Posts from Rules for online battles in Heroes of Might and Magic II.

You can also add a comment.
In my opinion, you've raised the main issue absolutely correctly.
Either a single, unified ranking system, or a separate one.
In general, it would be good if the players could express their opinions, but the final decision is up to you. I think you're right about the 3rd or 4th game.
As for the frequency of updates.
This primarily depends on the availability of free time. If there is enough time, you can update after each game. If not, then, say, every two weeks or every week.
It would probably be interesting to calculate the rating based on the reports that have already been published.
The duration of the seasons...
You can divide everything into two stages: before your arrival and after :)))
Then the first stage will end, for example, on February 29th, and there will be a table and ranking based on the published reports.
And, say, the spring season will start on March 1st...
But, I repeat once again, you are the host, you are the moderator, so you don't have to consider these ideas of mine.
I will try to help with the upcoming offline tournament. Although it sounds strange, I am organizing it with online ideas in mind, and I hope that during and after it, the number of online players will increase!! I can't talk about it in more detail until the tournament starts...

You will succeed!!

But, I repeat once again, you are the host, you are the moderator, so you don't necessarily have to consider these ideas of mine.

Does this mean that because I'm the host, I can just do whatever I want? I won't create an unplayable system.

I'm interested in constructive feedback from those who understand online gaming.
For example, is it better to reduce the points awarded for a victory after 2 wins, or after 3-4?

I propose a set of rules with minor changes to the scoring system, and I've also added a clause regarding players agreeing to modify the rules. Grammatical errors in the original text have been corrected. I'm giving you 3 days to discuss the rules and make changes. After three days, the rules will be posted as a separate (important) topic in the Heroes 2 - online section. So, here are the **RULES**: Registration Rules: Any player wishing to participate in the tournament must submit an application including: Nickname; Convenient time; ICQ (preferred). Tournament Version: Heroes of Might and Magic 2 Gold (English version). Playing on the Russian version is not prohibited. The main requirement is that it is the Price of Loyalty 2.1 version. Scoring Rules (for now, this is just my proposal, and it is open to criticism): In the first three games between two players, the winner receives 10 points, and the loser receives 2 points. If the opponents agree to a draw, each receives 4 points, but a draw cannot be agreed upon before the 2nd week of the 2nd month (by the way, why exactly that many days? Maybe we can reduce it?). In the fourth game, 8 points are awarded for a win, and 2 points for a loss. In the fifth game, 6 points are awarded for a win, and nothing is awarded for a loss; a draw results in 2 points for each player. In the sixth game (and onwards), 4 points are awarded for a win, and nothing is awarded for a loss or a draw. Game Rules: 0) Players must play fairly! It is forbidden to use any bugs, cheats, or open save files before the end of the game. 1) Two players agree on the date and time of the game. 2) Players choose the map themselves, but the victory conditions must be standard. 3) The game difficulty is always "Knight". 4) Castle selection: one player chooses 2 castles, and the second player determines which castle they will play. The castles can be the same. In the first game, the right to choose belongs to the player who finished worst in the previous tournament or to a newcomer; in the second game, they switch places. 5) The winning player must publish their result in the following format: winner_nickname (color, castle, main hero, indicate who is the host) def loser_nickname (color, castle, main hero); map on which the game took place; Game duration (month, week, day); Which game in a row with the same opponent. Below, a brief description of the game. Example: Gynnar (green, Warlock, Knight, host) def Brennan (yellow, Warlock, Barbarian), Teleporters_HL, 1-4-3 6) The losing player must confirm the winner's words and write their own description. Prohibitions: 1. It is forbidden for a redeemed hero (after escaping or being ransomed) to attack the opponent during the redemption turn (whether it's a player or a computer). It is allowed to move such a hero. 2. It is forbidden to join units, either through diplomacy or otherwise. If a request to join neutral units is received, it must be refused, and a battle must ensue. 3. When entering the Demon Cave, a battle is mandatory. 4. It is forbidden to recruit spirits. 5. It is forbidden to visit abandoned ships, graveyards, and sphinxes. 6. It is forbidden to use the Dimension Door and Teleportation spells. 7. It is forbidden to dig up the ultimate artifact without revealing the entire puzzle map. 8. It is forbidden to visit pyramids. Battle Rules: If a player attacks an opponent and cannot win or lose (for example, one has an Iron Golem, and the other has a Sprite), the attacker must retreat. Host rushing is prohibited – the host attacking the second player on the first day of the week with the redeemed creatures of that week. P.S. Players may agree among themselves to change the rules, with the exception of the rule of fair play – the prohibition of using cheat codes. In such a case, they must write about the changes to the game rules in the report.

