[ANNOUNCEMENT] Heroes 3: World Tournament - an add-on for tournament games. — Tournament History

Dirty_Player

14 years ago

Auto-translated

But it's quite possible to do rough balancing, so that there are no situations where one player has several consoles and the other has none.

Well, it's understandable that this is doable. Calculate external dwellings, consoles, and artifacts. But this will work ONLY with very strong imbalances in the layout. Otherwise, the balance is dynamic. There may be a large respawn, but a strong block, for example.

FireToSky

14 years ago

Auto-translated

The changes are, of course, good. But when will they finally fix the AI's experience gain? I'm tired of constantly losing to them and ruining the whole pace of the game...

In reply to FireToSky

Oelm

14 years ago

Auto-translated

1. I am against balancing the map in the way it is proposed. I understand that those who have spoken here are simply worshipping angels, which is fundamentally wrong. For example, on popular map templates – Jebus, HL+U – the number of such structures may not have any significant meaning. If a player finds 6 conservatories on their starting location, that is not a reason to be overjoyed, thinking that victory is guaranteed. As for balancing the skirmish map, I am skeptical about the possibility of balancing it in principle.

2. I am against increasing the experience gained by computer players (I haven't heard any convincing arguments in favor of this yet). I played several games with 200% HL+U, and I didn't notice any particularly serious problems. The lack of experience will lead to the computer players becoming like plush toys, busy building economic structures; essentially, this is a UNION.

3. An alternative would be to create some specific map template where such changes would be implemented. In my opinion, mirrors are sufficient, but it is, of course, possible to try to create something in between a mirror and a normal random map.

In reply to Oelm

PReDS

14 years ago

Auto-translated

The experience gained from fighting companions is a perfectly reasonable compensation for the lack of morale in neutral creatures and the lack of experience for our troops in battles against un-upgraded neutral creatures. Removing experience from bots would make the game too easy. It's not that difficult to get used to the fact that attacking a bot after turn 114 carries the risk of taking damage.

In reply to PReDS

Samurai

14 years ago

Auto-translated

PReDS

The experience gained from battles with AI opponents is a reasonable compensation for the lack of morale in neutral creatures and the lack of experience gained by our troops in battles against unchallenging neutral creatures. Removing experience from AI opponents would make the game too easy. It's not that difficult to get used to the fact that attacking an AI opponent after turn 114 carries the risk of taking damage.

+100 and 10 characters

In reply to PReDS

Medium_HP

14 years ago

Auto-translated

PReDS

The experience gained in battles is a perfectly adequate compensation for the lack of morale in neutral creatures and the lack of experience gained by our troops in battles against un-upgraded neutral creatures. Removing experience from bots would make the game too easy. It's not that difficult to get used to the fact that attacking a bot after level 114 carries the risk of taking damage.

Who is saying "remove" it?
The excessive experience gain for computer opponents in Warlords (and it's "excessive," as there was also experience gain in Trials, but not as fast) sometimes leads to unfortunate situations, for example, when there's only one path from the spawn point, and right after the exit, there's a computer opponent's spawn point, and you can't pass by without engaging. You enter, and at level 112, you're killed in the field without any chance of maneuvering, by a combined army with 3-4 upgrade levels. Yes, this doesn't happen often; in most cases, issues with the computer opponent are resolved more or less normally, but encountering such a situation in a tournament is not a pleasant experience. That's why I'm in favor of returning the computer opponent's experience gain to the Trials level.

KobRa_RR

14 years ago

Auto-translated

there's no point in rushing headlong along the paths without thinking; send scouts ahead. For some reason, the computer never manages to defeat me completely, leading to a surrender.
The game is already sometimes frustratingly easy; let's make it even simpler!!!

Лось

14 years ago

Auto-translated

I've only had problems with camps due to my own greed. There's no need to change anything, IMO. I think trading all the resources gathered during the first week (which is usually the average amount collected when meeting at the end of the week) for a castle with partial upgrades is more than fair. Moreover, this way, the later you get to a camp, the more advantageous it becomes.

