Skip to content

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

5.0 (1 rating)
In reply to Pit for LM
#829
Auto-translated
A question... does dealing damage in the dark with a random chance to hit a zone with unbroken guards still count as "teching"? In general, transitions from one zone to another should always be contested (if there is no transition, then there is nothing to contest, except for a bugged passage, in which case you can use the "buyout" procedure, see below, or simply allow passage). If there is a choice, choose the guards. If you don't see a choice and want to pass through, attack the available guards (asking the opponent is not very honorable, and the assumption that the opponent has already cleared the guards is not a valid excuse), because the zone offers a benefit, and that's what you're fighting for (even if it's an opponent's zone and they've already cleared it, you still need to attack!!! because the benefit of passing through that zone is contact with the opponent, and if you want to pass through, you're looking for that contact). I think allowing jumps and flights between zones should be allowed, but only for regular zones (i.e., not for flying from zone 1 to zone 2 and back on a 2x4 map (3)). But here's a suggestion: if there are two consecutive gates (like a teleport, portal, or just two gates in a row), you could fly/jump in such a way that you can choose which set of guards to attack. After breaking through any gate, you can use any control spell. For example, you could throw 100+ creatures into the darkness and then fly over 20 archers or black dragons. The argument for the above is that if you already have a Hat of the Magi 5, Wings, or a Key of the Void, it means you've already defeated a Utopia with 10k value guards and the Utopia itself, or you've defeated relic guards with 20k value (or maybe it's 20, but I might be wrong, but it's still a lot), which means you're not a noob, and breaking through a gate shouldn't be a major problem (and if you barely managed to defeat the Utopia/relic, then you were the one taking the risk). I think resource points should not be given for regular gates. For a single road leading to a gate, they should be given. Otherwise, searching for secondary resources is a complete waste of time. As for blocking, this is the most difficult question. But the formulation about 1 day and access to a normal part of the map (let's say, with a screen size of about 20x20 cells) blocked by level 2 archers and 20+ and level 3 20+ flying units, except for upgraded golems, seems reasonable. Please forgive me, comrades. P.S. I forgot to describe the buyout procedure. I suggest introducing a buyout for certain bugs. It works like this: if there is a market (it must be a city market, not an external one), you can buy any valuable resource for gold. Alternatively, you can buy a hero and disband him on the same day (the hero can be fully used). If there is no tavern or market anywhere, you can either fire one of the weak units or fire 2 level 6 units, 3 level 5 units, or 4 level 4 units. Almost all of these calculations are equivalent to 2k to 5k gold (but 5k is very rare - only if there is 1 market for the entire kingdom; it's better to build a tavern and buy a hero - 3k). I'll add that this clever method is only for the case of a bugged passage without guards and the desire to pass through that specific passage, and such passages are rarely found on the campaign map. But the idea of such a buyout can also be used for other features that have yet to be invented, just so the idea isn't lost
Инфа о разных моих проектах, по большей части геройских, тут http://phomm.narod.ru
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
#830
Auto-translated
Banning ГО from flying/jumping over the border is complete nonsense. What, are we supposed to fly around via an adjacent tile? And what if you use Dimension Door into the darkness onto an opponent's respawn? And then run out of mana? A technical loss? )
Всем удачи ! И Морали !
In reply to Wlk777
User Avatar
#831
Auto-translated
I don't see the point in changing the rules regarding flying/jumping over Guard Towers (except for Jebus). Whether to attack or not attack a Guard Tower when control is available should be the player's decision. And even without breaking through the Guard Tower, it won't create a chain of towers leading to the castle...
Ибу ибуди - хуйдао муди - Шаг за шагом можно достигнуть цели (китайская мудрость)

Кто к нам с пером придёт, тот от пера и погибнет!:smile51:
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
#832
Auto-translated
I have gathered all opinions on restarts>; it is difficult to derive a general conclusion as there are completely opposite views. Moreover, the disputes are theoretical; for most disagreements, there is no experimental data.

