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.
Regarding the question about the leader. Create a bug-free, replayable AI, and it will be more advantageous to fight manually in all parameters except time, i.e., the AI will not be able to produce a result better than you can achieve by manually replaying the battle; at best, it will be the same.
In some cases, the AI will produce a better result, and this cannot be eliminated because battles can involve both morale and anti-morale, and it's random when it will occur....Therefore, it is unfair to replay any battle.
Leader, I treat you with respect, but I do not respect your words.
This isn't about your or my respect. It doesn't decide anything here. Vaflya
If you cannot make a simple logical conclusion — how can we find common ground in our opinions?
I asked you to reply point by point; it's obvious that your "logical conclusions" are unclear to me, which is why I asked for a more detailed response. Vaflya
There are interface changes, and there are gameplay changes. And the party's policy is this: gameplay is the same for everyone.
Stop. Stop. And here's the answer - the party's policy But what exactly is the cheating? — the question remains open for me. Vaflya
I don't think this argument interests me any further.
This argument is NOT interesting to me AT ALL. But I have to deal with it Vaflya
I already mentioned the fact that Bari's policy is that the game should be played on equal terms. Thus, getting different features (including re-playable quick combat) on different sides — won't work. But, hopefully, soon it will be possible to use all the interface and convenience features in the game.
The party's policy Vaflya
Credit must be given that it doesn't save the opponent's time. If we're talking about saving real time, the game itself consumes your life's time. But if we're talking about saving in-game time — that's a great injustice towards the opponent.
Nonsense. An even greater injustice is the quick transfer of troops, artifacts, and splitting the army into single units. For those who have SoD. In that case, just stick the resolution change into the base version, and all the perks, including army transfer, into the latest version :D
And then only 10-15 people will play the Mod Vaflya
Secondly, in some battles, even with a bug-free quick combat, the AI wins contrary to logic, and many dishonest players will use this fact to sway the battle result in their favor. Such battles are rare, but they are still worth attention.
This is where you should have started! That the bug-free quick combat isn't actually so bug-free. It also contains bugs. I wouldn't have written those long-winded texts in ariputra-style. Vaflya
Furthermore, re-playable combat allows you to roughly gauge your strength against a particular army; in doing so, we get extra game information earlier than the opponent does; moreover, the opponent only has that option in the case of a manual battle and, possibly, serious losses.
Well, that's nonsense! I don't understand—are you a noob yourself or just making things up? For clarity: let's say you're on week two with an army facing a trogged Griffin Conservatory, you quick-combat, and it's maxed out, and you get wrecked. Question: HOW CAN THIS HELP YOU??? So you know it's a max con. So what? Can you add troops to your hero, or refuse the battle entirely??? Vaflya
Another important point: being able to allow yourself to play a difficult battle on quick combat without magic, if the losses are acceptable or there are none at all. The bug-free nature of quick combat has not yet been fully investigated and requires much development, but right now that's not the point.
That is exactly the point! That bug-free quick combat = still buggy. Just not as much as the original. Vaflya
In 90% of cases, an average level hero with average stats loses an angel in a level 3 con if they attack and fight manually (talking about a battle with at least 5 angels without cover, otherwise losses could be greater). However, quick combat has its own opinion on this; in some situations it manages to win without losses (apparently due to morale or something else, I haven't looked into it), naturally such a result is acceptable.
"Bug-free quick combat" is written above.
My question regarding quick combat is resolved. You riled people up with the word "bug-free". And misled them. Even though it is not such at present. twaryna
The opinion that people will use this for "unfair purposes", that there will be fewer losses, that noobs will play better - is nonsense.
Agreed. If you're a noob, it won't help you. I remember noobs coming to the forum who cheated with 1000 skeletons at the start of week two and still lost :D, one played with Britvochka. And I once ran into someone who drew 40 wyverns from the air, and resources of course. And it didn't help either. twaryna
ps. The stories about everyone ganging up on Baratorch, not appreciating someone else's work, and pulling the blanket over themselves - is nonsense again. Everyone respects and values this product and the HD creator's work, but they want to make it even better and insist on truly revolutionary and necessary things. Nothing more, nothing less. Striving for improvement is standard practice.
