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.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from HoMM3 HD is a mod (add-on) for the game Heroes of Might and Magic 3.
We definitely need to inform players about the improved quick cast feature, and not just inform them, but convince them that the old quick cast, which they're used to, is a bug, and the new one is the real deal. If I forget to inform them and they rage quit, it will be my fault. If I inform them, but can't convince them, we'll have to play without the new quick cast and without some other useful features. As they say, feel the difference. And what is all this for? To fix a bug that rarely occurs in the actual game, has little impact on gameplay, and is something that many don't even consider a bug.
I wholeheartedly agree – it's clear, concise, and well-explained.
There's no need to talk about the clone bug; if it doesn't happen, no one will notice (I don't really know what this bug is, clones aren't used often in online games).
But if it does happen, everyone will notice! :) Because this bug happens with 2-hex units. It involves the clone partially overlapping the original, becoming invisible (but impossible to destroy!), and then causing the game to crash! :( This has happened to me several times, and it's a very unpleasant thing in difficult battles. By the way, Sav wrote about this the other day on df2:
the check for a free hex for the stack includes considering the hex under itself as free, which was one of the reasons for the bug with cloning two-hex creatures.
Воскресайте, камінні душі, Розчиняйте серця і чоло, Щоб не сказали Про вас грядущі: їх на землі не було… (Василь Симоненко. Люди – прекрасні)
Let me try comparing the quick battle bug with other bugs using specific examples. The quote mentions 5 bugs. Let's say I'm trying to convince my opponent to use version 3.0 and play with all options enabled. Then: - I don't need to tell him about the artifact bug; using it is pure cheating and prohibited by all the rules I know; - I don't need to tell him about the clone bug; if it doesn't happen, no one will notice (I barely know what this bug is; clones are not often used in online games); - I don't need to warn him about the absence of freezes; - I don't need to warn him about the absence of peeking; I think it's clear why; - there are still many other bugs that I don't need to inform my opponent about. However, I must definitely inform him about the improved quick battle, and not just inform him, but convince him that the old quick battle, which he is used to, is a bug, and the new one is the correct version. If I forget to tell him and he loses in a quick battle, it will be my fault. If I tell him, but can't convince him, we will play without the new quick battle and without some other useful features. As they say, feel the difference. And what is all this for? For fixing a bug that is rarely encountered in the actual game, has little impact on the game, and is familiar to everyone, and many don't even consider it a bug.
Once a person tries it and I explain it to them, they will keep it in mind. They will tell a third person. And in a couple of weeks, it will be common knowledge that a certain bug has been removed, and the understanding that this is a flaw, this is a bug, this is wrong, and this has been removed will help to positively accept this change.
Moreover, MORE people DO NOT know about this "feature" than know what this "feature" is and how to use it.
As an option, we could somehow ask Bar to automate the process of notifying the opponent that certain changes have been made to the game by the HD mod. Perhaps this could be a command in the chat, in the style of /info, which would display information about the game for SOD players without HD.
R55Max
Auto-translated
Message from Oelm: baratorch, I'm afraid you are wrong in your approach of rushing into the situation with quick combat. Such "fixes" lead to a situation where, before playing SoD-HD, it becomes MANDATORY to familiarize oneself with some kind of manual. Now, expanding this manual is not a very pleasant thing for users. And I suggest proceeding along this path with caution at the very least. For example, prison bugs — by fixing these, we do not affect player capabilities in any way.
Message from baratorch: in HD I will not do it for every sneeze, for every small change to an option, as some would like.
Changing the quick combat mechanics after introducing the ability to replay it is no longer just a "sneeze". I agree with the above; I'll add that it's unclear where the latest innovations came from, without any discussions or advice from online players.
To baratorch: A big request: let the implementation of various changes be coordinated with the Heroes community and weighed for pros and cons, rather than just because they were liked by the author; moreover, not being an online player, it's unclear why you are making changes that players themselves didn't even ask for. If this is not for online play, then name it accordingly; otherwise, it is at least unprofessional for a skilled programmer to be creative as he pleases personally.
