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
DISCUSSIONS on “Rules for online games in HoMM3 and formulas for calculating player rating.”
To Gomunguls. Please take a look at the entire paragraph in my post that contains the red letters...
I'm rereading old threads about the rules and controversial situations to understand where everything came from.
I found out where the permission for the Mercenary Camp came from. It turns out that it was initially forbidden to use it. This rule caused confusion among players. And the Camp was allowed, so, naturally, the ban in the Rules was replaced with permission.
I suggest not removing the following clause:
5.13. It is allowed to buy and use any monsters in the "mercenary camps."
but replacing it with:
5.13. Actions not prohibited/restricted by these rules are permitted.
This also applies to Angel Wings. Initially, their use was restricted by requiring level 5 of the guild. Then this was removed, and the clause was rewritten as:
5.10. "Angel Wings" can be used without any restrictions, unless it contradicts... (the clause about guarding objects)
I removed this clause, and we got a discussion about the use of Wings, DD, and flight when forcing a passage.
Indeed, in:
5.6. It is forbidden to enter neighboring territories without defeating the guard standing at the passage (i.e., if it has been moved)...
the word "enter" is quite strange. Therefore, it needs to be rephrased:
5.6. It is forbidden to pass to neighboring territories, without eliminating the guard standing at the passage, including one that has been moved. If two or three guards are scattered along the road, any one can be destroyed. If there is no guard at the passage, including one that has been moved, it is allowed to freely move from one respawn point to another. Also, it is allowed to enter neighboring territories using Angel Wings, Dimension Door, and Flight spells, without destroying the guard.[/COLOR]
We will not cancel the control.
Regarding the proposed addition:
Wicc
If a player saw the opponent defeat one of the passage guards, then it is possible to pass by the remaining guards of this passage without defeating them. If a player did not see the opponent defeat the guard, but for some reason believes that the guard was defeated, then he has the right to ask the opponent about this. The opponent, in turn, must provide accurate information.
the following opinions were expressed:
Against. Plans can be built on defeating the guard, based on the element of surprise, which should not be revealed. If you want to go somewhere, defeat the guard. In general, I don't like the principle of being obliged to provide information about the game during the game. +1 I also think it's not worth talking about whether the guard was defeated or not... if you want to pass, defeat it. i.e., if the guard is standing and you are not sure whether this direction was cleared before, then you must defeat it yourself. If a player saw... +1 If a player did not see... -1 Against: reporting to the opponent whether I defeated the zone guards or not. This is nonsense, in my opinion. If it is not clear whether the passage is clear or not, defeat it yourself. I will not tell my opponent anything... Against: If a player did not see... If he wants to pass, let him defeat it, IMHO. And not waste time asking questions.
It is clear that players do not want to inform their opponents about defeating the guard. I am removing the second part. But what about the first half?
"if a player saw..." and "if a player is sure..." are different things. I may be sure (but I may also be wrong) that the guard was defeated, and the one that remains is another one. However, I don't always see this. I think, then, it should be written like this:
Also, it is allowed to pass by the passage guards, without destroying them, if the player saw that the opponent had already destroyed one of the guards of this passage.
This is what it looks like in general:
5.6. It is forbidden to pass to neighboring territories, without eliminating the guard standing at the passage, including one that has been moved. If two or three guards are scattered along the road, any one can be destroyed. If there is no guard at the passage, including one that has been moved, it is allowed to freely move from one respawn point to another. Also, it is allowed to enter neighboring territories using Angel Wings, Dimension Door, and Flight spells, without destroying the guard. Also, it is allowed to pass by the passage guards, without destroying them, if the player saw that the opponent had already destroyed one of the guards of this passage.
Another question. There are situations when the guard at the exit from a teleport or gate to the underworld does not need to be killed, but you can pass to another respawn point by killing the guard of something else (for example, a resource). Is it allowed to pass in this case? After all, the guard at the entrance (i.e., one of the passage guards) was destroyed. I have had such situations, and sometimes this point is very important.
Pit for LM
