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.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from HoMM3 HD is a mod (add-on) for the game Heroes of Might and Magic 3.
I suggest giving 5 minutes to make a move. That is, the timer starts after a move is made or after 5 minutes. Moreover, 5 minutes is given once and for the entire week (a separate timer). Since we decided to play a fast-paced game, let's play a fast-paced game... I am all for a timer in the competitive mode; I've been waiting for it for 1000 years.
What does it take into account?! The fact that you can start a battle and then decide to continue it later? Or that you can spend half an hour thinking about the next move? Or that you can spend an hour using a single ballista without any skills and a harpy to grind 100 zombies for a handful of resources?? Why should your opponent pay for this with their time?? Don't make me laugh. The future (or rather, the present) of the game is with a timer. rebellious
It seems I've explained it. It's just that no one wants to delve into the details. And the thought of having to deal with a clumsy timer doesn't please me at all. It's one thing to fight a hundred zombies with 85 starting gremlins, and another to fight 120 troglodytes. The first will be in a time crunch from the start of the game, while the second will accumulate minutes. And the already weak Tower might end up being completely sidelined because of the timer.
If you usually play Tower against Dungeon, then you don't need to answer further. For example, in Warlords, 4000+400 is enough to play Tower, and in general, it's much easier to fight with normal ranged units than with slow melee units.
...Some players have to engage in hand-to-hand combat with a horde of zombies and master gremlins, employing numerous maneuvers in the early days, while others simply poke them a few times with troglodytes. Some search for that one, single, life-saving morale boost for their troops. Others use a mage with a minimal force to storm a mine with ranged attacks, or use a single harpy to attack a secondary location, or a devil...
It seems somewhat one-sided, as nothing is written about the other side of the problem; I will fill in the gap: one player builds chains, moving their army across the entire map and trying to fight with all their heroes, thereby significantly increasing the time spent on the map, but saving time spent on battles. Another player - chains?! What nonsense is that?! We'll give that player with the ballista one pixie and go attack a group of zombies, and after them, we'll also deal with the golems. We'll give this one a couple of mages, let them attack that crowd of footmen, and let the peasant run around with the army, why bother moving it back and forth?! As a result: minimal actions on the map, you can play even on a 2-minute timer, but even if the battles take 2 hours, time doesn't pass in them.
P.S. Oops, Cobra was faster. In its current form, the SoD timer provokes situations similar to those described by Zweig in Chess Story (http://flibusta.net/b/98440).
Castles and everything else won't become weaker. The player-castle aspect is important. Yegor used to play well with Fortress and Dungeon, but now he doesn't have enough time for Fortress, and he can still do something with Dungeon. And Sasha-Driver played well with all castles, but he doesn't care about the timer because he plays quickly. It will be harder not for the castles, but for the players playing with a particular castle. Well, I don't deny that it will be more difficult to play with Demon, I agree with that.
Launch the game without the mod and make sure that the complaint should be addressed to Booke, who was in charge of the game's localization. This will need to be fixed in the SuperPack_Rus package...
Understood. We're waiting for SuperPack_Rus; it's good that someone is still polishing this game and fixing the bugs of the official localizers/publishers. :smile20: I'll definitely donate some money to the project's fund this weekend.
It seems you didn't understand the point of this "predictable answer." The point is that the timer is introduced not for gameplay reasons, but for organizational reasons – to influence the overall duration of the games. Currently, I think it's too high; it needs to be reduced somehow, and players can figure out how to deal with the gameplay changes themselves.
Yes, I understood perfectly. Otherwise, why would I engage in this debate if I didn't assume that the timer could be specified in the regulations? It's obvious. As is the fact that
to influence the overall duration of the games
in club tournaments, because nothing gets done there. But they are held very rarely. And online – it's a different story. Online, much more time is wasted on no-shows, delays, disconnections, misunderstandings, and other inefficiencies – but that's "sacred," and no strict organizational hand interferes. But that's not the point. Let them set a time limit of 2 minutes per turn. The last M200 tournament had a short limit and no disputes about it, and many people participated. So, what prevents other organizers from setting short limits in tournaments? That would be an indicator. Otherwise, they'll just say, "The organizer decided so." Let the organizer decide, instead of hiding behind the opinion of a random sample of random people. Everyone will supposedly be in equal conditions, but that's not what it's about.
