HeroesWorld
  • Log in
  • Create account
  • Mode
    Interface scale

    Loads video thumbnails from YouTube, which lets it see your IP address. Off until you turn it on, and remembered in this browser only.

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 Pit for LM
User Avatar
Offline RomarioGrom
Registered:
Posts: 811
#949
Auto-translated
unnecessary in my opinion:
- if a player doesn't have a starting castle (I haven't encountered this);

Restart due to a strong block - I think it could be added that if an opponent breaks this block (within the day it's in place) with losses of less than or equal to 1/3 of the troops, it doesn't count as breaking the block, and the player is awarded a restart (or restarts are taken away if they exist).

5.14.2. It is forbidden to use the bug of viewing the opponent's hero (cannot be checked!).
Based on point 5.14.5, the following points can be removed (there will be less writing)...
5.14.3. It is allowed to use the bug of viewing the opponent's cities.
5.14.4. It is allowed to attack a city with an improved stack more than once.


ICQ (559716573)

Стримы
http://ru.twitch.tv/romariogrom/videos?kind=past_broadcasts
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
Offline Сатир
Registered:
Posts: 1,378
#950
Auto-translated
Pit for LM

According to Section IV. Differences for the WT version.
Is such a section needed?
I don't know what to write there; I played very little on WT. Who will take on writing the settings and differences?

Hit and run, redraws are prohibited, cheating is not allowed + all caveats for a specific template, excluding restarts like road closures. It is easy to play on 160% in balance and panic mode. That's all. :)

By the way, where did the 8-minute limit for Jebus come from? I'm against it.
Не бійся коли ти один, бійся коли ти нуль.

484800548

0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
Offline КостяN
Registered:
Posts: 1,150
#951
Auto-translated
My people and I will always come to an agreement, even with no turn limit;). You're right, Satyr! I'm in favor of a no turn limit on any map, especially since I usually play relatively quickly...
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 Pit for LM
User Avatar
Offline Герой Меча и Магии 3
Registered:
Posts: 376
#952
Auto-translated
That's Heroes of Might and Magic 3. About the "Monster Week." The "Unicorn Week" happens much less often than their spawn on the map. In the second week, the spawn and the "Unicorn Week" are practically equivalent. And in the third week, the spawn already gives +8... There's no point in complicating the rules...

Well, forget about the spawn; you still have to defend against it... ) And then you have to buy them before they're gone. And then, suddenly, there are more, and you just sit there and enjoy it. :) You don't even have to go anywhere. And what if it's a spawn + "Monster Week"? )) Well, I don't know, in my opinion, it's an undeserved advantage. It's like stealing a Pandor from right under someone's nose. )
And if we're talking about complicating the rules, then what about the "prohibitions and restrictions" section, point "5.18. It is allowed to buy and use any monsters in the 'mercenary camps'." ) If it's allowed, then it's not prohibited. You could then add "it is allowed to buy any monsters in the spawn" ))
5.14.4. It is allowed to attack a Guardian more than once, if it has an upgraded stack.
I noticed something today; I think I attacked 20+ water elementals, and when I attacked again, there were 10+ left. Does the number of monsters in the stack disappear? :) I don't even know about this
Show your true face when losing. Make sure it`s not ugly.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
Offline rebellious
Registered:
Posts: 1,239
#953
Auto-translated
Upon restarting after the first encounter between opponents.
...An encounter is considered a direct interaction between players, i.e., any battle between them (a battle between any heroes, a battle with a castle garrison or an opponent's mine)...

So, I understand that capturing an empty (unguarded) enemy Castle[?], mine (unguarded), or taking an opponent's outer building is not grounds for a restart?
And again. The meaning of the word
...Castle...
in this formulation can be interpreted as:
- 1) a city with a built Castle;
- 2) a city of the Castle type.
- 3) any city referred to as such in common parlance.
Rules, like laws, cannot contain formulations that allow for such a wide range of meanings.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
Offline Pit for LM
Registered:
Posts: 2,468
#954
Auto-translated
numOne
5.6.1. To pass into the adjacent zone, it is necessary to eliminate the guard standing at the passage. If there are several guards at the passage, it is enough to destroy any of them. If there are several passages between zones, it is necessary to destroy the guard on EACH one.
- The highlighted fragment can be interpreted as "if there are several passages to the respawn point, then it is necessary to destroy the guard on EVERY passage in order to pass." In my opinion, this sentence is superfluous and unnecessary; everything is clear without it.
I agree, but pHOMM suggested that this should be written, no one reacted, although I also think it's an excessive addition.
numOne
I also consider these points to be superfluous:
5.14.3. It is allowed to use the bug of viewing opponent cities.
5.14.4. It is allowed to break more than once against a GO (game object) where there is an improved stack.
Yes, they are superfluous, I will remove them.
RomarioGrom
in my opinion, this is superfluous:
- if the player does not have a starting Castle;(I haven't encountered anything like this)
It happened to me personally several times. According to the previous rules, if there are no restarts left, GG (Game Over).
RomarioGrom
Restart due to a strong block - I think we could add a point: if the opponent breaks through this block (within the day), with losses of less than or equal to 1/3 of the troops in the block, this is not considered a block and the player receives a technical victory (or restarts are taken away if any exist).
Yes, I plan to write this in section V. Non-standard and controversial situations. Judging.
Satyr
By the way, where did the 8-minute limit on Jebus Cross come from? I am against it.
The rules can be changed by agreement.
I played a lot on Jebus Cross; 6 minutes is clearly too little; all my opponents asked for 8 minutes... or unlimited time.
Hero of Might and Magic 3
...what is the purpose of item "5.18." in "prohibitions and restrictions"?
This item does not exist in the Rules – see New ones, not Old ones.
rebellious
...capturing an empty (unguarded) enemy Castle, mine (unguarded), or taking an opponent's external building is not grounds for a restart?[?]
Exactly, and this has been written in the HW rules for about a year and a half.
rebellious
The meaning of the word ...Castle...
in this formulation, it can be interpreted as:
- 1) a city with a built Castle;
- 2) a city type called Castle.
- 3) any cities referred to colloquially as such.
In the rules, like in law, there cannot be formulations that allow for so many meanings.
I agree, I will correct it; I also noticed this.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
Offline rebellious
Registered:
Posts: 1,239
#955
Auto-translated
Pit for LM
Message from rebellious
...capturing an empty (unguarded) enemy castle, a mine (unguarded), or taking an opponent's outer building is not grounds for a restart?
That's correct, and it's been stated in the HW rules for over a year.
This question was, of course, discussed at the time. After reviewing more than ten pages of the forum, I didn't find any ideological basis for this rule. It seems that the rule was mechanically (by voting) approved just to have something in place. In fact, I don't see a fundamental difference between losing an unguarded town and losing a town with a peasant in the garrison, just as I don't see a difference between losing an unguarded mine and a mine with a peasant in the garrison. I would just like to understand the idea behind this rule, and since there isn't one, there's really no reason to discuss it.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
Offline Kluka
Registered:
Posts: 418
#956
Auto-translated
Vidomina understood the idea, I agree.
Restart along a single path in the Grand Order. Take up to level 115 inclusive.
Apparently, it meant something slightly different:
It is taken on the day of discovery, but no later than level 115.

