Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from DISCUSSIONS on “Rules for online games in HoMM3 and formulas for calculating player rating.”Auto-translated
Read the discussion pages about today’s rules, and you’ll understand why they are being restricted. There is a point for the particularly gifted in section 1.3.
Any changes to the rules are allowed with the mutual consent of the players, except for point 6 (Fair Play). That is, you can play according to mutually agreed-upon rules and even without any rules at all (again, point 6 applies under all circumstances).
Play according to any rules, if you can find players who agree to them.
Why are Necromancers and Conflux factions being nerfed, and why should they be forced to play without Vampires, Faeries, Psionicists, and Phoenixes? Why is Fortress on a hill banned, as it is always well-defended, and upgrading it should cost resources? Why are heroes like Solmyr, Deemer, and others being penalized by forcing them to wait for the corresponding magic levels to be built? We should play according to the rules proposed by the game developers, not invent bans.
Read this entire thread from the beginning... The developers initially created the game for single-player mode, so their goal was not to balance the factions and heroes. Now, Heroes is no longer just a game; it's an esport!
The developers initially created the game for single-player mode, so their goal was not to balance the castles and heroes.
Multiplayer was already present in the second Heroes game, and I think the standard balance proposed by the developers is good and doesn't require any changes. ;) I'm ready to play with anyone, preferably a strong player, without any restrictions. Write to me on ICQ.
I would also introduce a limited use of Diplomacy for its direct purpose: if monsters join, they can only be used to fight during the current day, and it is forbidden to use them against the opponent, and at the end of the day, the joined monsters must be dismissed. This is, so to speak, for the thrill ;). Otherwise, the game really turns out to be somewhat "neutered" :D .
As for the Vamp upgrade, the following restriction can be thought up: build it only after absolutely all other Necropolis structures are built:D , and the Amplifier, obviously, would be next-to-last in this scenario. There are daily saves, after all — no one can fool anyone with that. If you roughly calculate it, this will all happen around the middle to end of the 4th week (and that only if you have the necessary resources every day:eek: ), when most games are already ending or all the main objectives (taking con, Dragon Fly Hives, drowning) have been completed. So such an innovation shouldn't particularly harm anyone. Something similar could be thought up for Conflux; for example, the upgrade of Faeries no earlier than the 3rd week, Psychs — the 4th, Birds — the 5th (6th, 7th...).
Regarding scrolls, the rules also seem not very good, to my mind... Well, why not allow playing them against neutrals at least? Without building, that is.
I don't know about the fixed necromancer heroes, but something could be thought up for Mullich. Well, for example, he cannot be taken as a starting hero, and he cannot be used to attack the enemy, and at the moment the game ends, he cannot be the most leveled-up hero (in terms of experience points), meaning he also essentially can't be the main hero. He would be a sort of wildcard hero — if he comes to you, you're lucky:) .
Ибу ибуди - хуйдао муди - Шаг за шагом можно достигнуть цели (китайская мудрость)
Кто к нам с пером придёт, тот от пера и погибнет!:smile51:
Multiplayer was already present in the second Heroes game, and I believe the standard balance proposed by the developers is good and doesn't require any changes.
The vast majority of players think otherwise. Find someone who shares your opinion and enjoy playing.
As for the vampire upgrade, you could introduce the following restriction: it can only be built after all other Necropolis buildings have been constructed, and the Stronghold, of course, would be the second-to-last building in that case. Daily saves exist, so no one can cheat with this. If you calculate approximately, it will take until the middle to end of the 4th week.
Scorp built the first dragon lair in the castle... In TE, necromancy was completely removed, but according to tournament rules, it became possible to upgrade vampires. Even without necromancy, Necropolis is the most powerful castle in TE.
What I meant was: allow the construction of an Enhanced Estate after building **absolutely** all structures in the castle, and not just dwellings – including the guild up to level 5, the capitol (or magistrate), and all enhanced dwellings. And even if Scorpion built dragons in the castle on the first map, it still wouldn't have allowed him to build the upgraded vampires before the 4th week under the conditions I proposed.
