Social poll. — Tournament History

Ihtiandr

11/17/2012 11:54 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Dirty, If he wants to, he'll install the new version of the mod, and then you can play together with Quick. If he doesn't want to, he won't install it – that's his right, and then you'll have to play without Quick. In my opinion, that's the only reasonable and fair system.

ICQ: 494048169
Не любят многие порнуху, а я... А я люблю порнуху! © А.С. Пушкин
Twitch Channel
Crypt Videos

In reply to Sadness

Kilgor

11/17/2012 11:55 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Vaflya

I seem to be a bit confused in my own judgments, so please don't take it too seriously.

.................

You're really getting on my nerves, understand the difference: Gameplay and interface! These are different things by definition!

Here's a direct question for you. If, in a million years, a truly free-to-play PvP mode is created, do you agree that it won't give an advantage to those who don't have it?

ICQ 245338291
Ник в лоби - Kilgory

In reply to Kilgor

Dirty_Player

11/17/2012 12:06 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Ihtiandr

Dirty, If he wants to, he'll install the new version of the mod, and then you'll play together with Quick. If he doesn't want to, he won't install it – that's his right, and then you'll have to play without Quick. In my opinion, that's the only reasonable and fair system.

But what if he wants to manually separate units and wants the opponent to do the same? What then?

Kilgor

Here's a direct question. If, after a million years, you create a truly bug-free Quick, would you agree that it won't give an advantage over those who don't have it?

Quick will always give an advantage, no matter what. In the example with Efreet and Archers. If a player has Quick, attacks the Archers, and the computer offers a victory, he can agree without risk. But the one who doesn't have this option might face a morale penalty and lose the Efreet. So, one player has the opportunity to immediately agree to a result that is achieved easily, while the other has to achieve that result. That's the whole difference. BUT, I repeat, this is nothing compared to saving real time.

In reply to Ihtiandr

Lider1

11/17/2012 12:09 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Ihtiandr

No one is obligated to provide arguments.

Many people consider it obvious...

This is what your position is based on.

Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/
За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того

numOne

11/17/2012 12:31 PM UTC

Auto-translated

We are waiting for a stable version 3.xx and will implement it as the default version in all tournaments. In the meantime, if you care, before each game, we will ask which version the opponent is using and ask you to provide it so that we can balance the "features." Let's move on.:smile23:

Пусть мой враг будет силен и страшен. Если я поборю его, то не буду чувствовать стыда.

In reply to Ihtiandr

Lider1

11/17/2012 12:42 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Ihtiandr

The HD mod only improves the interface, without affecting the gameplay. Improving the interface does not give any advantages, because the actions that it allows you to perform can also be done without it.

No, it doesn't give any advantages. Not at all! Let's play a game then, 1-2 minutes per turn, you on pure Soda, and I on Necropolis, with streaming. And let's see how it "doesn't" give an advantage.

(and after the game, I will post links to the stream in these discussions so we can laugh about "how it really doesn't give an advantage").

Ihtiandr

A replayable quick save is no longer an improvement to the interface, but a change to the gameplay.

Vaflya

You're really annoying, can you see the difference: gameplay and interface! These are different things by definition!

That's what I wanted to prove to you and Vaflya, that it's not a change to the gameplay, but to the interface! But that's only if the quick save was bug-free. But since it's still buggy, there's no point in talking about it.

Really, what would it change besides a new button? It would speed up the game so that player A would take not 15 minutes, but 10-12 minutes, for example, that's all. And player B would still take 15 minutes.

But you don't even understand in theory, "what if" it was completely bug-free, it wouldn't give the player an advantage, it wouldn't change anything, but would only save the time of YOURSELF and the OPPONENT.

Ihtiandr

Without the feature of a replayable quick save, there is no way to check the result of the quick save.

What do you mean?

Ihtiandr

That's the advantage of the first over the second.

That's exactly what I understood.

Vaflya

Barya wrote the mod for the people, not for HW, and think about what assumptions you have in the rules, under which it is impossible to complete a turn normally without the HD mod.

This is not an assumption in the rules, but a protection against lag. Even if you give 20 minutes per turn, someone will still not be able to complete it. The player needs not only skill, but also timing.

Vaflya

Make the time limits wider, then there won't be an advantage for Soda players.

A desperate unwillingness to admit the advantage of faster transfers/splits.

Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/
За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того

crzq

11/17/2012 1:09 PM UTC

Auto-translated

If Fischer time is implemented in the game, won't the issue of saving time be resolved?

In reply to crzq

Medium_HP

11/17/2012 2:07 PM UTC

Auto-translated

crzq

If Fischer clocks are implemented in the game, won't the issue of saving time be resolved?

The issue of saving time will never be resolved. Firstly, many people simply won't want to play with such clocks. Secondly, even when playing with chess clocks, quick mode allows for setting smaller time limits.

Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс

Sadness

11/17/2012 4:01 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Personally, I can finish within 10 minutes and without using HD functions, but this will affect the quality of the game. For a thoughtful and engaging game, 10 minutes is not enough, even with an HD mod and a replayable quick key (by the way, the latter doesn't save game time in SoD, but it does in WT).

Added 8 minutes later

If Fisher's clock is implemented in SoD, won't the issue of saving time be resolved?

Quite the opposite. Because time also passes in battle, a replayable quick key is essential here.

baratorch

11/17/2012 4:45 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Just now, on the DF2 forum, they touched upon the following topic:
Creatures don't deal fixed damage, but rather fluctuating damage, often within a fairly wide range, depending on random chance. And in the worst-case scenario, it could happen that in a quick battle, your creatures will constantly deal maximum damage, while the neutrals deal minimum damage. Plus, there's also the triggering of abilities, morale, and luck.

So, I can somehow tolerate a one-sided, imbalanced quick battle if, in that scenario, your army performs at its absolute minimum potential, and the enemy's army performs at its absolute maximum. (However, it's completely unclear how to account for negative/positive morale, luck, and abilities without resorting to random chance.)
But in a two-sided quick battle, opponents are in equal conditions, and one has the option to "re-roll" the hero's random chance, while the other doesn't.

HoMM 3 HD:

последняя версия - 5.0 RC96 (19.09.2020)

последнее видео: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u70wC0DJ7I8

полное подробное описание

In reply to baratorch

Medium_HP

11/17/2012 5:10 PM UTC

Auto-translated

baratorch

just now, on DF2, the following topic was discussed:
creatures don't deal fixed damage, but rather a fluctuating damage within a fairly wide range, depending on randomness. And in the worst case, it can happen that in a quick match, your creatures will constantly deal maximum damage, while neutrals deal minimum damage. Plus, there's also the triggering of abilities, morale, and luck.

Theoretically, that's how it works, but in practice, the damage is usually averaged out. Not in every game on Warlord Tower does at least 1 battle occur with a result noticeably better than manual play, even though the total number of battles per game is very large, because everything that can be reached is fought for experience.

In the end, let people who play on 3.05 post their statistics here so we can see if there is a radical improvement after switching to this "super-cheating" version.

Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс

Dirty_Player

11/17/2012 5:29 PM UTC

Auto-translated

2baratorch: What if we made it so that a quick battle could be replayed only when monsters flee from us? If neutral creatures want to fight, then it would be a regular battle.

In reply to Medium_HP

Сатир

11/17/2012 7:32 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Medium_HP

In the end, let the people playing on 3.05 post their stats here so we can see if there is a radical improvement after switching to this "super-cheating" version.

I complete battles on easy difficulty where I either lose only a few units or have no losses at all. Naturally, I can repeat such a result manually (exception - hydras).

Dirty_Player

2baratorch: What if we make a replayable quick battle only when monsters run away from us? If neutrals want to fight, then it's a regular battle.

OMG, why would we do that?

Не бійся коли ти один, бійся коли ти нуль.

484800548

rebellious

11/17/2012 9:56 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I thought a bit more carefully about the situation with quick battles, although the topic was completely different. Quick battles simply have no place in online play. • After all, the battle is carried out by the computer, and the player uses its results. This already contradicts the concept of a game between people. After all, games involving people imply human intervention and influence. In essence, this game option has an adaptive nature, i.e., it is good for offline players to use it to quickly complete maps with a hero, for example, with a dozen Azure Dragons. Because all players know that the computer's AI is inferior to a human. And here is some kind of fantasy - the computer gives better results. This fact alone should lead to the realization that something is wrong. And that's exactly what happened. • A replayable quick battle is an enhanced version of a quick battle, complicated by reloading (essentially, loading from a save). • We are striving, first of all, for a game without bugs, for consistency, and at least for creating a basic tournament version. Therefore, questionable options should be discarded without regret. It would be possible to completely block this option for online games, but it is still better to leave it (since it exists) as a reminder that this option was somehow enabled (although I still come across players who like to play games with battles only in quick mode). Moreover, the spellbook should be returned to the quick battle mechanism. So that everything is done correctly. And a small digression. I played about 20 battles in the first or second week with the Stronghold, using the replayable, corrected auto-battle in version 12. The result is impressive. All battles had to be replayed manually. In fact, the turn time increased. And if you also return the spellbook so that the computer can spend mana, then everything will fall into place and it will show who is who in the computer-human battle. And for extremists, let's leave the corrected, replayable quick battle, but make it optional and working with mutual consent (if there is a ban on one side, then there should be a ban on the opponent as well). If this is not feasible, then simply do not add such an option.