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

I already answered your question.

Don't play with such people, what's the problem?

When someone doesn't want to play with you, it's more motivating to finish the game than to file a report in the ranked season. Use your head more often.

I answered your question.

When someone doesn't want to play with you, it's more motivating to finish the game than to file a report in a seasonal league. Use your head more often.

Just think about it. Why are we protecting the interests of one player who wasted another player's time, and by not finishing the game, doesn't even face any consequences. And we disregard the interests of the player who is in no way at fault. Back in the day, when we were ready to formalize this nuance in the rules, we simply couldn't find formulations that were worthy and satisfied everyone. But this is a shortcoming that needs to be corrected, I believe.

Pash, explain to me how such a punishment will compensate for the time lost by the affected player and discourage the punished player from repeating such behavior.

And by the way, both sides spent the same amount of time.

Pash, explain to me how this kind of punishment will compensate for the time lost by the affected player and discourage the offender from repeating such behavior?

And by the way, both sides spent the same amount of time.

I see a certain fairness in this amendment; it's about protecting the rights of the Player. At the very least, it doesn't introduce any negatives, and if there's a need to enshrine this in the Rules, why not?

Well, time won't replace anything and won't discourage violators. But it will create the appearance of protecting rights, which is understandable: rolleyes

R55Max, either play with reliable partners, or discuss the obligation before the game; if your opponent is unsure, then don't even start. Not everyone is disciplined, after all.)

Why discuss that? Doesn't the very start of a game imply its completion? By the same token, one could thank those who simply leave the game without explanation.

Message from Rimpel2:
Don't play with such people, what's the problem?

Tell me later, guys, how much satisfaction you'll get from an extra report in the season?

To prevent such people from being that way, they need to be guided in the right direction, so to speak. If all their evasions are punished, then they themselves won't dodge games later and waste their opponent's time in case of postponements. Even if they still fail to finish games, the 2nd side will at least not have wasted their time, and if time means nothing to the first person, that's their problem.

And the added report is not an end in itself, only a consequence, and a very fair one at that.

Indeed, as Pasha put it, it's not right to infringe on the rights of the innocent.

Well, i.e., it won't replace time and won't demotivate violators. But it will create the illusion of protecting rights, got it :rolleyes:

- For one thing, there's already a + in that it motivates the non-violating party.

- Besides, what makes you think this doesn't demotivate the violator? They get a loss in the rating; does anyone enjoy that? If they don't care about the rating, then that's a shame, because if they like playing in tournaments on HeroesWorld, there are cases where the rating is taken into account when seeding brackets in tournaments. Being lower, it will be harder for them to play, for example, in groups, as they will be seeded in a less favorable position, getting tougher opponents.

- And in general, who would like the reputation of a "quitter of unfinished games"?

If he doesn't care about the rating, then that's a mistake, because if he likes to play in tournaments on HeroesWorld, then there are cases where the rating is taken into account when forming the tournament pools. Being lower, it will be harder for him to play, for example, in groups, because he will be seeded in a less advantageous manner, getting more serious opponents.

I don't quite understand — if your rating is weak, do they seed you with strong players?

And is there much seeding done strictly by rating rather than by subjective feeling?

Well, most importantly, "he who fears the wolf..." shouldn't play Heroes. If you're afraid of losing like that, is it even worth playing? What difference does it make if the opponent is strong or weak? If you can't beat the strong ones (one), then you're not cut out for the tournament winner.
That's the whole logic, IMHO. And you'll have to face them sooner or later anyway — sooner or later doesn't matter.

- That's true, and it also motivates those who don't cheat.

As I wrote in the post that Dirty deleted, everything is leading to this.

Besides, why do you think it doesn't demotivate the cheater? They receive a rating penalty, is that pleasant for anyone?

It's only unpleasant for those who obsess over their rating ;)

- And generally, who would like the reputation of being a "runaway from unfinished games"?

