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.
The format of the WCG – will be a blitz match on Might & Magic, lasting a maximum of 2-3 hours, with autobattles and a 1-minute turn time. We don't need such a WCG.
No, the WCG lasts 4-5 days. So, playing an Olympic-style tournament with 4 rounds can be done without any major problems.
Well, it's clear that it won't be with a 4000+500 time control. The match should fit within the game day with a margin, and no one will let you play in the evening or night. The time for the game, if my memory serves me right, starts around 10-11:00 AM, and by 4-5:00 PM it's already winding down. That is, 6 hours is the limit here, and on average, a match should last about 4 hours. This is exactly a blitz format.
For heroes to become a competitive discipline, a game should last a maximum of 4 hours. Then, other factors will emerge – fast clicks and, as a result, misclicks. And no one wants to lose a serious game because of a misclick. Then, you will have to hone this skill. It just so happened that Heroes is evolving towards increasing the time control per turn. Previously, we played SOD in 4 minutes and didn't complain, but casual players won :D
We used to play SOD with 4-minute turns and didn't complain.
In St. Petersburg, we started playing Divided Loyalties with 2-minute turns, QC (Quick Combat), 3-hand battles per game, and a maximum game time of 3 hours. This was back in 1999... We complained a lot, though ;) But that was the tournament format, and tournaments were held every month, and even more often...
Message from Wicc: Not necessary, of course. It's perfectly possible to understand a game you're not strong in.
I wrote a mass of good articles on StarCraft, even though at my peak I was an average player skill-wise. And I wrote the bulk of the articles after I had already quit, meaning I couldn't even beat average players anymore. Yes, sometimes this led to mistakes, and people corrected me, but overall the texts were quite adequate.
But few manage this. And in your current state, you're clearly not among them (well, objectively, no offense). That's why you're being offered to at least reach the level of an average player, maybe then your analytical abilities (if you have any) will yield adequate results.
I'll repeat, the main thing is the correct line of thought. If it's incorrect, it makes sense to look for reasons - whether it's a lack of skill, brains, or something else.
Take, for instance, your discussion with Stinger about morale. I disagree with Stinger's position; IMO he goes to extremes. But our differences are quantitative, in assessing the degree of influence (I think it's higher), not in the essence of the issue. Here we can discuss constructively and perhaps even reach a consensus (even if it turns out to be multi-component). Your position, however, is purely wrong, and your arguments only emphasize this fact. Hence constructive discussion is difficult here.
Similarly, regarding spectacle - it's good that you acknowledge the importance of this aspect of the game and look for factors that influence it. But whether due to a lack of experience working with this issue, or due to initial bias, your conclusions turn out to be wrong, and again your arguments only underscore this.
I myself have simply analyzed and discussed this issue a lot in relation to different computer games (and traditional sports as well), so I see flaws with the naked eye, much like an experienced musician hears obvious false notes in a melody.
The specific nature of discussing spectacle issues is that there is little subjectivity here; you can't say "there's no accounting for taste"; spectacle is a quite objective parameter that can even be measured numerically. Hence the corresponding approach to opinions here.
Here's my ancient article, one of the first steps in esports journalism - http://cyberfight.ru/site/columns/56/article_18911/ , which exactly analyzes the issues of spectacle in an esports game. I glanced through it now; there's a ton of naivety and clumsiness, of course, but all the key factors are marked surprisingly correctly (patted myself on the back there). And the main thing is that subsequent events proved the correctness of this approach.
Mostly, the questions concern the link. 1. Removed the point.
2.
However, the next stage of development does exist, and that is the path of professionalization of esports. Many imply by this merely the opportunity to make money from games, but in my opinion, professional sport is a system that links together players, spectators, sponsors, and organizers. That is, a regular competitive calendar, tickets to matches, advertising, broadcasts, refereeing and coaching work, and in the long term, specialized training for young players. And the main requirement for growth and development is self-sufficiency, i.e., the ability to earn money without relying on external sources. And there is only one internal source of money - the spectators; they buy the tickets, and advertising and sponsors target them.
My personal views and outlook on the game coincide absolutely mirror-like with this. What was I writing a few pages ago? Wasn't I talking about this on the Tribune and on the topic I created? There isn't a single new point. Because it's obvious.
