Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from DISCUSSIONS on “Rules for online games in HoMM3 and formulas for calculating player rating.”
I suggest adding a clause to the section on restarts, making the blue player responsible for failing to promptly inform the opponent about the appearance of a starting hero above level 1 if the red player takes a subjective restart on turn 111. For example: the blue player sees that they have a level 5 hero in the tavern but doesn't immediately report it, hoping that the red player will take their turn 111. =)
Yeah, a technical loss should be awarded for that.
Yeah, technical support should be awarded for that.
I'm against it. After the turn timer, I often don't pay attention to the hero's level... I often change the starting hero to another, so I don't consider it... I often step away from the computer during the red player's turn when I'm playing as blue... I'm against any sanctions for this maneuver because it's just too much effort to argue and prove anything in case of a dispute (although I haven't consciously used it even once).
I haven't been reading the posts in this thread for a while. I want to start by saying that the RULES should be clear, so clear that no one can dispute them. The judges should only monitor their compliance. Some people here are trying to show how smart they are and what great players they are, but they don't think that the goal of this portal and the "Heroes of Might and Magic" community should be to promote the game and make it popular. The rules should be easily accessible for beginners. Everything that is not prohibited is allowed! What kind of respect are we talking about if, for example, Red takes 111 on the move while Blue has 111? Who said that this is disrespectful? Playing by the rules is respecting each other. If someone doesn't like crossing the street on a green light and waiting for a while, no one asks them, because that's the rule, or they'll just drive on the wrong side of the road, as they say. If players agree to play with a 6-minute turn time, then I have every right to spend 6 minutes on my turn and then decide whether to rest or not. Moreover, who said that making decisions during the opponent's turn is not allowed? When Red is taking their turn, Blue can look at the tavern, assess which heroes are coming out, where, and in what order, etc., which saves some time on their turn. Besides, I, for example, also want to assess how long the opponent is taking, what their secondary actions will be, or not, and based on this, decide whether to rest or not. Blue gets an advantage (I've taken rests this way several times, and it helped me). Every turn in the game is made based on conclusions, including analyzing the opponent's turn. This is important, especially since any tactic is a personal preference. When we learn to understand the opponent, put ourselves in their shoes, and respect each other, then there will be no more of this posturing (any decision made by the opponent within the rules is their right, no matter how much someone doesn't like it). Everyone is an individual with their own, and not "YOUR," quirks. Some people like to play quickly and don't like to wait long, while others like to take their time and think things through.
I'll continue... Also, you can agree on whether to take rests during the opponent's turn before the game.
Regarding blocks, I think that as long as someone doesn't take on the task of meticulously writing out the rules for each case, there will always be disputes. Judges, please think through the rules from beginning to end, and you will save yourself time by not having to sort through a bunch of disputes and not attracting criticism, which is also unpleasant to hear. The only thing that should be clear is that the position should not be too strict. We need to think about the average "Heroes of Might and Magic" player, not just the hardcore ones. If someone puts in the effort, it is possible to specify whether or not blocks are allowed for each castle and for different creatures.
Regarding the use of programs, I believe it should be allowed if it is only a means of improving the comfort of the game. Again, you can agree on this.
As for bugs in the game (like heroes duplicating), I don't think anyone is to blame here. After all, no one is forcing anyone to join their server. It's a mutual agreement. It's unlikely that this happens intentionally.
МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...
Since we've already reached the point of restarting levels, giving tech points for that is extremely unreasonable – blue can step aside for the duration of another player's turn, or red can move so quickly that the opponent won't understand what's happening and won't have time to notify their teammate, automatically receiving the tech points))). However, there's a preliminary idea to not give tech points at all, but simply dismiss that hero at the start.
The advantage is obvious – sometimes a good restart occurs because of this, and even if it's a small amount, it still saves time (it happened up to 7 times if the regeneration wasn't done during the restarts).
The disadvantage is that an unscrupulous player can conduct several difficult battles or use expert scouting to reveal most of the map and only then dismiss the starting hero. This can be tracked using Asma's program, but not all players are meticulous and will check this. And what about red?
I'm interested in hearing reasonable suggestions.
If we consider what a dishonest player might do, this is the least of the evils :D On the other hand, you could allow players to freely play out scenario 111, and then dismiss the hero at the end of 111. I don't think anyone can really cheat by playing scenario 111. The only problem here is that a player might play through scenario 111 until the end, realize that they are doing poorly, and then write "re 10lvl," which is not good.
Yes, it's also a problem, but in my opinion, it's less significant than easily defeating the second scenario with the Miners or easily defeating 50 Ogres with Valkyrie and then easily capturing the Angel's stronghold.
P.S., for those who are very particular about details: I forgot to mention in my post that mandatory rest is not required only if the player wants it and has a hero of level 1 or higher.
I think if you leave such a hero as a "sacrificial lamb" without having them participate in battles throughout the game, you might not need to resurrect them. For example, Valya, level 10, goes out to explore, while the purchased Taz stays in the stronghold. Similar situations have already occurred, and they resolved it amongst themselves, so to speak.
