Posts from Changes to the rules for offline Heroes 3 tournaments!

In this thread, I suggest that all players interested in offline tournaments try to express their opinions on two questions regarding changes to the rules:

1) Play with a patch or without it;
2) Play with a third victory condition (like Mercury used to have), or without it.

I also ask you to vote in this thread.

Based on the majority opinion, a decision will be made about changing the rules for offline Heroes 3 tournaments.

Heroes III Tournament "Adventures of Shakti" - the first tournament conducted using a patch!

[PATCH] Morale and Luck - discussion of the Patch

Program for determining luck/morale in Heroes 3! - discussion of the program

P.S. Please, all players, clearly state your own opinion, not an imposed one.

Sincerely, VDV_forever

1. Play with the patch. In my opinion, the morale (luck) that depends on the animation of the warriors is a bug that must be prohibited!
2. At the discretion of the tournament organizer. Previously, the rules did not require the presence of mandatory victory criteria, so why introduce them now? Let the organizer decide how many and what criteria will be in his tournament.

As I see it, the changes that vbn recently made to the rules are the most correct at the moment (until new bugs are found in the game).

Good luck to everyone!

I would like to highlight an important advantage of the new version of the LMpatch patch v.4.1.1.1 (link; authors: Monza, AlexSpl). Installing the patch has become very easy, and the patch itself now does not modify any files in Heroes 3 (previously, these were H3bitmap.lod and Cranim.txt)! Now you don't have to worry about how to remove (uninstall) the patch or how to restore everything to its original state. After installing the patch, a new file simply appears in the Heroes folder: "Heroes3 LM Patch v.4.1.1.1.exe". And now, if you want to play with the patch, just run this file. If you don't want to play with the patch, launch the regular Heroes file as before (usually heroes3.exe).

1. The game WITHOUT any patches! Classic SoD 3.2!
Because a patch changes the game structure established by the developers! The morale and luck mechanism in HEROES 3 is different from the mechanism in other parts, and one should not mix them up! It doesn't matter how it "seems" to one person or another's "humble IMHO"! In offline, everyone is by definition on equal terms!!!

2. The third victory criterion is at the organizer's discretion, but "by default" it should be cancelled!
The presence of a third criterion adds a lot of unnecessary fuss and also forces battles to be fought without losses (thereby encouraging morale fishing), only to later sell the surviving creatures in the Free Workers Guild!
"Regarding the advice" of other people to ignore the 3rd criterion because it is rarely reached, I will answer! If I am playing in a tournament, then within my capabilities, I want to perform as best as possible across all three (or even four, as in the Race) criteria!!

3. Two very fundamental questions have arisen on the agenda:
A) Should the sum of primary stats be calculated before the final battle or after?
B) Should the sum of primary stats be calculated including artifacts or excluding artifacts!
I lean towards calculating BEFORE the final battle, i.e., directly in the submitted save, as a matter of fact! As for the artifacts, the question is very controversial! It needs to be discussed!

1. Play on the original version (SoD). The question is whether it is possible to hold Tournaments without interfering with the game's structure. Yes, by introducing restrictions on replaying battles by the tournament organizer, if the outcome of the battle depends on morale/luck. There will be a limited number of such complex battles, and players will not have difficulty (in case of any insurmountable doubts) requesting the organizer to check the legitimacy of the battle, and the organizer, in turn, will process a certain number of such requests. I suggest setting the number of restrictions on replaying a battle to 50. Let's consider this issue from another angle. Suppose we introduce a so-called patch. Which game will the Tournament be held on then? Heroes 3? No. With the so-called patch, the combat mechanics are completely different, and therefore, no decent person would call this game Heroes 3. In this case, come up with a name for this new game. 2. Cancel the third criterion (mercury and some other resource). I'll explain why: - The third criterion is simply unnecessary. Think of at least one Heroes 3 Tournament where the second criteria matched, and the third was not even a factor. - In the vast majority of Tournaments, strong players push for maximum results. In addition to the difficulty of the map itself, the third criterion adds completely unnecessary hassle with resource gathering. - It encourages players to use "traffic light" tactics to optimize losses, considering that there is almost always a Guardian on the map. - The absence of the third criterion will further encourage players to "squeeze out" the maximum result. Even if the players have the same results according to the second criterion, it is quite fair to award prizes to both, of course, provided that the playthroughs are different. 3. a) after the final battle. b) taking into account artifacts (more options for strategy). Everything else is fine. Just cancel the preliminary registration. I will definitely register an hour before the deadline for submitting saves.

