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.”Auto-translated
I would like to know your opinion on the following: 5.5.2. The Fortress on the Hill can only be used to upgrade creatures whose upgraded dwellings have been built in any of the player's controlled castles. It is not possible to upgrade creatures whose upgrade is prohibited in section 5.8. and un-upgraded cavalry (this can be done for free in the stable), and since the stable is an external building, why isn't there an exception for cavalry?:smile13:
I would like to know your opinion on the following: 5.5.2. The Fortress on the Hill can only be used to upgrade creatures whose upgraded dwellings have been built in any of the player's controlled castles. It is not possible to upgrade creatures whose upgrade is prohibited in 5.8. and non-upgraded cavalry (this can be done for free in the stable), and the stable is an external building, so why isn't there an exception for cavalry?:smile13:
Specifically, in the fortress, if the upgrades haven't been built, it's not possible.
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...
It would be logical to add the Diamond template to section 5.6, or to write about it in the section on templates.
I added it to both 5.6 and section III (point 8). Redwhait HP
+ the number of days for restarts after a match should be reduced by 1.
Yes, I liked the rule in Vika's tournament, I added:
After the first restart after a match, the time for the next restart is reduced by one day, i.e., the second time a restart after a match is taken up to 114-115-116 inclusive for fast, medium, and slow paths, respectively. The time for the third and all subsequent restarts after a match is reduced by another day, i.e., to 113-114-115 inclusive for fast, medium, and slow paths, respectively.
Jopik
...am I the only one who was confused by Mullich?
No, I resisted unbanning Mullich for many years, he is a monster. However, this did not prevent me from enjoying playing on WCL, where there are no restrictions on him.
I repeat once again. Theory is great. Let's play and discuss real game situations and the impact of our changes on the balance in specific games, and not just in our heads. It won't take long to vote and return to the old wording...
And the main difference between version 3 and the previous one is the separation of the general rules - section II - and the rules for specific templates (including for Castle Maps) - section III - into different sections. In version 2, these things are sometimes written completely incorrectly.
In the Summer season topic: /topic/10416/ at the beginning of the first post it says:
Restarts. For the seasonal Tournaments, a system of subjective restarts "totaling 2 days" applies:
But if you follow the link to the actual rules text: /topic/10415/ then – in section 4.3. Subjective Restarts it says:
Each player has the right, without giving reasons, to take a restart/restarts no later than the end of their turn on the corresponding day. It is possible to take either 3 restarts on the first day (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).
There's an inconsistency. Perhaps it should be corrected to 2 days in the rules themselves so that there are no misunderstandings.
P.S. The question is resolved - Pit explained that the rule of 3 days applies in Tournaments, while the rule of 2 days applies in Seasonals.
Question - why is there a difference between points a and b? What is the deep meaning behind this? Why are there more stringent requirements for attacking a Castle?
This is to ensure that the opponents are on a more or less equal footing - to give the blue player the opportunity to buy reinforcements (which will appear in the Castle, not in the mine :)), or for both to fight without reinforcements, or the red player must ensure a chain of supply for their reinforcements (i.e., first capture the Castle, and then transfer new troops there). I don't remember exactly, but it seems that the Chinese are even prohibited from attacking a Garrison with reinforcements and from blocking the blue player's reinforcement supply. Lucky George
So, is there no exception for cavalry?:smile13:
No. Why should people get such a double advantage? Dima Surmay
If there are 2 passages to one zone, and you break through one. Can you pass through the other passage, bypassing the shifted guard?
On XL+U templates and Diamond, it is allowed to pass from one zone to another without breaking through the shifted guard, regardless of anything. For NON-XL+U templates, it is not allowed:
3.6.1. In order to pass from one zone to another through a specific passage, it is necessary to eliminate the guard of that passage. If there are several guards on the passage, it is enough to destroy any one of them. ..... 3.6.7. It is allowed to pass by the guards of the passage, without destroying them, in the case where - the player has already passed through this passage (i.e., destroyed one of the guards); - the player saw the opponent destroy one of the guards or pass through this passage; - there is any other undeniable evidence that the guard was destroyed.
It is necessary to destroy at least one guard of a specific passage. There are no reservations about what the player has done in other parts of the map.
Actually, I agree with Genghis that if we really only keep the mandatory replays, it will significantly save time and make us re-evaluate the matchups in a different way.