In reply to Medium_HP

asm

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Medium_HP

Who says to "remove" it?
Super-boosting the computer opponents in Warlords (and I mean "super," as there was also boosting in Trials, but not as fast) sometimes leads to unfortunate situations, for example, when there's only one path from the spawn point, and right after the exit, the computer opponent's respawn point begins, and you can't pass by without triggering it. You enter, and on turn 112, you're killed in the field without any chance of escape by a combined army with 3-4 stars. Yes, this doesn't happen often; in most cases, issues with the computer opponent are resolved more or less normally, but encountering such a situation in a tournament is not a pleasant experience. That's why I'm in favor of reverting the computer opponents' experience to the Trials level.

In Warlords, I left the Trials-level experience for the computer opponents, and I didn't change anything. I simply removed the settings that allowed you to control the experience.

FireToSky

14 years ago

Auto-translated

No one is suggesting completely removing their experience gain. I was talking about fixing it to a more acceptable level. I'm not saying it's killing me in my own castle, but it does deal significant damage. If their level is currently set to impossible according to the Heroes of Might and Magic III settings, couldn't it be reduced to at least expert?

In reply to KobRa_RR

Medium_HP

14 years ago

Auto-translated

KobRa_RR

There’s no point in rushing blindly along the paths; send scouts ahead.

But what kind of scouting is possible at level 112? There might be blockades there. Gather an army, break through the blockades, send in scouts, and then, seeing the enemy, pull the army back? And all of this at level 112? That’s fantasy.

For some reason, the computer has never defeated me to the point of surrender.

Well, you’re still young... :D

asm
In Warlords, I left the computer’s experience settings as they were, without changing anything. I simply removed the settings that allowed me to control the experience.

I launched the Town Editor, loaded the Role-Playing settings, and the computer’s experience is set to default, tied to the game’s difficulty level. Since we were playing on 160% difficulty, the computer’s experience was set to Expert. In Warlords, the settings were removed, and now the experience seems to always be Impossible.

I suggest restoring the settings and adding another level, “absolutely impossible,” specifically for Kobra :cool:

In reply to Medium_HP

asm

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Medium_HP

I launched the TE, loaded the RP settings, and the computer experience is set to default, linked to the game's difficulty level. Since we were playing on 160% difficulty, the computer experience is set to Expert accordingly. In the VT settings, this was removed, and now, it seems, the experience is always set to Impossible.

I opened the script, checked, and the level is always set to correspond to 160%.

Expert (computer gains experience faster) Experience gain rate for computer heroes' soldiers and garrisons: EXPERT GAME DIFFICULTY (COMPUTER EXPERIENCE GAIN RATE) - EXPERT
Option 229-4 [author: Timothy Pulver] (script00)
Experience gain rate for computer heroes' soldiers and garrisons:
EXPERT
Coefficient for computer heroes: 400%
Coefficient for garrisons: x75
Additional computer experience: +300

Due to numerous requests, I'm changing it to a lower level, corresponding to 130%.

Difficult (computer gains experience quickly) Experience gain rate for computer heroes' soldiers and garrisons: DIFFICULT GAME DIFFICULTY (COMPUTER EXPERIENCE GAIN RATE) - DIFFICULT
Option 229-3 [author: Timothy Pulver] (script00)
Experience gain rate for computer heroes' soldiers and garrisons:
DIFFICULT
Coefficient for computer heroes: 300%
Coefficient for garrisons: x50
Additional computer experience: +200 0

Now I will fix all of Yvor's comments and assemble a new version

Added 15 minutes ago
I've assembled a new version - 0.51.

Today, I'm doing it manually, but tomorrow I'll enable auto-update.

Added 1 hour 3 minutes ago
I've added another feature: now all links open in the default browser.

In reply to asm

PReDS

14 years ago

Auto-translated

asm

Opened the script, checked it, and the level is always set to 160%
....
Due to numerous requests, I'm changing it to a lower level, corresponding to 130%.
...

Maybe we shouldn't rush? I reread the topic about the numerous requests: 2 in favor (Medium, Fire), 5 against (Oelm, PReDS, Samurai, Los, Cobra) - it seems like a strange decision-making algorithm.

In reply to PReDS

Oelm

14 years ago

Auto-translated

asm, if you want to please everyone, you can add an extra option regarding the AI's experience (it was actually like that before, if I'm not mistaken). Forcing questionable innovations doesn't add value to the new version. I repeat, I've played HL templates at 200% difficulty several times – not just with 8-unit armies, but also with LM and HM, where contact happens earlier, and I didn't see any extra difficulties, quite the opposite, it requires precise movements (which, in my opinion, is a plus).