HeroesWorld

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

Online Tournaments
5.0 (1 rating)
In reply to Dirty_Player
User Avatar
Offline invisible
Registered:
Posts: 754
#222
Auto-translated
I suggest making a slight change:
Quote: – restart upon meeting up to turn 116, i.e., if any player's troops come into direct contact with each other (in other words, any battle between troops occurs) or if any object controlled by one player (castle, mine, resource) is captured by another player within the first six game days, then one of them has the right to request a restart. If both players agree to continue, that is their right.
+1
I suggest clarifying the following point:
5.15. The Grail can be unearthed after 5 weeks of play.
Clarify that visiting all obelisks is not required!

Regarding the use of forbidden spells against neutrals:
the rules implied that it was permissible to use them against neutrals without the GM's approval:
5.2. All hero-specialists in magic level 4, as well as Tant (Raise Dead), can use their specialized spells against an opponent in the following cases:...
It just needs to be clarified! I don't see any reason to prohibit them against neutrals. If you're born in the "wrong" place, and Solmyr shows up, he might help you break through somewhere, because there's only enough mana for one cast. But against an opponent, it's a cheat. I remember playing against Yakudza, and on week 1, he had a level 1 Solmyr with enough mana for 3 chains of 150+ (mage's crown, cloak +2/2, and a couple of stat boosters). Is there anything you can do against that? Yes, if you arrive early, there will be a restart due to the meeting, but he would also be good on turn 121, and he was only level 1!
If the majority are "FOR" it, I can adjust. But honestly, I don't really care; I would play either way. If Solmyr is allowed, maybe more people will play for the tower (of course, there's Nilka, but Solmyr is better for rushing). And Alamar and Aislin have very strong competitors (Shakti and Gosha), so it's unlikely that anyone will pick them as a starting hero. The problem with mages is that there are usually very few fountains on the map. Maybe we should add a Wiccc potion, maybe that will improve the template structure
Я ламер и играть не умею, нах!:smile33:
0
⚖️
0
In reply to vbn
User Avatar
Offline Дубровин Павел
Registered:
Posts: 1,832
#224
Auto-translated
vbn
Absolutely correct, the wording is unclear.
It most likely meant that the following should be approved: This clause means that a restart may be initiated in the following cases: during a battle between heroes, when capturing a castle, or when attacking a guarded object belonging to one of the players (e.g., a mine).

Do we approve this rule in this format? Let's express our opinions: "yes" or "no, and why (e.g., no, because I believe there should be the right to request a restart when capturing any enemy object, such as a mine, even if it is unguarded)."


I support the option proposed by VBN and am against the second option, where one can request a restart due to capturing a mine. After all, a "meeting" restart, in the spirit of the game, should be a meeting of Heroes; that's why it's called a "meeting" restart, i.e., someone meets someone else (as an exception, a restart due to a meeting can be considered when capturing an empty or guarded castle).
In my opinion, capturing a mine should not be considered a "meeting" restart.
It could also be said: "today I met a hat."
This is purely a subjective point of view.
С истиной где-то рядом...





Лето 2010.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Yakudza
User Avatar
Offline Wlk777
Registered:
Posts: 2,497
#225
Auto-translated
Such a heated discussion... I've played about fifty matches since registering here... NOT ONCE was there any contact in the first week. And in general, it's not gentlemanly or sportsmanlike to make winning at any cost your goal. Or are they already giving out rewards for ratings? IMO, a normal player doesn't try to defeat their opponent in the first week. That's not fair play, IMO. Let's strive for fair and, most importantly, mutually enjoyable gameplay, rather than meaningless ratings, okay?
1
⚖️
0
In reply to Wlk777
User Avatar
Offline Oelm
Registered:
Posts: 2,571
#226
Auto-translated
I support the "Dirty" option, but I don't object to VBN's suggestion either.

I'm against changing 5.2. I'm definitely in favor of banning the use of scrolls without a GM.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wlk777
User Avatar
Offline Dirty_Player
Registered:
Posts: 11,704
#228
Auto-translated
Wlk777
In my opinion, a decent player doesn't try to crush their opponent in the first week. That's not fair gameplay, in my opinion.
Hmm, but why exactly?
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Dirty_Player
User Avatar
Offline Wlk777
Registered:
Posts: 2,497
#229
Auto-translated
Dirty_Player
Hmm, but why, actually?
Firstly, IMHO, meaning this is my opinion, which is not an absolute truth :) Secondly, there is no interest at all. I believe that meeting in the first few days isn't like some Starcraft game, and as far as I know, they don't give out cows for ranking.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wlk777
User Avatar
Offline Dirty_Player
Registered:
Posts: 11,704
#230
Auto-translated
Wlk777
Firstly, IMHO, meaning this is my opinion, which is not an absolute truth :) Secondly, there is no interest at all. I believe that meeting in the first few days is not like some Starcraft game, and as far as I know, no rewards are given for ranking.
A rush in Starcraft and a rush in Heroes are essentially the same. Some players attack from the very beginning, while others may roam the map for 3 months, trying to win through attrition. Everyone has the right to win in the way they deem appropriate (of course, within the rules), and the ranking is completely irrelevant here.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wlk777
User Avatar
Offline Wicc
Registered:
Posts: 5,092
#231
Auto-translated
Wlk777
Firstly, IMHO, meaning this is my opinion, which is not an absolute truth :) Secondly, there is no interest at all. I believe that meeting in the first days is not like some Starcraft; as far as I know, cows are not given for ranking.
Playing in close contact is the most interesting thing. And good rush games are generally a delight.