according to point 5.6.5
- there is also any other irrefutable evidence that the guard was destroyed.
Probably correct, but I can't think of a single example of such evidence. Unless the opponent says so himself.

There's something wrong with the numbering in point 13, it needs to be corrected.

Otherwise :smile54:
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
Offline RiMpel2
Registered:
Posts: 3,670
#957
Auto-translated
Is restarting a Grand Order campaign along a single path mandatory? Or can I continue playing if I enjoy it as is?
0
⚖️
0
In reply to RiMpel2
User Avatar
Offline Дубровин Павел
Registered:
Posts: 1,805
#958
Auto-translated
RiMpel2
Is restarting with only one path to the Grail of Order mandatory? Or can I continue playing if I like it that way?

Of course, if the player who has only one path to the Grail of Order doesn't mind, you can continue playing.
С истиной где-то рядом...





Лето 2010.
2
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
Offline AYMAN
Registered:
Posts: 1,322
#959
Auto-translated
Imagine this situation: for example, a player actually has only one path to the Guardian Order (GO), but they don't know it yet because the path is blocked by a barrier (but this barrier can be broken, although it's not advisable to do so later). As a result, the player continues to, for example, capture Necropolises or level up, and later, they break through to level 116 and discover that there's only one path to the GO behind it. And it turns out they lost. I understand that this is rare, but it's not impossible. Therefore, I suggest changing this requirement to at least level 117. Regarding Vidomina and Izry, you are absolutely right; now, they can be leveled up without the internal penalty of losing those turns. In the very last slot, we level up experience, Necromancy, and it's good.


0
⚖️
0
In reply to AYMAN
User Avatar
Offline Kluka
Registered:
Posts: 418
#960
Auto-translated
AYMAN
Let's imagine this scenario: a player actually has only one path to the Guardian's Outpost (GO), but they don't know it yet because the path is blocked (but this block can be broken, although it might not be worthwhile). As a result, the player continues to, for example, capture crypts or level up, and then, at level 116, they break through and discover that there's only one path to the GO. And it turns out they lost. I understand that this is rare, but it's not impossible. Therefore, I suggest changing this rule to at least include level 117.

Against.
1) Imagine how the opponent will react if they are preparing to buy a growth bonus at level 121, and you only now discover your GO.
2) If you've been spending several days on the respawn point, you've probably found paths through the wilderness to somewhere. Although, that's not a certainty.
3) If you want, you can exploit this rule heavily. You see that the path is likely only one to the GO, but you don't see the GO itself. You don't go to the GO. You try to take a consul at level 115; if you don't succeed, you run to the GO and take a rest. Of course, self-respecting players won't do that.

We need to think about it...
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
Offline Wicc
Registered:
Posts: 5,099
#961
Auto-translated
You can simply convert subjective rests into objective ones if the layout turns out to have only one path to the Goal. That is, if a player takes a rest, we look at the map – if there is only one path to the Goal, then the rest is not lost.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline Oelm
Registered:
Posts: 2,556
#962
Auto-translated
Imagine this situation: a player actually has only one path to the Guardian Order (GO), but they don't know it yet because the path is blocked by a barrier (but this barrier can be broken, although it might not be worthwhile to do so later). As a result, the player continues to, for example, capture Necropolises or level up, and later, they break through the barrier, reaching level 116, and discover that there was only one path to the GO. And it turns out they lost. I understand that this is rare, but it's not impossible. Therefore, I suggest changing this rule to at least include level 117.

As a rule, with this pace, it's already too late to decide whether there's a path to the GO or not. I'm generally against this rule. And if the GO blocks the path to a secondary location? What should be done?
Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
Offline AYMAN
Registered:
Posts: 1,322
#963
Auto-translated
Oelm, Pash, the tempo definitely suffers, but I've seen games where similar strategies won, although it wasn't cheap in terms of gold. Regarding the Go that blocks the second path, it's definitely something to consider.


0
⚖️
0