HeroesWorld
  • Log in
  • Create account
  • Mode
    Interface scale

    Loads video thumbnails from YouTube, which lets it see your IP address. Off until you turn it on, and remembered in this browser only.

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

Online Tournaments
5.0 (1 rating)
In reply to Grando
Offline Iamsamstan
Registered:
Posts: 1,771
#1611
Auto-translated
Oldboy

dom2, Chingis and rimpel2 are on my ignore list. I 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 write anything relevant. I think I haven't forgotten anyone?
Well, of course I didn't write anything relevant, because I find this topic laughable. As for adding me to the ignore list, I don't think I'll be overly upset about it. I have my own circle that I play with, and not even just for reporting, but simply to improve my level. Sometimes, due to circumstances, something doesn't get finished — for example, R55Max and I started a Jebus Cross at some point, but then he didn't have time, then I didn't, and in the end we never finished it. I don't think it bothers either of us. Then we played when Chingis and I agreed without a replay, and I surrendered on turn 111, and he wrote a report on the game. Did he have the right to? Of course he did, since we had agreed. We played again after that, and now there are two reports sitting there. But if they weren't there, what would change? Nothing would change, because in my opinion, games like these played for reporting, not tournament ones, are simply conducted as practice, and reporting just adds extra responsibility. If you get an amazing random draw, for example, but your opponent disappears, it's a shame, of course, but what can you do? You have to find someone else and play. And if you start assigning penalty points for that, I think so many people would accumulate penalties over a season — I'd say at least every third player would be caught at least once. That's why I would advise you to gather a circle of people you trust and play with them, and tournaments will later show what you've learned. After all, there's no need to introduce any additional rules on this matter.
435-191-039
Discord Iamsamstan#6087
1
⚖️
0
In reply to Grando
User Avatar
Offline R55Max
Registered:
Posts: 1,963
#1612
Auto-translated
Oldboy
Apache, why not? Why can't you? You've only presented 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? Explain.
I've already explained why. Post #979 – the entire top part up to the sentence about the rule. This is just the tip of the iceberg. You haven't refuted a single point I made, which means you agree that they are valid and quite possible, and that they should be taken into account. When resolving disputes, everything needs to be considered. There will be fewer games simply because there will be a restriction that prevents you from starting a new game until you finish the previous one! There could be a million reasons why a game doesn't happen because of this rule. It also eliminates the human element, where there is no consideration of the immediate emotional state. If someone really wants to play with someone, why can't they? EXPLAIN? Are they in prison? We should do everything we can to support the desire to play Heroes, fighting only against abandoning games. Let everyone play as much as they want and with whoever they want, as long as they are not allowed to get away with abandoning a game. The deadline for finishing a game is much more effective than limiting the number of games. Don't you see that?
Well, we've found at least one major ideological disagreement. I believe that starting a new season when there is already a game 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, I mean, it's not a revelation that there are players who can do 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 start a new one with someone else right now.
You didn't read or understand me again. I wrote that if you start a game, for example, in the first month and a half of the current season, you must finish the game before the end of the season. But if you started playing on August 30 (at the end of the summer season), do you have to finish it in the summer? And what if you lose touch for a couple of weeks? That's how the time interval is calculated.
I just 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 detailed procedure for coordinating dates (or, by the way, just abandon them, i.e., play fewer games). Can't we just avoid all this nonsense?
The detailed procedure for coordination will be known to everyone, what's the problem? Its deadlines will not be burdensome. What does it mean to "heroically finish"? You will have 2 months (at least, I'm not against 3 months) to calmly arrange a game. "Heroically finishing" refers to your suggestion – whether you want to or not, you have to play with someone before playing a game with someone else. Understand, finally, that we need to support the maximum number of games in every possible way, and punishing those who abandon games should not affect harmless situations. That's it. There's no need to come up with more restrictions. Give players plenty of time – everything will be fine, as long as they can't make excuses because of the deadlines.
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...
0
⚖️
0
In reply to R55Max
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#1613
Auto-translated
R55Max
I already wrote why. Post #979 - the entire top part up to the sentence about the rule.
There isn't any description there about why there will be fewer games if my proposal is adopted in the rules.
There are a bunch of arguments, but it's unclear what specifically follows from them.
There will be fewer games simply because there will be a restriction that does not allow playing a new game until the previous one is completed!
Damn. Where did you read about such a restriction? Can you quote it?
R55Max
If someone really wants to play with someone, why can't they play? EXPLAIN? Are they in prison?
That's finally a good point.
I understand that it sounds like a little child in a store starts screaming - "Mom, buy me a car." And when she buys it, he starts screaming "buy me a helicopter," and he doesn't care that there's no more money. But I can't formulate it in a serious way yet.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Grando
User Avatar
Offline R55Max
Registered:
Posts: 1,963
#1614
Auto-translated
Oldboy
There is no explanation there as to why there would be fewer games if my proposal is included in the rules.
There are a lot of arguments, but it's unclear what specifically follows from them.