Ибу ибуди - хуйдао муди - Шаг за шагом можно достигнуть цели (китайская мудрость)
Кто к нам с пером придёт, тот от пера и погибнет!:smile51:
I meant: allow the construction of an Enhanced Estate after building absolutely all buildings in the castle, and not just dwellings - including the guild up to level 5, and the capitol (or magistrate), and all enhanced dwellings. And even if Scorpion built dragons in the castle on the first week, it still wouldn't have allowed him to build the vampire upgrade before the 4th week under the conditions I proposed.
That's also a valid option =).
It's unlikely that anything will change after building the 5th tier and upgrading dragons...
And most importantly, the game will end much sooner :D
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
I don't think the rules for scrolls are very good... But why not allow them against neutral creatures? Without building, I mean.
Is it forbidden to use them against neutral creatures? :confused: Although, the wording is clear... it seems it is forbidden :eek: I think I've found another difference in the rules between World of Xeen and the Portal - on the Portal, using scrolls is only forbidden against player-controlled neutral creatures; you can at least use Implosion and Armageddon from level 111 :)
"Это нам идеально подходит!" [Новосибирск, 2013] "Красавчик! Если только не читер.." [Киев, 2014] "Это Вам не шутки - нажрался Dust в маршрутке" [Новокузнецк, 2015] Сам ты фиш (с) :D
If a stalemate situation occurs in battle, the attacking player must retreat. For example: the attacker has 100 gnomes left during the battle, and the defending hero has 1 fly. And the 100 gnomes cannot catch the fly. In this case, the attacker with 100 gnomes must retreat (or pay a ransom).
I believe that, on the contrary, the fly should retreat or pay a ransom, by analogy with boxing, where if one of the boxers is constantly on the offensive and the other is constantly evading, the victory is awarded to the attacking boxer.
From the rules: I believe the opposite is true; the fly should retreat or pay a bribe, similar to boxing, where if one boxer is actively attacking and the other constantly evades, the victory should be awarded to the attacker.
This is almost a philosophical question:D. And I would suggest that, I don't know how it should be in a simple fight, but if it's with gauntlets, it should be a draw, rather than the hassle that the rules imply. This would clearly be simpler and fairer!
Ибу ибуди - хуйдао муди - Шаг за шагом можно достигнуть цели (китайская мудрость)
Кто к нам с пером придёт, тот от пера и погибнет!:smile51:
Ideally, when using handcuff units, both should move forward and engage in combat. That is, the retreating side should accept the fight. If both are hesitant to move forward (for example, if there are two stacks of roughly equal strength and speed remaining), then the one who initiated the attack should move forward.
In my opinion, it's not worth legalizing auto-loading for gameplay situations that are not related to bugs or violations.
Ideally, with handcuffs, both units should move forward and fight.
Going to fight – IMHO, this is a very bad idea, as it forces you to make weak moves that lead to defeat! In a stalemate situation with handcuffs, IMHO, you should replay the battle without them!
Going into a fight – in my opinion, it’s a very bad idea, as it forces you to make weak moves that lead to defeat! In a stalemate situation with handcuffs, in my opinion, you should replay the battle without handcuffs!
Luckily, I haven’t encountered such a situation in the game yet, but I still think replaying the battle without handcuffs is some kind of absurdity, no offense to the respected players… Seriously, do you write down these moves in a notebook or something?:D And if there were 20-30 of them, do you remember them all – “I don’t believe it!” (Stanislavsky).
Ибу ибуди - хуйдао муди - Шаг за шагом можно достигнуть цели (китайская мудрость)
Кто к нам с пером придёт, тот от пера и погибнет!:smile51:
– restart after meeting up to turn 116, i.e., if players come into direct contact with each other with any of their heroes within the first six game days (simply put, any battle occurs between them), then one of them has the right to demand a restart. If both players agree to continue, then it is their right.
The question is addressed to the players: Alex_R and Aldegir.
StickyFingaz
