DISCUSSIONS on “Rules for online games in HoMM3 and formulas for calculating player rating.” — Online Tournaments

R55Max

3/16/2011 10:16 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Oelm

if you allow the upgrade, after building the upgrade in the castle, then there is no imbalance whatsoever. Provided that only those units for which this upgrade is available in the castle will be upgraded.

That's exactly what I meant. Let me elaborate a bit more on what you said. For example, you can upgrade angels bought from the castle, but you cannot upgrade angels from the conflux, nor can you upgrade any units not purchased in the castle, except if the angels from the conflux and the angels from the castle have never been in the same stack when meeting — then you can't tell them apart. Otherwise, you could buy 2 angels from the castle, go to another front, and then upgrade, say, 2 out of 4 conflux angels.
I absolutely see no imbalance. Let me give an example. In any game, a player who finds control — let's take Town Portal for instance — can fly freely from the castle and collect growth, while the one without control struggles and loses tempo when gathering troops.
No imbalance, just another nuance that will need to be taken into account. By the way, it would be cool if scout heroes would fight for this object :) stealing it from each other. It would just add a little extra story to the game. Of course, the building is important, but it's clearly not imbalanced. First, because you still have to break the guard. Second, you can upgrade everything in your own castle. And if you're deep in the map, your opponent might be there in principle. If the fort is nearby, consider it a bonus to logistics :) saving moves in various situations.

Added after 6 minutes
Moreover, this rule could be introduced for season 1 as a test. After all, at first, people were not too keen on the new restart system either, but now I think it has fully justified itself and, in my opinion, is even better than the previous one.

Also, there's an interesting point when playing against computers. Before breaking into the fort, you have to think about whether it's worth it. Otherwise, you break the guard, upgrade the allowed units, and then the computer's hero shows up and upgrades all of its own, and GG may happen :)

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...

In reply to R55Max

Oelm

3/16/2011 11:58 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Why can't angels be taken from conservatories if the arches are built in the castle? In general, it's unlikely that everyone will agree to this, but if desired, you can simply discuss this point before starting a regular game.

Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.

In reply to Oelm

R55Max

3/17/2011 2:32 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Oelm

Why can't angels be used from conservatories if the arches are built in the castle? In general, it's unlikely that everyone will agree on this, but if desired, you can simply discuss this point during a regular game.

This is just a small reassurance for the conservatives so that it doesn't sound too radical.
Well, it's difficult to achieve consensus on many issues. Others need to express their opinion on this. IMHO, this will only add interest.
If you look at it from another angle, it turns out that the Fortress is removed due to its overpowered nature, but if it's not overpowered, then there's no reason to prohibit its use within the rules.
In theory, you can see both the positive and negative in any situation; it's like the question about the crocodile: is it wider or is it more likely to be green?

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...

In reply to R55Max

Oelm

3/17/2011 8:32 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Incompleteness spoils the impression.

Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.

In reply to Pit for LM

R55Max

3/17/2011 8:43 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Half of one or zero...

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...

In reply to Pit for LM

zoog

4/19/2011 11:05 AM UTC

Auto-translated

AUTO-GIVE - whether to allow it or not - in my opinion, this is a very important point that is not included in the rules.
AUTO-GIVE - if used - often determines who will win; there have been reports where a player won by taking (and not just once) the auto-give - in my opinion, this is wrong.
Some people fundamentally do not use replays, and I agree, but sometimes a "slip of the hand" ruins everything - it's not even worth continuing the game. Furthermore, sometimes someone asks to give them the auto-give - and here there are also ethical ambiguities - you want to continue, and the opponent may have made a stupid and unfortunate mistake... and you don't want to give away the victory)).
A hardcore solution would be to ban this altogether - but it wouldn't be supported by the majority.
Therefore, I propose a rational (in my opinion) solution - introduce a rule allowing any player to request a return, but with a penalty of 0.5 victory. That is, if someone wins by taking 2 auto-gives, it will be a draw. It's like a game for fun, if there are so many returns. If, however, they lose, it's just 1:0 (not 2:0)).
Also, limit the number of returns - say, once a week.
And purists can agree not to give/take auto-gives at all on an individual basis.
P.S.: maybe we should create a poll on this topic?

648050691

In reply to Pit for LM

Lider1

4/19/2011 1:00 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Why is this nonsense even needed?

If you want to give them an advantage, go ahead, but if you lose, don't complain. IMHO.

Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/
За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того

In reply to Lider1

RomarioGrom

4/19/2011 1:06 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Lider1

Why bother with this nonsense?

If you want to give an auto-win, go ahead, but don't complain if you lose. IMO.

100% :D Why complicate things when I don't want to give an auto-win? The rules won't force me to give it, and vice versa.

ICQ (559716573)

Стримы
http://ru.twitch.tv/romariogrom/videos?kind=past_broadcasts

In reply to Pit for LM

zoog

4/20/2011 8:14 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Leaderas, please choose the expressions you prefer. If you don't like them, just say so or remain silent.
My assumption was that a game/victory with a comeback no longer holds any value. That's it.

648050691

In reply to Pit for LM

Castiel

4/20/2011 8:36 PM UTC

Auto-translated

And what value does a victory have when you don't even encounter an enemy, who, due to a foolish mistake, moved to the wrong tile and was defeated by neutral creatures?

