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.
Sure, no problem, just fix it! Let the mages cast spells, let the archers shoot accurately, let the ghosts drain mana, but leave the principle that quick battles should be replayable. And as for the two battles, that's nonsense; if a battle is truly serious, no matter how high the morale, the quick battle will result in greater losses than if the player fought it manually.
Where do you see a cheat or even an advantage after that?
Once it's fixed, then I'll call it not a cheat, but an advantage. Regarding the two battles – it's not nonsense, but a fact; serious battles don't happen that often. Haven't you ever had a situation in War of the Throne where, in the first week, you win against groups of Kolpak, elves, etc., using quick battles without losing any archers, even though you wouldn't be able to repeat that manually? Oelm
so there's no point in continuing the discussion with me.
But I really wanted to continue the discussion with you, I can't resist :). My arguments, if you haven't noticed, are against a replayable quick battle that works one-sidedly. I have nothing against the quick battle itself, as it is presented, for example, in War of the Throne, although I do think it is a little unfair to the mobs.
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
Once they fix it, then I'll call it not a cheat, but an advantage. Regarding the 2 battles – this is not insignificant, but a fact; serious battles don't happen that often. Have you never had situations in Warlords where, in the first week, you defeat groups of Kolpakovs, Elves, etc., in autobattle without losing any archers on your side, even though you wouldn't be able to repeat that 100% manually?
I don't play Warlords. When all this is fixed, it will be not even an advantage, but just a feature, like fast troop transfer. As for the morale triggering in autobattle and the units immediately running to the archers, this is a very small probability (morale triggered + the unit is fast enough to reach them + the hero doesn't have decent magic), so you can consider it a feature.
Well, what can I say? I won't interfere; SOD players will spoil good ideas. That's why I'm optimistic about the future of WOG, despite all its shortcomings. Simply because the SOD community is sluggish and amorphous.
In the HD versions, there is a replayable quick battle, but it's only two-sided, meaning it only works for HD vs. HD!!! + it's conducted without the hero spending mana, but ghosts do take mana, and it fixes the bug that allowed hydras to capture hives, and other battles that can't be repeated manually. A good idea that hasn't been spoiled, but implemented in the best way. Oelm
For example, I usually know in advance which battle will be 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.
So, if you know, why do you need replayability? If there are speed improvements in the form of not having to turn the standard 'quick battle' option on/off before a battle and the [Q] key in battle? Do you want to play a tournament game without replayability against an opponent who has it? Kilgor
Naturally, without a replayable quick battle, I will only attack manually, which, accordingly, takes more time.
Why is that?Kilgor
Regarding the fact that you attacked and saw that they have, say, 25 units, you would press quick battle. But again, what if the quick battle loses a little? There's no way to replay it, so why would I use quick battle? To play better, I will spend my time and my opponent's time and micromanage everything manually. So, where is the cheat here?
The cheat is in the one-sidedness. At one end of the line, a player can afford to replay, while at the other end, they cannot. Do you want to play a tournament game without replayability against an opponent who has it?
Nagan-4, does the Chaos patch need to be installed by both players, or is it enough for only the host, or even just the player connecting? The answer will determine the future of the Tournament module in HD.
Do you have WinRAR? Extract it to the game folder, click HD3Launch, and play. It's very simple. If you need an executable to create a shortcut on your desktop, there's a button for that - create .exe
2. There are also very few buttons. It's better to see it once than to have it explained.
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
Cheat in one-sidedness. At one end of the line, a player can afford to retry, while at the other, they cannot. Do you want to play a tournament game without having re-roll capability against an opponent who does have it?
I'll be honest, if there is a bug-free re-roll quick combat, then yes, I will play against an opponent who has it installed while I do not. What specific advantage will this quick combat give him? Re-roll capability is not an advantage in itself, because when you attack neutrals and see they are maxed out, you still cannot completely avoid the battle. But the fact that it saves time is a fact.
P.S. The majority of Dragon Fly Hives I capture using quick combat, and I think many players do the same, because there is no escaping the dragon flies' damage.
baratorchand if I release a SoD cheat tool (my skills allow me to make a cheating tool that is as subtle, clever, and convenient as you'd like), will it also spread instantly 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... Nice trolling :D
Added after 2 minutes Kilgor
Replayability is not an advantage in itself, because after attacking neutrals and seeing that they are at maximum, you can't actually refuse the battle entirely. But the fact that it saves time is a reality.
+1 If the battle is difficult, I wouldn't rely on quick combat winning where you couldn't. And it won't help. More likely you'll lose in quick combat, but win manually. But in the simplest battles, quick combat really saves a lot of time
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
I think many people here write, but don't read. There was practically no opposition to the replayable quick battle in SoD. The opposition was to its unilateral inclusion, because it can give a real advantage – some battles are fought with such minimal losses that a human player cannot repeat them (e.g., archers, the chance of morale is low, but it exists). Would you play chess, for example, if your opponent had a 1% chance of resurrecting (or surviving after the battle) a pawn? The probability is low, it may not happen, but it exists.
I may be wrong here, as I haven't played with the replayable quick battle, but a human player can repeat battles won by the quick battle without losses in about 10 seconds (flew in – killed, just like in auto-battle). How many such battles are there per turn in SoD, starting from the 2nd week? Let's say there are 6 per turn on average – that saves a minute. Over three weeks, that's 21 minutes. Please don't compare this to the number of battles in WoG, the pace and timing are different. More time will be saved here if turns are passed faster, rather than moving around the map back and forth when the heroes have no mana left and there is nothing to build in the castles (and this requires hours of Fisher time).
2 Kilgor, in the future, I will gladly play with you with the bug-free, replayable quick battle enabled, even if it is disabled on your end.