The problem of esports development as a whole is too large to consider within a single article, so for a meaningful discussion, one needs to limit oneself to considering some sufficiently narrow part of it
It is precisely by considering each narrow part separately that one can arrive at a solution. As I said, this is the discussion of all the nuances of the game separately (SoD + WoG)
This happens due to the absence of some fundamental facts to rely on, and with a weak axiomatic base, it is difficult to conduct a meaningful argument; the use of dubious arguments based on someone's authority begins
Perhaps this concerns me as well, but still, I try to arrive at an axiom, if not through experience, then by building an argumentative base.
. Therefore, I do not rule out that another person might look at the same problem differently; that is normal, even more so, it should be so. However, given two different points of view, they can be checked for compliance with the real situation and the more correct one identified, so such a dispute will be of a practical, not "religious" nature, like most disputes about computer games. True, such a check is, of course, only possible in the future, but nevertheless, its very possibility in principle moves the discussion to another level
Here you allow for and even praise the existence of a different opinion. Now about practice. How can you prove the unsoundness of certain worldview positions without having the opportunity to test them in practice? And as you've long understood, my goal is to unite SoD and WoG. And it is precisely about the long-term perspective that I speak, not about the momentary presentation of advantageous positions.
Besides what exists at the moment, it makes sense to think about how it could be. That is, what would be good to change in Star and War if they were tailored specifically for spectators. Moreover, in many ways, such reasoning is even more useful, because developers will face exactly this task in the future.
Why do you, as a game developer, not have such a thought? And when, for example, I talk about it, you dismiss it. Apparently, it really is very difficult to take this step back.
The role of randomness. This is random damage and random item drops
This is easily solvable. Elementarily, during generation, the map is given to the lead organizer for review. He looks at it and gives a verdict - play, guys.
You don't need to destroy everything, it's enough to give an assessment of playability. Suppose during the deal you have one advantage, and the other has a counterargument to your advantage (but it's achievable by another route; this is the theory of chaotic balance), so why ban the layout? It's another matter whether the opponent can take advantage of it. And that's already a question of skill, which also includes game foresight.
I read the interview - I'll say one thing: the guy was very offended by his loss, because he beat everyone and wasn't ready for defeat. Yes, he was unlucky, but in such moments they say "This is football." And anything can happen, regardless of the opponent's strength. Underestimation, carelessness, lack of luck - a component of the game. Then he says, the boxer deserved the victory, but the game isn't fair. Such nonsense! Where does a fair game exist in professional sports? Name one? (One that has no behind-the-scenes factors at all). There are no such games; everyone tries to use every allowed trick. Rule violations are punished with penalties, but they will never stop breaking them. Simulation - if a penalty is earned with its help, the player pulled the team through. Qualities like turning the other cheek if you're hit are not valued. And the fact that someone managed to dec...ive the referee - isn't that imbalance? No! It's a war between two sides, where not only the strongest but also the cunning win... When a defending defender tries to kick the ball in such a way that there's no reason to award a penalty, and the attacker manages to trip himself up and fall dramatically - penalty, the defender lost, even though he didn't foul.
Too much emphasis on the grief of a boy who lost, poor thing, by the will of fortune. In real sports, there are thousands of such moments every day, and in football, there are hundreds of times more than in SoD! And nothing terrible. This is sport. Fates are broken, even deaths occur. But here one must practically cry. Imagine his bad luck compared to a volleyball player's broken little finger, who couldn't play the World Championship final and didn't receive additional huge prize money for winning, and because of his non-participation, the team simply lost, spoiling the reputation not only of the players whose places will be taken by winners from the best clubs in the world, but also of the country as a whole, which will be known worldwide. So whose problems are bigger? Nobody needs identical balance; what's needed is spectacle and blood, the blood of old-timers and the strongest players in the world. In any sport.
It seems obvious to me that in the esports of the future, game changes will not occur, and if they do, they will be rare and for objective reasons. An example is big sports; the same football has been watched for over 100 years, and rule changes are in the nature of patches, but by no means a revision of the fundamentals.
That's exactly it; fundamentals must exist. SoD is the foundation; WoG is a different game. Hockey players on ice don't play field hockey.
To summarize, the general idea is this - most players look at games only through their own eyes, through the prism of their own tastes and habits. However, from the perspective of esports' prospects, this view must be replaced by the view from the spectator's side, which is more important in monetary terms and also lends itself better to analysis.