I think if you leave such a hero as a "sacrificial lamb" without having them participate in battles throughout the game, you might not need to resurrect them. For example, Valya, a level 10 hero, goes out to explore, while the redeemed Taz becomes a powerful leader. Similar situations have already occurred, and they resolved it amongst themselves.
The rules are a kind of legal document, and there can't be any "let's just agree" situations. And when Valya goes out to explore, that's one less hero available; the owner can do what they want, but what about the opponent? Will they have to constantly check the saves?
Rules are a kind of legal document, and there can be no "we agreed" here. And when Valya goes scouting, it means one less hero, the owner can have as many scouts as he wants, but what about the opponent? Does he have to check the saves every day?
Why? On the first day, you can look at the experience, and at the end (if she leaves, you can find the day she leaves or ask), you can see everything based on the experience, even if she killed 5 hobbits. Damn, I forgot about Kiryu :D
Even without Kir, any hero with exploration skills, for example, already provides a significant advantage, passive bonuses, etc. Even considering that they don't participate in battles, they still provide benefits by scouting the area.
I'll try to summarize some more intermediate results.
Objective restarts.
I remembered a situation that happened to me a couple of times, so I'll suggest another one:
objective restart: - if the player does not have a starting town.
Regarding the level. It's definitely not a good idea to leave the hero at level 1. We've already discussed this.
Regarding dismissing him, the new idea is just a rehash of an old one. About 2.5 years ago, MYT@R' (does anyone remember that player?) wrote:MYT@R'
I'm not entirely happy with the mandatory restart: - if the starting hero is above level 1. For example: I get a starting hero, let's say with level 3 or 20, it doesn't matter, but the map is amazing, I'd rather dismiss the starting hero and play with another one than restart!!! Think about it.
Javdet
I have a rough idea to not do restarts at all, but just dismiss the hero at the start. The advantage is obvious - sometimes a good map restart is worth it, and it also saves some time (there were times when it took 7 turns, if not more, to regenerate the map during restarts). The disadvantage is that a dishonest player can fight several difficult battles or scout a large part of the map with expert scouting and only then dismiss the starting hero.... And what about the red player?
So, should we turn this objective restart into a subjective one? By dismissing the hero, you lose 2500 gold, which can be useful at the start. Not every good map will compensate for such a loss. And then we'll have to revise the rule for subjective restarts, which is already completely new and untested. And in the proposed option with dismissal, there will be many amendments and caveats. Let's leave the level-based restart for now, especially since I haven't encountered any rules where it doesn't exist. But I want to add the following amendment to the rules:
An objective restart is taken immediately after the game is generated (within 1 minute).
The first thing players must do immediately after generation is check for conditions that would trigger an objective restart (hero level, presence of a town and a road to it, absence of a Guardian on the gate) and immediately notify the opponent if an objective restart is needed. I think 1 minute is more than enough for this. And only after that can the blue player go about his business, and the red player start moving. There's no need to force the red player to move (this is where time is lost) and wait for his subjective restart. Actually, in my opinion, all normal people do this anyway. What's the penalty for untimely notification? I haven't thought about it yet. Perhaps, if such deception is detected, the player will be required to use a subjective restart, and if that is not possible, a technical defeat will be applied.
Here's a real situation where one of our good players played for 5 days and didn't notice the level of the starting hero (Javdet will definitely remember this well, it happened in his tournament):
With this generation, I took restart 111. We were generating in turn. I already had a Jebus template, but I downloaded it from the first page of the thread... As a result, a generation appeared where there were almost no neutrals and nowhere to level up - the noobs had already run around the entire map for 4 days with 2 villages - this made me suspicious... We started looking for help together, and in the process, the same player told me not to worry - there was a reason for a mandatory restart - the starting hero was level 5. I didn't notice because I chose the Tazara folder, and when transferring troops, I looked at the objects I was transferring and didn't notice that there were more skills - I generally rarely look at the hero's stats - I prefer the single hero menu.
I haven't read all the posts, but I'm very interested to see the new rules, and I also want to ask (again, maybe someone has already written about this)... for example, a situation: players have 111 resources left, red goes first, and blue has a level 5 hero... but he remains silent and doesn't report this... hoping that red will take his 111 and, in doing so, blue will gain some advantage... what will we do in such situations?
To Gomunguls. Please take a look at the entire paragraph in my post that contains the red letters...
I'm rereading old threads about the rules and controversial situations to understand where everything came from.
I found out where the permission for the Mercenary Camp came from. It turns out that it was initially forbidden to use it. This rule caused confusion among players. And the Camp was allowed, so, naturally, the ban in the Rules was replaced with permission.
I suggest not removing the following clause:
5.13. It is allowed to buy and use any monsters in the "mercenary camps."
but replacing it with:
5.13. Actions not prohibited/restricted by these rules are permitted.
This also applies to Angel Wings. Initially, their use was restricted by requiring level 5 of the guild. Then this was removed, and the clause was rewritten as:
5.10. "Angel Wings" can be used without any restrictions, unless it contradicts... (the clause about guarding objects)
I removed this clause, and we got a discussion about the use of Wings, DD, and flight when forcing a passage.
