Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession 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.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Well, not the very latest one, I can’t keep up with the author, but it’s much later than 3.05.
I want it to be a replayable, bug-free quick game.
But at the very least, the Sod players will still have a buggy one. A player with a buggy, non-replayable game will have an advantage over a player with a bug-free, replayable game.
This might be the reason why the bug-free one won’t be used again.
But if you make a buggy, replayable one, everyone will immediately want to install the mod, even Captain already wants to :D
In general, neither option is ideal, but I would like to be able to use quick games more often, so I’m in favor of the last option.
Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс
Firstly, in HD, the replayable autobattle in online play is only possible without mana; the only caveat is that its turn depends on whether bug fixes are enabled (in short: can you use the Hive with Hydras or not?). Secondly, what specifically from the "heap of stuff" that comes with the Autobattle do you dislike? Here's a list: 1. The ability to protect maps and saves with a password? 2. The inability to use the transparent 'terra incognita' def? 3. The ability to start the game timer only after closing the window that informs the player that their turn has been passed? 4. Displaying MP? 5. Highlighting creature turns and a new cursor shadow in battle? (The other features of the tournament extensions work even without both players using the same version).
But isn't it just him who liked the replayability of the quick battle? The question would be better phrased differently. For example, what is more preferable in other versions of the mod than in the newest ones? And it turns out that in 2.98 there is MP display and simply the ability to use quick battle combined with bug fixes. In RC5, you can replay the SoD quick battle. SoD's motivation is based on Hydras, while VT's is based on saving time (there's a chess timer there). And the new versions limit. To some extent, they even impose the mod's features. Of all the listed points, only point 3 can somehow affect the gameplay (and I have already noted that a pure SoD player, unfamiliar with the mod, will not suffer any consequences. Since the fact that a player does not use the mod may, in general, indicate a lack of tournament ambitions, and he will not care what version is on the other end). So, everything can be used freely without restrictions.
By the way, regarding point 2. In battle, the very bottom status bar seems to have expanded (in height) and is now overlapping the resource information panel.
baratorch
I have the feeling that the problem is not with the functionality of HD, but with the unwillingness to understand it (too many words in the description?).
It is still quite difficult to understand the functionality of the third version for the uninitiated, and especially for a beginner. And if you can figure out the visual part of the settings, i.e., what is displayed in the interface, then it is sometimes not possible for even experienced users to cope with the descriptive, multifaceted functionality. Many people who are not sophisticated in the concepts of working with files want a simple installation without unpacking archives. Then, in the game itself, there should be a button to display the current options. Sometimes you can forget what option is being played.
baratorch
The main part of the tournament features of HD were made at your request, and for you, the local community!
Everyone understands this perfectly. And they are only happy. Routine work on fixing errors is underway. And with Quick Combat, it just turned out to be a fluke. The author wanted to make a pleasant surprise, introduced it (and I think that he was rather prompted to do so by his own overwhelming creativity at that moment, and not, so to speak, by the urging of the "heroic" pushers), and then canceled it... For the sake of objectivity, it should be mentioned that the author discovered a bug in the QC mechanism, fixed it, and presented it in a new form. But. Give a child an ice cream, and then take it away. Bug fixes still need to be addressed systematically. For example, remove them comprehensively and taking into account the opinions of the players. There are other bugs in the game of comparable magnitude that affect gameplay, and they remain in the game. So, a conditionally "good" bug was removed, but many others still exist in the game.
baratorch
And now it turns out that I did something wrong, and we are arguing and fighting.
This only applies to the situation with QC. It's not easy to try to put the genie back in the bottle. But this is a natural working process. It's not without its thorns. When everything is smooth, it becomes boring :)
By the way, a bug-free quick battle might actually be more effective than a manually played battle, due to the great hero randomness, because in a quick battle, your army might perform well, while the neutrals don't, but in a replay, the opposite might happen.
I will definitely implement the display of movement points, turn highlighting, and improved cursor shadow in battle unilaterally.
Regarding the replayable battle, I really don't know what to do. I'm very sorry that I rushed the release of RC5. By the way, in a quick battle with a computer hero, if you lose, the computer hero receives copies of your artifacts, and you then fight a hero equipped with your items. As someone said, the genie is out of the bottle. I don't even know how to encourage people to use the new versions if a replayable quick battle outweighs stability, the absence of mod bugs, and a number of nice features. I wonder, if I release a save-edit tool (and my capabilities allow me to create a tool that cheats in any way, however subtly and conveniently), will it also become a must-have in your community? Actually, that's a good idea! And I could release a mod with a high-level anti-cheat system that this cheat tool wouldn't work on...
