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

Of course, I edited the wording as the discussion progressed. Because if a good argument was made, I took it into account and improved the wording. But I didn't edit the wording retroactively. Like, I wouldn't post one version and ask for responses to it, then silently edit the original post afterward. That didn't happen. New versions of the wording appeared in the thread after successful counterarguments. If someone read the very first text, ignored everything that came after, and started "arguing" with the very first version, that's their problem; they were just too lazy to study the context. I am not selectively focusing on individual phrases. The goal is to analyze and take into account every significant counterargument in the discussion. I asked there to provide an example of a Castle battle because I thought this counterargument was directed at the latest version of the wording, but it was expressed unclearly. If it was no longer relevant, Kostya, you could have simply replied that it was no longer relevant. Your second argument – “there are no draws” – I also tried to take into account, as much as I saw sense in it. Dreaming about an ideal SoD (Simultaneous Duel), where “both heroes will end up in the tavern,” or maybe “both will stand on the map after the battle where they stood” – well, I don’t see any point in reasoning in this direction. Fortunately, there is nothing to sort through in the discussions; I wrote all the main points in the two posts above: /topic/at/700457/ (and regarding “it has been explained 100 times” – I also wrote about it – arguments that “the attacker must win the battle” are not based on the essence of the game; the defender is just as aggressive as the attacker; his goal is exactly the same – to destroy the opponent; no matter how many times you write it, it won't change anything).