Therefore, I propose to test some of the changes during the winter season and hold a vote in February.
Mandatory restarts:
- if the starting hero is above level 1;
- if no roads lead from the starting castle;
- if ГО generated right next to the starting castle (such that it is impossible to leave the starting castle or enter it without a battle with ГО).
No one spoke against this — accepted.

Restart upon encounter...
Kluka
If red captures blue's city or mine, guarded by 1 gnoll, then this falls under "any battle between players." But it is not a battle between heroes.
Yes, this point needs to be clarified; I did not phrase it correctly. It is illogical not to consider a battle with the garrison of a castle or mine as an encounter.
I also took into account the question in AK from bRitvo4kA.
Restart upon the first encounter by 115-116-117 inclusive for fast-medium-slow roads respectively.
An encounter is considered direct contact between players, i.e., any battle between them (a battle between any heroes, a battle with the garrison of an opponent's castle or mine).
If an encounter occurs within the specified timeframe, either opponent has the right to request a restart.
If both players agree to continue the game, the game continues. Subsequent encounters occurring within the specified timeframes are not grounds for a restart

Subjective restarts...

The "sum of 3 days" proposal seems interesting to many. But many also disagree.
Here is what they write (without specifying authors):
I like the new wording of restarts, but I would like a total of 3(111+111+111 or 112+111 or 113)

Ah, and for 3 days in total for rests

FOR: Wording of rests as a sum of 3

introduce experimentally for the winter season - 3 days in total (and no rests for one road to ГО, blocks...

for players being able to take either 111 and 113; or 111, 111, 111, 111; or 111, 112, 111, meaning any options, but so that the sum is the same 111 and 113.

I am for 111+112

3 days in total

I think it should be left as is. Or replaced equivalently with 4 days in total.

in theory, you could do 111 and 112

Yes, THREE days in total for rests for each, and no blocks, roads to ГО or other things.
Indeed, this proposal changes the restart tactics. Let's try playing the winter season this way. By agreement between players, the old rule can be used.
Subjective restarts:
each player has the right to take a restart/restarts, meaning starting a new game with map regeneration. One may take either 3 restarts on the first day of the game (111+111+111), or 2 restarts on the first and second day (111+112 or 112+111), or one restart on the third day (113).

Restarts for one road to ГО and a strong block...

Opinions:
for a restart for one road and a strong block.

tech-rest with 1 road to ГО and for a strong block.

Regarding one road — it must be emphasized that we are talking about one road from the castle.

I've already said more than once regarding one road to ГО, definitely a mandatory rest.

for 1 road to ГО - should be

In my understanding, a strong block is such a block that either cannot be broken through, or breaking through it results in the loss of at least 1/3 of the attacker's Army.

I believe that the breakability of a block should be determined on an individual basis. If opponents do not agree on this issue, the tournament leader or AK decides

completely agree with one of the above opinions that a rest for a block should only be given after exhausting available restarts for 111 or 113 (112).

A block is the guarding of something with more than 6000 value.

And generally, have there ever been disputes about this block?

Of course, we are talking about a strong block; it has happened many times that guards of strong objects block the only passage (road), for example, guards of Dragon Utopia, Hive, etc. In such cases, imho, it should be a mandatory rest.

As for blocks, here perhaps one really needs to resort to the help of judges if both opponents cannot agree.

it is also important who encountered this block — necros, for example, die instantly; for swamp, it's the loss of a couple of snakes and something from infantry
On HP, the issue of restarts for blocks was discussed for a very long time, tables were drawn, complex rules were invented. Nothing reasonable was found. Therefore, we will settle on the wording — agreement between players and appeal to a judge.
Since subjective restarts are linked to these, we also introduce them experimentally for one season:
Restart for one road to ГО. Taken up to 115 inclusive.
If subjective restarts remain, and one road to ГО is discovered on a day when a restart can no longer be taken, a subjective restart is spent.
If subjective restarts are exhausted, and a player discovers that the only road from the starting castle leads to ГО, he has the right to request an additional restart.
Restart for a strong block, if the block cannot be bypassed and the block cuts off the castle from the main part of the respawn, leaving no possibility for development up to the block. Taken up to 112 inclusive.
The strength of the block is first evaluated by the player reporting the block, then by his opponent, and in case of a dispute between players — the leader/judge/AK.
If subjective restarts remain, a subjective restart is spent at the player's choice (i.e., on 112 one can take a remaining 111 restart).
If subjective restarts are exhausted, the player has the right to request an additional restart.[/B]
Blocks are not such a common occurrence (I think it happened once in 100-150 games) that they could be used to overwhelm the judges. Moreover, similar restarts are given even now, only they are called "humanitarian."

