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

Dima, you should really explain why introducing a rule is not a good idea, instead of just saying it's unnecessary without any arguments. In this case, the issue has been raised (for the second time), and your solution – not playing with quitters – isn't a solution at all, but rather a kind of resignation to the person who is essentially at fault, and an avoidance of addressing the problem until the next time someone gets abandoned and decides to write about it. Moreover, we have a constant rotation of players in HotA (especially those who play the majority of games in a season – there are always many newcomers). Right now, the discussion is about how to prevent cases where an opponent quits. It's not about whether to play with such people or not; not everyone knows them personally, and they don't quit in every game. These cases have happened, are happening, and will continue to happen if the problem isn't solved. The issue is simply about the degree of strictness and the most suitable form for everyone. In general, the discussion on the previous pages has been developing along these lines. Everyone understands that there is a problem; you should suggest how to solve it. And no one wants to make the work of the Admin Council (AC) more complicated. There is a problem, and it needs to be solved, and if the AC needs to help, that's what its members are there for. With the right approach to this problem, its solution can be reduced to maximum automation, which will make it easier to resolve such cases. I would even understand if you clearly explained why any player does not have the right to demand that the other player finish the game if they agreed to play for a ranked match. Why does their opponent have the right to not finish it? I think everyone understands that they are obligated to finish the game, and whoever doesn't want to should be punished in some way, even if it's just with the result. Chingis, your suggestion is generally good; I also thought about it similarly at first, but a small detail stopped me from proposing it in a similar form: - When the time limit for the game expires, the AC will have to deal with reviewing the save files (which will indeed create extra hassle), and awarding the victory will be based on subjective judgment, and in not all cases will the decision be easy, which could cause a new wave of dissatisfaction with the AC. There is also a possible situation where, all other things being equal, a player hides who is in a more advantageous position, even though they think they are in a losing position, and then the quitter gets the win, while the person who reported the quitter loses, being wrongly confident in their advantage, and thus is not punished at all, but even rewarded. But if they had finished the game, the players' positions could have changed again during the game, and the one who wanted to play would have won. In this situation, it should be different: either the quitter loses, or the game is completed normally with the final result, and a victory can only be awarded based on mutual agreement using the save files. There is also another option to avoid burdening the AC. Suppose that after a month has passed since the save was made, the players agree on one specific date within the next month. Whoever doesn't show up on the agreed-upon day loses. Here, there is a possibility that the person who was chasing the quitter might not be able to play for some unexpected reason, but on the other hand, the quitter's unwillingness to play somehow encourages this. But if you really want to force your opponent to finish the game, be prepared for this outcome. In addition, it is quite normal to agree on another game to finish it if the opponent is willing to communicate. In short, it would be great to come up with a system that is as simple as possible and that can implement itself without any external intervention.