DISCUSSIONS on “Rules for online games in HoMM3 and formulas for calculating player rating.”

Apache, why not? Why can't you? You've only presented one argument so far – that there will be fewer games. But you haven't explained how you came to that conclusion. You just stated it and that's it. How will there be fewer games? Explain.

I've already explained why. Post #979 – the entire top part up to the sentence about the rule. This is just the tip of the iceberg. You haven't refuted a single point I made, which means you agree that they are valid and quite possible, and that they should be taken into account. When resolving disputes, everything needs to be considered. There will be fewer games simply because there will be a restriction that prevents you from starting a new game until you finish the previous one! There could be a million reasons why a game doesn't happen because of this rule. It also eliminates the human element, where there is no consideration of the immediate emotional state. If someone really wants to play with someone, why can't they? EXPLAIN? Are they in prison? We should do everything we can to support the desire to play Heroes, fighting only against abandoning games. Let everyone play as much as they want and with whoever they want, as long as they are not allowed to get away with abandoning a game. The deadline for finishing a game is much more effective than limiting the number of games. Don't you see that?

Well, we've found at least one major ideological disagreement. I believe that starting a new season when there is already a game in progress and the opponent is ready to play right now is disrespectful to the opponent. You don't think so. For me, this is a revelation. Well, I mean, it's not a revelation that there are players who can do this, but a revelation that you're even trying to come up with arguments that it's okay, buddy, we'll finish it later, you can start a new one with someone else right now.

You didn't read or understand me again. I wrote that if you start a game, for example, in the first month and a half of the current season, you must finish the game before the end of the season. But if you started playing on August 30 (at the end of the summer season), do you have to finish it in the summer? And what if you lose touch for a couple of weeks? That's how the time interval is calculated.

I just can't wrap my head around it. First, this approach will create a situation with a bunch of unfinished games, and then we'll heroically finish them within a set maximum time, relying on a detailed procedure for coordinating dates (or, by the way, just abandon them, i.e., play fewer games). Can't we just avoid all this nonsense?

The detailed procedure for coordination will be known to everyone, what's the problem? Its deadlines will not be burdensome. What does it mean to "heroically finish"? You will have 2 months (at least, I'm not against 3 months) to calmly arrange a game. "Heroically finishing" refers to your suggestion – whether you want to or not, you have to play with someone before playing a game with someone else. Understand, finally, that we need to support the maximum number of games in every possible way, and punishing those who abandon games should not affect harmless situations. That's it. There's no need to come up with more restrictions. Give players plenty of time – everything will be fine, as long as they can't make excuses because of the deadlines.