Posts from "War by the rules" Auto-translated

Mopdas
Hamachi Mopdas, I'll be able to play on Юби in about a week, once they send me the licensed disc.
icq 209456 is available all the time during the day after 5-6 PM Moscow time, in the evening, at night, even until morning... )

Regarding the heroes, I'm in favor of banning only Wing – machine heroes don't matter, as it's still too early to kill them according to the rules. Ingvar could also be allowed, but building a Tower near the Dwarves should be prohibited, due to the same time constraint. Dugald – I don't think his starting position is that different from the Elf's starting position with Ossir... The ban on Shackles seems a bit unclear to me... How do you fight against Dungeon with BDP then? Overall, my opinion is to play with a mod (maybe even on an irmg template) and not ban anything, or play on the original with a ban on Wing and the Dwarf's building.

What date will it start?

I don't quite understand the ban on shackles... How do you deal with dungeons with BDP then? In general, my opinion is to play with a mod (maybe even on an irmg template) and not ban anything at all, or play on the original with a ban on Wing and the gnome's house.

Regarding the dungeon, it's a good question. We're discussing it to smooth out the rough edges as much as possible. I think, as an exception, shackles will be allowed specifically against the dungeon, and in all other cases, they will be banned! The reason is simple: you can use shackles to capture the opponent's main hero when they don't have much with them. Although, it's possible that the opponent is statistically and in terms of abilities far superior to the "hunter," I wouldn't want this to be the reason the game ends. Regarding what to play on, it's not up for discussion – we will play on the original with a mod that includes templates, and specifically on the Maze template. And regarding the ban, your idea is clear; we're waiting for more suggestions.

Added 1 minute ago

What date are we starting?

I think it will be soon, as soon as we get about 20 people, I'll start forming groups, so we can start on the 3rd or 4th

Don't be smart; there is a difference in who starts, even if it's just in terms of losses.

The Phoenix under the Vampirism skill just makes me smile, haha. In my opinion, there are scarier creatures from week 5 onwards. And could you prohibit building the Dwarf Tower after week 6 (or week 5), but allow Ingvar? In my opinion, week 5 is the turning point for the Dwarf; after that, it must hold the fort anyway, even without bonuses. Or, if it's simpler, you could just prohibit the Dwarf Tower and allow Ingvar (I usually don't pick him anyway).

Imposing a ban on attacking castles is akin to castration. Because your ban on attacking castles before the 4th week directly encourages players to seek out and harass enemy heroes. Essentially, why shouldn't a player who has caught an enemy (whether foolish or simply careless) be allowed to exploit their advantage?

The ban on shackles is a form of castration. Because your ban on attacking a castle before the 4th week directly encourages players to seek out and harass enemy heroes. Essentially, why shouldn't a player who has caught an enemy (whether they are foolish or simply careless) be allowed to use their advantage?

I completely agree.

What about mentoring, is this allowed? :smile43:

Regarding the condition that the game must last at least a month, I'm not against it, I just really want to know the reasons behind it? :confused:

As I understand it, the idea behind the tournament is to have final battles with full armies... lasting over a month... hence the time limit and the "handcuffs." A tournament with a sponsor means they set the overall "ideology" of the tournament (time limits, mod, template) – it's their right, and there's no point in arguing about it. It would be better to suggest a more sensible implementation of this idea (if I understood it correctly). It's quite possible to encounter this situation even before (although it's not guaranteed, even if desired, but it happens). With a clear outcome of such a battle, I think the winning player would only need to briefly (no more than a week) intercept the opponent on their way to the castle, preventing them from running around and developing... and that's it. This is a perfectly viable implementation of the idea of a "long game on a large Labyrinth template." It may seem large and easy to get lost in, but it often resolves within three weeks. "Handcuffs" haven't been happening that often lately... but in a mutually agreed-upon prolonged game, someone will inevitably find a way to use them... and so what? It seems that the ban on Dark and Magic factions is partially beneficial. But they were also present in the original game with the Battle for the Pentagram expansion. Well... are character descriptions expected? And what about a vampire theme? Is that a joke?