In reply to zoog

Дубровин Павел

4/20/2011 8:56 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Tootsie Pie

AUTO - whether to give or not give - in my opinion, this is a very important point that is not included in the rules.
AUTO - if used - often decides who will win; there have been reports where a player won by taking (and not just once) AUTO - IMHO, this is wrong.
Some people fundamentally do not use replays, I agree, but sometimes "pedal confusion" completely ruins everything - it's not even worth playing anymore. Furthermore, sometimes someone asks to give AUTO - there are also ethical ambiguities here - you want to continue, and the opponent may have made a stupid and cruel mistake... and you don't want to give away the victory)).
A hardcore solution is to ban this altogether - but it won't be supported by the majority.
Therefore, I propose a rational (IMHO) solution - introduce a rule allowing any player to request a return, but with a penalty of 0.5 victory. That is, if someone wins by taking 2 AUTOs - then it's a draw. It's like a game for fun if there are so many returns. If, however, they lose - then it's just 1:0 (not 2:0)).
Also, limit the number of returns - say, 1 time per week.
And purists agree not to give/take AUTO at all on an individual basis.
P.S.: maybe we should create a poll on this topic?

Oh, a poll, that's a good idea, go for it!))

In essence: it's ambiguous.
If the opponent asks for AUTO at the beginning of the game, around turn 117, and my relationship with the opponent is not friendly, then instead of AUTO, I'll say, no, let's rest instead (provided that I have a bad starting hand). If I have a good starting hand, I'll give it without any conditions. If it's already the second week, then also without any conditions.
If we have a friendly relationship, I'll always give it without question.

С истиной где-то рядом...

Лето 2010.

In reply to Pit for LM

Sevensan

4/20/2011 10:35 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Generally speaking, I always give auto-pick to my opponents (sometimes even two!). But I don't take it myself anymore. And if they win with auto-pick, I think it's not appropriate to post their victory; in my opinion, it should be considered a draw, but that's just my opinion.

ICQ 335-665-133
Discord Sevensan#3379

In reply to Sevensan

Dirty_Player

4/21/2011 5:48 AM UTC

Auto-translated

It all depends on the reason why a person is asking for an auto-win. If they attacked someone and lost, then I definitely won’t give them an auto-win, because they knew who they were attacking and did it intentionally. Such behavior cannot be encouraged in any way. If it was a misclick, then I will give an auto-win without any problems. This applies to tournaments, of course. If it’s a casual game, then I don’t mind giving 100 auto-wins, because I don’t care about the result.

As for restarts, I apologize if they ran out, and the distribution was poor; that’s not my fault.

In reply to zoog

Lider1

4/21/2011 6:19 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Tootsie Pie

Leaderas, please choose your words carefully. If you don't like something, just say it or stay silent.
My assumption was that a game/victory with a rematch no longer holds any value. That's it.

You asked, and I answered.

If a victory doesn't hold value with a rematch, then what's the problem?

It's like wanting to win, get points, and in case of a loss, claim a draw, and then add a mile-long post to the rules to justify all of this. It reminds me of a saying.

Tootsie Pie

Introduce a rule allowing a rematch at the request of any player, but with a penalty of 0.5 victory points. I.e., if someone wins by taking 2 rematches, it's a draw.

But what if the opponent takes 1 rematch and wins?

Personally, if I have to play against an opponent who asks for a rematch and I don't want to give it to them, I don't need any rules; I won't give them the rematch.

Tootsie Pie

Also, limit the number of rematches - say, 1 per week.

A masterpiece. Does the opponent have the right to ask for a rematch every week? And will this be "legalized" by the rules?

Yes. This will no longer be a game; it will be something else entirely! And all because someone didn't have the willpower to say, "No, I won't give you a rematch." If they lost, they lost.

Or, I'll give them a rematch, we can finish the game for fun, but you can't claim victory anymore.

Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/
За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того

In reply to Pit for LM

R55Max

4/22/2011 6:04 AM UTC

Auto-translated

I think that in tournament games, only losing due to a misclick should be acceptable, as Dirty wrote. In games where reports are submitted, everything can be made much simpler. For example, I've decided that if an opponent loses due to a misclick on turn 1 or on neutral creatures, I'll count it as a loss, but I won't write a report. This loss due to a misclick is like a debt. If I later lose to that person in a tough battle, even if the game lasts for a couple of in-game months, they shouldn't post a win against me, as they've already paid off the debt. Not encouraging auto-factors is a way to stimulate player development. After all, the competitive aspect should also be present. However, I will give auto-wins to people with whom I have a warm, friendly relationship, but no more than one. Whether to give a ranked auto-win or not is a viable option. By the way, I remember a very embarrassing moment for me when I recently registered on HW and in a 200% tournament, I played against legionerdv, and he gave me 4 or 5 auto-wins after my misclicks. In general, I won that game (in my defense, I can say that at that time I didn't read the forum much and didn't realize how unfair it was, as I was a complete newcomer to online games). So, I don't know how he had the patience, but he didn't insult me, and to his credit, he very calmly confirmed the loss. Now, I won't take more than one auto-win from an opponent.

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...