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

Guys, we want to play a game that is more or less balanced! Victory shouldn't depend on simple luck. If a player conducts battles more skillfully and loses fewer troops, that should be the first step towards victory. If a player explores the map faster and loots treasures quicker, that should be the second step towards victory. And if they also manage to loot the opponent's treasures faster, that's almost a guaranteed victory, and a well-deserved one.
But if, with equal development, one player gets some random artifacts, and the other gets complete control, that's it, they win, and there's no point in continuing the game. If there were a spell in the game called "win the map," we would definitely ban it, right? Well, complete control is essentially "winning the map." Isn't that right?

In section 5.1 of the rules, the commentary mentions the "third level" (which could also be the fourth level), while at the beginning it says "upon reaching," which are slightly different concepts. It would be more accurate to state: "when reaching 2000 or 3200 experience points." The restriction on developing mage heroes beyond the third level is a significant limitation, as specialist heroes (fighters) with secondary skills like Offense and Armor are not restricted, and their "powerful" effect is similar to magic. It's just that heroes develop along a different path of specialization from the beginning.
I disagree with including Alamar and Jeddite, especially the latter, on this list. Although they have regeneration, I don't recall anyone using them in those scenarios, either from the start or later (Alamar is useful as a supporting player), where they are not prohibited. The restriction on their use of magic against opponents is sufficient. As for the heroes from Conflux, the situation is the same. And their appearance in other cities is probably just luck that happens from time to time. By the way, dismissed heroes can reappear in the tavern later. How should we deal with them?
The Necromancer faction is good even without Vampire Lords. But if they are so desired, why not allow them from the 6th week, for example.
Tanta's signature spell can also be learned in the Shrine of Magical Thought, so it could be allowed after visiting such a location.

In section 5.1 of the rules, the comment mentions the "third level" (this could also be the 4th level).

Exactly. When a hero reaches level 4, they should be dismissed on the same day.
I had an idea (and I've already discussed it with many players and am almost ready to make a decision): remove all restrictions from all heroes :D, except, of course, for Muelich, Vidomina, and Izra. Feel free to use Chain Lightning, Meteor, Resurrection, and everything else, BUT, first, build the corresponding structure. I think this would be fair. Of course, if Solmyr arrives early in the second week, loaded with mana, it will be very difficult to win against him. But it's unlikely that anyone will be able to build a level 4 structure in the second week. And if they do, any other hero can learn Chain Lightning. So what if Chain Lightning is slightly weaker? In my opinion, it's not that significant. And from the third or fourth week, all mages are not as dominant anymore. The same applies to all mage-warriors. For Tantu to use Resurrection, either build a Guild of Mages 3 or find Resurrection somewhere in a shrine and use it. Ciel? A random hero with Conflux will help to fight her. Let's minimize the restrictions and limitations. Maybe this will at least slightly improve the mages' performance in random games and people will start playing them. Otherwise, all you read in the reports is that Tazar beat up Krahg, or that the Miner took 3 artifacts in the first week, arrived at the enemy's base early in the second week with 10 angels, and crushed Kirra. Maybe the main mage heroes will finally appear in the reports. And honestly, what makes Shakti weaker than Ciel?! Ciel has a cheating archer, but Shakti has such high damage that she can break through almost everything in the first week. What makes the unfortunate Luna more "cheating" than Tazar?! A wall that everything breaks through? Then tell me, how do you kill a level 20 Tazar who, God forbid, also has a red orb?! In one of the games, when I was taking a level 3 Utopia with Tazar, the dragons couldn't even kill a hundred gnolls that I had taken for a raid. Or how is the unremarkable Tantu with his Resurrection better than Kirra?! Skeletons already multiply at a crazy rate, and a couple of dozen skeletons here and there don't matter. But when you play against Kirra, no matter where I am, I'm always afraid to start a rush, fearing that Swiftfoot will reach me. And what's the point of Chain Lightning if Kirra clears half the map in one turn? And if she also has boots + gloves + stable? Then how do you fight her? So, either I woke up on the wrong foot today, or the opposite :), but I still suggest playing without banned heroes. Muelich, Vidomina, and Izra are banned, of course. They really dominate, and there's no getting around that. Vidomina and Izra can be leveled up, but they cannot specialize in spellcasting.