This is precisely why gameplay problems and what you call the unsoundness of merging the two versions fade into the background and beyond.
Everything has a solution, it's important to move towards it.
What I understood from the article is the contradictory nature of your moralizing postulates on the Tribune, strung upon the self-purpose of shutting down new ideas in my person with your own worldview positions within yourself, especially given that you, having read this article, agreed with it after many years. And this happens because it's hard to admit that you need to take a step back.
МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...
Added 3 minutes ago By the way, maybe I don't understand the confrontation between SOD and VT. But, in my opinion, absolutely all the strongest SOD players have long come to a common conclusion. Namely, the need to create a VT-lite, that is, SOD gameplay with a VT interface. With the advent of the HD Mod, the need for this disappeared. Therefore, Vik's kilometer-long posts look strange, as he has not yet understood what he is trying to prove. SOD has long become an ironclad classic. All this stuff like Starcraft and Warcraft didn't even come close. These are temporarily popular games; all versions die out after the release of a new upgrade. Starcraft 1 killed Warcraft, Starcraft 2 is destroying Starcraft 1, and Blizzard's new version will bury Starcraft 2. Correct me if I'm wrong. And SOD is a Titan of the modern gaming industry; Heroes 6 and WOG have already appeared, and everything is still standing strong and unshakable. There is no need to look for explanations in all sorts of nonsense, like conservatism and rigidity of the mind; this cannot explain the success of the third Heroes compared to similar creations of the industry.
At the same time, the strength of the VT version is undoubtedly in its dynamics. I am very interested in new directions, the possibility of changing the content of the Hive-Conservatories, as well as mirror templates, although, imo, not everything will take root over time. + what the winner of RP-1 and RP-2, Artem - Stinger, wrote about - a strong player base. The reason, in my opinion, is that players coming to VT quickly start playing HL+U templates, which sharply affects their skill. Many SOD players, on the other hand, limit themselves to CM or mini-nostalgia. And morale, GS, and the like are a secondary matter.
By the way, have you noticed that in modern sports, there is a tendency to increase the level of randomness in the game? For example, in football, this is why video replays have not been introduced yet. And the unpredictably flying Jabulani ball?? Perhaps in the VT version, it is worth switching to a game with morale sooner or later; after all, battles with it are much more interesting and meaningful.
Correction: Starcraft 1 could not have killed Warcraft 3, on the contrary. But the second one brought doom to both. Well, in general, for the first time in all my acquaintance with you, I will agree with your message. :smile49:
Wicc
Auto-translated
Since you believe that the article contradicts what I am writing now, it means that you do not understand the meaning of what is written. Because there are no particular contradictions there; over the 8 years that have passed since the article was written, my conceptual vision of this issue has not changed; mainly, details have been clarified.
Why don't you, as a game developer, have such an idea? And when, for example, I talk about it, you reject it. Apparently, it is really very difficult to take this step back.
I, as a developer, have this idea more than enough. When developing Warlords, I am guided precisely by this idea; it is my flagship and ultimate goal.
And what you propose goes against it. I have repeatedly explained why, and this also follows from the text of the article.
More specifically, SoD is much less spectacular than Warlords. There are many reasons for this:
1) Low average player skill level
It is clear that this is not a criticism of SoD itself, but of the SoD community, but nevertheless.
2) Poor templates.
For example, Alex-Mareti watched the game and yawned; it is impossible to achieve a normal action on Panic, even for such masters.
Although this also applies more to the SoD community, which for some reason does not like to play normal templates, but prefers all sorts of nonsense like SMK balance and Panic.
3) Time stops in battles => the player has the opportunity to think => it is boring for the viewer; they need action. Spectacle implies constant action, a fast pace, that is, a chess timer and short control are essential.
4) Low game pace, a lot of fuss and stagnation.
For example, in Russian billiards, the evolution of the rules is going in this direction - to have more attacks, more balls scored, fewer comebacks, and a shorter game duration.
5) The factor of randomness - its significance is described in detail in the article.
It cannot be cured in SoD; all developments in this matter are possible only in Warlords - from balancing the game itself to mirror templates.
6) Increasing the game speed by setting up roads, advanced quick combat, disabling unnecessary windows, and other small improvements.
This is easily solved. It is elementary; when generating, the map is given to the leading organizer for review. He looked at it and gave his verdict - play, guys.