Previously, when the mod was just developing and until recently, SoD version players received a breath of fresh air in the form of increased comfort in playing SoD; back then, there was no talk of changing things like quick combat, the timer (which is discussed more and more), road placement, and other quite good options, and everyone was happy. Now everything is being lumped together; before it goes too far, baratorch, you must first decide for yourself: which direction will the mod move and, most importantly, who is on that path.
I have a proposal to bring all the last 6 rs versions into proper shape and somehow differentiate this matter:
1. HD mod with gameplay identical to SoD, with password-protected saves and fixed bugs (except for recalculated tower damage and the introduced quick combat, including the ability to replay it).
Moreover, it would be important to leave this version of the product more or less untouched and same as least optional in the future, except for possible cosmetic restorations. This type of mod fully corresponds even to the most own-rooted conservative views. In this way, one can kill two birds with one stone: a) Absence of disputes with the side advocating for the immutability of SoD gameplay and having a certain basis that will become known in a relatively unchanged (over the years) form to an increasing number of players. b) Easier promotion of changes that you and other people believe are fundamentally necessary for SoD.
In the future, for example, if improvements in versions were obviously needed and eventually proven by experience in online games among players, they could be added to the base mod more easily and calmly. Simply put, the desires of all players are so diverse that without a foundation, it's impossible to please everyone, but with each change, it is quite realistic to gradually peel off supporters one by one.
2. Progressive HD mod. Here you can freely implement your Creation and vision in some other way.
Message from Oelm: I don't like your position, because it is obvious to me that quick combat a la VT will give no real gameplay advantage, and therefore should be in the version for everyone. There are simply even fewer reasons to accommodate an opponent if, in some tournament game, they suggest playing on the SoD version.
I also don't like your position because by counting yourself among VT version players, while discussing something general or indirectly comparative, you completely ignore SoD players and do not hear their position simply because you do not want to understand it.
Here is how the difference manifests in a game with quick combat (especially replayable) versus its absence: I took one of the saves at random (attachment below) from my last finished game against Tiamat. Day 131, but let's imagine that theoretically on turn 127 mef (at the very start of the turn) is hit by 85 gr pegasuses, being slower than them; we don't buy growth and attack with all the army we have — whether to remove archers or not doesn't matter, because that's not the point.
So, if using quick combat, we always get THE SAME result, even after 10 quick combats with the same army: 8 unicorns remain and 0 mana (rs2). - If fighting manually, we almost always get different results due to the unicorn ability and the morale of our/enemy units! In the worst case, out of 20-30 times, I was left with 6 unicorns, 1 dendrobates, and 5 elves, plus half mana, which is worse than the AI result because of numerous pegasus morale checks, if we imagine the battle was somewhere near a place to replenish mana. - In the best case, losses were some dwarves, kentaurs, 2 dendrobates, and 9 grands; both dragons remained, all 8 unicorns, 2 dendrobates, and 5 grands.
Conclusion: firstly, having quick combat can result in battles that show a better result in SoD than fighting manually! Secondly, having replayable quick combat and accepting it means that while we actually play everything differently with quick combat, we get one result!! We lose a different number of units than would be lost in a manual battle! This variance increases many times over when armies have abilities and influence morale. Sometimes quick combat is so negative, and sometimes so positive, that before the battle, imagining certain losses, we exaggerate or underestimate them, not hoping for possible abilities and morale of our/enemy creatures, which obviously shows and speaks to the necessity of conducting games manually in SoD, and if one uses quick combat, then without replays, at one's own risk.
