Posts from Alternative Rules (Draft)

The project has been reviewed. Regarding version 1.3: In my opinion, the optimal solution was found by the esteemed Dreamcatcher on HP:

Sir Dreamcatcher, 12/12/2008 08:01
Starting with the winter season, a new rule will be introduced. As a measure to combat the practice of failing to confirm games,
a player's confirmed victory will only be accepted in the table if the player has no outstanding debts on the date of the victory, i.e., no unconfirmed (or unrefuted) reports have been filed against them.
As soon as the player settles their debts, i.e., responds to the reports filed against them, all of their temporarily unrecorded victories will be taken into account.

Before the ranking table, there will be a list of unconfirmed games and the nicknames of the debtors. No arguments, logs, or excuses will be required. If you want your victories to be included in the ranking, confirm your losses. I believe that the esteemed vbn will not have much difficulty making the necessary adjustments to the program. Disconnections due to losses indicate a low level of play and a lack of integrity. Do you really need such games and such partners? Sometimes, the lights flicker in my place, and it can happen three times within 15 minutes. Why complicate things by fighting against this issue is unclear. Regarding all the other new rules: There are many questions about them, but the main question is: why and who needs them? Naturally, everyone has the right to play football in their own backyard according to their own rules. Many players have long settled in on two resources (heroesworld and heroesportal), and some have even ventured into .by, and guests from there also visit us. This is a very pleasant trend. Attempts have been made for a long time to create inter-portal (HP+HW) rules. I think that it is much more important to resume the discussion of that topic than to go in the opposite direction and try to change what was created long before our arrival and what suits most players. Judging by the discussion in the thread, few people are attracted to these rules. Let's assume that you, KostyaN, and several of your like-minded people play according to your rules for some time. Get used to it. But how are you going to play in the Premier League qualifiers on HP, where you recently signed up? Or will you also try to introduce alternative rules there? And don't you want to get into the HW team? Even a small and seemingly insignificant difference in the rules can create huge differences in the tactics and strategy of the game. For example, I lost my first game in the summer Interportal because I had no practice playing without restarting after a match. And recently, I played against a very strong opponent on .by. According to the tournament rules, we played with the morale of neutrals. But the opponent has been playing with the morale turned off for a long time and lost in the very first serious battle, which I would not have fought because I have a lot of experience with losses due to morale. I understand that some players explain their losses as a result of imperfect rules. And therefore, they strive to change them. Maybe it's worth thinking about how to improve your game? Play not only in a narrow circle but also with stronger opponents? According to your reports, KostyaN, it seems that you are working on this, analyzing your mistakes, and trying to change something. And I have been waiting for your ICQ authorization for a month, and there is no answer to my offers to play. And one of the best players on HP and HW on SoDe, LeBrona, was cleverly brushed off in this thread so that he wouldn't interfere with the progress by asking questions about the TE... Summary: 1) we will not credit victories to those who do not confirm losses, 2) the old rules, with some reservations, suit me, although I would still like to refine the Interportal rules.

Petr +1, well written.
I also don't understand who these rules are written for? For three players?)) It's better to improve your own skill rather than adjust the rules to fit it. Oh well, I won't dwell on the sad stuff:) .
As for cross-portal rules, I already think they are essentially unnecessary. Why? The rules of ХП and HeroesWorld are practically identical, and in the case of a cross-portal gathering, I think it wouldn't be hard for the organizers of said event to clarify the couple of differing points and come to a common denominator. After all, in any case, there is a rule template, and then there are adjustments to them in the regulations for a specific tournament. So why not, in the case of a cross-portal event, have the organizers implement them, thereby creating cross-portal rules for each individual case? It came out a bit jumbled, but I think the point is clear.

Sometimes the lights start flickering, and it happens 3 times within 15 minutes.

You're being unnecessarily sarcastic. I used to live in a village and played without a UPS (and the internet was only through a mobile phone). My neighbors had a sawmill, a grinder, and a welding machine. The sawmill... well, it ran almost from morning till evening. It was impossible to play properly. In general, network problems were a nightmare. There were various types of disconnects, sometimes for no reason, sometimes before important battles, and the worst was when it happened after them. When you couldn't repeat the success of the first attempt.

So, the issue of disconnects is quite complex...

You're being sarcastic for no reason... The crashes happened in different ways, sometimes for no reason at all, sometimes before important battles, and most frustratingly, after them. When you couldn't repeat the same strategy a second time.
So, the issue of crashes is quite ambiguous...