The 3 restarts in tournaments are to much imo. Especially if the color changes by each restart. Only if both players get very good starts noone will restart, and that happens very rarely. Even above average maps are restarted if you have 3 restarts left.
2 for tournaments is perfect imo. For regular games it could be 2, but less than 2 is also an option.
@misplaced guards: Are we allowed to pass misplaced guards between 2 zones if we have beaten guards between those 2 zones far from where we now want to pass? Meaning guards to the zone are beaten, but not guards to the specific pass.
I agree that 3 is too much, but 0 is not enough.
I used to believe that restarting at will shouldn't be allowed at all, but Heroes has changed my mind. Twice in a row, I lost hopeless games that I heroically played, and as a result, neither I nor my opponent enjoyed it because the game was not competitive; there were simply no chances from the beginning. The opponent just had to avoid making mistakes, and they would easily defeat me without any options for me to fight back.
As an idea, 1 restart within three days could be a good solution to eliminate completely unplayable scenarios with unexpected blocks everywhere or almost everywhere.
For me, the real problem seems to be that a completely unplayable situation can occur, with blocks on all roads, for example, which you check on 112/113, and everywhere you have to go around and lose tempo.
And the waiting for a good match is a problem created by the players themselves (and now by me as well, since restarts "at will" are allowed, and the opponent will also use them).
Well, it needs to be tested in some tournament to gather statistics
@misplaced guards: Are we allowed to pass misplaced guards between 2 zones if we have beaten guards between those 2 zones far from where we now want to pass? Meaning guards to the zone are beaten, but not guards to the specific pass.
No, we should eliminate the guards of the specific pass before using it.
Rules will be translated to English completely, but that requires some time...
I agree that 3 restarts are too many, but 0 is not enough.
I used to believe that restarting at will shouldn't be allowed at all, but Heroes has changed my mind. Twice in a row, I was dealt hopeless scenarios that I heroically tried to play, but in the end, neither I nor my opponent enjoyed the game because it wasn't a real competition. There were no chances from the beginning; the opponent just had to avoid making mistakes, and they would easily defeat me.
As an idea, allowing 1 restart within three days could be a good solution to eliminate completely unplayable scenarios with unexpected blocks everywhere or almost everywhere.
For me, the real problem is that you can get a completely unplayable scenario with blocks on all roads, for example, which you check on levels 112/113, and everywhere you have to go around and lose tempo.
And the waiting for a good scenario is a problem created by the players themselves (and now by me too, since restarts "at will" are allowed, and the opponent will also use them).
Well, it needs to be tested in some tournament to gather statistics.
I can argue here that you can't guess which scenario will give you what you want. There have been cases where a good scenario was restarted, and then a terrible one was dealt
Resets should be minimized, but also not overdone. I believe the ideal option is to use (111+112) or (112+111). Reset 113 is rarely used and is mainly chosen when losing, i.e., in case of defeat.
Стрим это понты. Cтримишь, знай что твой стрим смотрят, точнее ты стримишь, чтобы смотрели, они и смотрят. Или стримы нельзя смотреть? (c) Chinqis
No, we should eliminate the guards of the specific pass before using it.
The rules will be translated into English completely, but that requires some time...
This isn't clear in the rules; either it needs to be stated explicitly, or it needs to be discussed, because it's unclear why I can't run into a zone if I've cleared the passage to it, even if it's in a different location.
This isn't clear in the rules; either it needs to be stated explicitly, or it needs to be discussed, because it's unclear why I can't run through a zone if I've cleared a passage to it, even if it's in a different location.
It's actually quite obvious. Doesn't the word specific clearly indicate that the rule applies to a specific passage, and not to all possible passages between adjacent territories? As for why – that's a completely different question. If there's a passage in another location, then having guards there is a perfectly logical price to pay for passage. Otherwise, there could be a mountain in that location, or simply an impassable obstacle.
It's quite obvious. Doesn't the word specific clearly indicate that the rule applies to a specific – single – passage, and not to all possible passages between adjacent territories? As for why – that's a completely different question. If there's a passage in another location, then guarding it is a perfectly logical price to pay for passage. Otherwise, there could be a mountain in that location, or simply an impassable obstacle.
At the very least, I'm not the only one who thought it referred to a passage on the template map, whatever its structure may be.
Roger DAltavilla
