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

What does the situation look like? They want to, but you don't want to finish the game?

The situation is that while we were taking breaks (about 1 hour), the opponent suddenly felt sleepy – right during their turn. I saw the player leave the game and a message in chat saying it was time to sleep, etc. Then there was silence, a significant amount of time passed, and the game wasn't finished. I offered to finish it, but it didn't work out :smile05: The only response I got was from one player, after I reminded them, but I couldn't that day. And I don't see the point in finishing a game that hasn't been played for over a month; I'm afraid of being left hanging again.

:D How else would someone say they're completely offline if they're completely offline?
I clearly stated in the proposed wording – if a player doesn't respond to any messages for 10 days regarding their ongoing Heroes game in a messenger (like ICQ), then they are effectively completely offline.
There's nothing to misunderstand here. It's a fact.
The 10-day period can be discussed. However, this discussion should focus specifically on the timeframe for going completely offline when there are unfinished games, not on the "mandatory completion timeframe."

Many people say they're quitting Heroes. Examples include Sem_56, Psyche_7, Dirty_Player, who took a year off, and other cases. They explicitly say, "I'm offline."

So, you think that if someone isn't on ICQ for 10 days, they've quit Heroes? :confused:

Forget about 10 days; even Hitler wouldn't approve of such an unreasonable timeframe.

I don't see a single successful wording option for the completion timeframe of seasonal games, and I'm not suggesting anything about them.
And it would be great, R55Max, if you finally noticed that. Because you're shifting the topic to completion for the second time, even though I haven't written anything about it.

Are you kidding me?

I'm suggesting this addition to the rules.

Rules of good manners and respect for the opponent.
In the case of an unfinished game (games), before starting a new game, a player should offer their partner in the unfinished game (all partners in all unfinished games) to finish it. Offer this in a messenger for quick communication (ICQ/Skype/MSN). And only in case of refusal (or no response within 10 minutes) should they start a new game.

If this isn't about completing games, then I don't know.

If it's about the fact that a game has started, and it's been saved, then, according to your logic, the opponent is obligated to write to you before starting with someone else. Isn't this about completing the game between you? You don't think that everyone will quit Heroes because of games with you. It's clearly implied that players will play with other players while having an unfinished game with you. In this case, the main issue is that they might lose to you because they didn't finish the game with you and started with someone else.

I'm not changing the topic; I'm suggesting that instead of assigning losses in this situation, we give the opportunity to finish the game with you, even if they've started with others, and not require them to write anything specific on ICQ before starting a game with someone else, but rather limit it with a reasonable timeframe within which the opponent should finish the game with you!

Did you read that there can be many saves?
I repeat:
Playing with others when there's an unfinished game shouldn't be a crime. This is solved by a timeframe within which the player should finish their game, but it needs to be determined with understanding and consideration for all possible factors, because the goal should be to prevent players from abandoning games, not to file a report as quickly as possible or to force them to contact a specific player!
Requiring players to offer to finish the game in a messenger is absurd because, for example, two players spontaneously decide to play against each other, but one is obligated to finish an unfinished game with you, and the other with someone else. Think about why they would need to write to you, as they want to play with each other. There are many other situations as well.

And in general, all this writing is unnecessary if you can limit it to a specific date for completing the game. Let the player finish the game with you at a time that is convenient for them and, of course, comfortable for you, and if they don't meet the deadline, then assign the loss, not just because they started with someone else.

Damn it :facepalm:

I have two different points here!!!

The message in ICQ about unfinished games is about finishing them, and even then, it's not directly about finishing the games, but about prioritizing finishing them before starting new games.
And the 10 days – it's not about finishing games at all.

It's one topic – the disregard of one opponent towards another, but two points with different meanings. For different situations.
It's easy to notice. Take a closer look. )

And I'll repeat once again – I don't see any way to set dates for finishing games in seasonal games. I don't see a single ready-made formulation that would have a clear and unambiguous meaning, and that could be "taken and applied." And I'm not suggesting limiting the time for finishing games in a season and forcing them into some kind of framework.

... because, for example, two players spontaneously decided to play against each other, but one is obligated to finish a game with you, and the other with someone else. Think about why they would need to write anything to you, because they want to play with each other.