We apologize for the inaccuracies and shortcomings in the current rules; everything will be corrected, added, and approved soon

I've read through the discussion and would like to share my opinion: 1) If you, as PRO-level players, aim to reduce everything to such an extent that only the player's skill influences the game's outcome, why don't you switch to TE? This version is specifically designed to achieve two things: 1 - simplify the online experience through the interface and possibly other features... 2 - balance the game by reducing it to a point where you can develop both armor and magic, so the effect is the same. If you don't want to lose to a less skilled player, play TE or use fixes – all problems will be solved. 2) Regarding heroes, I don't see the point in prohibiting the development of a hero beyond level 3. It's simpler to prohibit them from engaging in battles and recruiting troops; let them be level 30 – it doesn't matter. That's all for now.

By the way, here's some food for thought.

1. If upgrading Vampires is prohibited, what should you do in a situation where, for example, Pandora gives you 20 Vampire Lords? Disband them? Then the question arises: what was the point of defending them?

2. Recently, my Mage learned the Water Elemental spell on day 3. Does it even make sense to build a Guild to summon water elementals?

1. If upgrading vampires is prohibited, what should you do in a situation where, for example, Pandora gives you 20 Vampire Lords? Should you disband them?

Why disband them right away? The rules won't say you can't use upgraded vampires. You just can't build an enhancer. And if you find vampires in a box, bite whoever you want with them. After all, Pandora also gives you level 5 magic. And that's much cooler than 20 vampires.

2. Recently, on day 3, my Wizard learned the Water Elemental spell. The question is, do I need to build a guild to summon fish?

We need to think about this.

I'm not entirely happy with the mandatory restart:
– if the starting hero is above level one.
For example: I get a starting hero, let's say with level 3 or 20, it doesn't matter, but I have an amazing respawn point. I'd rather dismiss the starting hero and play with another one than restart the game!!! Please consider this.

I'm not entirely happy with the mandatory restart rule:
– if the starting hero is above level one.
For example: I get a starting hero, let's say with level 3 or 20, it doesn't matter, but I have an amazing respawn point. I'd rather dismiss the starting hero and play with another one than restart the game!!! Please consider this.

I don't see any obstacles to agreeing on this with your opponent. If you were to account for every such minor detail, every specific case, you would need to write an entire rulebook spanning dozens of pages, and then spend a month memorizing it. I asked everyone for weeks, through ICQ, private messages, and in the chat, to leave their suggestions, because the rules will be updated/changed soon, and the next change will be a while away. So, some people have already complained that they didn't have time to get used to the previous rules before new ones appeared. Therefore, the rules cannot be changed every week or even every month. For the next modification of the rules, we will try to take your wish into account, as well as the advice and recommendations of everyone who leaves them here ;)

I don't see any obstacles to agreeing on this with my opponent.

To be honest, I VERY rarely chat, and unfortunately, you didn't write to me on ICQ (we could have discussed it).
And I've already written about this topic... And then I had to restart.

To be honest, I VERY rarely chat, and unfortunately, you didn't write to me on ICQ (we could have discussed it).
And I've already written about this topic... And then I had to restart.

Please forgive me, but I unfortunately can't personally write to 59 participants on ICQ and personally discuss with each one which rules suit them and which don't! I'm telling you personally that the new rules were being developed for more than a week and by more than one person, and besides, I also have a family and children who also require some attention. I wrote in almost every topic in this section, in the chat, and even in private messages to some, but for some reason, only a few players participated in the discussion. And as soon as the rules were published, complaints immediately started. And sorry if anything, but I didn't see the posts you wrote regarding this issue. Maybe I'm inattentive, but I'll try to be more attentive next time.

I would like to suggest an amendment to the following rules:
After the opponents have been determined, one of them will have the option to start with "all random." Sometimes, you just want to play as Haven or Necropolis, but after playing so many games, these factions are always the first to be eliminated :-(. Moreover, with each restart, the faction is not the one that was initially chosen, but rather "all random" again. This will add variety to the restart strategy, and if you want a chance to get the faction you want, you can restart, hoping for it, but there is a risk of getting a completely unfavorable setup. Believe me, I have played many games this way, and it has always been very interesting and intriguing.

[QUOTE="[r59*Maniac'];153791"]It is necessary to prohibit the use of Fortress and map editor.[/QUOTE]
You should read the rules – they are already prohibited.

Here, the idea arose to post final save files of battles in the "online reports" thread. This would serve as a post-match analysis between opponents and would definitely attract the attention of Fortress players, at least that's what I think.
Well, if, as vbn says, it's unlikely to make this mandatory, then it's safe to say that it's definitely welcome. :)
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

In my opinion, it won't be possible to make this mandatory, as not all games end with a final boss fight, and not everyone saves before attacking another hero.

The idea arose here to post the final save files of battles in the "online reports" thread.

This will always be welcome, but I don't think it should be made a mandatory addition to the report. If many players are already stressed about writing reports according to a specific template, this would be too much. Well, we're lazy, what can you do? :)