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 REWORK for the Academy. Is it needed or not?
I won't go into too much detail... in my opinion, a restructuring is needed. To prevent many from considering this a freebie, the cost of rebuilding a GM level could be increased by 2 units of all resources, and a time cost could be added. For example, a GM is destroyed in one day; on that day, nothing can be built in the city. On the next day, it is rebuilt.
There's a new addition to the skilled players! A freebie is a teleport/dimension door scroll near a castle, guarded by pigs. That's a real freebie, often impossible to counter...((( As of now, among the participants (16) in the CIS-2015 competition: the score is 7-4, (43%-25%).
Where are the arguments, why is this restructuring needed in the game? I only saw the opinion that it will level the playing field and address potential unfairness in the search for control on HL maps. Everything else is about Warlock, about "we are smart, and you are noobs," "prove why it's not needed, and we will laugh in response." What is this even about? It's not serious.
Where are the arguments? Why is a restructuring needed in the game? I only saw the opinion that it would level the playing field and address potential unfairness in the search for control on HotA maps. Everything else is about the Warlock Tavern, about "we are smart, and you are lucky," "prove why it's not needed, and we will laugh in response." What is this even about? It's not serious.
I completely don't understand who is bothered by the restructuring as an optional feature that can be enabled or disabled. Let's do this: You provide well-reasoned arguments that it's not needed, and I will, for the umpteenth time, write about the advantages of restructuring, and I won't be lazy; I will provide examples from real reports.
I'll repeat myself, just in case...
Let's create the next HD mod enhancement:
1. You build a Guildhall in some castle and gain certain spells.
2. When building a Guildhall in another castle, you ALWAYS receive at least 1 new spell at each Guildhall level, compared to building it in the first castle.
3. When building a Guildhall in the 3rd, and subsequent, castles, you ALWAYS receive at least 1 new spell at each Guildhall level.
4. This continues until all possible spells have been learned. After that, there will naturally be complete repetitions at all Guildhall levels.
Thus, we get the following picture:
1. The classic "Shades of Darkness" (with chains of weak creatures on banks in distant zones, etc.) is not broken at all. The game remains absolutely the same. "SoD players" are happy.
2. Control is definitely not in the 2nd, but in the 6th castle. "Fortress players" are happy.
3. Additionally, the game becomes even more strategic in terms of defense and capturing seemingly unimportant castles.
Why waste a person's time on an unnecessary checkbox in the house rules? If it doesn't cost them anything to do, then let them do it, and no one will object. The question is, why do something that has already been done? With mutual consent, you can always play with house rules; it's for those who love innovation).
JavdetI absolutely do not understand who is bothered by rebuilding as an optional toggle own choice. Let's do this: You provide reasoned proof that it isn't needed, and for the umpteenth time, I will write about the advantages of rebuilding, and I won't be too lazy to provide examples from actual reports.I have written about the advantages of rebuilding many times myself. And I stand by my words. For ideal Heroes, rebuilding (or some analogue of it) is definitely necessary.
But in the real world, there are only real Heroes, and they are limited by the laws of the real world, not just considerations of balance and gameplay.
Now then, in the real world, there is a broad segment of players who do not want changes to the SoD gameplay. And something must be done with this broad segment; it won't just disappear on its own. Attempting to force it through head-on risks years of holy wars—you remember this perfectly from the frictions between SoD-TE and SoD-VT.
Therefore, the "something for everyone" scheme that has developed over recent years seems most reasonable:
1) There is HD-mod, which handles technical improvements and bug fixes, targeting all versions of Heroes without affecting their gameplay.
2) There is SoD, whose gameplay remains unchanged.
3) There are Heroes mods (WT, HotA, etc.), in which changing the gameplay is permissible.
4) Everyone plays what they want and doesn't try to lecture others.
As is easy to notice, the number of holy wars within the Heroes community has significantly decreased in recent years; this is precisely a result of such an approach—the community has matured a bit.
Therefore—to make changes to the gameplay, you must stop calling the resulting mod SoD. Call it "Heroes of Might and Magic 3: Javdet Edition" and popularize it, and there will be no complaints.
I'll start with the last point, perhaps. Although overall, this is a collective response. Any vote in the vein of "bad or good" already carries a negative aftermath in the form of a schism of opinions. In about a year (after the May holidays), we can expect a push that logisticians need to be nerfed (like in WT), since they run way too fast, and that's such an imbalance. And Tazar shouldn't be touched for now... although if he's on the opponent's side, and with a red orb... well, what balance is that. Although getting "freebies" of +30% durability or lethality (Crag Hack) is so unbalanced when he's not on my side. And they will need to be nerfed. There just hasn't been a reason yet. And we'll bring balance to normal by playing anarchy in key matches at the May festivals; it's better to play those than to have no guild restructuring. For those who don't understand, I'll clarify. The topic advocates for restructuring, yet without motivating its position at all (see its first post) — we have a very weak thesis essentially, and only then it engages in polemics (swaying to its side with unproductive arguments), and does not conduct a discussion in a mutually beneficial manner. And this despite the fact that in the recent matches of the finalists of the last offline event (one true, the other "hidden" :)) anarchy was played :eek: In short, there's a bit of a mess in the topic starter's head. Advocates for one thing, but plays the complete opposite. And overall, there's some strange trend. People try to show that they are the strongest in the game, fight for balance to demonstrate their skill, but in the end they try to fish in troubled waters with anarchy. They didn't have the spirit for a mirror match. But then they can always justify it: "anarchy was played after all"!:D Like, the spirit of SoD has triumphed!
