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 don't quite understand, if your rating is low, are you matched with stronger players?
And is it often the case that players are matched based on their rating, rather than a subjective assessment?
And most importantly, if you're afraid of losing, should you even play? What difference does it make if you're playing against a strong or weak opponent? If you can't beat the strong ones, then you're not a contender for the tournament winner. That's the whole logic, in my opinion. And sooner or later, you'll meet them anyway, sooner or later doesn't matter.
If your rating is low, you'll be placed in a lower tier. Let's say the participants are divided into 5 tiers based on their rating. A player who doesn't care about their rating might end up in tier 4. When forming groups, they'll be matched with players from tiers 1, 2, 3, and 5. But if they were in tier 2, they would avoid playing against a player from tier 2, and instead, they would be matched with a player from tier 4. Or, they might also use double seeding (partially or completely separating higher-ranked players so they don't play against each other for as long as possible). This type of draw is becoming increasingly common. Pete, Scorpion, and I have used it partially, and I think others have too. While it's not difficult to determine the first tier based on a general impression, it's harder to assess players of average and lower levels. There isn't always enough information about them, and a subjective view will often be less fair than the rating.
I agree that you shouldn't be afraid of stronger players, but often, players of average level want to try to advance as far as possible, continue participating in the tournament, and enjoy the tournament atmosphere. A single "extra" strong opponent in a group is often a major obstacle. These judgments are somewhat abstract, but there is a rational basis for them, as I see it. This is especially evident in well-established ranking systems in major sports. I think the tennis system is the most suitable for Heroes. There, the 100th-ranked player can beat the 10th, but overall, higher-ranked players win more often. And based on the mathematical expectation, if a player is lower in the ranking and is given stronger opponents, they will lose more often than if they were given slightly weaker opponents. So, if they are given stronger opponents, they will win less often, which means the ranking needs to be adjusted to give them more chances to win. If a player doesn't care about the ranking and only plays for fun, then the ranking should not matter to that player. Let that person have a harder time and fewer chances to win, while those who want a higher ranking and fairly want to have more chances to win in tournaments will be rewarded because of these players.
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...
Oldboy, your suggestions regarding the new game's starting point – a note about an unfinished game – and the short timeframe for completing it are too strict for non-tournament games and are not viable. A hero's journey is usually slow and steady; a month is nothing, as some tournaments have rounds that last that long. Everyone might have many save files; after all, computers break down, internet access is lost, there are vacations and business trips, many tournaments, and little time. Players shouldn't be forced into rigid constraints, but setting loyal, non-pressuring deadlines is certainly necessary. For example, a deadline of one season would allow a player to finish the game and have enough time. The purpose of the rule should be to prevent a player from avoiding finishing the game by endlessly prolonging it, not by quickly submitting the technical result. The player needs to be given time to comfortably finish the game at any time. Moreover, with mutual consent, they can choose not to finish the game or agree to a draw.
It's always possible to start a game, for example, in the spring-summer season of 13 and submit the technical result in the next season when its results are summarized. During this time, it's not difficult to contact the opponent three times with a proposal to agree on a convenient day. If, for example, the game started in the first month and a half, it should be finished by the end of the current season; if it started in the second half of the current season, it can be finished in the first month and a half of the next season. 45 days would be the minimum, and I think that's enough time for everyone. Or, you can simply limit the completion time to two months.
There are specific advantages, as mentioned above. There are no disadvantages if you don't force a person into extremely strict constraints. I don't understand the point of abandoning a game. If you abandon it and leave Heroes for two years, it doesn't really matter what happens to that game. But if you abandon it, ignore the game, and then play with others, it means you still want to play, so there's a game; play it. What's the problem? The answer is obvious: I'm not playing because I don't want to lose, because I feel like I might lose, and that's probably unpleasant. The only minor justification could be when players have a falling out.
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...
The problem of unfinished games can be solved by creating a separate directory in the save directory for unfinished games. Before starting a new game, check if there are any unfinished games with the opponent, and if there are, the new game doesn't start, but the old one is finished.
