HeroesWorld
  • Log in
  • Create account
  • Mode
    Interface scale

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 invisible
User Avatar
Offline Oelm
Registered:
Posts: 2,556
#321
Auto-translated
So what if it's a tournament? There's a judge there. You can usually tell from the save file whether you've seen your opponent or not. As for me, I very rarely venture into the unknown on my own.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Oelm
User Avatar
Offline Wlk777
Registered:
Posts: 2,544
#322
Auto-translated
Oelm

In my games, the Goblin Outpost is usually defeated either in the first month or not at all, with exceptions, of course, but they are rare.
It's clear that the Goblin Outpost is more likely to be defeated in the first month, but the thing is that you almost never do it, even though you like to talk about it – you could defeat it in the second week, or even the first... In my opinion, the Goblin Outpost is defeated when it has been weakened. I myself have defeated it on the 3rd week, but this requires many conditions. In reality, I and others do this maybe 1 out of 5 times, and that's when we even make it to that point. To defeat it in the second week, you'd need something like a couple of rusty dragons when playing as the Swamp faction, or at least a Mass of Slime and creatures without immunity.
Oelm
Valentin, maybe we can play Heroes for money?
Good lord, you won against me once solely because you were playing as the red faction, and you were already boasting... :o We could have theoretically talked about playing for money if we lived in the same city.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wlk777
User Avatar
Offline Oelm
Registered:
Posts: 2,556
#323
Auto-translated
Regarding Grand Order, you can check the reports; I don't see the point in trying to prove anything to you.

And I also know how to beat Grand Order for the swamp on the 2nd floor. Of course, it's not that simple with archers or titans. But 80% of the guards can be defeated with an above-average setup. I agree that the quality of my gameplay doesn't allow me to play at 100% of its potential. But at least I know what needs to be done for that.

I'm curious, how do you win thanks to the red color?:D :D I dream of learning.

By the way, I'm from St. Petersburg.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Yakudza
User Avatar
Offline SpiriTT
Registered:
Posts: 840
#324
Auto-translated
or maybe in this thread we should actually discuss the rules, instead of just showing off and saying things like "let's bet money" etc.! One started, the other continued, it's like a kindergarten, honestly!
ну это вообще всем аргамездец!© Kash
без авто:smile20:
Человек - игрушка Бога. Этому - то и надо следовать. Надо жить играя.
Платон.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Yakudza
User Avatar
Offline SEM_56
Registered:
Posts: 1,916
#325
Auto-translated
I agree with Temich, sort out your differences in ICQ or some other way, this is not the place for personal disputes!!!
Regarding Grand Order, I think it should definitely be included, and DD or Wings shouldn't be an exception!!
Ушел с героев, пока пряники)
1
⚖️
0
In reply to Yakudza
User Avatar
Offline LeBron
Registered:
Posts: 1,453
#326
Auto-translated
Wlk777
We can discuss it when the rules include a penalty for failing to confirm.
That's a valid point {ABOUT THE RULES!!!}. It's been a long time coming to include this in the rules – otherwise, what's the point? If someone doesn't want to confirm, they don't – it's nonsense, in my opinion – and it completely undermines the purpose of the rating system. But let's still be gentlemen – lose, and confirm it;) IMO, there's no other way.

"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
0
⚖️
0
In reply to LeBron
User Avatar
Offline Hermit
Registered:
Posts: 3,465
#327
Auto-translated


        Actually, let's add a rule stating that if someone doesn't confirm a report, they must explain why they are doing so! And let Vigo explain why he didn't approve Wlk777's post, and let Wlk777 explain why he didn't confirm Oelm's post! Because if Vigo didn't confirm his post without any explanation, and no one noticed, why should he explain anything now?

