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

Guys, restarting a block is a bad idea – there's already no consensus in the discussion, and what will happen in matches? And in tournaments? It would be better to increase the subjective restart limit to 4 days.
Also, regarding my suggestion – is there any support or rejection? Remember, when did you calmly give Necropolis or Conflux to an equal opponent? Even if you are strong enough that the initial conditions don't matter, there are many other players who are not. Thank you for your attention.

A restart for a resource block is initiated when there are no regular ones left. Therefore, this doesn't happen often.

I easily give up the Conflux, as no one wants to take it. But a Necropolis with Tamika, etc. (random start) – that's a good one.

If you don't try to overgear yourself, 3 days for rests are enough (some play without rests and it's fine), especially since no one is forcing you to play strictly by the rules; everything can be discussed before the game. If it's tournament play, it's harder; in such cases, you have to rely on oppa (if according to the regulations this block isn't counted as a block, and it can't be broken through with acceptable losses).

Did you just make this up yourself? There is nothing like that in the rules.

You need to read the rules carefully; if anything is unclear, you can always clarify. I also got into trouble like that once in a tournament with Dimension Door; I read somewhere about 2 Dimension Doors with expert water magic, and after leveling it up, I jumped using 2 Dimension Doors a day—a technical loss, naturally, but it was so frustrating; for the win, even 1 would have been more than enough :(

You need to read the rules carefully.

I read it somewhere.

Well, so that they don't just say "somewhere," let them explain it in a way that everyone can understand.

somewhere it means not in the topic with the rules, but in some discussion or similar topic!

Well, so that we don't have to “read between the lines,” let them explain it in a way that is understandable for everyone.

You seem like a special person. Since you can’t find it yourself, here: /topic/7430/.

Added after 12 minutes
By the way, I have a question about choosing castles for AI opponents when playing on mini-maps. I played with several people, and each has their own version:

1. They chose castles only for themselves.
2. They chose castles only for the opponent.
3. They chose castles in order, meaning each player chose 1 castle for themselves and 2 for the opponent.

Which of these methods is correct?

to Sevensan. Once again: There are rules for playing on CM (CM rules, section II). For some of the most popular templates (e.g., Jebus Cross), differences are specified (CM rules, section III). 1. On CM, 1 Dimension Door is allowed per day. Section III specifies a difference for XL+U templates – 2 Dimension Doors. What's unclear? 2. On CM, it is allowed to jump/fly over guards at passages. Section III specifies a difference for Jebus Cross – jumping/flying is prohibited. What’s unclear here? For some templates, differences are not specified in the rules (e.g., Ёлка), but in the "Templates" topic, where these templates are posted, there are recommended deviations from the rules. That is, it is recommended to use the rules for CM, taking into account these deviations. For many obscure templates (e.g., 4sm0d), no differences are specified anywhere, and if such a template is used in a tournament, the organizer specifies the differences. Otherwise, play according to the rules for CM. I have specially developed an algorithm for you: “How do I find out what rules to play with this template?” 1. Is this a tournament game? Yes - the rules are indicated in the tournament topic. No - read below. 2. Is this template a CM? Yes - CM rules, section II. No - read below. 3. Are any differences when playing on this template specified in Section III of the CM rules? Yes - CM rules, sections II-III. No - read below. 4. In the Useful info: templates, maps, programs topic (or wherever you got this template) are recommended deviations when playing on this template specified? Yes - CM rules, section II + these deviations. No - CM rules, section II. :cool: Oleg, +1. Something needs to be clarified in the rules. Because every time I play Might and Magic, I have to clarify how my opponent usually deals with computers. It always seemed logical to me that it should be option three, but something made my opponents think differently

Kash, you are absolutely right. Romariogrom

If you don't try to gain an unfair advantage, 3 days of rest is enough (some play without any rest and it's fine). Moreover, no one forces you to play strictly according to the rules; everything can be discussed before the game. If it's a tournament, it becomes more challenging, and in such cases, you have to rely on your opponent (if, according to the rules, this block doesn't count as a block, and it can be broken with acceptable losses).