I completely agree that the replayability of a quick battle is a good thing and doesn't give any advantages other than saving time. But I don't like the idea of a replayable, buggy quick battle because it teaches people to use the bug – this is not the bright future I would like to create, and it completely contradicts the ideology of the mod.
...it seems I will still have to implement a replayable quick battle in the new versions, but a fixed one. It will save time and discourage the use of the original bug and encourage players to switch from the original SoD 2.98 to the new version of the mod.
Added after 2 hours 0 minutes Actually, no, I won't make a one-sided replayable quick battle. The mod already has a one-sided speed-up feature: in battle, you can press [Q] at any time, and it will end quickly without using magic (like auto-battle, but without the animation). And there is a one-sided safeguard: with the standard game option 'quick battle' enabled, the game always gives you the choice to play a quick battle or a manual battle before each battle. Do these features speed up the game? Yes, they do! And almost as much as a replayable quick battle! Do they allow you to use the bug? Yes, they do! And if, after all this, you still choose the replayable quick battle in RC5, then there must be something in it that isn't in the others! At least this: it has a buggy quick battle without using magic – which isn't in the original. So you can not only take the Hive with a hydra, but also not spend any mana in the process. So, such a one-sided replayable quick battle is at least a very questionable feature, and, frankly, a cheat.
By the way, a bug-free quick combat can still play out better than a battle fought manually after it, due to great heroic randomness; because in a quick combat your army might actually lose morale while neutrals don't, whereas during a replay the opposite could happen.
I will definitely implement the display of MP, move highlighting, and improved cursor shadow in same-side battles on my own.
As for the replayable battle, I have absolutely no idea what to do. It is very sad that I rushed to release RC5; by the way, there, when quick combatting a computer hero and losing, they receive copies of your artifacts, and you then fight manually against a hero dressed in your gear. As some said here, the seed has been sown. I don't even know what could stimulate the desire to use new versions if a same-side replayable quick combat outweighs stability, the absence of mod bugs, and a number of pleasant features. I wonder, if I release a SoD cheat tool (my capabilities allow me to make a cheating tool that is as subtle, cunning, and convenient as one likes), would it also fly off the shelves and become a must-have in your community? Actually, that's an idea! And along with it, release a mod with high-level anti-cheat that this cheat tool doesn't work on...
I completely agree that replayable quick combat is a blessing and provides no advantages other than saving time. But I don't like a replayable bugged quick combat because it teaches how to use the bug—that is absolutely not the bright future I would like to lead toward; it completely contradicts the ideology of the mod.
.. looks like I will have to implement replayable quick combat in new versions after all, but fixed. It will save time and discourage using the original bug while stimulating players to change their original SoD 2.98 to a new version of the mod.
Added after 2 hours 0 minutes Actually, no, I won't make same-side replayable quick combat. The mod already has a same-side accelerator: at any time in battle you can press [Q] and it will end quickly without using magic (like auto-battle, but without animation) And there is same-side insurance: with the standard game option 'quick battle' enabled, the game gives a choice every time before a battle to conduct a quick combat or fight manually. Do these features speed up the game? They do! And practically as much as replayable quick combat! Do they allow using the bug? They do! And if after all this you still choose the RC5 replayable quick combat, it means there is something in it that isn't there without it! At least this: it has a bugged quick combat without using magic—which isn't in the original. So you can not only take the hive with a hydra, but also not spend mana while doing so. Thus, such same-side replayable quick combat is at least a very controversial feature, and for the most part—a cheat.
Everyone here is writing about bugged quick combat, but it's not needed. Here is what's needed: 1) For same-side replayable quick combat to work while the hero doesn't spend mana! But let the neutrals cast. 2) I don't care about the hydra in the hive; in a year of gaming I only used it once. But fixing it on one side isn't worth it, because you'd have to warn your opponent, agree with them, and if you forget to warn them and they lose, it will be grounds for disputes and replays.
1) To allow a replayable quick battle to work unilaterally, while the hero doesn't spend mana! And let the neutrals cast spells.
Tell me specifically how this option is better than this: When attacking, a window appears to choose between quick battle or manual battle, and when choosing manual battle, pressing [Q] results in an instant battle completion without the hero spending mana?