I even ignored Chingiz for a while and studied the text. For me, the text contains exactly one, but very good idea. The duration of finishing the game has not been specified. I will add one clarification. I am not impressed with the ideas about bureaucracy yet. I need specific examples. And so far, there was only one example, which, in my opinion, is not encountered in life - saving after each turn. Well, nevertheless. I have never seen several games abandoned in a single match, but I have already had games abandoned at 112 because the opponent suddenly fell asleep after all restarts were chosen. I will also add one clarification that I have already discovered myself - about the priority of Tournaments.
Rules of good manners and respect for the opponent. In the event of an unfinished game (games), before starting a new one, the player must offer his partner in the unfinished game (all partners in all unfinished games) to finish it. Offer in a messenger for quick exchange of messages (ICQ/Skype/MSN). And only in case of refusal (or no response within 10 minutes) start a new game. In the event that a player starts a new game without making such an offer, his opponent has the right to immediately write a report about his victory. This item does not apply to tournament matches; these situations are regulated by the rules of specific tournaments. If, within ten days, a player, himself offering to finish the game, does not receive any message/response/refusal to finish the game from the opponent in the unfinished game, he has the right to immediately write a report about his victory. Regardless of the opponent's "valid reasons." An offer to play/finish the game is considered an offer to play for at least four hours of real time in a row. In the event that during one game, one of the players twice interrupts the game/finish at his own request faster than in four hours, his opponent also has the right to write a report about his victory. In all cases, the player has the right to write a report, but is not obliged to do so. The player makes the decision himself, depending on the situation.
Oldboy, your suggestions regarding the new game starting with a note about an unfinished game and the very short time limit for it are too strict for non-tournament games and not viable.
Just in case – I don't have any mandatory completion deadlines at all. Or what are you talking about? I think you're talking about 10 days? But 10 days is not a mandatory completion deadline if you read the text carefully. 10 days is the period of complete offline/ignoring of one of the opponents. I'm not trying to suggest an "ideal tool for completing seasonal games." I'm trying to suggest a tool to end the dragging out in two simple and unambiguous situations: 1) an obvious abandonment of an unfinished game by an opponent when a new game starts while the old one is still unfinished. 2) one of the players has gone completely offline and stopped playing Heroes altogether.
And yes, regarding the first point, I don't think it's too harsh to cut off the possibility of starting new games when there is an unfinished game and the opponent is ready to play. In fact, I think this is very correct.
Oldboy, you're writing such nonsense.
"An offer to play/continue is considered valid if it involves playing for at least four hours of real time. If, during a single game, one of the players interrupts the game/continuation twice at their own request before four hours have passed, their opponent also has the right to submit a report about their victory."
"What are the downsides now?"
It's simple: you started a game, but something more important than the game came up, and you had to leave. Also, your opponent is very eager to gain rating (or is a newbie who really wants to win). So, what now?
Is it okay to lose like that? It's utter nonsense.
"If, within ten days, a player who offered to continue the game has not received any messages/responses/refusals to continue from their opponent in the unfinished game, they have the right to immediately submit a report about their victory, regardless of the opponent's 'valid reasons'."
Or, you were playing, you saved the game. The person had to leave for some business, maybe work, maybe a vacation, maybe visiting someone, or maybe there was an emergency. Maybe they simply didn't have internet access. Two weeks later, they come back, and they've already been given a loss. In a game that was played over two months, where they had an advantage. Is that fair?
And these ten minutes you mentioned in ICQ, I don't like them either. Who's going to keep track of that? It's just some kind of pointless obsession. And what if 11 minutes have passed, and you started a game with someone else, and the opponent demands a continuation? Do you have to prove that your computer's clock is different? And what if you started a game and simply didn't see the messages? Do you have to lose like that? Or, you're already playing, let's say it's been a week and a half, and then your previous opponent messages you about the unfinished game, but you're not even aware that they messaged you because ICQ isn't running, the sound is off, and in some cases, the messages don't even appear in the system tray. What then? When that person with the unfinished game sees the report, they'll submit a complaint.