My best game on the CM was with Rusya in ORP-1; there were 2 short paths across rough terrain, so I constantly attacked him with mages, with and without a powerful army, starting from the first week, exchanging troops, distracting him from his tasks, and eventually undermining his economy and combat power, and I won.

This style of gameplay is constantly applied on fixed maps and is very successful. I started with fixed maps, so when I came to random maps, I immediately didn't like the fact that the game goes in the style of "accumulate power, come and kill." The most interesting thing is the battles with each other and maneuvering at a distance.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline Oelm
Registered:
Posts: 2,571
#232
Auto-translated
"You don't choose your playstyle," I think I read that somewhere. And I want to talk about point 5.2: 1). Regarding the choice of starting hero – the current rules allow for using specialized spells against neutrals. So, feel free to start with Solmyr, Alamar, Jeddite, and others. Just build a Guildhall on the 1st or 2nd day and go for it. 2). Regarding scrolls in general – it's no secret that level 5 scrolls can be found behind a horde of a hundred pikemen (I found a Death Ripple that way once). Finding a transport spell on the 1st or 2nd week undoubtedly gives you a huge advantage without any effort. That's not good. 3). Regarding combat scrolls against neutrals – the reason why I'm in favor of banning them is more complex: the essence is that allowing such scrolls, firstly, reduces the importance of early Guildhall construction. That is, players using 4-5 heroes on the 1st day will not differ as much from those who play with 7-8 heroes, as resources will no longer need to be collected as much, and in the chains, you can ignore resources, which leads to an unjustified simplification of the game. In addition, if you get, for example, Prayer, Resurrection, Clone, or Chain Lightning, the hero's combat power can increase sharply. For example, with Expert Prayer, you can break through hordes of strong archers. And you can get such scrolls again just by luck, without much effort. 4). Once again about the starting hero – there will never be a 50/50 or even a 30/70 ratio! Because, if you don't get a decent fighter in the tavern, you can fall far behind in the first week. Let me give an example from my own game: I decided to start with the barbarian Dess on Jebus. In my opinion, if you're going to take mages, then take ones like that. Well, nothing came of it. And the reason is simple: in the first 3-4 days, there is always little mana. I attack neutrals, and they split up. And I can't wipe out the entire group with one spell, leaving 3-7 units, and they then take revenge on me or slowly damage the goblins. So, I couldn't even clear the second nest of birds with acceptable losses. But any fighter with offense (not to mention Crag) would easily break through all of that. So, to all those who want to start with mages, I recommend playing as Dess the barbarian to see what it's like. And I'm writing all this to say that you can start with a mage, but only if you have a strong stack of archers. That is, of all the castles, only starting with Solmyr in the Tower will make any sense. So, what's the problem then, if mages aren't that great? The problem is this combination: you get a specialized mage and a scholar. Now it's simple: you level up the scholar and transfer the spell to your main hero somewhere in the beginning of the 2nd week. Now, if you manage to catch the opponent's hero off guard, you can feel comfortable in battle. And you can also give the Teapot of Boiling Water to all the mages, give them a few units, and send them to the opponent's territory. And destroy vulnerable units, such as archers, with the Teapot or Meteor. Interesting? I don't think so, especially since you can do all this by building a 4th Guildhall, but then you'll have to come 2-3 days later, which can change things. P.S. But mages are great in fixed battles, so here's an option. And I would gladly play some Last of My Kind
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Yakudza
User Avatar
Offline Hermit
Registered:
Posts: 1,957
#233
Auto-translated
I am in favor of making the capture of an unguarded lumber mill, mine, or any other resource, dwelling, or town within the first 6 days a reason for a restart. This rule could be formulated as follows: if, within the first 6 days, contact between a hero of one player and any object belonging to another player (hero, town, mine, neutral creature) leads to a change in the number of flags for any player, then a restart should occur. Why do I think so? For the same reason that a restart occurs when two heroes make contact within the first six days.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline Wlk777
Registered:
Posts: 2,497
#234
Auto-translated
Wicc
Close-quarters combat is what makes the game truly engaging. And well-executed rush strategies are a real treat.

My best game on the CM map was against Rusya in ORP-1. We both got two short paths through the wilderness, so I constantly attacked him with mages, both with and without a powerful army, starting from the first week. I traded troops, distracted him from his plans, and eventually undermined his economy and military strength, leading to my victory.