Message from baratorch: I am not at all against making a chess timer and showing MP to target; when I get around to it, I will definitely do it (MP is simpler and higher priority) (Now R55Max will start some butt-hurt that's unclear to me, since this will all be optional, separate from true-SoD mode, and available only by mutual consent)
What is unclear about him is also unclear to me. My only wish is that while playing online, sod+Hd does not disrupt the Gameplay of pure SoD (excluding bug fixes and cosmetics), as fixing bugs in hd is not forbidden but welcomed with one caveat: not all bugs are created equal! Considering the interests of gamers is necessary first and foremost, and secondarily considering your own vision of their interests. The more categorical and harsh the implementations are, the same will be the reactions of the three parties — those "for", "against", and neutral parties will also have to choose which side to stand on.
P.S. There is an HD mod, there is an author, there is a community of SoD gamers who simply need this product and its provider. How can one exist without the other, as I cannot imagine denying the interests of one of the parties. I hope the path of the HD mod will move specifically taking into account the interests of the SoD community.
P.P.S.I had an unclear rs2 crash; something changed in the root folder. I wanted to report a bug: when loading a save and attacking golems in quick combat with 3 angels, no losses occur, but in the window after the battle it says my losses are 2 air elements, although there were none during the attack (only 3 angels in 1 stack). In the end, I reinstalled rs2 from scratch, using "replace files", perhaps I made a mistake somewhere. Now 2.98 and rs are non-functional; specifically, 2.98 does not launch, which is understandable, but rs2 launches and reads 2.98 saves, yet an error occurs when attempting to attack neutrals. What do I need to do to restore the ability to play on 2.98 and 3.0 rs1 or 2? The option of deleting everything and reinstalling is not considered, as I want to understand the problem. I'll attach files to help: - Error. this is a loaded 2.98 file and it crashes upon attacking neutrals. - Crash log included
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...
I randomly selected one of the save files (attached below) from my last completed game with Tiamat. It's day 131, but let's imagine that on day 127, with 85 griffin riders attacking, they are faster than the unicorns, we don't buy any upgrades, and we attack with the entire army. Whether or not we include the archers doesn't matter because that's not the point.
So, if we use quick battle, we always get the SAME result, even after 10 quick battles with the same army, leaving 8 unicorns and 0 mana (RC2). - If we fight manually, we almost always get different results due to the unicorns' abilities and the morale of our and the enemy's units! In the worst case, out of 20-30 attempts, I was left with 6 unicorns, 1 dryad, and 5 elves, and half my mana, which is worse than the AI's result due to the griffins' high morale. If we imagine that the battle took place near a place where we could replenish mana. - In the best case, the losses were gnomes, centaurs, 2 dryads, and 9 grand griffins. Both dragons, all 8 unicorns, 2 dryads, and 5 grand griffins remained.
So what? If you use quick battle and get a result close to the worst-case scenario, it means: 1. You probably don't know how to fight neutrals. 2. In a situation where the quick battle can be replayed, a normal player wouldn't agree to use quick battle, which means we'll get the same result as with a standard battle. 3. If you played quick battle without magic, your battle would definitely have ended in a loss, so the example is not relevant.
I'll help you. To support your position, you need to provide an example of a map where quick battle without magic (apparently, it needs to be tested in WoG) would give a noticeably better result than a normal battle, but at the same time, it wouldn't be a good idea to use quick battle there. In principle, it might be possible to try attacking highly morale-boosting monsters, such as royal minotaurs or angels...
So what? If you use a quick battle and get a result close to the worst-case scenario, it means: 1. You might not be good at fighting neutrals. 2. In a situation where a quick battle can be replayed, a normal player wouldn't agree to use it, which means the result is the same as a regular battle. 3. If you played a quick battle without magic, your battle would definitely end in a loss, so the example is not relevant.
Let me help you. To support your position, you need to provide an example of a map where a quick battle without magic (apparently, it needs to be tested in WoG) would give a noticeably better result than a regular battle, but at the same time, it wouldn't be obvious to use a quick battle there. In principle, you could try rushing high-morale monsters, like royal minotaurs or angels...
