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

Ivan, I believe that this approach is fairer, as the player earned the right to access the respawn point by defeating the guard, regardless of where they defeated it. The main thing is that they defeated the guard to gain access to that respawn point.

Now I agree with you, but before, you had a different opinion....

5.19, in my opinion, is unnecessary. Regarding defense, it seems unfair. For example, snipers or mages might be positioned on the road, while golems are located on the edge, across a mountain. This allows for a perfectly reasonable rush to day 117 or another critical turn. Overall, I disagree with this. Although, I see a positive aspect: for example, archers are everywhere on the roads, and after a breakthrough, you can just eliminate the golems and that's it. But overall, I disagree.

Added 1 minute ago
Wait, as I understand it, this isn't a discussion, but a given? Are we being presented with a fait accompli by the developers? Am I understanding correctly?

Hold on, if I understand correctly, is this not a discussion, but a fait accompli? Are we being presented with a done deal? Did I understand that correctly?

I mentioned above that depending on whether the Heroes players accept these changes or not, they will be implemented.

If many Heroes players are against something, then the Rules will not change accordingly.

If one of the guard posts protecting a respawn point is breached, it should be possible to access the respawn point's territory through any of the available passages leading to it.

I'm more against it... Here are my arguments:
It complicates verification, adds complexity to the rule without significant improvement, and besides, if the breached guard post turns out to be paired (with 2-3 secondary guards), everyone can just run wherever they want? And what if someone's guard post is shifted, and someone else's isn't – do they have the right to pass through (because they breached it in another place)? But the neutral players won't understand... In my opinion, if there's a guard post, you have to attack it. If there are several nearby, you can choose which one to attack...
Otherwise, I agree with Pasha, and I respect him for the work he's done.

Besides these issues, I propose raising the question of BANNING SHAKTI!!!! Or at least reducing the third stack of Troglodytes. I'm sure Gunnar will be more than enough!

Besides these issues, I suggest raising the question of BANNING SHAKTI!!!!

And how is Goshan better (or worse)? He should be banned first.

It would be better to allow Solmyr for the Tower without restrictions and see if Galtran needs to be banned.

It would be better to allow Solmir for the Tower without any restrictions and see if Galtran needs to be banned.

In the Might & Magic tournament, almost no one wants to play with the "overpowered" Solmir against the "not overpowered" Shakhter or Gosha, and they don't even let Kiryu play. It's interesting that with such a drastic nerf to the Warriors, the score is approximately equal there...

Thus, the Might & Magic vs. Heroes tournament proves that if one side is allowed to use mages without restrictions and is also allowed to eliminate the four strongest factions of the opponent, they will definitely take advantage of this. :D And the score is tied because there was no practice for the mages. For Gosh, Kirr, and Shakti, the masters have everything down to a science.

And the score is equal – because there was no practice for the mages at all. For Gosh, Kirr, and Shakti, the masters have everything down to automatic.

Not quite. The players playing mages are far from beginners and definitely have some experience in this. And Gosh, Kirr, and Shakti are not allowed :mad:

It's not entirely true – the players using magic are far from being newcomers and definitely have some experience in this area. And they don't let Gosh, Kir and Shakti win :mad:

I'm not allowed to participate in the tournament, so only Kir and Shakti play against me. :)
IMHO, Galtran = ban, Shakti = ban, as starting heroes, of course. If they appear in the game, then they can be leveled up... So, I suggest we do the same with Mullich.

I'm not allowed to cheat in the tournament, so only Kirr and Shakti play against me. :)

Your matches in that tournament should be considered outside of the competition and, therefore, have no bearing on the discussion about the imbalance of mages. I think you understand this yourself, so you shouldn't use them as arguments in such debates. IMHO.
P.S. +1 to Gosha, Shakhter, and Mullik (although I'm sorry for Shakhter, I enjoy playing as him).

IMO, limiting the number of Trolls at the start to 100 (or less?) would be a good option. They'll take the minimum number of Consultants, and Dirty will take them as Butterflies (and Dirty doesn't need to be banned). For example, I can't take a Tier 2 unit anymore without some other meat. And 180 Trolls is just a huge resource drain.
Also, if you don't keep an eye on them, they'll be fired by turn 111, and then you'll be stuck... :D

And Goshu – yes, he needs to be banned.
In the last game, my Necromancer, playing as Castle, managed to get Nimbus to 130 skeletons from a single hero by turn 117, and without any artifacts. Tant arrived 10th, but I didn't need him anymore. Let's get Nimbus into the masses! :rolleyes:

Playing Necropolis against Castle is a completely different game; it's much more enjoyable to mow down skeletons with archers, if only I had the original material on hand.

I'm not allowed to use certain strategies in tournaments, so only Kirr and Shakti play against me. :)
In my opinion, Galtran = ban, Shakti = ban, as starting heroes. If they appear in the game, then they can be developed... So, I suggest we do the same with Mullich.

Everything is interconnected; it's a multi-parameter balance, after all... It's easy to say - ban (reduce Shakti, Galtran, Mullich,...), but where is the guarantee that, for example, Kirr (Tazar, and who knows who else) won't become unacceptably overpowered? And then, after... twelve weeks, we'll reduce their stats?? Has anyone calculated the consequences of reducing (banning), gathered enough game statistics, conducted a test tournament, and then analyzed the results of that tournament with discussion? Where is the guarantee that the imbalance won't increase with the proposed measures? If you want to experiment, create your own alternative set of rules; otherwise, you're forcing everyone to play with little-tested solutions...
P.S. This doesn't apply to most of the changes proposed by Pasha (he mainly doesn't touch the gameplay, i.e., the balance) - although I would suggest (and I could suggest many things :)) - to only play with blue Goshans (and/or the player using Goshans has only one rest, and/or the player against Goshans can develop banned heroes and/or have some other bonuses). I could claim that my version is better because it doesn't "cut into the living" according to the principle - "the best remedy for dandruff is the guillotine." But I won't claim it :)- because I haven't thought everything through properly, haven't listened to all the pros and cons, haven't conducted a test tournament, etc...
And specifically regarding Shakti: for example, Ramp-Dungeon is a perfectly good pair; playing as Dungeon allows you to go for a wider range of good and bad outcomes (analyze the game statistics for specific cities in the season...). Yes, there are times when Shakti has an amazing setup, like 2-3 consecutive cons, but that's a bonus, relatively infrequent... So, you reduce Shakti, Goshans, who's next on the chopping block? :) This impoverishes the essence of the game, in my firm opinion.