This style of gameplay is consistently applied and very successful on fixed maps. I started with fixed maps, so when I switched to random maps, I immediately disliked the "accumulate power, then attack and win" style. The most interesting part is the battles and maneuvering at a distance.
Firstly, such posts should include "IMHO." Secondly, for example, I don't see anything interesting in early-game skirmishes. What's the point of the hero having 8 skill points if you can just rely on primitive battles between weak, small squads of early-level units, when even a single magic arrow is a powerful force? No, Heroes is a game about development, and "close-quarters combat" is more suited for Starcraft. You can look at the game reports to confirm this; most people say that the game becomes interesting only after at least the 3rd week. And you shouldn't oversimplify "accumulate power, then attack and win." It doesn't always work, and often a troop advantage doesn't lead to victory. In general, everything is much more complex.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline bRitvo4kA
Registered:
Posts: 1,127
#235
Auto-translated
Wicc
The most interesting part of the game is when you're in close combat. And good rush-style games are a real treat.

This style of gameplay is constantly used in fixed maps and is very successful. I started with fixed maps, so when I switched to random maps, I immediately didn't like the fact that the game is played in the style of "accumulate power, come and kill." The most interesting thing is the battles with each other and maneuvering at a shooting distance.
100% agree :smile01:
В дикім полі
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wlk777
User Avatar
Offline Wicc
Registered:
Posts: 5,092
#236
Auto-translated
Wlk777
Firstly, such posts should include this, in my opinion. Secondly, for example, I don't see anything interesting in the skirmishes at the beginning of the game. What's the point of the hero having 8 skill points if you can get by with something primitive like a battle between weak, small squads of early-level units, when even a single magic arrow is already powerful? No, Heroes is a game about development, and "close combat" is for Starcraft :rolleyes:. As proof, you can look at the reports; most people say that the game becomes interesting when it reaches at least the 3rd week. And you don't need to oversimplify it; "accumulate power, then come and win" doesn't always work, and often having more troops doesn't lead to victory, and in general, everything is much more complex.
Sure, in my opinion :).

The main components of interest are variety and unpredictability. Since you mentioned Starcraft, there's a similar trend there – NR, which stands for no rush. That is, people agree not to attack each other for 5-10-15 minutes from the start of the game and develop peacefully. I don't think I'll surprise anyone if I say that these people are on the periphery of the Starcraft scene and are labeled as noobs (which they actually are).

So, in Heroes, it's the same. The potential for a rush leads to the need to either constantly take it into account or attack yourself. The mental load increases, the number of possible game developments increases noticeably, and the predictability of events decreases significantly. This is what provides interest.

Moreover, if games can be both long and short, this is also variety/unpredictability, and as a result, increased interest. Of course, if 90% of games end in the 1st or 2nd week with a rush/counter-rush, that's bad. Just as it's bad if 90% of games end in the 2nd month. It's good when the histogram of game duration is spread more or less evenly across the timeline.

As for close combat, it's good because the factors mentioned at the beginning of the post are present in full. Moreover, it doesn't matter much when the contact phase begins – in the 1st week or the 3rd; the effect is similar; the duration of this contact matters more.

The earlier it starts, the less there will be a phase of relatively monotonous and predictable monster-bashing, which is objectively less interesting than battles with each other.

Another example from esports is Warcraft 3. Compared to Starcraft, it introduced neutral monsters that could be killed for money and items. The spectacle of the process decreased many times over... all the time the players were farming, the viewers were bored. Some action began either with direct clashes or with ambushes while farming or with harassment of the base/army. In general, wherever the players competed with each other, and not with the computer.

In Heroes, the sphere of interaction with the environment is much richer and can provide enough food for gaming interest even without the help of an opponent. However, for players with rich experience and a developed gaming culture, it is no longer a worthy opponent; the human factor is also needed.
1
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline Wlk777
Registered:
Posts: 2,497
#237
Auto-translated
Wicc
Sure, IMHO :).

The main components of interest are variety and unpredictability. Since Starcraft was mentioned, there is a similar trend there – NR, which stands for no rush. That is, people agree not to attack each other for 5-10-15 minutes from the start of the game and calmly develop. I don't think I'll surprise anyone if I say that these people are on the periphery of the Starcraft community and are labeled as noobs (which they actually are).

But in Heroes, it's the same...
No, it's not the same. Firstly, many people, who are far from being noobs, don't really like skirmishes in the first weeks. Secondly, I repeat, Heroes is a game that is specifically designed for development, unlike Starcraft, where everything is perfectly balanced for rushing/defending against rushing. In Starcraft, everything really comes down to the amount of "meat," both at the beginning and at the end of the game. That's why the game is primitive; the champions are those who work the mouse faster, not with their brains (there simply isn't time for that). To confirm this, I'll tell you about a funny incident from some Starcraft championship, where one awesome player lost in the final because he forgot to build detectors and was successfully defeated by invisible units. So, in short, Heroes and Starcraft are completely different games, and I suggest you read reports of online matches; few people write that an encounter in the 2nd week made the game incredibly interesting. And the idea that the possibility of a rush is taken into account in development, in my opinion, is incorrect; few people specifically prepare for it. If this is off-topic, sorry.
0
⚖️
0