I wasn't being sarcastic. Before they separated the kitchen and bathroom circuits, turning on the kettle at the same time as the washing machine caused a complete power outage in the entire apartment. And yes, for some reason, the neutrals become very aggressive the second time around. I recently had to take a break because of this. I meant that disconnections can happen not only due to a "loss," but also for reasons beyond our control.

Regarding the inter-portal rules, I think they are essentially unnecessary. Why? The rules for HotA and Horn of the Abyss are practically identical, and in the case of an inter-portal event, I think it would be easy for the organizers of this event to clarify those few points of difference and come to a common understanding. After all, there is always a template of rules, and then there are adjustments to them in the regulations for a specific tournament. So why not have the organizers make these adjustments in the case of an inter-portal event, thereby creating inter-portal rules for each specific case? It may sound confusing, but I think my point is clear.

I guess I didn't express my thought correctly. I completely agree that the rules for any specific tournament, including inter-portal tournaments, must be agreed upon immediately before the tournament. At least the template and version require discussion. I was referring to the seasonal rules. In general, the problems due to differences in the rules are minimal. Usually, it all comes down to the question: HotA or Horn of the Abyss? And the main difference is the rest time per match. Now there is another, significant one - 6 or 4 minutes. The portal has switched to 6 minutes by a majority vote.

The main difference is the rest time after a match. Now there's another significant difference – 6 or 4 minutes. The majority voted to switch to 6 minutes.

It's time for us to switch as well.

It's time for us to switch too.

On THE... ;)

On TE... ;)

Light!

Now there's another, significant, change – 6 or 4 minutes. The majority voted to change the portal time to 6 minutes.

Let's create a thread with an open vote for us too!

It would be better not to use a vote, but rather a simple poll. It would be interesting to know what the majority thinks. The options are: 2 minutes, 2-4 minutes, 4 minutes, 4-6 minutes, 2-6 minutes, 4 minutes or more, 6 minutes or more, more than 6 minutes, no preference.

I read the latest posts in the thread and have a general understanding of what you're getting at – no major changes are needed (some even say: absolutely no changes at all, not even minor ones). Perhaps you're right, although I will never agree with those who are against any changes, whether they are for the better or worse. I'll say it again, why I needed to write such rules: - To adjust the balance, which the current rules have failed to achieve, even by 98-99% (it's not a fact that my rules have it either, but we have to try, right? Or should we continue playing with losses due to the 2000 damage Explosion on the 3rd week; due to the Lollipop against your artifacts, only affecting magical parameters; due to Kiryuha getting control early with gloves (boots); due to the native secondary skills and weeks of "needed" monsters, etc.?) I understand that Heroes is not chess, but in its current state, it's almost a lottery:rolleyes:! - To "unban" Necropolis and Conflux, which are constantly excluded – you have to agree that it's better to play more or less evenly with 9 castles than with 6-7 (something needs to be done with Inferno as well – perhaps popularize it somehow...), otherwise, we might end up with only 2 castles – and from there, it's not far to chess:D! - To bring back some of the excitement from the single-player game, which is why I introduced points about the Grail, joining, shifted guards, the cartographer with the hill fort, and others. - To minimize the list of absolutely useless artifacts and skills – what's wrong with that idea, even if it's poorly thought out for now? - To get rid of "cumbersome" points that are not understandable to most people (I asked about some of these when I first started playing, and the moderators couldn't really explain them to me, they didn't remember or understand): first of all, this is Mullich with his fun, incredibly confusing rules (as they say, you need a bottle of vodka to figure it out:) ) – my initial version about Izru/Vidomina, I admit, was also in this vein, but I adapted it for easier understanding to "my" Mullich, and now it seems to be quite clear and concise; I will express my opinion on the fly, the 100 gnomes, and the handcuffs again: yes, it's a pain to load the save, but firing BOTH heroes (although you can, if you have nothing else to do, and replay:D), which Andrei suggests (retreating with the fly) is also quite rational in my opinion. - To bring mages back into the game – at least in every 5th or 10th game – because right now, Conflux players cast spells, rarely take towers, and dungeons mean a miner! It's boring, gentlemen:(! Every day is the same, and some claim that mages are completely unnecessary, a normal player will never take them anyway:) – but maybe this is one of the measures of the famous "skill" – can you or can't you play with a starting mage, can you or can't you come early and kill a fighter?;) In general, the topic remains open. Thank you for the criticism and suggestions. I understand the main father of the real Rules – respected invisible – in his struggle against innovations, but new is not always bad, right? I think that over time, the situation with the rules, both for our resource and for interportal games, will be resolved positively – and why shouldn't my attempt at "reforms" be one of the important steps towards these historical events?:cool: The main thing is to help – and everything will work out:smile02:!