1
⚖️
0
In reply to LeBron
User Avatar
Offline bRitvo4kA
Registered:
Posts: 1,107
#328
Auto-translated

Moderated: OFF-TOPIC in the message

Wlk777
And you, Dirty Player...
At first, I thought it was an insult, but then I realized it was a translation into Russian :D
I also agree that the rules should state that players must explain the reason for not confirming, and in the absence of such an explanation, the game should be protected without confirmation if the player consistently confirms and has no debts to anyone. This idea has already been mentioned somewhere on the forum.
В дикім полі
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Yakudza
User Avatar
Offline Dirty_Player
Registered:
Posts: 11,032
#329
Auto-translated
Wlk777
I confirm.
RESPECT! And I say this because I think it's unsportsmanlike to lose a game and then refuse to confirm it. Vigo is also known for this, but we need to fight it by changing the rules.

I suggest adding the following point to the rules.
If a player accumulates more than two unconfirmed reports, then further reports from that player will not be counted!
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Dirty_Player
User Avatar
Offline Lider1
Registered:
Posts: 3,371
#330
Auto-translated
Dirty_Player


I suggest adding the following point to the rules.

Quote: If a player accumulates more than two unconfirmed reports, then further reports from that player will not be counted!


I support this!
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/
За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Dirty_Player
User Avatar
Offline Hermit
Registered:
Posts: 3,465
#331
Auto-translated


    Let's add such a rule! If someone doesn't confirm a report without a technical reason, they should be banned, at least until the end of the season. And I would also like everyone who hasn't confirmed their reports previously to explain why they didn't do so. Because, in my opinion, this is a real disrespect to the opponent. As for two unconfirmed reports, it depends on what kind: one is enough without an explanation, but even ten are acceptable with an explanation and proof.

0
⚖️
0
In reply to Hermit
User Avatar
Offline Wlk777
Registered:
Posts: 2,544
#332
Auto-translated
Hermit


    How about we add such a rule! If someone doesn't confirm a report without a technical reason, they should be banned, at least until the end of the season. And I would also like everyone who hasn't confirmed previous reports to explain why they didn't. Because, in my opinion, this is a real disrespect to the opponent. As for two unconfirmed reports, it depends on the circumstances: one is enough without an explanation, but even ten are acceptable with an explanation and proof.

We should clarify what grounds are considered valid for not confirming, for example, whether a single disconnection from the game during an opponent's turn is a valid reason.
0
⚖️
1
In reply to Dirty_Player
User Avatar
Offline Hermit
Registered:
Posts: 3,465
#333
Auto-translated


Let the judges decide that. And also, Valentin, if you didn't confirm the report of your game with Oelm just so they could sort out that game you had with Vigo, then I think that was a mistake... Because he's not to blame for this, and he shouldn't have problems because of it. In my opinion, these aren't the right methods to use, although (...) they're the only effective ones!..

0
⚖️
0
In reply to Hermit
User Avatar
Offline КостяN
Registered:
Posts: 1,150
#334
Auto-translated
Hermit


    Let the judges decide that. And also, Valentin, if you didn't confirm the report of your game with Oelm just so that they could sort out that game of yours with Vigo, then, in my opinion, that's a mistake... Because he's not to blame for this, and he shouldn't have problems because of it. In my opinion, these are not the right methods of influence, although (...) they are the only effective ones!..


Oh, it's not a fact that they are effective – no particular attention from the moderators has been noticed on this point. Apparently, a large number of unconfirmed reports is still better than one small addition to the rules...

P.S. And meanwhile, how many times have I already suggested this – including in the alternative rules project:smile26:. I think it should be formulated approximately like this: if a player has unconfirmed reports of defeat, their subsequent reports of victories will not be taken into account in the ratings until the reports are confirmed or refuted with evidence of a rules violation.
Ибу ибуди - хуйдао муди - Шаг за шагом можно достигнуть цели (китайская мудрость)

Кто к нам с пером придёт, тот от пера и погибнет!:smile51:
0
⚖️
0
In reply to КостяN
Offline Тяжелый случай
Registered:
Posts: 163
#335
Auto-translated
KostyaN
If a player has unconfirmed reports of defeat, their subsequent reports of victories will not be taken into account in the rankings until the violation of the rules is confirmed or refuted with evidence.

+
Only with the addition: The objectivity of the evidence is determined by the moderator.
0
⚖️
0