Come on. Where did you read about such a restriction? Can you quote it?
Message from Oldboy:
If there is 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 it in a messenger for quick exchange of messages (ICQ/Skype/MSN). And only in case of refusal (or no response within 10 minutes) should he start a new game.

Don't you see the proposed restriction? If someone wants to play not with the person with whom the save is, then the game is prohibited. And if he offered to play the save, the opponent agreed, but he is waiting for the person he wanted to play with. And ideally, 2 players (who want to play with each other) would have played a long time ago, and then that save could be finished.
There is no explanation there as to why there would be fewer games if my proposal is included in the rules.
There are a lot of arguments, but it's unclear what specifically follows from them.
It is clear from the arguments that their meaning is that there are cases when you can play with other players, even when there is an unfinished game or several games!
That's finally a good one.
I understand that it sounds like a small child in a store starts screaming - "Mom, buy me a car." And when she buys it, he starts screaming "buy me a helicopter," and he doesn't care that there is no more money. But I can't formulate it in a serious way yet.
What is the point of this quote? You seem to have misinterpreted it.
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...
0
⚖️
0
In reply to R55Max
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#1616
Auto-translated
R55Max
Don't you see the restriction that was actually suggested? If someone wants to play against someone other than the person in the save, then the game is prohibited. But if he suggested playing with the save, and the opponent agreed, and then he finds out that he will be playing with someone else.

As strange as it may seem, a new game is not prohibited. :smile32:
There are at least three options:
1) agree with the previous opponent - after all, you are making him wait, so why not at least talk:rolleyes:
2) just give up
3) just silently start a new game with whoever you want, agreeing that in this way you are giving the result of the unfinished game to your opponent, if he doesn't want to wait, he will write to technical support.

And as a result - there is no prohibition anywhere for you to start a new game with whoever you want to play with.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
Offline Juristis
Registered:
Posts: 1,423
#1617
Auto-translated
Sam's comments here are like a ray of light in a realm of darkness. I agree with him 100%.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Grando
User Avatar
Offline R55Max
Registered:
Posts: 1,963
#1618
Auto-translated
Oldboy
Surprisingly, the new game isn't prohibited. :smile32:
But the new game is prohibited if you don't offer to finish the current save. And what's the point of offering to play the save if you don't want to play it, because at that specific moment you want to play with someone else?
There are at least three options:
1) negotiate with the previous opponent - after all, you're making him wait, so why not just talk:rolleyes:
- First, no one is waiting for anyone. It's not a queue where you can afford to wait idly while doing nothing. You just usually live and play when and with whom you want, and also arrange to finish the game at a time that is convenient for you (mutually), i.e., you're not waiting, but they come to you when you (both) want to.

- Secondly, you can talk, but is it necessary? What will "blah blah blah" solve? They might say something like, "sorry, a game is coming up," and then what? Why all this bureaucracy? If a person wants to play with you (finish the game), they will specifically write to you, and if there are time constraints, they will find a convenient time and arrange to play with you again. The game already has a disclaimer, so why would they need to write to you about some game with someone else?
2) just give up
He's in a winning position.
3) just silently start a new game with whoever you want, agreeing that in this way you are giving the result of the unfinished game to your opponent, and if he doesn't want to wait for you, he will write a technical win.
But why would he do that? He has an advantage (as he believes, although it's not a fact that he's right), he wants to play with you, finish the game, and so on. But there are other players besides you, understand.
And in the end - there is no prohibition anywhere to start a new game with whoever you want to play with.
Think about it: if it magically turns out that there is no prohibition anywhere for starting a new game, then why introduce it? Why write:
In the case of an unfinished game (games), before starting a new game, the player must offer his partner in the unfinished game (all partners in all unfinished games) to finish it.
Why is he obligated to write "finish it," and moreover, MUST do so before starting a new game, if there is no prohibition to play with someone else?
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...
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
Offline theShevanesian
Registered:
Posts: 1,098
#1620
Auto-translated
Why are you all making such a fuss? If a player doesn't strive to finish games, it's easier to just stop playing with them. Forget about any obligations, etc. Create a "gray list" of players who don't finish games, and that's it.
1
⚖️
0
In reply to theShevanesian
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#1622
Auto-translated
theShevanesian
Why are you all making such a fuss? If a player doesn't strive to finish games, it's easier to just stop playing with them. No need for any obligations or anything. Create a "gray list" of players who don't finish games, and that's it.

We are writing all of this because we really need advice on what to do. You've hit the nail on the head. Right on target.

But still - what would be so bad if there was a "revenge" mechanic for such a player?
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Grando
Offline theShevanesian
Registered:
Posts: 1,098
#1624
Auto-translated
Oldboy
We are writing all this because we really need advice on what to do. You hit the nail on the head. Right on target.

But still - what would be so bad if there was a "revenge" mechanic for such a person?