This cannot be solved in this way. Even with a preview for the probability of a quick match (which I did a lot of), problems, disputes, and discrepancies between forecasts and reality still arise. And to assess the playability of a layout, you need to delve very deeply into it, and even then, the probability of error will be high.
That is, the layouts will inevitably turn out to be with an advantage for one of the players, but here they will not blame the generator (it is ironclad; it doesn't care), but the one who reviewed the map. Do you need such a load? I don't.
Therefore, to achieve balance in the distribution of maps, it was decided to go another way - by creating symmetrical templates. This is faster and more reliable, and all complaints are directed at the generator.
I don't see more adequate ways.
But, in addition to the map itself, destructive randomness manifests itself in many other factors. Most of them have been eliminated in Warlords - castles, skills, heroes have been rebalanced, morale has been removed, and guild restructuring has been added.
All this leaves randomness as a source of gameplay diversity and takes away its right to determine the outcome. That is, an increase in the constructive component while reducing the destructive one. This is what is required for a competitive game.
That is exactly what the foundations should be. SoD is the foundation, Warlords is a different game. Hockey players on the ice do not play field hockey.
If we compare it with other games, then Warlords is more like an add-on for SoD. That is, like SC:BW for SC, WC3:TFT for WC3:RoC, and so on. They did not change the ideology of the game, but only added balance and diversity.
The same SC and WC3 differ quite significantly precisely in ideology; these are really different games, which is noticeable from many factors. For example, the composition of players - attempts to combine or even switch in most cases ended in failure; the initial advantage of Starcraft players in fast-clicking and grinding was quickly leveled out by new players whose thinking was better suited specifically for Warcraft.
But transitions between SoD and Warlords are relatively comfortable; there are many players who combine both versions; there are grounds to talk about a common heroic skill that is not tied to the version.
If Warlords had been released by the developer himself, then everyone would have long forgotten about SoD, happily playing the add-on and remembering about morale and other features as some kind of nonsense, childhood illnesses of the game.
That is, Warlords is precisely a patch, not a revision of the foundations. Therefore, my current thoughts do not contradict the position stated in the article.
new ideas in the person of me
Rather, (censored)...
ariputra
Auto-translated
oelm
Yes, yes, it’s better to go with the flow and never be responsible for anything in life.
On the contrary, acknowledging certain patterns of the material world means acknowledging that you will have to be responsible for all the actions you have taken in the past. Flandre
Of course, it’s better; it’s so simple to blame all your problems on fate!
Going with the flow is undoubtedly easier for some time, but the result is deplorable. Attempts to attribute something to chance are attempts to relieve oneself of responsibility for the result. And acknowledging a pattern is acknowledging oneself as guilty (acknowledging oneself as the cause) of a particular result (joy or disappointment). That is, acknowledging that you will have to be responsible for every action.
Fate is the totality of all possible paths of a person’s life development (in other words, these are the ripe fruits of karma, that is, what you earned in the past, that is what you are getting now (the law of justice). Fate develops depending on the actions, desires, and choices we have made in the past.
If a person experiences any “suffering” (discomfort, bad mood because, for example, the angels in the stash “accidentally” spoiled more than he expected), then the reason lies in his past, that is, he is to blame himself. Is this an attempt to attribute something to fate? Fate is the consequence – of a person’s virtuous and sinful deeds committed in the past. And in this case, the angels are not spoiling because the person should experience disappointment, frustration – and he should experience disappointment because he himself once caused suffering to someone in the form of disappointment. That is, he is to blame himself. Fate is the consequence of a person’s past actions. These actions naturally are the cause of certain events in our present (down to such details as whether or not the angels are spoiling).
Acknowledging that everything in this material world happens according to certain patterns, that is, acknowledging that only the person himself is to blame for what is happening to him – is this irresponsibility, an attempt to blame something on someone else?
When I said that such is fate, that it is destined to receive joy or disappointment, I meant that the person is to blame for this himself, that the cause of this is the actions he himself committed in the past (virtuous or sinful). Nobody is to blame but himself.