Or, even more interesting, they'll message your current opponent with a game offer, and that's how it will be!
This formalism with such minor details will not lead to anything good. It will only lead to more pointless obsession.
In all cases, the people who submit such reports will be inadequate, so there's no need to be surprised that they'll be understood in a human way. These are victories that are achieved not through gameplay, but through formal obsession.
******
Set the time for continuing a game to one month. Ten days is meaningless.
You could make it so that after the start of a game, if the players can't agree, after 27 days, the players must agree within 3 days. If someone doesn't show up for the match within the last 3 days, they lose. Although, I don't like that either.
All these points require careful consideration.
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
I wrote a lot, although there's a feeling that it might not have been necessary. Let's check it out. For convenience, I'll number everything you wrote so it's easier to refer to, in case you want to add something.
(1)Lider1
Oldboy, you're writing such nonsense.
This should be written at the end, when you've already convincingly proven everything, not at the beginning.
(2)
It's simple: you started a game, and something happened to you that's much more important than playing Heroes. You had to leave. And besides, your opponent is very eager for rating (or a newbie who really wants to win). And what now? Is this how you lose? It's utter nonsense.
It's been written that you get two chances (there's the word "twice" there). The first time, you had a force majeure, you were unlucky, your opponent was probably upset – but there's no problem. The second time it happened – well, maybe you actually have some kind of mess in your life, and you should have politely informed your opponent about it before the match so that he would understand you? I stand by the position that, yes, you should have warned about your life situation. As Ayman wrote in his signature – son, playing without a timer, hoping for understanding. And everything is clear, the opponent knows what he's getting into. Who would write a tech loss report against such a person? And even if they do – how many people do you think would want to look like an idiot? After all, you have the right to write a report, not the obligation. And I'm writing a defense against the situation – you start a game, the person doesn't say anything, after two hours, "sorry, I have to go." A couple of days later, you contact him, start playing, after two hours, "hop-hop, sorry, I have to run." And it's not clear – is this how it will always be, or what's going on with him?
(3)
Or you were playing, saved the game. The person went somewhere on business. Maybe for work, maybe for a vacation, maybe visiting someone, or there was an emergency, maybe there's simply no internet. So, two weeks later, he comes back, and he's already been given a loss in the game that was played two months ago, where he had an advantage. Is that normal!
Again, if this was a surprise for the opponent – then yes. It's absolutely normal to get a tech loss for that! If you want understanding – warn before the game about your absences and vacations. And if the opponent, knowing in advance that you're playing a game, and you leave after three days, and it drags on, and he still uses his right and gives you a tech loss – then the opponent's reputation will suffer. And who cares about the tech loss. We're not making a cult out of the rating, are we? But we've identified a jerk in a practical life situation.
(4)
And if 11 minutes have passed, and you started a game with someone, and the opponent demands a continuation, what about a tech loss? Do you have to prove that the clock on your computer shows a different time?
The opponent is still a jerk. And that will be clear. Only here, he won't be able to prove anything, first of all, if he starts complaining. And he won't get his tech win. And he'll ruin his reputation again. I don't understand what your difficulty is, because I've never seen a situation where you can't understand who's being a jerk from the logs (and even more so from a stream recording). Maybe there's a specific example of a conflicting situation where you can't figure it out from the logs?
(5)
And if you started a game, and you just didn't see the messages? Do you have to lose like that?
Is this related to what I'm suggesting? How exactly? I have a feeling that you haven't fully described the situation, how it chronologically developed, and you missed something.
(6)
Or even more interesting, your opponent, with whom you are currently playing, will send you a game invitation, and that's how the argument will start!
Is this related to what I'm suggesting? How exactly? I have a feeling that you haven't fully described the situation, how it chronologically developed, and you missed something.
(7)
Or even more interesting, your opponent, with whom you are currently playing, will send you a game invitation, and that's how the argument will start!
Is this related to what I'm suggesting? How exactly? I have a feeling that you haven't fully described the situation, how it chronologically developed, and you missed something.
(8) Everything else... It seems like conclusions. But I didn't find anything useful. If you missed something specific, point it out.