And it is true that no one will bother with this. And someone was talking about that coveted checkbox. I even know that if restructuring were suddenly implemented, there would be enough people who would play with that restructuring. After all, that's already happened with quick. So let the topic starter motivate the programmers and play with whoever they want under their own rules. Only the organizers have enough wisdom (non-intervention policy) to not make hd+, quick (reworked, but with the addition of other bugs) and the dubious "chess" timer mandatory — some see more points in "saving" time with the latter, although these are essentially gameplay things. Skilled players (the bigger tryhards) will just assume they can't be bothered with "noobs" and will want to find the fastest way to kill them, and restructuring will help them more with that. And when playing among themselves, they will somehow avoid mirror matches. Voting on such issues is akin to voting in political elections with all sorts of manipulations and other "tricks", and divides the community. Gameplay practice in this particular matter has absolutely no effect on the understanding of the processes. A user-player (and there is an overwhelming majority of them here) does not fully understand game nuances, has poor knowledge of theory, while programmers (there are few of them) — on the contrary, do not see game inconsistencies. Those who see both sides, especially without medal ambitions — are even fewer. Their arguments are quite convincing and well-reasoned. • There is WT, where this has long been implemented. • The game has more dispersed things (for heroes — Crag Hack, Tazar, Dwarf, Galthran, logisticians; for artifacts — orb, cloak of surrender, medal, armor of the damned, angel alliance; for objects — some have Dragon Utopias and Dragon Fly Hives with conservatories, while others have blocks and no wood at all, and those morale rolls...), and one unfortunate misclick, or a lack of 50 MP or one second, or a small artifact accidentally not equipped — indeed, the whole game is built on them. And in Heroes, any little thing can be fatal, and cannot be fixed. Because it's a GAME, not a means of proving who is better than whom, especially if it leads to :smile35: or :smile17: And so that in such a GAME every participant would have the opportunity to use luck and beat a conditionally strong player. Ask Maretti what keeps him playing again and again, despite the abundance of medals. • Since you want balance in the game, why not play mirror templates. Or what stops you from generating a map where there are many towns and villages that you control. And why isn't Diamond suitable or something similar? • Finally, what prevents you from organizing a tournament with exactly such a condition/regulation. It's no big deal.
The mirror template was not included due to being untested in SoD. Naturally, I would have preferred it over playing Jebus/anarchy with Hell. Perhaps we should have moved to Diamond (also not the most balanced template, but that's beside the point for now :D ), but what is there to say about it now.
I think among those who voted against, there are two main groups of people: those who shout "keep your hands off SoD" and "don't ruin the game" — I believe it is pointless to negotiate with them. They don't listen to anyone's arguments, and in their heads there are only morale rolls and upgraded stacks) :p And the second group, who haven't tried playing with restructuring (there's one piece of advice: you need to try it; perhaps there haven't been situations where you have resources and stats, but no control and nowhere to get it, and you just watch turn after turn as the opponent with control outplays you...) or players who love freebies (and who doesn't?!) and are used to winning because of them — you do you, but don't forget that sooner or later there will be payback))
...The question is, why do something that has already been done? If both parties agree, you can always play in "Wt" (War of the Titans), for those who love innovation.
SoD is invaluable; everything else can be bought in "Wt".
Why waste someone's time on an unnecessary checkbox in the house rules? If it doesn't cost them anything to do, then let them do it, and no one will object. The question is, why do something that has already been done? With mutual consent, you can always play with house rules; for those who love innovation).
I asked for arguments, not just to "take and divide" and say, "play your own house rules."
A checkbox certainly won't hurt anyone, and if my opponent in the tournament also agrees to play with house rules, that's great. If not, we'll play with the default rules. But... I'm sure that conservatives who try this "unnecessary innovation" will gradually start to include this checkbox more and more often.
I myself have written many times about the advantages of restructuring. And I don't deny my words. For ideal Heroes, restructuring (or some analogue of it) is definitely needed.
Here, finally!) Please re-record his voice)) Wicc
Therefore, to make changes to the gameplay, you need to stop calling the resulting mod "Sodom." Call it "Heroes of Might and Magic 3: Javdet Edition" and promote it, and there will be no complaints.
I'm too lazy to count how many of those who voted against joined the HotA Tasting?
Why should it be? The voting question was "SoD. Restructuring for Mage Guild. Is it needed or not?", meaning the opinion was asked specifically about SoD, and not about Ideal Heroes (which SoD is not).
Too lazy to count how many of those who voted against signed up for the HotA Tasting?
Also too lazy to count, if only because the purpose of the count is unclear — what conclusion is planned to be drawn from it?
Why? The voting question is: "SoD. Rework for GM. Is it needed or not?", meaning the opinion was being asked specifically about SoD, and not about Ideal Heroes (which SoD is not).
So, because SoD isn't perfect, it shouldn't be improved? Tell that to Baratorch and Wizard, who are constantly improving something! From the interface to quick combat and control during neutral creature battles. Your answer is unclear. If we're talking about some critical changes, then again, it's a big question what to consider them... in my opinion, a true SoD player should manually transfer artifacts and monsters within 2 minutes, and not use the benefits of the HD Mod, etc. and so on. If we're talking about some kind of ban on changes in the game's gameplay, then again, it's unclear. How can a harmless rework on HL+U maps (with an increased cost, for example) interfere? Aren't all these age-old bans on upgrading creatures and guild upgrades a greater evil, that is, an artificial change in gameplay?!! Wicc
I'm also too lazy to count, if only because the purpose of the count is unclear - what conclusion is planned to be drawn from it?
The conclusion will probably be later, when someone counts...
The conclusion will probably be later, when someone counts...
The issue is simple: if you want to play HotA, play it; if you want to play WOT, play WOT. What's the point of signing up for HotA if you don't want to play it? I've seen many HotA streams, and I wasn't impressed. Or is it still necessary to sign up???
KobRa_RR
