Posts from Time is money, or are you going to waste it?

To Dirty_Player:

You responded rather banally. Oh well.

Well, it’s obvious that a lot depends on the generator. The generator can distribute things in such a way that no time limit will change anything.

It depends. It can distribute things in such a way that the time limit will change the outcome of the game.

Message from R55Max
This move isn’t just a move, but a response that the player arrived at by performing a sum of different actions.

I might agree with you, but in Heroes you can’t know 100% what your actions will lead to. Something tasty might unexpectedly appear, or your opponent might force you to change your plans.That’s the point, which is why an equal amount of time from the start shouldn’t be considered a panacea for slow thinkers.

You may not be able to know exactly what the actions will lead to, but understanding that you will have to spend more time will probably be easy even before the main hero’s move on the 1st day.

Strange reasoning about fairness. As if the generator is always fair. If it gives one player a convenient layout and another has to overcome difficulties, the latter won’t have it easy with any timer. But with a chess timer, it will be easier for him to fight the difficulties, because he might have to skip a move to save time for solving other tasks. And the player with an easy layout doesn’t care either way.

The fairness of the generator isn’t discussed here, but the unfairness of a chess timer in the game is easily visible.

It may be different, but at least everyone will get a time bonus.

Read up on what a bonus is. A bonus, in its very ideology, does not give +(plus) to everyone indiscriminately; it’s a reward! And is a reward fair in easy situations, when your opponent spreads their brain across the map more than you? There are filler words: at least, maybe, I dunno....

Oh sure, it doesn’t make things worse. Of course. A difficult move comes up, you don’t have time to finish it, and your position worsens. But before that, you could have finished all your moves in half the time.

Such a thing is possible even with an hour per move; we’re talking about a limited move time for a template.

That’s precisely the biggest downside. If there’s a move in a game that will take 10 minutes, then we’re playing with a 10-minute limit... It would be much better to play with a 6-minute move, but always have about 10 minutes in reserve for a difficult move.

Don’t twist my words. If there’s a move that takes 10 minutes, that doesn’t mean all moves must be played that way; it means there’s time for quality when it’s needed. I don’t support slow play, but sometimes it’s necessary.

Well, that’s exactly the goal! So that players try to finish their move faster, rather than staring at the monitor while the free 2-3 minutes remain.

Well, darn, we’ve hit the point where saving up helps, and then the piggy bank ultimately hits you on the head.

Well, with that logic, you should play unlim.

They do play it.

Yeah. Not from thin air. 10 dwarves or 20 gnolls that can’t be used anywhere except for feeding become part of the main stack that accumulates. That extra meat from secondary towns is almost useless, but demons certainly won’t be superfluous, neither in a Dragon Utopia nor in a Griffin Conservatory.

And isn’t creating meat work???? Money, time, wasted moves, instead of doing other things—isn’t that an ungrateful activity?

It's clear that the argument has now become an argument for the sake of arguing. It's time for short posts.
Of the emerging trends, the first group should be asked if they are ready to switch to shorter limits.

To Dirty_Player:
You gave a very banal answer. Oh well.

What else can I do? I have presented all my arguments. You disagree with them, providing counterarguments, which I consider arguments in my favor. All your "negatives" are "positives" for me. What can I do if you are stubborn and don't acknowledge obvious (to me) things? You bring up some mythical, abstract situations that supposedly might and will happen... however, the chess timer has been tested in thousands of games on Wargame Tactics and has proven to be excellent, and you call it:

the most imbalanced gimmick

What else can I do? I've presented all my arguments. You disagree with them by providing counterarguments, which I consider arguments in my favor. All your "negatives" are "positives" for me. What can I do if you're stubborn and don't acknowledge obvious (to me) things? You bring up some mythical, abstract situations that supposedly might and will happen... however, the chess timer has been tested in thousands of games on Wargame Tavern and has proven to be excellent, and you call that:

Dead counterarguments, or rather, there are none. I received no response to that. Apparently, from your side, analyzing the situation is stubbornness. The SOD timer has probably been tested in tens of thousands of games in SOD.

Dirty raised an interesting topic (many people support him). R55Max defends the current interests (he also has supporters, and there are also people who want unlimited [something]). LET'S HAVE A BATTLE ON THE CURRENT TIMING, LET'S SEE WHO IS CLOSER TO THE TRUTH! GO, Dirty_Player VS R55Max!

LET'S HAVE A BATTLE RIGHT NOW AND SEE WHO'S CLOSER TO THE TRUTH! Dirty_Player VS R55Max, LET'S GO!

No, that's not interesting.
Let them settle who's right and who's wrong in a fistfight instead. :) Everything happens in real time, you can make moves simultaneously, it's great! :)

Just started playing vt and SoD, the timer looks incredibly pathetic) Played a couple of games with a timer of 1500+400! Managed everything—the timer was plenty for 8mm6a! And those awful turns of 20-30 minutes pushed me away from large maps in SoD for some time...... Now I only play 8mm6a in vt) And mk in SoD) Even on mk people took 15-20 minutes per turn—horrible.........