Wicc
...The problem with the Tower is the overall weakness of the faction, not the timer.
If there's no problem with the Tower, there's no problem with Inferno or the problem with the Gurney. There's a problem with the player who needs to make 600 clicks in 2 minutes to achieve a goal, while another player needs only 30 clicks to achieve the same goal. The player is fast, but they physically can't make that many clicks due to the unfair timer. And for the umpteenth time, I say that a fair timer should allow a fast player to play. And there's no connection to SoD or WT here. The version doesn't matter. What matters is the player's ability to think quickly. In this case, you can generalize any long but dynamic battle for the player.
It's just a timer for the player's useful actions.
Added 29 minutes ago KobRa_RR
What is he taking into account?! The fact that you can sit down in battle and eat? Or that you can spend half an hour thinking about the next move? Or that you can spend an hour with one ballista without a skill and a harpy, killing 100 zombies for a bunch of resources?? Why should your opponent pay for this with their time?? Don't make me laugh. The future (or rather, the present :)) of the game is with the timer.
What if they get dysbiosis? Then the proud WT player will say that it's better to shit himself, but no one will dare call him a tryhard :D I'm not against the timer. I've heard the broken telephone again :) And recently, I took a secondary unit with one harpy and a witch on Jebus, killing 9 guards. And what – was it unnecessary? I'll drive the opponent to such a state that he'll pay not only with time :smile01:
Just like in club tournaments, because nothing gets done there. But they are held very rarely. And online – it’s a different story. Online, much more time is wasted on no-shows, late arrivals, disconnections, misunderstandings, and other disorganization – but this is considered "sacred," and no strict organizational hand interferes here.
The longer the game, the more delays, and as a result, late arrivals and other issues. Now, very few serious games are played without delays; sometimes there are 2-3 delays. In my opinion, this is wrong; ideally, most games should be played in one evening.
Therefore, the timer issue is important for online play as well. Quite a few players have stopped playing Heroes, stating that they "don't have time for games." For example, I can no longer manage games that last 12 hours, while I can easily play a game that lasts 4-6 hours.
But that's not the point. Let them set a time limit of 2 minutes per turn. The last M200 tournament had a short limit and there were no disputes about it, and many people played. So, what prevents other organizers from setting short limits in tournaments? That would be an indicator. Otherwise, they will say, "the organizer decided so." Let the organizer decide, and not hide behind the opinion of a random sample of random people. Everyone will supposedly be in equal conditions, but that's not the point.
2 minutes is also a solution, but in my opinion, it is a less successful one than a chess timer. With 2 minutes, time is saved by reducing the number of battles, chains, etc. But with a chess timer, time is saved by reducing the duration of battles as well. And since battles are, for the most part, a less intellectually stimulating activity than maneuvering on the map, the content of the game with a chess timer is higher than with 2 minutes.
There is no Tower problem, no Inferno problem, or Gurney problem. There is a problem with the player who needs to make 600 clicks in 2 minutes to achieve a goal, while another player needs only 30 clicks to achieve the same goal.
In my opinion, there is a problem with the player who inadequately correlates the speed of their hands with the amount of tasks they take on.
If a certain action requires a lot of time, which is now scarce, then this action should be abandoned. If a certain strategy requires such actions, then a different strategy should be chosen.
And for the umpteenth time, I say that a fair timer
What is the criterion for "fairness" here? And why not take another criterion?
You see, Rebel, I'm not saying that your arguments are wrong. The points you mentioned really do exist. And I'm not saying that a chess timer has no drawbacks; it does.
I'm saying that, considering all factors, both game-related and organizational, a chess timer has more advantages than disadvantages.
in general, it’s necessary to either reduce the time limit in seasonal and tournament matches on all templates, or introduce a chess timer (of course, this is just my personal opinion).
for example, on the 1st week, you could add 1 minute to the match, and on subsequent weeks, 2 or 2.5 minutes. If a timer is already implemented, then this can probably be implemented as well.
at the very least, the game with a timer will become more spectacular and hardcore. + now you can also play SOD with 4000+400.
although, on the other hand, it might be best to leave everything as it is.
in general, as the saying goes: "better is the enemy of good".
