Creating unified inter-portal rules. — Polls

КостяN

1/3/2009 10:44 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Hermit

Added 6 minutes later
I suggest implementing the following rule: if both players want to play with a 4-minute timer, then they play with a 4-minute timer, but if at least one of them wants to play with a 6-minute timer, then they should play with a 6-minute timer.

I'm all for it! Some people say: if you can't manage in 2 minutes, you're slow (and this is a new, but definitely not the worst player on the World), but I still find that even 4 minutes is sometimes too short, although I usually manage. I don't want to lose because I don't have enough time or make silly mistakes in the last few seconds!

Ибу ибуди - хуйдао муди - Шаг за шагом можно достигнуть цели (китайская мудрость)

Кто к нам с пером придёт, тот от пера и погибнет!:smile51:

Loi

1/7/2009 1:27 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I suggest a compromise between 4 and 6 minutes: We play with a 4-minute time limit, but each player has the option to load their autosave N times (for example, N=3, or possibly N can be discussed before the game...) and continue playing (like taking an extra minute in the game, similar to "What, Where, When"). Since when loading their autosave, the 4-minute countdown restarts...

Стратегия - искусство возможного.

Первое правило форума :
"Хвалу и клевету приемли равнодушно
И не оспаривай глупца" (с)

Новичкам: ВНИМАТЕЛЬНО перечитайте ВЕСЬ первый пост по нижеприведенной ссылке и 90% ваших вопросов отпадут( на остальные 10% с удовольствием отвечу):
Правила онлайн игр

злой_романтик

1/7/2009 1:38 PM UTC

Auto-translated

In principle, why not? However, it should be limited to a certain small number (say, 3-4 times per game), otherwise it could lead to unnecessary prolongations of the game.

In reply to Loi

Дубровин Павел

1/7/2009 1:40 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I don't know, 4 minutes is enough for me in the "No Limit" mode, let's maybe set it to 10, and what, we can do more, analyze everything in more detail. I agree that "Heroes" cannot be called a dynamic game, and we can come to the conclusion that we will limit ourselves to one game on a weekend day, which is destructive. It's just that you don't need to chase two or three rabbits, but solve problems as needed. No, I am absolutely in favor of 4 minutes. Sometimes I compromise, but this is an exception, not a rule, and in the rules of "Volga" we need to leave 4 minutes.

С истиной где-то рядом...

Лето 2010.

xunter

1/7/2009 1:42 PM UTC

imho...absolutno oboudnoe reshenie doljno byt' !!
na usmotrenie playerov.....tem samym mojno budet izbejat' nedovol'stv...vse.

In reply to xunter

Dirty_Player

1/7/2009 1:59 PM UTC

Auto-translated

xunter

in my opinion... it should be an absolutely customizable option!!
up to the players' discretion...

Yeah. One says let's have 4, the other says let's have 6.... There's no compromise here, because you can't play for just 5 minutes :D

In reply to Dirty_Player

xunter

1/7/2009 2:12 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

Yeah. One says let's play for 4 minutes, the other says let's play for 6... There's no compromise here because you can't play for 5 minutes :D

If they want to play, they'll agree... and in tournaments, you can set a fixed time...
imo...4 minutes is enough...

Lider1

1/7/2009 2:13 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I can do it in 6 minutes, of course. I deliberately don't play with 4-minute time limits because I don't have enough time to transfer my armies (especially in Conflux!). But if someone can manage with 4 minutes, let them play with that time limit (it doesn't matter, even if it's just one person). Personally, I'm just looking for an opponent with a similar mindset. But in all sorts of OFFICIAL tournaments, I insist on a time limit of 6 minutes.

Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/
За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того

In reply to Дубровин Павел

bRitvo4kA

1/7/2009 2:16 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Dubrovin Pavel

No, I am absolutely in favor of 4 minutes. Sometimes I compromise, but this is an exception, not the rule, and the rules for Volod should keep the 4-minute limit.

I absolutely agree and support that! :smile12:

В дикім полі

In reply to Lider1

xunter

1/7/2009 2:19 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Lider1

I can do it in 6 minutes, of course. I don't play on 4 minutes because I don't have enough time to transfer armies (especially in Conflux!). But if someone can manage 4 minutes, let them play on 4. (Whatever, even if it's just one). Personally, I'm just looking for an opponent with a similar mindset. But in all sorts of OFFICIAL tournaments, I insist on a time limit of 6 minutes.

vot vot...+1
o 4em ya i hotel skazat'...

In reply to xunter

Dirty_Player

1/7/2009 4:20 PM UTC

Auto-translated

As one of the players (unfortunately, I don't remember who) said: Fast clicking is also one of the components of the game! The game already takes too much time, and deliberately prolonging it... Why?

Loi

1/7/2009 10:33 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Fast-clicking is also one of the elements of the game!

And this, I think, is Stinger...

Стратегия - искусство возможного.

Первое правило форума :
"Хвалу и клевету приемли равнодушно
И не оспаривай глупца" (с)

Новичкам: ВНИМАТЕЛЬНО перечитайте ВЕСЬ первый пост по нижеприведенной ссылке и 90% ваших вопросов отпадут( на остальные 10% с удовольствием отвечу):
Правила онлайн игр

In reply to Loi

Kash

1/8/2009 12:37 AM UTC

Auto-translated

A few thoughts.

1. 6 minutes is definitely preferable. The reasons have already been stated, and I won't repeat myself. Sometimes I can't manage in 4 minutes because 1) I'm not very good; 2) I want to improve.
BUT: some people can manage in 6 minutes – why take that advantage away from them? Those who want 6 minutes can agree on it, and the rules can state 4 minutes.

loi

I suggest a compromise between 4 and 6 minutes:
We play with 4 minutes, but each player has the option to load their autosave N times (for example, N=3, or N can be discussed before the game...) and finish the game.

That's a fresh idea, I like it. Bravo. I will definitely try it. But again, it should be by agreement. Including this in the rules would be an unnecessary hassle.

2. Resetting to turn 116 during a match is nonsense.
I remember when a player with 40 upgraded bows and other things appeared on my opponent's starting town at turn 113. There were two options: either try to defeat him with a difficult combination of units or reset to turn 113. I chose to reset to 113, but what if that wasn't possible? My pride would have been hurt, and it's a ridiculous rule anyway.

3. Building 3 levels of magic in two castles when you don't have a 4th castle, but really need it, is nonsense. I will never do that; I'll just discard the scroll.

It's all just my opinion.

Hermit

1/15/2009 4:34 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Wouldn't this compromise lead to some players saving in autosave.gm2 before a risky battle, and if they lose, they'll say: "Oh, I didn't have enough time, let me load my file and finish it!!!"? And of course, they'll load the file where they saved before the attack.

Wlk777

1/17/2009 3:19 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I suggest limiting the use of magic, at least by requiring the hero to have a corresponding level of Wisdom and a built Guild of Mages in the castle, regardless of the presence of any artifacts.

Added 1 minute later

Hermit

Wouldn't this compromise lead to some players saving in autosave.gm2 before a risky battle, and if they lose, they'll say: "Oh, I didn't have enough time, let me load my file and finish it!!!"? And of course, they'll load the file where they saved before the attack.

If a person strives for a not entirely fair game, they will find a way to cheat anyway. IMHO. And this can be seen as a small trick within the rules.