And that's what I'm getting at: it's not the report that demotivates the cheater, but the bad reputation.

Of course, those who deliberately play poorly should be punished. But personally, I haven't noticed anyone doing that here, and if I realize that someone is doing it, I'll just stop playing with them. And there's no need to create new rules because of such minor issues, which are also very difficult to prove.

everything was invented before us
/topic/at/342697/

Everything was invented before us
/topic/at/342697/

Yes, it was a “Project,” but it wasn’t approved.

Yes, it was a "Project," but it wasn't approved.

Why, by the way? It seems somewhat more reasonable than Oldboy's suggestion to immediately award the victory.

Why, by the way? It seems like a more reasonable approach than Oldboy's suggestion to immediately award the victory.

We considered a "successful" wording, but we couldn't agree on the details. Eventually, the issue lost its relevance.

So, what are the pros and cons, specifically? "Don't play with those guys" is hardly a serious argument. We're talking about a situation where the game is already started but unfinished. There's no dossier on each player to determine whether "that kind of person" messaged you or "not that kind." Furthermore, I don't understand this tendency to slap definitive labels on people. Today, a person is one way, and tomorrow, they're different. Today, they have plenty of time, and tomorrow, they've "checked out." Why this rigidity? There's a specific unfinished game, a specific situation. How can we resolve it sensibly? There's at least one advantage. It's that a specific tool, a specific technology, appears to finish an unfinished task. Yes, there's a subset of players who won't even understand the point of this advantage, but that doesn't make it any less of an advantage for another subset. Just as there's a subset of players who don't understand why reports need to be written, why ratings are calculated, and consider it unnecessary, and at a convenient opportunity, someone from this subset chimes in on a discussion with this "valuable" observation. But this doesn't prevent reports and ratings from existing. One of them made a comment earlier, but luckily, I've already blocked him, so I won't be able to analyze his comments anymore. But the answer to all such ideas is the same. The question of whether reports and ratings are meaningful is a completely different matter. When discussing this, the meaningfulness of reports and ratings should be taken as a given. Furthermore, the solution I'm proposing is more straightforward and simpler than what Pit for LM proposed. My proposal doesn't touch on potentially conflicting situations at all. It only concerns situations where one player has either become completely inactive or has, in effect, stalled the opponent in an unfinished game by starting a new one. Even if it wasn't intentional... is there really anything to discuss here? In both cases, one player clearly deserves a technical win, and I don't see what the problem is with giving the "aggrieved party" the right to request this technical win. Moreover, not even the technical win itself, but only the right to request it. If a player has lost hope for this match and decided to draw a line under it. Even I, proposing this, can see specific examples of situations and players with whom I wouldn't file a report for a technical win in such a situation, and I can see situations where I would. In the first case, it's because I'm more interested (and there's still hope) in finishing the game. In the second, it's because I'm not interested, so I don't want to waste any more time and lose the time I've already lost. But of course, I could be wrong. That's why discussion threads are created – to test an idea. But so far, two pages of "buzz" have yielded nothing. What are the specific disadvantages of the proposed innovation?

Just in case, let me reiterate the text I originally proposed. There's always a chance that someone might see their own fantasies instead of this text, but this way, we can at least reduce that probability.

Rules of good manners and respect for the opponent.
If there are unfinished games, before starting a new one, a player must offer their partner in the unfinished game(s) to finish it. The offer should be made in a messenger for quick communication (ICQ/Skype/MSN). And only in case of refusal (or no response within 10 minutes) should a new game be started.
If a player starts a new game without making such an offer, their opponent has the right to immediately submit a report of their victory.
The reverse situation: if within ten days a player has not received any message/response/refusal to finish the unfinished game from their opponent, they have the right to immediately submit a report of their victory. Regardless of the opponent's "valid reasons."
In both cases, the player has the right to submit a report, but is not obliged to do so. The player makes the decision based on the situation.