I apologize if I offended anyone or caused anxiety by what I wrote
If a person experiences any kind of "suffering" (upset, bad mood because, for example, the angels in an external dwelling "accidentally" lost more morale than he expected) - then the cause lies in his past, meaning he is to blame himself. Where are the attempts to attribute something to fatum (fate?) here. Fate is the consequence of a person's pious and sinful own actions committed in the past. And in this case, the angels don't lose morale because the person must experience disappointment or upset - and he must experience disappointment because he himself once in the past brought suffering in the form of disappointment to someone. That is, he is to blame himself. Fatum is the consequence of a person's past actions. These actions are naturally the cause of certain events in our present.
:D :D :D
You're on fire :D
Added after 2 minutes For some reason, I remembered:
I want to state absolutely clearly that almost everyone I've played against uses the same cheat against me. :twisted: Usually it happens like this: after the check we generate the map, and immediately after my first turn pass, they apply the cheat. It forces me to go to the kitchen and open a couple of bottles of Paulaner or Baltika 8 (judging by the fact that they appeared there, the cheat was probably used even when I was coming home from work and stopping at the store :) ) The effect of the first dose of the cheat is almost kind of same, unless your mood significantly improves :D . But on 121 this dishonest trick is applied against me again 8) Now the influence on the game is noticeable - a couple of cells are missing in the chains, something necessary isn't built due to a lack of 200 rub, etc. :( But when the cheat is applied on 131 it becomes a total disaster :lol: Chains are built in the wrong direction, my same-turn rush with 1 angel charges into the Dragon Utopia without an army, when I want to retreat on neutrals - shackles aren't removed, and so on. And you say :D cheats are hard to detect. What evidence? Usually I carry them back to the kitchen in empty form, where they stand until there are too many of them. Then I scoop them into a bag and throw them down the garbage chute. Then the residents of my building know - someone recently used cheats against me in a game 8)
And what is the difference between what you are writing about and a log (at best) floating downstream, saying, "Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to bother you"?
Земля нуля. Все в ней нулево и кукольно.
R55Max
Auto-translated
Since you believe that the Article contradicts what I am writing now, it means you do not understand the meaning of what is written. Because there are no particular contradictions there; in the 8 years since the Article was written, my conceptual vision of this issue has not changed; mainly, details have been clarified.
I don't think so; it's obvious without binoculars.
2) Poor templates.
This is the fault of the people who create them, not the game.
4) Low game tempo, a lot of fiddling and stagnation.
These are problems of the players, not the game. Find new ones.
it cannot be solved in this way. Even with a preview of the probability of a quick encounter (which I spent a lot of time on), problems, disputes, and discrepancies between forecasts and reality still arise. And evaluating the playability of a map requires a very deep immersion in it, and even then, the probability of error will be high.
That is, the maps will inevitably favor one of the players, but here, the blame will not be placed on the generator (it is unyielding and doesn't care), but on the person who reviewed the map. Do you need this kind of workload? I don't.
And who needs workload in general? Maybe it's better not to work at all? Just earn money without any workload. The authority of a judge reduces this workload of yours; besides, in any case, it is impossible to avoid control by third parties if you rely on something worthwhile.
Therefore, to achieve balance in the distribution of maps, it was decided to go another way - by creating symmetrical templates. This is faster and more reliable, and all complaints are directed at the generator.
I don't see any more adequate ways.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that another way is impossible. You just think you're the king and god)))) I won't interfere; indulge your self-esteem.
Rather (censored)...
The emphasis of your post - "shut up, don't interfere with what's proven" - is an indicator of weakness, irritation, and even rage. This doesn't bother me, but it says the worst things about you - simply a double-emphasized unwillingness to move towards development. Well, don't engage in discussion if you don't want to; who is forcing you? Sit in your proven world, lock yourself up, and don't let others in.
And watch your language...
МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...
Max, why don't you clearly state your position? For example, I understand what Vic wants to achieve, what Baratorch or Ivor are doing. But what you're doing is completely unclear. If you're on the side of the VT players, you should be grateful to Vic for developing VT; if you're on the side of the SOD players, you should be grateful for having such a strong competitor in him. If it's just a venting of emotions (and right now, it looks like it), then it's time to stop, unless you want to bore people with your hysterics.
All these messages about taking a step back, etc., are pure nonsense. Explain specifically what your goal is, what you have done yourself to develop the game. Because, at the moment, your position seems like a manifesto of extreme noobishness. A player who has not only never won against the top players but hasn't even competed with them, and probably hasn't even played with simply strong players. At the same time, there is a lack of constructive input in your position, which instead focuses on sometimes rather dubious Freudian humor.