1. In all 20-30 battles, I fought approximately the same way: first, I used all the spells on the first turn, then mass slow. At the beginning of the second round, after mass protection with or without Wait (I tried both), the dragons attack, and the unicorns simply blind with their turn. If you want to suggest a more valuable start for the first two turns, I'm all ears. Moreover, the abilities and morale were the deciding factors, which is very important in WoG, i.e., the result of even my poor tactics in the game is not important due to the high morale. For example, even if you play tactically with a stack of the same units, you can lose if you miscalculate the 2nd or 3rd morale of the neutrals in a row (because the front line will be killed) in certain situations.
2. In the very first example, I got a better result with a quick battle than in an online game. There may be many such examples, and it's pointless to look for them because I already have one. I agree that it's not worth using a quick battle in that situation, but it's impossible to find the boundary of where and with what to use it because one person thinks one way, and another thinks differently. Some will rush, and some won't, in a borderline situation where the indicators will be more comparable. The fact that a quick battle has an impact is obvious to me from experience. If the goal is to find other contradictions, it's not a problem, but it's also not necessary.
3. It doesn't count because it uses magic.
Essentially, your counterarguments 1 and 3 are incorrect, and the 2nd is partially incorrect, but it cannot refute anything in any case.
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...
Once someone tries it and you explain it to them, they'll remember it. They'll tell someone else, and within a couple of weeks, it will be common knowledge that a certain bug has been fixed. And the understanding that this was a flaw, a bug, something that was wrong, and that it has been fixed, will help people accept this change positively.
This is a very optimistic scenario. Having considerable experience communicating within an online gaming community, I dare to say that it is too optimistic. The conservatism of most Heroes players is an objective and explainable fact. It will still be complicated by the parallel existence of the regular game and the Warlords expansion with the uncorrected quick battle feature. It would be wiser to introduce it as a separate option and check if this optimism has sufficient grounds.
Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс
Oelm
Auto-translated
3. It shouldn't be taken into account because it involves magic.
And what does that have to do with a quick battle without magic?
Added 15 minutes later 2baratorch:
And what inconveniences does the fixed quick battle cause? If you don't like the bug fixes, you can disable the option, and there won't be any fixes, and no one will force you to enable the option. And why would it be difficult to promote version 3? (Actually, it's already difficult to promote it here, but I'm curious why, and I don't understand why) if, compared to 2.98, it offers more features, expansions, fixes, and conveniences, AND without changing the gameplay??? What logic led to these conclusions? I'm not against adding a chess timer and displaying MP to the target; I'll definitely do it when I have time (MP is easier and a higher priority) (Now R55Max will start some kind of incomprehensible rant, because all of this will be optional, separate from the true SoD mode, and available only with mutual consent).
Medium_HP, regarding the option for every little thing, I meant that changes will be grouped under an existing option. That is, in the end, they will still be optional. However, something like "I want to play without the artifact bug, clone bug, AI freeze bug, but with peeking and a buggy quick battle" will not be possible!
Well, it's obvious to online players what difference the reworked quick battle brings. First, a player with the old quick battle will have a significant advantage on many maps, much more noticeable than what the hardcore SoD players are talking about in the messages above.
It's not very clear what to do in this case. Playing against a player who uses the old quick battle is simply not an option. You'll have to revert to the old version (or 3.0 without everything) and put up with bugs like viewing cities, etc., if that's what falls under "every little thing."
In addition, tournament games will have to be played exclusively on the mod with the IG option enabled. Whereas before, the HD mod was purely voluntary. If you want to, play it; if you don't, you can play in the old SoD with a lighter, for example. So, are these the prerequisites for such a division?
In addition, I'm afraid that only about 5% of players will actually use the reworked quick battle. Is it worth the effort?
Thus, instead of an effective shell that would allow for a replayable quick battle, or calculating MP and not worrying about who you're playing against and which version, we get something murky, with the prospect of playing with all the SoD bugs, solely because of a "very smart" quick battle. That's why I want some clarification.