Again +100500. I see these discussions in the online community, weighing all the pros and cons of this innovation. Whether it will break the balance of the rules, etc. And if everyone reaches a common denominator so to speak, then we will ASK Baratorch to implement it, but not boss around, point fingers, spit, and the like.
These are analyses at the players' level, not instructions for the creator.
I have a proposal. Since it has turned out that bug-free quick combat is still buggy. Could we perhaps connect the quick combat algorithm in the tactical phase? Since they are different.
Ihtiandr
The topic is fire :) The very fact that such a contradiction of opinions has erupted shows that quick combat cannot be made one-sided.
Please, let's avoid this herd mentality: everyone went, so I went, and what about me? Well, I'm just like everyone else! Ihtiandr
Imagine an abstract situation - a world championship is underway. A player from, say, Albania, who doesn't even know about the existence of the mod and re-playable quick combat, is playing against an HW player. And our player, without the opponent's knowledge, will be using quick combat. Is that fair?
Let's imagine this situation to the end. If this player from Albania plays SoD, and we play the HD mod, would that be fair? Obviously not.
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
If this player from Albania plays with SoD, and we play with HD mod, would that be fair? Obviously not.
HD mod only improves the interface, without affecting the gameplay. Improving the interface doesn't give any advantages, because the actions that it allows you to perform can also be done without it.
A replayable quick battle is no longer an improvement to the interface, but a change to the gameplay. Without the feature of a replayable quick battle, there is no way to check the result of the quick battle and choose whether it suits you or not. As a result, one player has this opportunity, and the other does not. That's the advantage of the first player over the second.
Who and how will implement the disabling of morale/luck/unit abilities in these battles.
I have absolutely no idea how to implement something like that.
Dude, the fact that you have no idea — nobody’s arguing with that. And the fact that you’re not the one developing the mod — nobody’s arguing with that either.
The question is whether all this is even necessary? That’s more relevant. crzq
Plus, for example, when the AI has a shooter, during a replayable quick battle with losses you can determine that it exists and immediately change your battle tactics, thereby reducing losses.
What a freakin' advantage! crzq
And both with the AI and with neutrals, morale should only be disabled for the player.
I’ll tell you a little story.
I remember one guy accidentally ended up on the forum. So he played by his own rules (i.e., pretty much without any rules). He thought he was a very strong player because he’d played several thousand games on a local network. Just no equals, that’s all. Except for him and 3 other people. Yeah. I convinced him to play by HeroesWorld rules. Because he really wanted to punish someone. To the question what are these rules for? — he said they’re stupid. I tried to explain to him that it’s for balance. After the first lost game, he started arguing that the rules are NOT PERFECT. They’re totally unbalanced, and a player can gain an advantage (sound familiar?) Since we were playing (XL 8mm6) Naturally with AI (barely convinced him) he started making such arguments: what if the AI finds some cool artifact, like one that moved from a guarded spot, Helm +6 all skills, or КЗ, КВ, blue hat, wings, etc., and then the player kills the AI and gets such an advantage!!! That’s unfair!!! What’s the point of these rules????? They’re useless!!! It’s the same game with or without rules!!! and so on And playing with AI the way you play is a sin!
I say, well, what do you think the probability of that happening is, and in how many cases would it actually help?
I tried to convince him every which way, but unfortunately I couldn’t.
Does it ring a bell? crzq
And please bump the topic about allowing/mandating the use of files during generation that cancel the generation of obelisks, hill forts, etc. — it’ll also save time.
Plenty of people already use them, Waffle for example. They just don’t advertise it much, since HeroesWorld rules forbid it, but he doesn’t play on HeroesWorld — he plays with players :D So he’s allowed. But that’s not a cheat, god forbid, now quick battles on the other hand... :D crzq
P.S. Just now cleared 30 archers with a level 0 hero — took about 25 seconds.
Multiply that by at least 50 (that’s how many such battles there will be) and then by 2 or even 3 — the slowpoke coefficient. There are people in our hero communities who are affectionately called slowpokes. Taking +1 Attack for example or +1 Knowledge sometimes lasts a full minute. And in battles, oooh, how they love to think... like a horde of skeletons.