Земля нуля. Все в ней нулево и кукольно.
Лось
Auto-translated
A distinctive feature of HeroesWorld is discussions like this. I find it hard to imagine them anywhere else.
Wicc
Auto-translated
The main point of your post is: shut up and don't interfere with what's already established.
Exactly, you understood everything correctly.
To interfere with something that's already established, you need to have a very good understanding of what it is and how it works. You clearly don't understand this, which is why you're spouting nonsense. I understand, it's about age, ambition, and the desire to somehow prove yourself and do something meaningful. But you also need to have some abilities to match that desire.
In the context of developing the Heroes series, your words need to carry weight – knowledge of the technical details and the history of the Heroes' development, the ability to play and win, an understanding of the overall logic of the existence and development of Heroes, the same goes for esports in general, the ability to give accurate assessments of things that cannot be specifically verified right now, the ability to correctly assess trends and make predictions based on them, and finally, the ability to convince people that you are right.
You're still lacking in all of this, which is why your words aren't taken seriously. So... just throwing it out there...
Added 11 minutes later Moose
A distinctive feature of the Hive is these kinds of discussions. I find it hard to imagine them happening anywhere else.
No, they used to happen in many other places. It's just that the Hive is younger, and not everything has been discussed yet.
Max, why don't you clearly state your position? For example, I understand what Vic wants to achieve, what Baratorch or Ivor are doing. But what you are doing is completely unclear. If you are on the side of the VT players, then you should be grateful to Vic for developing VT; if you are on the side of the SoD players, then you should be grateful for having such a strong competitor in him. If this is just an outpouring of emotions (and it looks like it), then it's time to stop, otherwise you will only annoy people with your hysterics.
All these statements about taking a step back and so on are pure nonsense. Explain specifically what your goal is, what have you done yourself to develop the game? Because at the moment, your position seems like a manifesto of extreme noobism. A player who has not only never won against top players but hasn't even competed with them, and probably hasn't even played with simply strong players. And all this without any constructive input.
First, we need to decide on merging SoD and VT. I am sure that most people are ready for it. We need to discuss all aspects down to the smallest detail; experienced players are needed here, and analyze everything taking into account the development of the game among the masses. It's not simple. In most cases, it will not be possible to say "this needs to be done" or "this doesn't need to be done." Moreover, a lot of arguments are necessary; the opinion of a strong player alone is not enough without it, and without refuting all other arguments as invalid.
There is an initial idea there. Each individual point requires its own approach. His achievements are the result of uniting a certain group of people for the common good. Specifically, what can I do? Organization, attracting sponsors through creative proposals (it also depends on luck, but still). There are some connections in the media; perhaps I can create a server-keeper for saves. I lack knowledge, but I don't have programming skills and English language skills (huge drawbacks), and I rely on help with this, but since I will definitely stay here for a long time, I will certainly improve my knowledge in this area over the next two years.
First, we need to create a team, and if someone sees themselves as helpful in something, then such a person is needed. There is no need to talk about the inconsistency of one thing or another; you need to move forward or not get involved in this business, i.e., be an observer.
My primary goal (which I am currently striving for) is to find people who, even at a subconscious level, support the development of the game, specifically SoD. It is the engine and foundation, as well as the brand of the world hero community. We need to create a like-minded, systematic, organized structure for work. This is not easy, but if one, another, fifth person joins, it becomes easier. In principle, I reject opponents as members of the team because they interfere, but as rivals, they are necessary, and that's good.
Since I am a new and unproven person (there is no idea about me as a player, I have not proven myself), this is a significant obstacle. Well, nothing can be done about it; we will break through boldly. The more difficult the start, the sweeter the finish.
And there is the forum, and there is conversation on ICQ, which is much more constructive. And most importantly, Vic, for example, builds his dialogue with me based on pointing out shortcomings, practically without highlighting the advantages, which do exist and many people see them.
Now I will say that my personal proposals will definitely be made later, not now. I am trying to do something not for myself, but for everyone, and no matter how loud my posts sound, they are ideologically correctly formulated, in my opinion.
The huge difficulty lies in the fact that, as in your post, everyone says "you do it - then talk," but I think differently: we will do it, and then there will be nothing to talk about because everything has been agreed upon in advance. You cannot start working without fundamental rules and agreements. The more things are agreed upon, the better it will be done.
МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...