1. Play with the patch. It speeds up the process on average and negates the advantage of people with unlimited time resources. All talk about not being able to check whether the patch was installed is just a smokescreen. Upon close examination (read: top walkthroughs), you can determine whether at least everything is repeated on the patch. If so, there's essentially no crime even if the patch wasn't installed and the save is accepted. Many saves cannot be verified, just as they cannot currently be verified for other methods of cheating. Both offline and online play largely relies on an honor system.
2. The third criterion is needed because ties on the first two do occur. If someone can't be bothered to optimize, that's their personal problem. I myself rarely optimize parameters fully and don't complain. If someone loses sleep over a shortfall of one mercury, they should see a psychotherapist, otherwise they might worry themselves into trouble. Perfectionism is a useful thing, but everything in moderation.
3. Parameters should be calculated with artifacts and AFTER the battle, because that is the final "strength" of the hero.

2 DmitriyAS and Dirty Player
Apparently you have a lot of free time and a strong love for random generation. Or maybe you've just won a lot because of it compared to others and don't want to give up such a "starting bonus"? :) This brings to mind

In offline, everyone is by definition on equal footing!!!

Let's look at this issue from another angle. Suppose we introduce a so-called patch. What game would the tournament then be based on? Heroes 3? No. With the so-called patch, the battle mechanics are completely different, and therefore an honest person wouldn't dare call this game Heroes 3. In that case, come up with a name for this new game.

Now reading THIS is truly astonishing. Let's leave aside the question of why you speak for all honest people, but apparently I am not an "honest person," because I would call the game Heroes 3. After all, the game was called Heroes even with the ban (pre-fix) on double-cast, killing a grand stack, etc. And that too is GAME MECHANICS, which were changed by a ban. Moreover, the patch actually brings the battle mechanics closer to what the developers intended, while the permanent morale in round 1 has already come to be considered normal. So your words are either extreme conservatism or simple hypocrisy.

1. For the patch. 2. For the third, fourth, fifth... criterion. 3. Artifacts should be taken into account, and parameters should be calculated after the battle. As I see it, the first two criteria should be left to the organizer's discretion, while the rest should be standard and unchanged – and they are only needed to rank players with equal results (this is a normal practice in professional sports) and to eliminate the factor of subjectivity. P.S. to DmitriyAS It's not clear why you are against the patch. New things are always met with skepticism, but are there any specific arguments? So far, everything I've read boils down to the fact that it's "no longer Heroes" and other things that are not very relevant to the topic at hand. What can you say about the substance of the matter? So far, the obvious advantages are: 1. Easier work for the organizer. 2. A constant battle map. Plus a few less obvious ones, such as reducing the actual time spent on battles. P.P.S. to DmitriyAS I respect your opinion, but let's not be subtly rude. I think you have enough arguments to express your thoughts without it.

I voted for the patch. Because I believe that it will bring much more good than harm. Good: 1. There will be no arguments (escalating into insults) about unrealistic battles. 2. Everyone will be on equal footing. 3. Any battle can be replayed if desired. 4. It saves time; there's no need to wait for morale. 5. It will be much easier for the moderators. Bad: 1. Some real battles will be impossible to win. For example: a Medusa might not be able to kill a single Azure Dragon. But this is insignificant compared to the positive aspects of the patch. Everyone will still be on equal footing. There are no other significant problems. Heroes 3 will remain Heroes 3, and there's no need to compare it to TE; they are completely different things. This is my personal opinion, and I won't force it on anyone, but I won't be convinced otherwise! According to Kostya, players are switching to HP. I'll say something about myself. I started playing there only because tournaments on HW were suspended. HP surprised me in a good way. The ranking system, the variety of tournaments, and the division into leagues are well thought out. There's a reason to join a clan. The character profile is also well designed. The quorum is almost always over 20 players. All these advantages should have been implemented on HW a long time ago. There are also some drawbacks. The map selection for some tournaments is simply terrible, compared to HW it's like night and day. The same goes for the preliminary results; it takes too long. On HW, you know who played how the very next day. In general, there are many tournaments on HP, but the organization suffers. Regardless, whether the game will be played with the patch or not, I will still play, both on HW and on HP. As long as I have free time.

Yes, and the new add-on, "Horn of the Abyss," will also be included in the patch.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, as applied to HMM III.