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
IhtiandrThe topic is on fire. The very fact that such a contradiction of opinions has arisen indicates that a quick, one-sided decision cannot be made.
Let's please avoid this herd mentality: everyone went, and I went too, and what about me? I'm just like everyone else! You wrote nonsense. What do I and herd instinct have to do with it? I perfectly understand that in this meaningless discussion, my opinion will not change anything - everyone will stick to their own views. I think objectively - it is impossible to introduce things into the HD mod that cause such massive contradictions in the community.
"...and if the computer finds some cool artifact, for example, with increased defense, a helmet +6, or Crown of the Magi, Cloak of Valor, blue hat, wings, etc., Leader, you didn't convince him - the correct answer is - HE WON'T FIND IT (they don't lie on the ground in this scenario). And in general, I have a question: when are we going to bury Sod and officially rename what you are currently trying to play?!"
You wrote nonsense. What do you and herd instinct have to do with it?
But in my opinion, the real nonsense is this: Ihtiandr
The topic is great. The very fact that such a contradiction of opinions has arisen indicates that quick battles should not be one-sided.
The "fact" itself doesn't mean anything. If there are no specific arguments, but only the inertia of conservatives.
Because shouting "a bug-free quick battle in one direction is cheating and a bug!" and not specifying what exactly the bug is
is nonsense, not an argument.
And if this is an argument for you, then this is herd instinct. Agreeing without understanding.
Ihtiandr
I perfectly understand that in this meaningless discussion, my opinion will not change anything - everyone will stick to their own. I think objectively.
(Any person thinks subjectively:D) Ihtiandr
- it is impossible to introduce things into the HD-mod that cause such massive contradictions in the community.
What is the essence of the contradiction? That quick battles are not cheating, say, with a 2-minute control time, or any control time.
But to quickly conduct a battle with a horde of gremlins, for example, that's... contradictory :D
Added 2 minutes ago Albert@s
"...and if the computer finds some cool artifact, for example, with shifted guard, helmet+6OL, or KZ, KV, blue hat, wings, etc.," Leader, you didn't convince him - the correct answer is - IT WON'T FIND (they don't lie on the ground in this template).
The centaur axe was also unfair. Albert@s
And in general, I have this question: when will we bury SoD and officially rename what you are trying to play now!?
It's just some unknown nonsense
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
"...and if the computer finds some cool artifact, for example, with increased defense, a helmet +6, or Crown of the Magi, Cloak of the Elements, blue hat, wings, etc., " Leader, you didn't convince him - the correct answer is - IT WON'T FIND (on this map, they don't lie on the ground) And in general, I have this question - when are we going to bury Sod and officially rename what you are currently trying to play into something else!?
Yesterday, I personally picked up a +6 all stat item from the ground in Heroes 6. It's rare, but it happens.
to baratorch
I'll answer the question of why the unplayable quick battle, activated with the Q key, is bad.
Trusting the computer to conduct a medium-difficulty battle without the ability to correct it if it messes up is a difficult and responsible decision. No one will make such decisions every turn, because there is a simpler solution - to fight manually if there is even a minimal chance of unjustified losses.
Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс
You've started such a nonsensical argument. Arguing that having one Commander skill but not another supposedly gives an advantage. Why not argue that having a fast army transfer and the ability to split units, while the other player doesn't, is a much bigger advantage? That's a massive cheat and creates completely unequal conditions. A player always has the choice to use HD or not, as it's allowed by the rules. The same applies to Commander skills: a player always has the choice to play on version 2.98 or the latest current version. So, the argument is completely unfounded.
I think I got a bit confused in my own reasoning, so please don't take it too personally.
I've been thinking a bit about quick battles and the fact that their potential for exploits hasn't been fully explored yet. There's a recent bug report where a quick battle without magic allows one Halfling to defeat two Halflings. We need to analyze the battle log with a debugger, but I have a soccer game soon, so I don't have time for that. :)
I won't retract my statement; I still believe that quick battles should be one-sided. In this case, "subjective" means that I won't try to convince anyone of anything, because it's pointless. It's just a matter of opinion and some arguments that form in my brain as binary code.