Want to take a Hive with a Hydra? - Sure, choose quick battle when attacking. Want to quickly deal with weak neutrals without spending mana? - Choose manual battle and press Q. Want to win a difficult battle without losses? - Choose manual battle and don't press Q.
And I'll answer myself what the fundamentally different thing about a replayable quick battle is: Compared to the option I proposed, it allows you to assess the enemy's strength less responsibly, accurately, and attentively, and to assess whether you can defeat the enemy with a quick battle without losses. And in case of an assessment error, it gives you a chance to correct it. So, you attack some weaklings and think: "Oh, I can get away with a quick battle here." But then, bam - and an Angel takes down your hero. And in one case, you can correct the situation, and in the other, you don't have that opportunity. The replayability of the quick battle gives you more confidence when attacking a weak army with the intention of defeating it with a quick battle, because if something goes wrong, you can correct the situation. Replayability gives you, in certain cases, a way to peek at the exact number of creatures and choose: if there are a minimum number of them in the group, a quick battle is sufficient. if there are a maximum number, fight manually. Without this possibility, you either fight manually to be sure of the result and spend more time, or you save time by taking a risk: you might not lose the battle, but the cumulative losses from such battles can decide the outcome.
tell me specifically how this option is better than this: when attacking, a window appears with the option to play quick battle or manual battle, and when choosing manual battle, pressing [Q] results in an instant battle completion without the hero spending mana?
want to take a Hive with a Hydra? - sure - choose quick battle when attacking. want to quickly deal with weak neutrals without spending mana - choose manual battle and press Q want to win a difficult battle without losses - choose manual battle and don't press Q
And I'll answer myself what makes a replayable quick battle fundamentally different: compared to the option I proposed, it allows you to assess the enemy's strength less responsibly, accurately, and attentively, and to assess whether you can defeat the enemy with a quick battle without losses. And in case of an error in assessment, it gives you a chance to correct it. So, you attack some weaklings and think: "Oh, I can get away with a quick battle here" and then, bam - and an Angel gets taken out. And in one case, you can correct the situation, and in the other, you don't have that opportunity. The replayability of the quick battle gives you more confidence when attacking a weak army with the intention of defeating it with a quick battle, because if something goes wrong, you can correct the situation. Replayability gives you, in certain cases, a way to peek at the exact number of creatures and choose: if there are a minimum number of them in the group, a quick battle is sufficient if there is a maximum number, we fight manually. Without this possibility, you either fight manually to be sure of the result and spend more time, or you save time, risking: you may not lose the battle, but the cumulative losses from such battles can decide the outcome.
Therefore, one-sided replayability is a cheat!
What does peeking mean? If I attack, say, 20-49 Ogres, if there are 20 of them, then both I and the quick battle can handle it, but if there are 49, then only I can. Naturally, without a replayable quick battle, I will only attack manually, which, accordingly, takes more time. Regarding the fact that you attacked and saw that there are, say, 25 of them, you would press quick battle. But again, what if the quick battle loses a few units? There is no possibility to replay, so why would I use quick battle? To play better, I will spend my time and the opponent's time and micromanage everything manually. So, where is the cheat here?
So, you attack some weaklings and think: "Oh, I can get away with a quick battle here" and then, bam - and an Angel gets taken out. And in one case, you can correct the situation, and in the other, you don't have that opportunity.
And where is the cheat here? Without a replayable quick battle, I will always attack manually and will never lose an Angel. But with a replayable quick battle, I will save time, even if only 1 out of 5 battles is won with it, that's already 20% of the time saved!!!
And I'll answer myself what fundamentally distinguishes replayable quick combat: compared to the variant I proposed, it allows you to assess the enemy's forces less responsibly, accurately, and carefully—to evaluate whether you can defeat the enemy with quick combat without losses or not. And in case of an error in assessment, it gives you a chance to correct it. So you attack some noobs and think: "Ah, I can get away with quick combat here" and then—bam—and your angel gets wiped out. And in one case you can fix the situation, while in the other you have no such opportunity. Replayability of quick combat gives you more confidence when attacking a weak army with the intent to finish it off quickly, because if something goes wrong, you can correct the situation. Replayability allows you, in certain cases, to essentially peek at the exact number of creatures and choose: if the group turned out to be at minimum—quick combat is enough if at maximum—fight manually. Without this ability, you either fight manually to be sure of the result and waste more time, or you save time by taking a risk: maybe you won't lose the battle, but the cumulative losses from such fights can decide the outcome.