At first glance, it is difficult to form a definitive opinion on the matter. Because all parties have quite compelling arguments for implementing their concept of tournament organization. Both options are justified and have the right to exist.

Also, both sides use far-fetched counterarguments, which does not add objectivity to the view.

But, since the question has been raised, based on simple logic and pragmatism, I tend to adhere to the following options.

1. Play with the patch. But - at the player's discretion. If the absence of the patch does not give the player any advantages (as far as I understand, quite the opposite), then the player has the right to decide whether he needs the imposed determinism of events in battle or whether he is willing to sacrifice efficiency for the sake of preserving the spirit of the game.

Some play more like chess, and some play more like Heroes - and this happens on the same save. It is impossible to track the use of the "traffic light," or its creators will make every effort to ensure that it is so. Moreover, by default, it cannot be considered a violation of the game structure if a feature that increases the probability of the desired event is used, if that probability is initially greater than zero and is guaranteed by increasing the number of restarts. This is simply a time-saving for the player, like, for example, an excavator. The only downside is that "hardcore" players have lost their advantage. But they did not have it due to a deep knowledge of the game, but only due to the availability of free time.

2. The number of secondary criteria is entirely up to the tournament organizer.

There can be no mandatory conditions, in my opinion. There can be five criteria, because the probability of needing to apply the fifth criterion still remains, however small it may be. The third criterion still introduces enough variety into the game, as we have seen many times in previous tournaments. This does not affect the result of each individual player, but simply reduces the number of winners. And that is reasonable. In my opinion, there should be only one winner.

But, the opposite is also true - making it a mandatory condition would be a completely unreasonable decision. Different conditions from tournament to tournament are not a problem.

Because the main task of the tournament organizer is to ensure that all players participating in a particular tournament have the opportunity to play under equal conditions. And whether the player will use this opportunity or not depends, perhaps, on the weather forecast... :)

I apologize for such lengthy comments, but it is really not easy to find the only correct solution to this problem - perhaps it does not exist at all.

It’s very nice to see that at least someone from the monsters got updated in the patch… I 100% agree with Fireball regarding the voting and won’t repeat myself. I don’t want to get involved in the debate between the experts. I’ll take a look at what “Perfectionism” is now. And the medals are indeed a problem.

Sorry for the slight off-topic...

Regarding the medals: Medals are awarded at the end of each tournament, but only if the organizer has taken care of this. There is no automation for this process, and everything has to be done manually. The exception is the ВК tournament, where medals for all stages are awarded at the end of the year.
Therefore, if you don't have a medal but you took first place in the tournaments, then:

1. either you won one of the stages of the ВК tournament, and you need to wait until the end of the year.
2. or the tournament organizer considered that it was not necessary.

If you have the second option, then write to me in a private message, and I can help to establish justice in this matter.

Once again, sorry for the off-topic.

1. What should be written here? In my opinion, both sides have already clearly described the pros and cons of playing with or without the patch. 2. I am in favor of the mandatory second criterion, but also in favor of canceling the third one, that is, a complete cancellation... and not at the discretion of the organizer. Although, in rare tournaments, it may be necessary to tailor the criteria to a multitude of victory conditions, not necessarily just three... it could be more. In such tournaments, of course, this multifaceted set should be used. 3. Regarding primary skills: - consider their sum after the final battle - yes, taking into account the equipped artifacts PS: I hope that Dima and Kostya will change their position...

I'm against making the patch installation mandatory.

1. Play with the patch. If not, there's no real crime, even if the patch wasn't installed and the save is loaded.

Something like that. Want to play with the patch? Go ahead. Don't want to? Fine.

If someone is on edge 365 days a year, that's their problem. I got the impression that the patch isn't really for the players themselves, but for those who care about other people's results – so that everything is the same, so that everyone has the same experience, etc.

Apparently, you have a lot of free time and a strong love for the game. Or maybe you just won a lot more than others because of it and don't want to give up that "starting bonus"? :) This is just a side note.

:smile32:
Like, playing in an association? Or is this a side note about something else?

So, if the question is: is it mandatory to play with the patch or not? I'm in favor of the option to play the regular game.
If the question is about who's cheating and all that, like it was when the properties of the "Crimson" creature were discovered, then I really don't know... It's a pretty nasty thing to do – both to make excuses and to dig through other people's saves. The patch can help, and only in eliminating exactly this kind of problem.
But here's the thing: who exactly needs this, and what is it for?

What surprises me is this: more than half of those who voted for the patch don't participate in tournaments... Friends, what's up with that?