Let me try comparing the quick cast bug with others using specific examples... But we definitely need to address the "smart" quick cast, and not just mention it, but convince the player that the old quick cast, which they're used to, is a bug, and the new one is the correct version. If I forget to mention it and they lose in a match, it will be my fault. If I mention it but can't convince them, we'll play without the new quick cast and without some other useful features.
If the other player is using a mod, there's no need to explain anything. The player is using a mod, which means they're ready to use all its features. At the beginning of the game, you'll have a list of agreements. (I anticipate that this list will grow over time. But I think there will be an option to group options in the future. This is one of the concepts I was talking about as regular, i.e., use whatever you want, but agree on it. In the end, the log of starting options should be identical, and it creates the same game conditions so that no one has questions later. And if you're playing Heroes "without bugs," and you want the correct version, then there's even less need to explain anything. This is a different concept, truegame, for playing Heroes without all the bugs. It's clear that bugs will be fixed over time. And eventually, the player will come to that source, I hope. And in a game between a mod user and a SoD (Save and Load) user, the ability to undo a quick cast will not be available to you. This is the third concept - controversial, difference version. The most debatable. Although, if you think about it... People play in different competitive environments. One player is more equipped. Whether to allow or prohibit the use of certain mod features is not so straightforward. There's 2.98 with the display of the number of mana points, and there's RC5 with the undo quick cast, i.e., no one can prevent playing with these features. But if you look ahead, it won't really affect anything. If the SoD user doesn't switch to the mod, then, in theory, they don't intend to compete with the latest version. And there's no need to worry about unfair treatment towards them. Just with the further addition of features to the mod, the mod needs to detect that the opponent is using SoD and set the corresponding settings. Medium_HP
And what is all this for? To fix a bug that is quite rare in the real game, has little impact on the game, and is familiar to everyone, and many don't even consider it a bug.
It's not quite clear what the conclusion is, but I see some contradiction. If the bug is quite rare and has little impact on the game, then there's no harm in fixing it; no one will notice, and no one will be disadvantaged. ;) And why is there so much fuss about quick cast? And to be more precise, about the correct quick cast. But otherwise... there will be one less bug. We're striving for a game without bugs, or should we also use bugs because we like being deceived?
R55Max
Auto-translated
So, what does this have to do with a quick battle without magic?
That's the point – it has nothing to do with it, because I wasn't talking about a quick battle without magic; I don't know why you brought up that example. A quick battle with magic is a SOD quick battle, and it's not a bug in the game; it's the AI playing with magic.
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...
If they're already using a mod on the other side, there's no need to explain anything. If a person is using a mod, it means they're ready to use all its features.
Are you sure? People are still playing 2.94 quite comfortably and aren't too concerned about updating.
If a bug is very rare and has little impact on the game, then there's no harm in fixing it; no one will notice, and no one will be disadvantaged.
Try explaining that to someone who doesn't care whether it's a bug or not and who wants to play the way they're used to, but with added convenience. You've been playing with gems in the starting bank for many years; how many followers do you have?
Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс
...And why would it be difficult to promote version 3? (actually, it's already difficult to promote it here, but I'm interested in why, and I don't understand why) if it offers more features, expansions, fixes, and conveniences compared to 2.98 AND without changing the gameplay???
Well, if you react strongly to unsubstantiated conclusions, you'll drive yourself crazy. Everything is progressing, and everyone is interested. The topic is one of the most active online (look at the number of views). You just introduced a surprise into the game, then removed it, and it wasn't even discussed. In essence, you introduced new rules for a certain period and then canceled them. That's exactly how it looks. Players are naturally wary. There is still a lot of work to be done. Both on fixing bugs in SoD and the mod itself, and on adding functionality. baratorch
...right now, double-clicking here is as "heroic" as in the scenario/save selection window - 400 ms between clicks. You can reduce this interval - it will be more difficult to accidentally double-click. Or another solution - add a 'Learn' button under each skill.