Therefore, one-sided replayability is a cheat! __________________
I don't understand your logical construct. One-sided replayability cannot be a cheat—that is obvious to any qualified player. Moreover, your "correct" quick combat might be a necessary thing from an ideological standpoint, only in practice it's tied to unpleasant nuances, which are also quite obvious. And replayable quick combat—well, it's just a couple of subtle issues like killing ghosts, which can easily be ignored. I'll repeat once again, one-sided replayable QC **must be** because it saves real time on the game. That's exactly why this feature is in demand, and, which again is absolutely clear, not because of some mythical advantages in the game.
When one player can confidently defeat ghosts, mythical creatures, and numerous archers with fewer losses and has the option to replay the battle manually, while another player lacks this ability, it constitutes cheating. In most cases, this is simply a minor refinement, not very noticeable, but cumulatively, this "bonus" increases throughout the game. Those who disagree can try playing in the World Tree, without the optional quick battle: if they attack with it, they immediately accept the result, without replaying. And let the opponent play as usual.
Not to mention that one player effectively has 2 battles, one of which may turn out more favorably due to morale.
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
For someone unfamiliar with the game, especially a newcomer, understanding the functionality of the third version can be quite challenging. While it's possible to figure out the visual aspects of the settings, i.e., what's displayed in the interface, dealing with the descriptive part and the vast array of underlying functionalities can be overwhelming, even for experienced players. Many users, who aren't proficient in file management, want a simple installation process without having to extract archives. Furthermore, the game needs a button that displays the current options. Sometimes, you might forget which variant you're playing with.
Friends, the HD mod for SoD could be successful, and there's a precedent for that. The Chaos patch in 2002/03 gained widespread popularity, reaching 100% of serious players in the CIS region and facing no opposition. It improved the game without altering its core principles. Players simply placed the patch in the game folder and started playing, without any complicated settings or procedures. In our city, when I brought the patch, within a week, 30 people were playing with it, and later, I saw it installed on many computers belonging to people I didn't even know.
Why did TE, and later VT, face resistance and rejection from many players? Because they altered the game's core principles, classes, banks, experience, and so on, making them feel alien to the game. Those who have seen TE, with its terrible English menu and dozens of sub-items, will understand what I mean. We tried to introduce it in our city three times, but it was futile. Players would start playing and realize that they had enabled or disabled the wrong option... in short, the whole city hated it, except for one person who was genuinely proficient in English and mods for various games, i.e., a ratio of 1/30. If a mod becomes too complex, only 1 out of 30 players will play it. If it's easy to install and learn, experienced players will enjoy it, and newcomers will join in.
Currently, the opponents of SoD are winning in one aspect: the game does have bugs and performance issues. Fixing these issues will make the game great again.
Therefore, I would like to see: 1. A simple installation process for the patch. 2. A minimum number of additional menus and buttons.
When one player can confidently defeat ghosts, fables, and numerous archers with fewer losses and has the option to replay the battle, while the other doesn't have this option, it's considered cheating. In most cases, it's just a minor adjustment, not very noticeable, but cumulatively, this "bonus" increases throughout the game. Those who disagree, try playing in the World Tree, without the optional quick battle: if you attack with it, you immediately accept the result, without replaying. And let your opponent play as usual.
Not to mention that one player effectively has 2 battles, one of which may turn out more favorably due to morale.
Sure, fix it! Let the fables cast spells, let the archers do everything correctly, let the ghosts drain mana, but leave the principle: quick battles should be replayable. And regarding the 2 battles, it's nonsense; if the battle is truly serious, no matter what morale bonuses are applied, the quick battle will result in greater losses for that player.
Where do you see cheating or even an advantage after that?
Well, what can I say? I won't interfere; SOD players will ruin good ideas themselves. That's why I'm optimistic about the future of Warlords, despite all its shortcomings. Simply because the SOD community is sluggish and amorphous.
For example, I usually know in advance which battle is more advantageous. If someone decides to study this online, it's not at my expense. I perceive all arguments as weak and mostly stemming from a misunderstanding of the game's mechanics, so there's no point in continuing the discussion with me personally.
Yes, and here, I apologize, but what do fairy tales have to do with it? They usually cast spells in quick battles as well.
Medium_HP