__________________________ I transferred everything from WebMoney to Barotorch - 47 rubles), there are also 13 rubles on Yandex Money, but I don't know how to withdraw them from there.
Everything is presented in a one-sided manner; nothing is said about the other side of the problem. I will fill in the gap: one player builds chains, moving their army across the entire map and trying to fight with all their heroes, thereby significantly increasing the time spent on the map but saving time spent on battles. The other – chains?! What is this nonsense!? We'll give this one with the ballista one pixie and go fight a group of zombies, and after them, we'll also deal with the golems. This one gets a couple of mages; let them attack that crowd of footmen. And let the peasant run around with the army; why waste time moving it back and forth?! As a result: a minimum of actions on the map; you can play even on a 2-minute timer. And what if the battles take 2 hours? Well, time doesn't pass in them.
You are absolutely right. Of course, the situation needs to be described in a hyperbolic way and the opponent needs to be immersed in its miasma. God forbid sending someone with a single unit – they will again consider it to be the behavior of a hardcore player. However, you missed the context of the discussion. The thoughts were not about the perfection of the SoD timer.
During a battle between players, the timer for the attacking player continues to run. This needs to be fixed.
Added 17 minutes later rebellious
And recently, I took a secondary unit of one harpy-witch on Jebus, killing 9 guards. And what - wasn't it worth it? I'll bring the opponent to such a state that he'll pay not only with time :smile01:
It is precisely for such things that time should be spent. If you want to take a secondary unit of harpies or break through a legion of zombies with a ballista, spend your time on it.
I suggest adding a checkbox (to indicate whether to wait for the opponent's turn or not). And depending on the tournaments, it will be enabled or disabled. I played against a Dungeon player yesterday, and we completed two weeks of gameplay in 3 hours because both of us played very quickly.
The longer the game, the more delays, and as a result, more tardiness and other issues.
Tardiness and other issues have always been a manifestation of indiscipline. And the conclusion strongly resembles a joke about hare logic.
The phrase "no time for games"
is dominant not only when it comes to delays. This phrase is a hegemon in its own way. And no timer can fix this situation.
2 minutes is also a solution, but in my opinion, it is much less effective than a chess timer. With 2 minutes, the time is reduced by decreasing the number of battles, chains, etc. But with a chess timer, the time is reduced by the duration of the battles as well. And since battles are, for the most part, much less intellectually stimulating than maneuvering on the map, the content of the game with a chess timer is higher than with 2 minutes.
2 minutes was said off the cuff. But there, I wanted to emphasize the correctly chosen tournament formula by the organizer on an M-map with a 4-minute limit. And why other organizers went for increasing the turn limit. And the WT timer has a small additional nuance - a buggy quick action. How much time does this bug save?
In my opinion, there is a problem with a player who inadequately correlates the speed of his actions with the amount of tasks he takes on.
Why is that? The intensity and skill of the players are comparable. So why then attribute the external factor to the disadvantage of one?
If a certain action takes a very long time, which is now in short supply, then this action should be abandoned. If a certain strategy requires such actions, then a different strategy should be chosen.
Abandon it in favor of what? Abandoning something for the sake of abandoning it is an even more meaningless action.
And what is the criterion for "fairness" here? And why not take another criterion?
Equal opportunities to repeat the action for as many people as possible. What other criterion? And for what purpose?
I am saying that, considering all factors, both game-related and organizational, a chess timer has more advantages than disadvantages.
I was put off by the old-fashioned split of the first games, which, in principle, is solvable, and by the lack of new ideas with a pirate race. I'm afraid it will remain as it is.
But in general, if tournaments start being played in the add-on, I will be very happy).
After the quick combat, the button to cancel the result didn't appear, and as a result, I lost half of my army. Is this a bug in the new version of the HD mod?
Егор Коробейников