It's funny, but this is exactly the sticking point. Exactly what I mean!
Let's imagine that you are one of these two players.
Obviously, you've lost interest in the postponed game, since you're so eager to play with a new opponent. What prevents you from forfeiting the game that you're no longer interested in and not dragging the opponent (literally) by the balls? Except for the desire to keep the opponent in the postponed game on a short leash... Like, you, loser, wait a bit, I have a more interesting opponent now. Once I've played with all the interesting ones, then I'll finish with you, loser. Or maybe not. I'll see how I feel. It's some kind of boring game with you. I don't want to play it right now. What? What? Are you interested and ready to play now? I don't care.
Aren't we playing for fun? And I'm not going to have fun playing with you right now. What? What about your fun? Well, I already said – I don't care.

The situation was that, during the breaks (about 1 hour), the opponent suddenly felt very sleepy – right in the middle of their turn. I saw the player leave the game and a message in the chat saying it was time to sleep, etc. Then there was silence, a significant amount of time passed, and the game wasn't finished. I suggested finishing it, but it didn't work out :smile05: The response was only from one player, after my reminder, but I couldn't that day. And I don't see the point in finishing the game, which has been going on for over a month, because I'm afraid of being left hanging again.

It happens :D
Well, in this case, both of you didn't really mind or were just indifferent, but the issue is when one person writes and insists on finishing the game, and the other hides "in the corners."

So what I'm trying to show here is that we play for fun.
And we play randoms. Ideally, both get a fun layout, and both have a good time.
But when it's not ideal, one of them gets frustrated. And I don't think this "getting frustrated" is personal — it's objective. It's subjective. In the very same situation, one player gets so frustrated that they take 111. While another player, in that same situation on Jebus, executes an opp kill on 123.

So, when one player loses interest in an unfinished game so much that they start a new one with another player, while their opponent in the unfinished game is ready to continue (and that's exactly what the first part of my proposal is about)... All I'm suggesting is let's call a spade a spade — you don't want to play that game. Your fun there is already ruined. Already ruined. You're already starting another game in hopes of a better life, when that game is still there. Don't gnaw at your own and your opponent's nerves. You lost. What's the point of dragging out a game you don't want to play?

Guys, why are you so fixated on these poor seasonal rankings? Want a higher rating? Play and win in tournaments to improve it. And if the game is paused for 10 days, you won't even remember what you were doing, what you wanted, or how, even if you won, the enjoyment of the game will be gone, so there's no point in worrying so much about these reporting periods, and the organizers won't let you slack off in a tournament anyway. And all these comments don't add any value, in my opinion.

Guys, why are you so fixated on these poor seasonal rankings? Want a higher rating? Play and win in tournaments to improve it. And if the game is down for 10 days, you won't even remember what you were doing, what you wanted, or how, even if you were winning. There won't be any enjoyment from the game anymore, so it's not worth worrying so much about these reporting periods. And the organizers won't let you cheat in a tournament anyway. These comments don't add any value, in my opinion.

Okay, so let’s wrap up this debate.

I'll repeat it again – I don’t see any way to set dates for completing seasonal games. I can’t think of a single clear and logical wording that could be “taken and applied.” And I’m not suggesting limiting the completion time for seasonal games or forcing them into some kind of framework.

What do you find wrong with what was suggested? I’m just curious about what you considered and evaluated, like there’s something wrong here.

It’s funny, but this is exactly the sticking point. Exactly what I mean!
Let’s imagine that you are one of these two players.
Obviously, you have lost interest in the postponed game since you want to play with a new opponent.

Not necessarily. This cannot be an ASSERTION that I have lost interest in the postponed game! I might want to play with a new opponent because of my own human weaknesses; for example, a real Новичок contacted me by chance, I gave him some advice, provided links to information, he was very grateful and asked me to teach him online basics, we had a pleasant conversation, and while feeling positive, I started playing. Why should this be interpreted as me ignoring you (if you're the player whose game is pending)? You see, people have souls that can experience various feelings (joy, anger, gratitude, etc.). These are subtle matters, and I hope we won’t discuss them here.

Many people here have friends, and others are just acquaintances. For example, I wanted to play with a friend, and suddenly they found time to play. But there’s also a game with a simple acquaintance, maybe even a Новичок, where only a superficial connection exists. Of course, everyone treats their friend better and wants to play with them during this free time. Does this mean that I don’t care about my opponent (the Новичок)? No, it doesn’t. So why prohibit playing ranked games with friends until they finish their current saves?