Complicating the lives of the AK because of a couple of fans seems wrong. Create a "gray area" topic, and that's it. And let everyone add candidates there who they deem necessary. The value of the rating is not high enough right now to invent extra rules for a couple of seasonal wins. "Don't unnecessarily increase the number of entities." As soon as the rating becomes valuable, people will start worrying about how to solve this problem.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#1625
Auto-translated
Okay, I'll say it again – if you think the rating system is pointless, why even participate in a discussion where its relevance is taken for granted as a fundamental premise? Discussing the meaning and value of a rating system is a completely different matter.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
Offline theShevanesian
Registered:
Posts: 1,098
#1626
Auto-translated
I have expressed my opinion regarding the topic under discussion. If you want to discuss this topic within certain parameters and limitations that you define, create a separate thread.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#1627
Auto-translated
but the question of the rules for ranked games is being discussed.
Sheva, seriously, I want to say this, I have a very good attitude towards you, and I respect you, and my attitude will not change because we have different opinions on some minor detail in the rules :)
but honestly - what is the point of entering into a discussion about the rules for ranked games, based on an argument that essentially sounds like this - "your ranking is garbage and nobody needs it" ? :) to a greater or lesser extent, it is stronger or weaker (not garbage, for example, but of low value; not that nobody needs it, but that it is not interesting to some very strong players), but the essence is the same.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
Offline R55Max
Registered:
Posts: 1,963
#1628
Auto-translated
Dima, you should really explain why introducing a rule is not a good idea, instead of just saying it's unnecessary without any arguments. In this case, the issue has been raised (for the second time), and your solution – not playing with quitters – isn't a solution at all, but rather a kind of resignation to the person who is essentially at fault, and an avoidance of addressing the problem until the next time someone gets abandoned and decides to write about it. Moreover, we have a constant rotation of players in HotA (especially those who play the majority of games in a season – there are always many newcomers). Right now, the discussion is about how to prevent cases where an opponent quits. It's not about whether to play with such people or not; not everyone knows them personally, and they don't quit in every game. These cases have happened, are happening, and will continue to happen if the problem isn't solved. The issue is simply about the degree of strictness and the most suitable form for everyone. In general, the discussion on the previous pages has been developing along these lines. Everyone understands that there is a problem; you should suggest how to solve it. And no one wants to make the work of the Admin Council (AC) more complicated. There is a problem, and it needs to be solved, and if the AC needs to help, that's what its members are there for. With the right approach to this problem, its solution can be reduced to maximum automation, which will make it easier to resolve such cases. I would even understand if you clearly explained why any player does not have the right to demand that the other player finish the game if they agreed to play for a ranked match. Why does their opponent have the right to not finish it? I think everyone understands that they are obligated to finish the game, and whoever doesn't want to should be punished in some way, even if it's just with the result. Chingis, your suggestion is generally good; I also thought about it similarly at first, but a small detail stopped me from proposing it in a similar form: - When the time limit for the game expires, the AC will have to deal with reviewing the save files (which will indeed create extra hassle), and awarding the victory will be based on subjective judgment, and in not all cases will the decision be easy, which could cause a new wave of dissatisfaction with the AC. There is also a possible situation where, all other things being equal, a player hides who is in a more advantageous position, even though they think they are in a losing position, and then the quitter gets the win, while the person who reported the quitter loses, being wrongly confident in their advantage, and thus is not punished at all, but even rewarded. But if they had finished the game, the players' positions could have changed again during the game, and the one who wanted to play would have won. In this situation, it should be different: either the quitter loses, or the game is completed normally with the final result, and a victory can only be awarded based on mutual agreement using the save files. There is also another option to avoid burdening the AC. Suppose that after a month has passed since the save was made, the players agree on one specific date within the next month. Whoever doesn't show up on the agreed-upon day loses. Here, there is a possibility that the person who was chasing the quitter might not be able to play for some unexpected reason, but on the other hand, the quitter's unwillingness to play somehow encourages this. But if you really want to force your opponent to finish the game, be prepared for this outcome. In addition, it is quite normal to agree on another game to finish it if the opponent is willing to communicate. In short, it would be great to come up with a system that is as simple as possible and that can implement itself without any external intervention.
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...
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
Offline theShevanesian
Registered:
Posts: 1,098
#1629
Auto-translated
Well, I just think that the path of complicating the rules isn't a very good one; it's complicated for newcomers, and so on. For example, if a rule is adopted regarding games that are delayed for a month or two, I simply won't remember it because I usually finish the games, and conversely, if an opponent disappears, I simply won't play with them anymore. In principle, because of this rule, complaints in the AK (presumably, a forum or platform) will come mainly from newcomers who play with other unknown players, because experienced players, for whom the rating is important, mainly play with already known opponents. Okay; those were my remarks that I wanted to add, now I'm leaving the discussion, I won't interfere, let those who are more interested discuss it).
0
⚖️
0