Played a couple of games with a timer of 1500+400! I managed everything – the timer was sufficient for 8mm6a! And those terrible turns that take 20-30 minutes made me take a break from large templates in the game.

What's the difference? Whether it takes 20+ minutes or that...

well, play a couple of turns, each lasting 20 minutes, and the timer will reach 0, and then take a turn that lasts 400 seconds :D

No, that's not interesting.
Let them settle who is right and who is wrong in hand-to-hand combat instead. :)
Everything happens in real time, you can make moves simultaneously, it's great! :)

The first useful idea in the thread.

You could also add Heroes of Might and Magic.

The first useful idea in the thread.

You could also go all-in on Haven.

The discussion is smoothly flowing in the right direction. Regis and PS are already frantically searching for an answer to the question about factions.

A few facts about WCG:
1. To get there, you need to pay, and as you understand, it's not a small amount.
2. In the game, everything should be limited to the game itself, without any unnecessary elements, like in-game transactions or pay-to-win.
3. The game duration should not exceed 1 hour; I don't remember any game where a match lasted longer than an hour.
4. Most often, games are promoted by hardware manufacturers. And Heroes even runs on basic computers, so advertisers are not interested in Heroes, and therefore not in WCG either.
5. For a game to be included in WCG, it must pass pilot tournaments; I hope I don't need to explain the scale of this?

So, you understand in which direction you need to act to get Heroes into WCG. Good luck.

What kind of PvP are you talking about? The game will be 15 years old soon. It would be better to retain the players we already have.

The survey somehow focuses on the problem of controlling the overall game time, while the introduction and reasoning are geared towards controlling the turn time. Especially considering that Heroes players are, after all, time-wasters, and at the same time (pun intended), some are somehow complaining about saving time. Those who don't have enough time for Heroes simply abandon them. The argument that controlling turn time will save you a lot of time for other things only shows a dislike for the game, and therefore, is it even worth playing? And how much time will actually be saved, where is the calculation? The game is non-commercial, and there are no real rewards in online tournaments. And for online games, controlling time is not that important. And some dissatisfaction in certain games is only partial. And what percentage of the total game time will be saved by controlling turn time? But for some reason, there is no mention of this.
Here, let's calculate.
How much time is needed to find and add an ICQ contact or a way to communicate initially, and then agree on an approximate time? And then the time X arrives. But the opponent is somehow not online. 5, 10 minutes pass, half an hour... Finally, they appear. They figure out why someone was late.
Then they figure out who will play as whom and some individual preferences. There is always some vague point in the rules.
Then it turns out that someone has the wrong version of Heroes, or they are about to reinstall Windows and don't have anything yet. They need to download the game, Hamachi, etc. And time is ticking.
The time for connecting arrives. And again, there is some problem. The connection fails. They figure out the reasons and fix the problems. And time is passing.
But finally, the game starts (and 1.5 hours have passed since the beginning of the conversation)! Everyone has used all the restarts, and even more. And there was also a restart due to a mutual agreement (another 2 hours passed).
And only now we start fighting for saving time by controlling the turn time! :rolleyes:
But even in this case, upon closer examination, we see...
That we want to use a timer from a completely different game. How can all this be compared?:smile32: The match starts - the time starts. Whether the opponent arrives or not. And in chess, time is allocated for a turn - a specific, single physical action necessary to move a piece from one place to another (100 minutes - 40 moves). In Heroes (as in all computer games), this action for accounting is a mouse click. Therefore, a corresponding time scale should be applied here. Since we are fighting against slowness, it is necessary to reduce the time of pauses between clicks in battle. After all, it is clear that to destroy a hundred zombies on level 111, for example, a Miner will need, say, 20 clicks, and a Knight will need 80. This does not mean that I should not fight on level 111 or not choose the Tower. And how often are there situations when you need to catch morale? Therefore, a timer can be used, but with an calculation based on a specific number of clicks. How to implement this - I don't know. In any case, the Warlords timer is not designed for such tasks.
And, in fact, such a strict saving of time is important for real, club tournaments. Or in fun games, where the result does not matter (we often played Jebus 2x2 in 4 minutes (or even 2) to have time). In online games, the fight to save time in battle is more of a mystification. You try to save time on really important moments, while at the same time, a huge amount of time is lost in the pre-game phase and restarts. And if the question of saving half an hour or an hour makes you nervous, then is it worth playing Heroes at all? It's time to think in terms of either/or.

I see one generally acceptable way to reduce game time – to encourage players to save time in battles, at least within reasonable limits. I don't know how, maybe by forcing them to fight with time control at least occasionally.
I was certainly like that myself, but after gaining experience, watching TE-VT, it's simply painful to watch battles of people who have never had to save time. I've seen it both in real tournaments and in broadcasts.

Everything else is just empty talk about a topic that has been discussed a thousand times, and futile attempts to reach an agreement where agreement is impossible.