Indeed, in:
5.6. It is forbidden to enter neighboring territories without defeating the guard standing at the passage (i.e., if it has been moved)...
the word "enter" is quite strange. Therefore, it needs to be rephrased:
5.6. It is forbidden to pass to neighboring territories, without eliminating the guard standing at the passage, including one that has been moved. If two or three guards are scattered along the road, any one can be destroyed. If there is no guard at the passage, including one that has been moved, it is allowed to freely move from one respawn point to another. Also, it is allowed to enter neighboring territories using Angel Wings, Dimension Door, and Flight spells, without destroying the guard.[/COLOR]
We will not cancel the control.
Regarding the proposed addition:
Wicc
If a player saw the opponent defeat one of the passage guards, then it is possible to pass by the remaining guards of this passage without defeating them. If a player did not see the opponent defeat the guard, but for some reason believes that the guard was defeated, then he has the right to ask the opponent about this. The opponent, in turn, must provide accurate information.
the following opinions were expressed:
Against. Plans can be built on defeating the guard, based on the element of surprise, which should not be revealed. If you want to go somewhere, defeat the guard. In general, I don't like the principle of being obliged to provide information about the game during the game. +1 I also think it's not worth talking about whether the guard was defeated or not... if you want to pass, defeat it. i.e., if the guard is standing and you are not sure whether this direction was cleared before, then you must defeat it yourself. If a player saw... +1 If a player did not see... -1 Against: reporting to the opponent whether I defeated the zone guards or not. This is nonsense, in my opinion. If it is not clear whether the passage is clear or not, defeat it yourself. I will not tell my opponent anything... Against: If a player did not see... If he wants to pass, let him defeat it, IMHO. And not waste time asking questions.
It is clear that players do not want to inform their opponents about defeating the guard. I am removing the second part. But what about the first half?
"if a player saw..." and "if a player is sure..." are different things. I may be sure (but I may also be wrong) that the guard was defeated, and the one that remains is another one. However, I don't always see this. I think, then, it should be written like this:
Also, it is allowed to pass by the passage guards, without destroying them, if the player saw that the opponent had already destroyed one of the guards of this passage.
This is what it looks like in general:
5.6. It is forbidden to pass to neighboring territories, without eliminating the guard standing at the passage, including one that has been moved. If two or three guards are scattered along the road, any one can be destroyed. If there is no guard at the passage, including one that has been moved, it is allowed to freely move from one respawn point to another. Also, it is allowed to enter neighboring territories using Angel Wings, Dimension Door, and Flight spells, without destroying the guard. Also, it is allowed to pass by the passage guards, without destroying them, if the player saw that the opponent had already destroyed one of the guards of this passage.
Another question. There are situations when the guard at the exit from a teleport or gate to the underworld does not need to be killed, but you can pass to another respawn point by killing the guard of something else (for example, a resource). Is it allowed to pass in this case? After all, the guard at the entrance (i.e., one of the passage guards) was destroyed. I have had such situations, and sometimes this point is very important.
Now about the Grail. An unexpected theoretical discussion. Only one person admitted to practically digging for the Grail:Kluka
I dug. From one obelisk (there was only one lava zone on the map, so I found it quickly). IMHO, on the 6th week it doesn't play a big role, since the probability that the game will last several more days is very low. Although the +30% to Necromancy helped me then.
A full spectrum of theoretical opinions is observed:
...The Grail is forbidden to be dug up... ...I think it should be banned... ...If there's a cross, no questions asked, it means they have the required number of obelisks for digging, and if there's no cross, it means they're cheating (understanding where to dig without enough fragments is... it means digging in the center, and it takes way too much time...) the Grail is needed, I think, but just ban it in Necromancer, Tower, and Conflux. Demons getting an extra 15 imps — only 60 HP and 2 hogs is nothing (though if you have 5 Infernos) that's sort of okay, combined with the rest of the growth bonuses) the other towns get a solid bonus... without being imbalanced... ...Against: banning digging for the Grail. Why are you all so afraid of it? How many people have actually dug it up online? Just ban building it in Tower and Conflux, where the bonuses are too strong, but digging is fine even with 111... ...I am FOR digging up the Grail!!! (just ban building it in Tower and Conflux)... ...The Grail can be dug up if the cross is visible on the puzzle map... ...For the Grail after the cross is revealed... ...That's the same as banning its digging... ...If we require digging the Grail only when the cross is visible on the puzzle map, then no one will dig it anyway =(. Let's have it without any crosses!!! ...I propose allowing Grail digging. If it gets problematic, we can revert the ban...
What shall we do? We could fully lift restrictions on digging in the winter season, with mandatory reports from both sides in this thread. If everyone starts digging and winning, we can either limit it by time, towns, crosses, or ban it entirely. What we have now is practically a ban.
Дубровин Павел