I think that the introduction of the HotA (Heroes of Might and Magic 3: The Succession Wars) was premature, even in the synchronous versions. It's inherently buggy.
I tried to explain the difference to someone, but it didn't seem to convince them. I'll try again.
Imagine this situation:
With a probability of 1:100, I get a generation with creatures from the Guild of Outcasts, let's say Minotaurs. We can't be 100% sure that there are no bugs associated with Minotaurs.
Scenario 1: We don't have HotA, so we naturally don't use the regular quick battle and fight manually. There are losses, but we win, and the losses are significant.
Scenario 2: We have HotA, but we don't even rely on it because the AI is weak and doesn't understand anything in the game. But we don't uncheck the box! We attack the Minotaurs, lose two units, and naturally accept the result because it's impossible to repeat this manually!
Now, consider this on a larger scale. Out of 100 games, one will be like this. Multiply that by the number of players using HDmod + HotA for all, divide by two (because two players are playing), and let's say that one person plays half a game each day. That means at least 150-200 cases daily, and all these cases remain hidden, and everyone keeps quiet. In my opinion, this RC5 version, which was released by chance, is outdated and deserves investigation and notification.
What do you think? I know players who will use it to save time for themselves and for others, and I also know players who will definitely exploit these bugs. At the very least, as long as the quick battle itself contains serious errors in its algorithms, it shouldn't be available at a serious level.
This is just my opinion.
Added 2 minutes later
Dirty_Player
You've started such a nonsensical argument. An argument about whether having quick battles for one player and not for another gives an advantage. Why aren't we arguing about the fact that when one player has fast army movement and the ability to separate individual units, and the other doesn't? That's even more of a cheat and creates completely unequal conditions. A player always has the choice to use HDmod or not, because it's allowed by the rules. The same goes for HotA: a person always has the choice to play on version 2.98 or the latest current version. So, the argument is made up.
And this is nonsense!
Baria created the mod for the community, not just for HW (Horn of the Abyss), and think about what assumptions you have in the rules that make it impossible to manage properly without HDmod. Make the time limits wider, and then there won't be an advantage in turn-based games. You're really annoying; understand the difference: gameplay and interface! These are different things by definition!
That's just nonsense! Barya was creating a mod for the players, not for hardcore players, and think about the assumptions in the rules that you have, which make it impossible to manage things properly without the HDmod. Make the timeframes wider, and then there won't be any advantage for hardcore players. You're really getting on my nerves; can't you see the difference: gameplay and interface! These are two completely different things!
Version 2.98 is enough for the average player. Those who just want to play for fun shouldn't even be interested in the gameplay, so their opinion can be disregarded. This "average player" doesn't care about replaying the campaign. Vaflya
Now, let's look at the scale of mod usage. Out of 100 games, there will be one instance like this. Multiply that by the number of players with HDmod + campaign compatibility for everyone, divide by two (because two players are playing), and let's say that one person plays half a game every day. That means there are at least 150-200 cases every day, and all these cases remain unnoticed, and everyone just keeps quiet. In my opinion, this RC5 version, which was released by chance, is outdated and deserves to be investigated and announced.
That's nonsense coming from you, and it's a serious exaggeration. One instance of using a bug out of 100 to maintain a minimal army is NOTHING compared to the time we'll save in 100 games. Can you calculate how many HOURS will be saved in 100 games?
Lider1, No one is obligated to provide arguments. Many people consider it obvious that a one-sided quick battle is unfair. And no matter how hard you try, they won't change their opinion. Based on this, I'm sure that someone as reasonable as baratorch won't force this topic.
Many people consider it obvious that a one-sided quick is unfair.
And what percentage of those people consider it acceptable to turn a blind eye to this unfairness for the sake of saving real time? I personally am one of them. I think it's unfair, but necessary. And if an opponent thinks it's unfair, what's stopping them from installing the same mod version? Principles? :confused:
Dima Surmay