Restart for ГО via roadless terrain...
Few spoke out:
for a restart if ГО is via roadless terrain.

restart for ГО via roadless terrain, for.

Against a restart for ГО via roadless terrain. I believe that this adds variety to the game on sm-ke.

for ГО via roadless terrain it can be written like this: if one of the players wishes, in this case, a tech rest.

Rests, I think, should not be given for roadless ГО!!
This restart was usually played by agreement between players. So let it remain that way.
In reply to Yakudza
User Avatar
#833
Auto-translated
10.11.2010 Gomunguls (Blue, Tower, Nella, Tazar) def. rebellious (Red, Stronghold, Krag, Krag) 2sm4d(3), 1.1.3
The start was normal... but after a couple of turns, the opponent refused to play, saying there was a block on the road... I decided to check and didn't see any block there, just a group of water elementals...
Thanks for the time!
Attachments 2
2 files attached • Total size: 256.7 KB
Удача любит подготовленных!!!





Стримы и обучение тут:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWlnXU5R5RLCMuWzIpBc65Q
In reply to Gomunguls
User Avatar
#834
Auto-translated
And how many water elementals were there? If there were 30+ and they also had Great Strength, then it really does seem like a bottleneck...
Всем удачи ! И Морали !
In reply to Wlk777
User Avatar
#835
Auto-translated
Wlk777
How many water elementals were there? If there were 30+ and they also had Guard Shield, then it really does seem like a roadblock...
58, damn it!!!!!!
Ушел с героев, пока пряники)
In reply to Gomunguls
User Avatar
#836
Auto-translated
An interesting idea has emerged – to add a rule regarding blocks: in case of a controversial situation (when players cannot agree on whether a block is successful), the opponent of the player with the disputed block must attempt to break it (either by attacking the block directly or by describing a tactic for breaking it with acceptable losses; in the worst case, they can simply send a save file showing the block being broken on the first attempt). Then, with a clear conscience, the winner of the match can be determined.
Всем удачи ! И Морали !
In reply to Wlk777
User Avatar
#837
Auto-translated
Wlk777
An interesting idea arose – to add a rule regarding blocks: in case of a controversial situation (when players cannot agree on the block's effectiveness), the opponent of the player with the disputed block must attempt to break it (either by attacking the block directly or by describing a tactic for breaking it with acceptable losses; in the worst case, simply send a save file showing the block being broken on the first attempt). Then, with a clear conscience, the winner of the game can be determined.
Valentin, why are you so worried?
Vitaly (Gomunguls), you did everything correctly, namely:
If a player doesn't break the block and demands a restart due to the block, then:
1. The opponent tries to break the block themselves. If they fail (also on the first attempt, then restart)!!!!
2. The opponent tries to break the block. If they succeed, then it's a loss...
Confirmation with a screenshot, everything was done technically and professionally...
Vitaly, as always, you're great!)))
Ушел с героев, пока пряники)
In reply to Gomunguls
User Avatar
#838
Auto-translated
SEM_56 - managed to reiterate my thoughts and even put them into his own words – congratulations!
Всем удачи ! И Морали !
#839
Auto-translated
Dubrovin Pavel
rebellious, currently, will not provide updates for this game; I request that the seasonal ranking leader (Pit for LM) credit Gomunguls' report.

