Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
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.”
You could also restart up to level 117 – maybe you’ll find a block at level 117:D The point here is to reduce the time spent on restarts – and if you’re playing and suddenly see a block, well, that’s your problem. Go around it. Otherwise, you might end up with only one block at levels 114, 115, etc.:D I’m personally in favor of only one restart, but many will probably disagree. Therefore, I’d like to have at least restarts up to level 112, inclusive.
You could also try restarting up to block 117 – maybe you’ll find a block at 117:D The point here is to reduce the time spent on restarts – because if you’re playing and suddenly see a block, that’s your problem. Just avoid it. Otherwise, you might end up waiting for just one block at 114, 115, and so on:D I’m personally in favor of just one restart, but many people might disagree. That’s why I’d like to have at least restarts up to block 112, inclusive.
What do 114, 115, and 117 have to do with anything? What is this nonsense? In reality, my proposal eliminates the third 111, removes the possibility of getting 111 after taking 112, or that you can’t take 112 after 111 – this is also a REDUCTION in restarts. It will teach the “chocolate lovers” who like to take 111 three times to play properly.
Right now, 113 is allowed, and no one has canceled it yet, but the fact that you like just one restart is a different story; some people actually like the current system, so try to understand that too.
Yes, since we introduced the rules, we have been constantly discussing the restart system.
First, there were 111+113, then we introduced "a total of 3 days." It seems that the current system suits most people more or less.
CryptoNight
I would really appreciate it if the organizers could reduce the number of restarts.
Sevensan
Maybe you could create a poll.
Okay, let's create a poll.
Here is what currently exists for the campaign mode:
4. Restarts. 4.1. Mandatory restarts: - if the starting hero is above level one; - if the player does not have a starting Castle; - if there is no road leading from the starting Castle; - if the Guardian of the Oasis (GO) is generated adjacent to the starting Castle (so that it is impossible to exit or enter the starting Castle without a battle with the GO). A mandatory restart is taken immediately after the game is generated (within 1 minute).
4.2. Restart upon first encounter for 115-116-117 inclusive for fast-medium-slow roads, respectively. An encounter is considered a direct contact between players, i.e., any battle between them (a battle between any heroes, a battle with the garrison of the opponent's Castle or mine). If an encounter occurs within the specified time, either opponent may immediately request a restart. If both players agree to continue the game, the game continues. Subsequent encounters occurring within the specified time are not grounds for a restart.
4.3. Subjective restarts: each player has the right to take one or more restarts no later than the end of their turn on the corresponding day, i.e., to start a new game with a re-generation of the map. It is possible to take either 3 restarts on the first day of the game (111+111+111), or 2 restarts on the first and second days (111+112 or 112+111), or one restart on the third day (113).
4.4. Restart at the request of a player whose only road leads to the GO. It is taken on the day this fact is discovered, but no later than 115. If subjective restarts remain, then a subjective restart is used at the player's choice (for example, on 114, the remaining restart 111 can be used). If subjective restarts are over, and the player discovers that the only road from the starting Castle leads to the GO, then he has the right to request an additional restart.
4.5. Restart due to a strong block, if the block cannot be bypassed and the block cuts off the Castle from the main part of the starting zone, leaving no opportunity for development until the block. It is taken up to and including 112. The strength of the block is first assessed by the player who reported the block, then by his opponent, and if there is a dispute between the players, by the host/judge/admin. If subjective restarts remain, then a subjective restart is used at the player's choice (i.e., on 112, the remaining restart 111 can be used). If subjective restarts are over, the player has the right to request an additional restart.
How will we conduct the poll?
I suggest that everyone who disagrees with the current system write down their own version in detail.
If there are several such versions, then the poll will need to be conducted in 2 stages.
First, we include all the proposed options in the vote. If none of them gets 50+% of the votes, then we select the 2 systems that received the highest percentage and vote again.
I think it would be best to introduce a poll at the beginning, allowing for 2 or 3 restart attempts. If opinions are divided, we can add new options later.
So, your proposal concerns only subjective restarts? You are suggesting:
4.3. Subjective restarts: Each player has the right to take a restart/restarts no later than the end of their turn on the corresponding day, i.e., to start a new game with a map regeneration. It is possible to take either 2 restarts on the first day of the game (111+111), or one restart on the second day (112).
Everything else remains unchanged.
Is that correct?
Please formulate your proposals completely on your own. If there are no other proposals, then, of course, we will immediately create one poll with two options.
I agree, making the total 112. 113 encourages players to look for chocolate. There was even an opinion that if the red opponent didn't take 111, you should definitely take yours.
so that randomness would have an even greater impact on the outcome of games, and the player's skill would have even less?
But does chance really have such a significant impact on the outcome of games? My opinion (perhaps mistaken) is that you need to be able to play any situation. This is what demonstrates a player's skill.
so that randomness would have an even greater impact on the outcome of games, and the player's skill would have even less?
I was impressed by Captain's message in another thread. Captain
By the way, a very illustrative example is when they restart games, looking for a favorable starting position. When there was the first CIS champion in Kyiv, Artem Stinger, he told me very good words: "I play any scenario." And the "great" ones restart. That's what skill level is. I would like to suggest changing the rules - restarts are allowed only at the beginning of a block.
First, we need a large number of votes, specifically from those who are currently registered. Second, I am not against the current system, but for its reconstruction in the form of 111+111 or 112 or 113. Third, I am against a pure up to 112.
Variability in restarts makes the game more interesting in terms of tactics. I'm not talking about chocolate-seekers, but I mean the right to defend one's draft.
Added after 19 minutes Reducing restarts is normal, but eliminating them altogether will have a damn drastic effect on player relationships. Let's take an example: say 1 restart is allowed, and all other restarts only by block (we remove Jebus Cross and 8xm8a). Situations where both take 111 will naturally be very frequent, since we are playing SoD, BUT disputes over blocks will increase, when we have to call in judges to check whether it's a block or not. This will lead to friction and arguments, from which we have practically freed ourselves thanks to the current system! For what reason, for example, after taking 111, do I then have to listen that I supposedly have a block, it needs to be checked, and judges are nowhere to be seen, pointless arguments start, instead of a possible 111, which is subjectively taken automatically in a block. The fewer restarts, the more headaches about reviewing the map for the appearance of a block!
And where the greater time loss is, even a blind man can tell...
I join 112 in total. 113 provokes seeking chocolate. I've even come across the opinion - if the red opponent didn't take 111, take your own without a doubt =-o
Such an opinion is exactly chocolate-seeking! The opinion exists, don't give in to it and everything will be GOOD