In short, the fact that someone has started playing with another person CANNOT BE PROOF of disregard for the person whose save is pending. We don’t need to prove this; we need to complete the game within the deadline, not limit the number of games on ХВ because if we ban playing with others before finishing, there will be fewer games anyway, and seasonal games will become boring.

I’ll say again that limiting by deadlines might be the solution, but definitely not forcing completion and then starting with someone else! This practice is easily seen in tournaments. The deadline expires – result. Everything is clear and understandable, so there’s no need to delve into details.

There's another interesting nuance. You say: "finish one game or get a loss if you start with another and seemingly ignore the first player." The same probably applies to tournaments. You started playing a tournament, began a game against an opponent, didn’t finish, started a game in another tournament, didn’t finish, started in a third tournament, another save. It turns out the player doesn’t respect some tournament and ignores it because he started playing another tournament. I know you treat tournaments separately, but even in this example, it can be seen that playing with another opponent, as well as playing in another tournament, does not indicate disrespect for the first.


1. All started ranked games in a seasonal tournament must be completed (have a final result: win, loss, or draw) within two months, starting from the date of the first game save (111) and ending on the last day of the game (save of the last day).

In case the opponent (Respondent) either doesn’t respond at all or refuses to set an exact time:

2. The player who wants to finish the game (Plaintiff), within one month after the interruption/postponement, makes attempts to agree on a time to complete the game via ICQ and PMs on the forum, but no less than three times (no less than once every 7 days). All proposals in the first 7 days are considered as one attempt to agree; proposals in the second 7 days – as the second attempt; proposals in the third 7 days – as the third attempt.

(such a long period is given because the plaintiff may turn out to be a party with very little playing time, like free weekends, if they exist, and everyone should be taken into account, and it's not always possible to find time to start playing according to the proposed schedule)

- In the third attempt to arrange a game, the plaintiff must obligatorily notify the opponent simultaneously via ICQ and PM that failing to complete the game within the deadline will result in punishment (link to the established rules). Consider the opponent’s entry into the forum as reading the message in PMs if he doesn’t respond in ICQ.

After receiving the message and responding to it, the Respondent must discuss possible dates for completing the game with the Plaintiff, and they must find a common date within the next 10 days! If an agreement is reached, then in case of any impossibility to play at the agreed time, either party within the following three days must explain the reasons and has the right to re-arrange, and the date must be set on one of the following 10 days.

- If the player who was absent on the previous date does not appear again, he receives a technical loss.

- If another player does not appear, he also must describe the reasons within the next three days and has the right to a third arrangement, and the date must be set on one of the following 10 days.

3. If players cannot find a common date for completing the game during any of the decades, the administrator appoints one specific date (regardless of deadlines) when both players are available. No show – loss.


P.S. We should already decide on the rules for the season since we have returned to this issue.

In total, we have a minimum opportunity of 3 weeks for postponement (when the opponent contacts you) + 10 days to set a date for completion + 10 days for a repeat date. These aren’t very long periods, but ultimately there will be a result, which is what is required.

What do you see as the flaw in the proposed solution? I'm just curious what you considered and evaluated, and what you think is wrong with it.

I see the flaw in the idea of involving the Arbitration Committee (AC) in resolving issues related to replaying games. Why create unnecessary entities where they are not needed? Why burden the AC with additional functionality to deal with this? If both opponents attempt to replay the game but cannot agree, where did the idea come from that they must necessarily replay it? If they both try to replay, but it still doesn't work, the very idea of mandatory replaying within a certain timeframe is flawed. This isn't a tournament. If one player is being disruptive, then the two "blockers" I proposed in key situations cut off the disruptive player's path to retreat. They can't start a new game without offering to replay the unfinished one. But if, according to the established rules, both players have fulfilled their obligations, and one believes that an injustice has occurred, then they can write their arguments to the AC. By the way, the discussion about the idea of replaying games is a separate topic. I'm still interested in whether there are any drawbacks to my proposal in its latest formulation. Lider tried to list them, but as far as I understand, he was unsuccessful? R55Max is currently unable to handle the task of at least reading and understanding my proposal and is considering it through the prism of his desire to create a procedure for replaying games. dom2, Chingis, and rimpel2 are on my ignore list. I will only find out that one of them has written something useful if someone else reacts positively. Iamsamstan made a couple of requests to be added to the ignore list, but didn't provide any substance. Did I forget anyone?