Just in case – I don't have any deadlines for finishing games. Or what are you talking about? I feel like it's about 10 days? But 10 days is not a deadline for finishing a game, if you read the text carefully. 10 days is a period of complete offline/ignoring one of the opponents.
Yes, I'm talking about 10 days of complete ignoring. That's not enough.
I'm not trying to suggest an "ideal tool for completing seasonal games." I'm trying to suggest a tool to end the dragging out in two simple and unambiguous situations: 1) an obvious abandonment of an unfinished game by an opponent when a new one starts while the old one is still unfinished.
For example, when I was actively playing in a season, I had up to 15 unfinished games! I played with whoever wrote back faster, I suggested finishing games based on my mood and what kind of template I wanted to play at that particular moment, and much more. Sometimes we finished games a month or two later (rarely), and it wasn't just me who had such games. There's even a positive side to this, when you have many unfinished games and you log into the game again, you have the opportunity to choose. One person is available, another isn't, there's always a 3rd and 4th person with whom you can continue right away. That is, playing with other people while having an unfinished game shouldn't be a crime. And in general, some players only play on weekends, and if one weekend is busy, does that mean game over?
The deadlines should be softer than the average view, because unforeseen circumstances always come into play. There can be many different ones. 2 months for finishing a game as a minimum threshold still seems possible.
2) one of the players goes completely offline and stops playing Heroes altogether.
And yes, regarding the first point, I don't think it's too harsh to cut off the possibility of starting new games when there's an unfinished game and the opponent is ready to play. In fact, I think it's very correct.
How will you know that he has gone completely offline? Probably he should say it himself, then you can post it right away.
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...
How will you know that he has completely disappeared? Probably, he should say it himself, and then you can post it right away.
:D But how will a person say that he has completely disappeared if he has already disappeared? How to understand? I already wrote it directly in the proposed wording - if a person does not respond to any message within 10 days from his Heroes contact in the messenger (ICQ), then, in fact, he has completely disappeared. There is nothing to understand here. It's a fact. The 10-day period can be discussed. But this period should be discussed specifically in relation to going completely offline when there are unfinished games, and not in relation to "the deadline for finishing the game."
I don't see any good wording options for the deadlines for finishing seasonal games, and I'm not offering anything about them. And it would be great, R55Max, if you finally noticed this. Because you are already shifting the topic for the second time to "deadlines for finishing the game," which I didn't write anything about. Reread it. Because for two months you have been referring to it as a deadline for finishing the game, and this has absolutely nothing to do with my proposal.
And I also didn't say anywhere that playing with other people with unfinished games is a crime. I am proposing to establish a priority for unfinished games over new ones.
You're all arguing here, but I have 2 saves from levels 112 and 113, so I've decided I just won't play with these people anymore.
So, what's the situation? They want to play, but you don't want to finish the game?
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...
"Is this somehow related to what I'm suggesting? How exactly?"
Points 5, 6, 7. This is one point.
I mixed up my suggestion to the opponent with the opponent's suggestion to me.
Oldboy
And I'm writing a defense against the situation - we start the game, the person doesn't say a word, after two hours, oops, sorry, I'm leaving. A couple of days later, I find him, we start playing, after two hours, oops, oops, sorry, I have to go. And it's completely unclear - is this how it will always be now, or what's going on with him?
Were you playing with Vigo? :D
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
I recently played against Vigo, and I managed to defeat him (or he allowed himself to be defeated :D) before the "force majeure" kicked him off the computer. It was probably one of the easiest matches of the year. 3.5 hours, and both of us played in a fun, relaxed mode, without any pauses, on a fast turn timer (4000+500, which doesn't stop during battles), and we even managed to get one auto-win each. So, personally, I can't say anything bad about him. :) Besides, Vigo's path to the Hall of Fame is already closed, so there's no point in dwelling on it. Lider1
Points 5, 6, 7. This is one point. I mixed up my statement to the opponent with the opponent's statement to me.
So, what's the final decision? Is this point being removed, or what's the wording so that it can be understood?
R55Max