I used to share the same opinion until I found myself in a mega-difficult situation with all the regenerations. Here, it's necessary (at least in tournaments) to send each generation to the organizer and wait for approval to continue (in cases where there are no subjective resources left). You need to consider the possibility of development and the win rate. Well, let's say, what kind of development are we talking about when a Necromancer, having 3 stacks of all heroes, creating around 100 skeletons, including converted ones, has to fight 19 Marksmen, 34 simple Archers, and 18 Greater Demons underground to break through to the Comet Castle (8MM6A), while having around 20,000 coins on the reserve, including the starting amount, and not having any other paths besides the Gate of the Underworld and the Treasury! Regarding resting to gain an advantage – it's up to each player, although I'm against it and don't recommend it. It's given without any explanation. But so that the loser doesn't complain later, someone needs to give approval for the game. Otherwise, everyone is used to blaming something other than their own skill.

Since the conversation has again turned to restarts, and someone is suggesting going back to 4 days (oh horror!):

I already wrote about reducing the number of restarts (not days), and in response I got something like "there's no difference in time." So, my recent games with some people have convinced me that they are chocolate-hunters — they restart perfectly playable layouts, and not even for reasons like "miner / [hero name] with one stack," but for reasons like "some external dwelling of angels and about 5 Dragon Fly Hives are not visible."

How often does a completely unplayable crap layout occur? I'm sure not to the extent that you need to restart as many as 3 times. There are strategy options for almost any layout. Restarting on 113 is generally nonsense — you've played for almost an hour and only now realized that everything is bad.

Let's say you restarted 3 times and got a crap layout, what then, whine that "oh, such bad luck"? You're to blame yourself — if the opponent doesn't give a humane restart, since an unplayable layout doesn't occur 4 times in a row. And if you only have 1 restart, you used it and got crap, then a decent opponent will give you a humane restart 100% of the time, because not much time was wasted and you weren't chocolate-hunting.

In short, my IMHO is 112 only. And restart only 1 time, and there are two days to look it over (if it's completely hopeless). And let's have the vote already, another month is too long :)

PS People, try to make any layouts work, no matter how crappy they are, and may the force be with you! :cool: :D

Added after 17 minutes
by the way, here's another thing

In the event that a player has not seen the opponent breaking through a guard, but for one reason or another believes that the guard was broken, he has the right to clarify this point with the opponent. The opponent, in turn, is obliged to provide accurate information.

Let's imagine this situation: Red is running from Blue down the road. There is a fork: a neighboring respawn along the road with a shifted guard, and to the right off-road with a double guard. Red decides to trick Blue and runs off-road, breaking through 1 guard in the hope that Blue will go along the road. And then Blue asks, referring to this rule clause, and it turns out that this clause obliges Red to reveal his location. A similar rule would be to report one's location at the end of every week, lol.

I propose to remove this clause.

Rimpel, why don't you just discuss this with the people you play with? When I played S.M.K.U., for example, I always agreed with them on the rest time for traveling on roads, understanding that it would be difficult to push this through at the rule level among the masses. I think they always went along with it. And two days of rest is frankly too little for Soda, in my opinion.

Because less than half agree, pointing fingers at the rules. And it's become tiresome to negotiate before every game.

Let's imagine this situation: red is running away from blue down the road. There's a fork in the road: a neighboring spawn point along the road with shifted guards and to the right along an unpaved road with double guards. Red decides to trick blue and runs along the unpaved road, breaking through 1 guard, hoping that blue will go along the road. And then blue asks, referring to this rule, and it turns out that this rule obligates red to reveal his location. A similar rule would be to report one's location at the end of each week, lol. I suggest removing this rule.

I suggest rewriting it like this:

If a player did not see the opponent breaking through the guards, but for some reason believes that the guards were broken through, then he has the right to clarify this point with the opponent. The opponent, in turn, is not obligated to provide accurate information.

I suggest rewriting it like this:

Moving on. Let's say Red reported INCORRECT information, stating that he cleared the guard on the road. Blue, referencing this response, runs along the road without clearing the moved (and only) guard, thereby violating the rule.

Besides the correct/incorrect options, which both have their drawbacks, there's the option of SILENCE. And silence is equivalent to the absence of this rule.

Like this:
"If there is a shifted guard, and the player is not sure whether the opponent has broken through it, he must break through the guard in order to proceed."

Here's the rule:
"If there's a staggered guard, and the player isn't sure if the opponent has broken through it, they must break through the guard to proceed."

This is essentially the core of the staggered guard rule.

What's the point of adding unnecessary rules on top of it?