It's time to get specific!
Therefore, I suggest:
If a player hasn't finished 1 game, threaten them with one finger,
If a player hasn't finished 2 games, threaten them with two fingers,
...
If a player hasn't finished 5 games, threaten them (attention!) with one fist!

P.S. I haven't figured out what to do next, I need collective intelligence... Off the top of my head - then with two fists,..., when 5 fists have accumulated, I suggest shaking one head disapprovingly, and so on. In general, there is room for imagination, there are many organs...

R55Max Regarding the example you provided... You are again (like Lider) giving an example where players had some kind of discussion or got to know each other before the game. A newcomer asks his father to play with him... And I continue to insist that if there were any such additional discussions before the game, there will be few idiots who, in such a situation, will use their right to write a report about technical issues. And those who do exist – it’s good that there will be a chance for them to stand out.

And also...

You say: "finish one game or get a loss if you started with another player and basically ignored the first player."

(if you are going to delve into subtle matters, try to read more carefully)
I'm not saying that... I'm saying -
offer to finish the game, or agree that the opponent also has the right to ignore you if you ignore him.

Oldboy, why are you reading posts so selectively? Skip the described situations about finishing the game and find statements that don't relate to this.

R55Max Regarding the example you provided... You are again (like Lider) giving an example where players had some kind of discussion or acquaintance before the game. A newcomer asks his father to play with him... And I continue to insist that if there were any additional discussions before the game, then there will be few idiots who, in such a situation, will use their right to write a report about technical issues. And those who do exist – it's good that there will be a chance for them to stand out.

Do you want to describe all sorts of situations that are possible for people? Where is the criterion for idiocy?

Reread the top part of my post.

I'm saying -
offer to finish the game, or agree that the opponent also has the right to ignore you if you ignore him.

That's how it should be; if someone starts playing with another, you can also play with another; this is not even up for discussion. The point is that a player, when intentionally running away, should not be able to do so. But limiting him with games is wrong; it should be limited by time! I'm telling you for the 100th time: you can't limit it by games! The point is that if at least one of the players wants the game to end and insists on it, the game should be finished! Running away should be limited by the time allotted for finishing the game, and nothing else! Forbidding playing is stupid! If this is normal for you, then we are simply on different sides, and it is pointless to discuss anything else between us; only a vote will decide!

You can not involve the arbitration committee in the rules, but in any case, it will still work in case of a dispute, considering the dispute. This is inevitable.

Consider the situation as a whole: game, finishing the game, dispute resolution.

dom2, Chingis, and rimpel2 are on my ignore list. I will only find out that one of them wrote something useful if someone else reacts positively. Iamsamstan made a couple of requests to be added to the ignore list, but didn't write anything substantial. Did I forget anyone?

I don't know what you didn't like about their statements, but it looks like a childish game. Oh, they didn't say it right, I'm offended.

dom2, Chingis, and rimpel2 are on my ignore list.

How am I supposed to beg for forgiveness from Staromaly now? Unless someone reacts positively...

P.S. I should probably leave this discussion; the length of this thread is becoming overwhelming. Peace out, everyone!

I'm telling you for the hundredth time: you can't limit yourself to games!

Apaches, huh? Why can't you? You've only voiced one argument so far – that there will be fewer games. But you haven't explained how you came to that conclusion.
You just stated it and that's it. How will there be fewer games?
How did you calculate that – write it down.

I don't know why you didn't like their statements, but it looks like childish play. Oh, they didn't say it right, I'm offended.

You're wrong. I didn't ignore them because of this topic. All three have been ignored for a long time after reading their posts in completely different topics, in which I didn't even actively participate. So as not to waste time reading the nonsense from professional trolls.
I wouldn't have even noticed Chingiz's post if Wicc hadn't replied.

--------------

Well, we've found at least one major ideological disagreement.
I believe that starting a new season when there's already one in progress and the opponent is ready to play right now is disrespectful to the opponent.
You don't think so.
For me, this is a revelation.
Well, not exactly a revelation that there are players who can act like this, but a revelation that you're even trying to come up with arguments that it's okay, buddy, we'll finish it later, you can also start a new one with someone else right now :)

But I can't wrap my head around it. First, this approach will create a situation with a bunch of unfinished games, and then we'll heroically finish them within a set maximum time, relying on a written procedure for step-by-step coordination of dates (or, by the way, just abandon them altogether, that is, play fewer games).
Why can't we just avoid this nonsense from the start?