I might be wrong here, as I haven't played with a replayable quick battle, but a person can repeat winning quick battles without losses in about 10 seconds (flies in - kills, like an autobattle). How many such battles are there in a single turn, starting from the 2nd week? Let's say an average of 6 per turn.
Some people might have 6, while others might have 15. It depends on the template and the player.
If you look at just one battle, it's nothing to make a fuss about. But if you calculate it for the entire game, it adds up.
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
If a person enjoys taking their time, pondering, and strategizing during their turn, then no quick combat options will help them; they simply won't use them, and no one will force them to. Perhaps for them, the beauty lies in manually killing first-level creatures with two angels.
I've often seen people meticulously move the cursor around the battlefield, selecting cells, calculating something on the map, and wasting a lot of time on moments where, to make the right decision, even the spinal cord would be enough. Many don't even use quick keys in battle, and you're talking about some hypothetical time-saving with quick combat.
There should be a culture of gameplay and mutual respect first, and if the latter is absent, people will often deliberately waste time, either in retaliation for the opponent's long turns or simply to get on their nerves.
Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.
I think many people here are writing, but not reading. Almost no one objected to the re-playable quick battles in SoD. The objections were about including it unilaterally, because it can give a real advantage – some battles are fought in quick battles with such small losses that a human player cannot repeat (archers, for example, have a low chance of morale, but it exists). Would you play chess, for example, if your opponent had a 1% chance of resurrecting (or surviving after a battle) a pawn? The probability is low, it may not happen, but it exists.
I may be wrong here, as I haven't played with the re-playable quick battles, but a human player can repeat quick battles won without losses in about 10 seconds (flew in - killed, just like in an auto-battle). How many such battles are there per turn in SoD, starting from the 2nd week? Let's say there are 6 per turn on average – that saves a minute. Over three weeks, that's 21 minutes. Please don't compare this to the number of battles in HotA, the pace and timing are different. More time will be saved here if turns are passed faster, rather than moving back and forth on the map when the heroes have no mana left and there is nothing to build in the castles (and this takes hours of Fisher time).
2 Kilgor, in the future, I will always be happy to play with you with the bug-free, re-playable quick battles enabled, even if it is disabled on your end.
Okay! Let's disable morale for our troops in quick battles, let's make it so we can't cast spells, but monsters can, let's fix the archers, let's fix all the bugs in quick battles, BUT let's keep it re-playable. That's what I'm advocating for. And I wrote about the hydra bug above. What advantage will it give in that case? WHAT THE HELL????
you are talking about some hypothetical time saving in quick combat
not hypothetical, but real
There should be a culture of playing first and mutual respect, and if the latter is not present, people will often deliberately waste time, in retaliation for the opponent's long turns or simply to get on their nerves.
I agree, but we need to separate one thing from another; we can introduce quick battles, but only time can instill a culture.
Message from Oelm: Simply because the SoD community is sluggish and amorphous.
Don't you think that if you have something, you ask questions to clarify something, and you don't get any response, you can just give up on such an interlocutor? Because the esteemed baratorch only replies to those messages and those individuals that he deems necessary. For example, I've given up on everything above 2.98 because the author ignores some perfectly reasonable questions (specifically from me) and apparently considers this to be correct.
The very concept of baratorch's development lately, unfortunately for me as well, is proceeding without considering the opinions of the SoD community, to which I belong. This doesn't mean the concept is bad, but it does mean it doesn't suit SoD players and is, in principle, extremely hasty in decision-making for the SoD environment. Hence the scant harvest of feedback regarding the implementations.
HEY HEY HEY, guys, when resolving any issues, we need to take into account which part of the geographic map we are on...
First of all, there are places where one or another part of Heroes players is concentrated (HeroesWorld, portal, LoH, WCL, WT, and others). When creating your own product, you need to target one or another concentrated-diluted layer of gamers (whichever is closer to the author).
Each resource has its own rules regarding the original SoD. These rules are paramount for everyone there, if any tournament is organized, and tournaments are certainly the dominant assessment of the need for innovations. Everywhere (probably) there is a certain set of rules for organizing tournaments. When organizing a tournament, it is necessary to ensure that players play the same version of Heroes. The differences in the mod, which has spread and even "infected" (given the incorrect injections) directly affect the ABSOLUTE majority of players. Let's go back to reading reports. How many reports exist where games were razor-thin, where a bit of mana, a few ones, and other things decided the outcome.
Why are even minimal version differences not taken into account? There definitely needs to be some base version, and all changes should be secondary. At this point, it can be said unequivocally that version 2.98 has become the very best for the majority in its various forms, and that's what we need to start from.
Most people won't follow every update; there needs to be a BASE that will be minimally altered. Otherwise, the HD mod will simply split into many fragments, which is undesirable, but the process has already begun. Everyone will play the BASE, and renegades from the BASE will play the base versions. So, society has already roughly defined this BASE; it's 2.98. There's no need to prove anything to anyone here; you simply can't force your "ideally perceived model" on someone else.
- Further, starting from the BASE and based on the opinions of players who have accepted it, changes should be introduced, but extremely delicately.
- From the start of the tournament to its middle, a ton of mod changes were unleashed into the world. Starting from 2.9... up to the current state. It's simply unrealistic to play tournaments on all versions in a row within a single tournament (I foresee a critical problem in choosing versions and options in the future). Reading the differences, advantages, choosing one version or another depending on what your opponent has at the start of each match is just nonsense. We need to run away from that as fast as we can. Regarding the quick battle:it should be unwinnable, but bug-free!
Added after 3 minutes
Message from numOne: often people will deliberately stall for time, in retaliation for the opponent's long turns or just to get on their nerves.
There are also situations where people stall so the opponent thinks everything is going well for you and there are tons of battles, all for the sake of getting a restart.
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...
numOne