Point 7. On Teleport maps, it is physically impossible to visit all obelisks; one is inaccessible. Regarding draws, the principle is clear: to prevent an abundance of easy reports. However, for some maps, such as HotSpot or SlugFest, I suggest that players can agree on a draw earlier, and whether it is counted or not is decided by the organizer. The point is that on such maps, the struggle often leads to a serious attack by one player on another (whoever attacks first loses, even if they defend, they cannot recover their strength and quickly become a victim of the opponent), but there are often situations where neither player can attack the other, and the opponent can no longer do anything to them (for example, our game with Dust on SlugFest). Therefore, either a list of maps with a shorter time limit (an undesirable option), or players have the right to agree on a draw earlier than turn 221, but the organizer can annul the result. Regarding reducing the number of points for games with the same opponent, it will make sense if at least ten participants are gathered, i.e., about 5 people join from HW, otherwise there will be no one to play with. 4-5 opponents interested in online play on HW, 4 games with each (with some, you're lucky if you get 1), so ten countable games in 3 months is a great tournament. :smile45:

Point 7. It is physically impossible to visit all the obelisks on the Teleporters; one is inaccessible.

We can add a note that if an obelisk is inaccessible, it is possible to manage without visiting it. Otherwise, the restriction should remain.

Regarding draws, the principle is clear – to avoid generating easy reports. However, for some maps, such as HotSpot or SlugFest, I suggest that players can agree on a draw earlier, and whether it is counted or not is decided by the host. The point is that on such maps, the struggle often leads to a serious attack by one player on the other (whoever attacks first usually loses, even if they defend, they cannot recover their strength and quickly become a victim of the opponent), but there are often situations where neither player can attack the other, and the opponent can no longer do anything to them (for example, our game with Dust on SlugFest). Therefore, either a list of maps with a shorter time limit (an undesirable option), or players have the right to agree on a draw earlier than 221, but the host can annul the result.

Yes, perhaps such an amendment can be made. But on what parameters can the host decide whether to accept or reject a game?
For now, I don't see any other realistically working methods, except for the mentioned list of maps with corresponding time limits :(

Regarding reducing the number of points for games with the same opponent, it will make sense if at least ten participants are gathered, i.e., about 5 people from HW join; otherwise, there will be no one to play with. 4-5 opponents interested in online play on HW, 4 games with each (with some, we'll be lucky if we get 1), so ten countable games in 3 months is a wonderful tournament.:smile45:

So, are you suggesting that we completely abandon the gradual reduction of points for games between players? I didn't dare to completely abandon this point; I only softened it a little because I don't know the entire history of the development of this scoring system.
For example, we can make this reduction after the 4th game.
Still, if there are 10 games per season between the same players who enjoy playing with each other, without reducing points, it is unlikely to encourage more interest in the tournament.

6) The losing player must confirm the winner's words and write their own description.

In my opinion, it shouldn't be that strict. There might be a situation where the losing player simply won't be able to access the internet for some time. Therefore, I suggest the following revision:
6) The losing player must confirm the winner's words and write their own description. If no description is provided within 3 days (negotiable), the victory is awarded to the player who first submits a description.
Regarding draws, I think it's okay to postpone the decision for a week, but not longer.
That is, after a month, a draw can be declared (but only with mutual consent), but not earlier. There are many reasons, and I won't list them all, but I think they are clear to everyone.
Everything else seems to be fine.

6) The losing player must confirm the winner's words and write their own description.

In my opinion, it shouldn't be that strict. There might be a situation where the losing player simply won't be able to access the internet for some time. Therefore, I suggest the following revision:
6) The losing player must confirm the winner's words and write their own description. If no description is provided within 3 days (negotiable), the victory will be awarded to the player who first submits the description.

It only sounds strict, but in reality, the absence of immediate confirmation does not mean a rejection of the match. You can confirm it even after a week.
Your amendment is not needed; the victory will be awarded to the winner in any case, regardless of who submits the description first.

Posted the rules. Decided to hold 5 games between the same players for now, without any point deductions.

A question has come up regarding the rules. Is it allowed to block the exit of a teleporter with your own scout hero, so that the opponent cannot use that teleporter?

I have a question about the rules. Is it allowed to block the exit of a teleport with your own scout hero so that the opponent cannot use that teleport?

Of course it's allowed! This technical trick, which usually causes great frustration for the player trapped inside, is a signature "feature" of Heroes II specifically and significantly diversifies game strategy...