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

More than half of the discussions arise because "writers, not readers" don't carefully read what is being proposed.

Guys, the rule about a stalemate is one of the few opportunities to counter a legion of skeletons. How will this be possible with your new change?

By playing to a draw instead of winning. It's the same counter, just better balanced. You didn't play well enough for a win either. ;-)
Do you seriously think that by running away from skeletons you have the right to say you countered them and deserve a win?
I remember back in my first year of law school, I was taught that there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Perhaps it's worth remembering that?
I am sure that the only way to think today's rules make sense is to lie to yourself and completely turn a blind eye to the fact that the point of the game is to destroy the opponent. If you cannot destroy the opponent, you do not have the right to a win in the game.

Secondly, you'll have to think a lot less with your head in battles between low-tier units... Under the current rules, when you attack, say, some fairies with 20 bone dragons or zombies, you first need to think about how you're going to kill those fairies, especially if the fairies have magic.
I'll give a simple example: say Vidomina is standing there with 7 individual fairies, 20 mana, 4 archers. You have Kira with bone dragons and zombies bought in the Necro village, 30 mana, 6 archers. If you attack as is, you won't have enough mana for all the individual units, you'll have to retreat. So you need to think, look for a solution to this problem. Either rely on ransom and immediately buy another hero, or look for some upgraded snake, or maybe a couple of archers. In general, you need to prepare for the battle first, and then attack. And this is very good, it makes players take this aspect of the game more seriously. In your case, it will be enough to simply attack smaller forces with a large army, and they will have to retreat.

But that's the thing — those smaller forces won't necessarily have to retreat. You're not reading carefully. The defender can offer a draw, not retreat. And if the attacker planned to win the game — then they'll have to retreat. ;-)
And if the defender truly believes they are winning the game — then they will retreat, not offer a draw. And they won't be too upset about it.

And for example on M200 such battles happen every turn.

Why lie? There are just as few truly deadlocked battles there. Not even close to every turn. Besides, you need to consider what was written just above. All else being equal, whoever needs it more will retreat.

The draw option is technically unfeasible, so I won't even comment on it.

What problem do you see? The draw is not offered in the battle.
The draw is IN THE GAME OVERALL. That is, you need to weigh — what is more important to you, this battle or the entire match.
If the defender creates a stalemate situation, they ask in PM (or in the game) — draw? The attacker replies — draw. They write a report. Draw. That's it.
What is the problem with the technical implementation?

You write that it would be fairer if the one evading has to retreat, that may be true, but it will greatly impoverish the tactical and strategic components of the game. You'll have to think a lot less with your head, just blindly necro and not worry about anything in the endgame.

Necromancy is imbalanced as it is. Don't shift the blame from the sick to the healthy.

In WT they removed necromancy. Fair? Fair. Did it impoverish the game? It impoverished it.

In my opinion, it enriched it instead. A debatable (and also indirectly relevant) issue, we'll discuss it in private, and come back if we reach a consensus.

They added army experience. Fair? Possibly. Did it impoverish? It impoverished.

In my opinion, it enriched it instead. A debatable (and also indirectly relevant) issue, we'll discuss it in private, and come back if we reach a consensus.

As for citing the situation in the specific game Oldboy-Shemonyu, it's not worth it at all, as this is a very rare case, and besides, the attacker had a very real chance to win the battle, but he didn't use it.

He had a very real chance to lose almost his entire army and the game if he tried to avoid the stalemate, not to win the battle. You saw the ending, when the birds had already done all the work, but to avoid the stalemate — he would have had to put them directly under attack right away.

Besides, all players have long been accustomed to the rule about stalemates, and it will take a long time for them to get used to the new wording. And our current wording on this aspect aligns with the rules of other resources. How are we supposed to play in inter-portal games?

Yes. I believe the rule about stalemates should be changed on all resources, because what exists now is a pain in the ass and a disappointment on all resources. And among the Westerners, if I understood Maretti correctly, the generally accepted rule is fight or run.
They'll get used to it.