega Pes – they are all very cultured people, and it was a pleasure to communicate with them. I know Bishop less well, but he's generally calm, efficient, and I don't remember any arguments with him. Antal is a fighter, but I haven't noticed any aggression from him outside the game.
Master of Lightning is a rare intellectual, cultured, and benevolent.

QUOTE]

Eric, you're living in the past. You constantly refer to things from long ago, to people who, of course, did a lot for the Heroes community, but only when Heroes was at its peak of popularity. And as soon as it became uninteresting (or unprofitable), plus some personal grievances, they stepped away. It's not for me to judge them; I came to Heroes late, I don't know half of the people you mentioned, but does that matter? Vic is calling for us to live in the present, to develop and improve ourselves.

Personally, for me, Heroes has long lost its appeal; the love for this game that I was willing to devote myself to day and night is gone. But I want, if I have the opportunity to play, to test my skills against a strong opponent (a newcomer or an old-timer). And, objectively speaking, if I sit down to play SoD, there will be few such opponents, but in W3, I might be overwhelmed. This is because W3 is developing, while SoD remains a game for casual players for many newcomers, which is very bad. I want the emotions and intrigue that R55Max values so much. That's why I won't play with a newcomer in SoD, but I will play with a newcomer in W3. Because W3 players, despite their aggressiveness in the chat, motivate newcomers to improve by attacking their self-esteem.

You can't raise strong players by saying warm words about how good you all are and how well you behave on the forum.

All I hear from you is: Alan Prost, Lord Maniac, Master of Lightning... WHO ARE THEY? WHERE ARE THEY? Live in the present, adapt. :)

R55MaxIf you were told to choose one single most important factor of the Schism, which one would it be? I think it's obvious — morale.
QUOTE]

I didn't want to reply to your post at first. I hope you don't mind me quoting an excerpt again? But, as I understand it, morale is what you consider to be balance in Heroes. So here's the thing... Morale is not the balance between a strong player and a weak one, how can you not understand that? A strong player will beat a weak one, even if their neutral stack morale percentage is many times inflated. And they can also lose, but not because of morale, but because of:
1. Getting caught on the run.
2. Sitting in a Castle without placing a scout hero in the garrison.
3. Crashing in handcuffs.
If we're talking about a serious tournament and the stakes are high.

Neutral morale is such an insignificant factor that I simply don't understand why you attach such importance to it.

It's a different matter when strong opponents are playing. Development is based on tempo. Losing tempo greatly affects further development, so you have to conduct difficult fights that, in the presence of morale, you wouldn't conduct. Accordingly, the game itself speeds up. Is that bad?

I'll say it again: your previous claim that a weak player will beat a strong one due to neutral morale is a MYTH.
Therefore, the presence or absence of morale is NOT SIGNIFICANT.