and what does racial skirmishing have to do with it? Let Leo explain the main idea, and this rule is clearly debatable, and no one can really explain it. If the idea is to fight with full armies after the 4th week, then LET'S play Bandit. We'll save a lot of time there. If the idea is to correct the mistakes of newbies who will put themselves in a vulnerable position with part of their army, then that's beyond reasonable. IMO, one of the main advantages of Heroes is the ability to "outsmart" the enemy, to outplay him. And you are trying to put everyone in the same pot to the maximum, and even if someone somewhere knows something - "no-no, stop using that." P.S. If a "good" player makes a mistake and gets hit hard, that's his mistake, why invent anything else?

As I understand it, the idea behind the tournament is to hold the final battles with full armies... for over a month... hence the time limit and restrictions...
A tournament with a sponsor means the sponsor sets the overall "ideology" of the tournament (time limits, mod, template) - it's their right, and there's no point in arguing about it.
It's better to suggest a more well-thought-out implementation of this idea.

Den, those are golden words +1000 to you! I advise everyone to read this carefully, because there is truth here! Regarding the nuances with the Amulets, you've basically convinced me, although the idea behind this ban was related to "final battles with full armies," but given that there is another side to the coin, this ban will be lifted. Regarding the ban on the Vampire Lord... well, that's just what I wanted, I understand that there are many other "scary things," but let only this one be banned. ;)

Added after 26 minutes
Regarding banning heroes? I think we can limit it to the most extreme cases, if this issue is on the agenda, but IMO, banning Ingvar and Karli from the Dwarves is already too much, if we ban Haggeesh and Tilshek from the Orcs, then why not ban Krag as well, and if you think about it, you could even ban Garun, but that's already half of the list, I won't list any more, but for now, I only see one candidate, Wing. Regarding the Mentor, it's an interesting question, and if we discuss it, then we need to immediately clarify how to counter the opponent in case the Mentor is banned?

As I understand it, the idea behind the Tournaments is to hold the final battles with full armies... for over a month... hence the time limit and restrictions...
It would be better to suggest a more sensible implementation of this idea (if I understood it correctly)).

The idea is clear, but the implementation is not. It is very rare to be able to reach the Castle on the map on the first month, and the new rule does not prohibit fighting in the center. The fastest way on the map is through the Gate of the Underworld; let's also prohibit breaking through the Gate of the Underworld (or jumping into the Gate of the Underworld zone) on the first month. And if someone manages to reach the enemy's Castle in the center on the first month, then they are doing well; I think such audacity should be encouraged :smile13:

Regarding mentorship. It is not needed in itself, but as a means to train tricksters, collect daggers from elves, goblins from orcs, and accumulate magic in the Necropolis. It is quite difficult to hide all this from the opponent, and besides, let's not forget about the rule on fair play; if there is a ban, this rule will work :)

I agree with Dmitrik regarding the Guild of Outcasts. If mentoring is prohibited, you can simply prevent players from taking that skill, and if there's suspicion that heroes were leveled up through mentoring, you can just send a few save files to a judge for review. What about the heroes? For now, I mainly see support for my proposal regarding banning the Winged Boots artifact and prohibiting the Tower skill for the Dwarf.

As an alternative, what if you don't equip the shackles until week 6 (week 5...7)?
After all, you still need some protection against dual-stack Altgolems under Battle Defense, for example, even if it's in the late game. And as I understand it, this is more like protection against "solving the game early"?
Although, in my opinion, doing it earlier is a slightly less exotic strategy than the unknown strategy involving vampirism – it's quite rare to be able to defeat them before week 5 and still have time to use them.

I agree about the dwarves. I've always thought that this is their defense against tricksters, and starting from week 6, it becomes an unaffordable luxury.

As far as I know, they agreed not to ban shackles. It's the 3rd week, and even if you try to take them, the guards won't allow it...