purely hypothetically, Horde 50-99
let Gomunguls show off again and defeat as many water elementals as possible with the same army. Good luck!
In reply to Master_A
User Avatar
#840
Auto-translated
Master_A
purely hypothetically, Horde 50-99
let Gomunguls try again and destroy as many water elementals as possible with the same army. good luck!
He can try a hundred times, but he won't succeed on the first attempt)))
Ушел с героев, пока пряники)
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
#841
Auto-translated
I've moved the discussion about the block from the Raport section here; it's food for thought.
Dirty_Player
Pasha, are you still going to keep writing the word "censorship"? When will you start assigning points? Otherwise, the forum is turning into a verbal garbage dump. Or should we call moderators from other sections? :confused:
Wlk777
Kostya, the moderators (according to them) can't assign points right now. So, no one can catch up to me, and there's no need to bother asking for the permanent ban to be lifted. We've reached communism :D
Dubrovin Pavel
Kostya, why don't you sign up to be a moderator and try assigning points? :)
Where do you see a garbage dump? Everything is being cleaned up and corrected promptly, and punishment will definitely come.
It has arrived. Yesterday, I received a message from the Creator:
Creator

Today, a new version of the scripts responsible for the automated violation system was uploaded to the HeroesWorld server. Please check its functionality.
Our moderators have regained the ability to assign violation points. They are already checking the functionality. Points will also be assigned for particularly egregious violations committed during the period of "communism." So, "communism" is canceled, and it makes sense to think about the eternity of existence.
Therefore, I ask you to refresh your memory of the Portal Rules and avoid including

direct and indirect insults to users (25 points),
profane and offensive language in your nicknames, avatars, messages, and signatures (10 points),
trolling, i.e., provocations (5 points), etc.

Also, any user, if they see that the forum is turning into a verbal garbage dump, can report the violation to the moderators by clicking on the "brick" under the author's avatar – a message will immediately be sent to their email. There is no longer any need to call moderators from other sections.

Registering two accounts with one user is prohibited on the forum (50 violation points). However, if this is not done with dishonest intentions but out of ignorance (for example, they forgot their password...), there is a solution.
To avoid further questions from users, I am informing everyone that the players Imb and Tovariщ are now united and indivisible (Denis forgot his password when moving and registered again). The same applies to %username% and Vortex123.
Creator
Fortunately, our forum allows us to merge user accounts, so the duplicate accounts you described have been merged in favor of Tovariщ and Vortex123, respectively.
If you have any questions about this, please write to me in a private message.
In reply to Wlk777
User Avatar
#842
Auto-translated
Wlk777
An interesting idea came to mind - to add a clause to the rules regarding blocks - in case of a controversial situation (when players disagree on whether a block can be broken) the opponent of the player who has the disputed block is obliged to break it (in front of the opponent in the game or describe the breaking tactic with acceptable losses, as a last resort simply send a save from the FIRST attempt of breaking the block) and then with a clear conscience you can determine the winner of the match =)

And what if the opponent started developing incorrectly, and therefore cannot break this block with acceptable losses by week 113?.. ) Is only the current breakability of the block considered? (I mean, is a group of goblins and wolves actually a viable tactic for Citadel in the first 2 weeks?.. *scratcheshead*) And are acceptable losses 1/3 of the army as Pasha wrote?
Show your true face when losing. Make sure it`s not ugly.
In reply to Герой Меча и Магии 3
User Avatar
#843
Auto-translated
Heroes of Might and Magic 3
And what if the opponent started developing incorrectly, so by week 1 day 3 cannot break through this block with acceptable losses?.. ) Is only the current breakability of the block considered? (I mean this: is the gr gbls and wolves tactic really a viable Citadel tactic in the first 2 weeks?..*scratchinghead*) And are acceptable losses 1/3 of the army as Pasha wrote?


I have not yet arrived at a clear understanding of the block criterion by which one can restart.

My current thoughts on the possibility of such a restart.

1st option: a block that is unbreakable under any circumstances on the turn for which a block-related restart can be taken.
2nd option: a block that is breakable, but the Army that remains gains nothing from it (since there are no prospects of recapturing anything using the remnants of the Army, reaching another respawn, or rebuilding).
3rd option: only the 1st Option.
4th option: something else entirely.
С истиной где-то рядом...





Лето 2010.

Statistics

Welcome our newest member: Emil