I understand the main "father" of the current rules - esteemed invisible - in his struggle against innovations.

First of all, I'm not a "father," but I'm planning to become one soon :D, and I didn't write the rules - I, vbn, and a few other players just tweaked the Portal rules!
Secondly, I'm not a conservative; I'm always in favor of "new and promising" things. I'm just saying this in advance so you don't get offended. How many online games have you played? Judging by the reports, not more than ten. And you, with virtually no online gaming experience, are starting to introduce things that players with hundreds of games under their belts view from a slightly different perspective. For example, the ban on the +6 helmet. Why not a +5 sword? So, +6 is a cheat, but +5 or +4 isn't? This is just an example, and I don't want to discuss it. Some people are constantly complaining: either their opponent has an explosion, or the respawn is weak, or there are blocks, or some other nonsense. If playing Heroes with these rules is such a lottery, then tell me: why do players like Pit, LeBron, Paladin, Forrest, Vic, etc., win so often?! Is it just luck that they always get good draws?! Pit has a ton of medals, both on HotA and on Horn of the Abyss. Why doesn't he complain that his opponent got a Utopia with teapots, pots, and other junk? Why does he win most of the time? Why can you only win against Forrest when he's hungover? (just kidding, he doesn't drink :)))) Maybe the reason for "unlucky draws" and imbalances lies somewhere else? Pit was right: you don't need to change the rules to suit yourself; you need to improve your skills to play them well.
Sorry again for the rudeness :).

And who forbids a +6 helmet? – show me such a clause in my set of rules. The same applies to Chupa-chups – if a Teapot is clearly not a “broken” item yet, as it can easily be countered with at least a sword + amulet or a large bag of gold, then Chupa-chups often fits the definition of a “broken” item in many cases: for example, we pumped up magic, and 8 out of 10 artifacts are magical, and the skills are, say, Earth, Air, Wisdom, Intelligence, and also not purely fighter-oriented skills like Logistics and Tactics – are there any chances with this set against a decent Barbarian or Swamp creature in skilled hands, even if we have more hit points left? Notice that I haven’t banned almost anything in my rules, but rather made life a little (not much!) more difficult for owners of such artifacts, and wouldn’t a strong player be afraid of such minor difficulties?

The rules we have now were developed over "years" and through "experience," and they are a kind of "Constitution" (Basic Law) for Heroes, with all the consequences that entails. Yes, victory sometimes depends on the random number generator, but in the vast majority of cases, the player's skill is the deciding factor. Sometimes one player gets the Hat of the Fifth, while another gets the Teapot, Tactics, First Strike, Mass Haste, or vice versa. After all, there are many possible scenarios. Perhaps it would be worth having the Moderators put all of this to a popular vote and democratically introduce amendments to our Constitution. I propose to include: 1. A ban on monsters of level 6-7 for one week. 2. ...

First of all, I'm not a "father," but I'm going to be one soon :D, and I didn't write the rules – I just, along with vbn and a few other players, tweaked the Portal rules!

Sergey, don't get on everyone's nerves! It won't recover :)
The younger generation wants to talk and make suggestions without fully understanding what they're doing, so please give them a chance. They'll burn out, and everything will return to its established course, honed over the years.

2 Pash, we've already discussed this! It's a reasonable point, a real and correct one IMHO.
But these guys (a few people :cool:) want to completely overturn (at least) half of the online rules for Heroes 3... That's already a major undertaking...

1. Ban on monsters of level 6-7 for a week.
2. ...

Why are you so fixated on this monster week? I've played at least 50 times in the last 3 months, and not once has anything remotely similar happened. However, about half of my losses (out of those that reached the battle stage) were due to either the opponent having an incredibly powerful burst attack or a red spell when I had a significant advantage in magic (and usually, I had at least as many troops, and sometimes significantly more, in these battles). Therefore, I (and not just me) believe that this needs to be somehow limited. Also, something needs to be done in the rules regarding players who refuse to acknowledge their clear defeats for any reason.