The second option seems more efficient. In this context, something occurred to me. Sometimes, in the last seconds, you take Pandora with experience, but you can't select which skills to acquire because the turn changes, and it assigns what the computer deems necessary, not you. The same situation occurs when you are given troops in a crate, but then you risk losing those troops. I would like the option to choose skills/troops to appear.
Added 22 minutes ago Medium_HP
Are you sure? People are still playing 2.94 quite comfortably and aren't too concerned about updating.
You must have missed something or not read carefully. In this version, the starting options are formed mutually according to the log. You simply won't be able to play with what you want. But you will have to play with what your opponent might choose. And this case applies to the third, controversial option. Medium_HP
Well, try explaining this to someone who doesn't care whether it's a bug or not and who wants to play as they're used to, but with added conveniences. You've been playing with gems in the nagabank for many years; how many followers do you have?
Once, I even kept statistics on who had what in their nagabanks. But, essentially, it wasn't that important to the players. Only when playing as the Tower could there be problems if I wasn't the one generating the resources. But that was only in the CM, and besides, when was that? Time doesn't stand still; a lot changes. Now, I don't even notice what resources are in the nagabank. By the way, in the mod, in the Russian megapack, there are gems. Convenience is about comfort. Comfort comes from easy settings, from friendly opponents who will want to/help you deal with settings, installation, and connection.
baratorch
Auto-translated
Olem
Firstly, a player with an older quick-start version will have a significant advantage on many maps, far more noticeable than what the hardcore players are discussing in the messages above. It's not very clear what to do in such a case. Playing against a player who uses an older quick-start version is simply not an option. You'll have to revert to an older version (or 3.0 without everything) and put up with bugs like viewing cities, etc., if that's what falls under "every little thing."
No, you're definitely mocking me. What kind of advantage is there if the mod doesn't allow you to play with the original quick-start against the corrected one, and doesn't even allow you to play in a way that something in the gameplay is different on one end of the connection than on the other? How many times do I have to repeat this, rearranging the words, for it to sink in? (The buggy RC5 doesn't count; besides the replayability of the quick-start, it has enough bugs, and it's not suitable for a final release)
By the way, the Russian mega-pack in the mod includes gems.
1. How will RC7+ImprovedGameplay interact with 2.98? Which version will have which bugs fixed?
2. Do I understand correctly that in the RC7+ImprovedGameplay+TournamentExtensions vs 3.0 scenario, if the version is lower than RC7, the game will run without ImprovedGameplay and TournamentExtensions?
3. Is it possible to implement (if it hasn't been already) a notification system in the game between the current versions of the mod, informing both players about the status (on/off) of ImprovedGameplay and TournamentExtensions for their opponent?
Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс
I'm fed up... go play your untouchable, blessed SoD. HD will continue to evolve in the right direction. And there is no need to accuse me of attacking a shrine; I couldn't take SoD away from you even if I wanted to.
Yes, HD (including 2.9!) is no longer SoD; there's no point in deceiving yourselves or trying to deceive others. HD is better than SoD! And I will continue to try and make it even better.
I hope that remains the case. With every version, with every fix, everything only gets better! It would seem there is nothing left to improve, but the author continues to surprise and please us.
Now, returning to those who are outraged. The whole "cannon" [outburst] is just dissatisfaction over a patched autobattle bug. I remember how sad I felt when I found out about the hydra bug. How unfair, I thought back then. I never used it myself due to my own views, but even though I haven't played 50 online games, I noticed this little "sin" in my opponents. Who cares if someone didn't bother to read about patched bugs and new features? Playing the HD mod? Downloading new versions? Ok, don't be too lazy to read what was reworked and improved . Don't agree with the innovations? DON'T PLAY. Go spend hours manually breaking through peasants with dragons, don't lose the advantage of ultra-skill in manual combat, use bugs! There is a gift for you — HD 2.98, so that your eyes don't bleed playing at 640x480 and you can continue to demonstrate your tactical talents by breaking through troglodytes with angels and taking the Hive, which was obviously forfeited in an honest fight. Chess clocks would be very OK.
