Auto-translated
the terrain is what it is :)
Dark
Posts from DISCUSSIONS on “Rules for online games in HoMM3 and formulas for calculating player rating.”
Auto-translated
Why reinvent the wheel??? This is just a series of absurd situations in the game!!!
If you can't kill, retreat – it's that simple!!!
Can you give a specific example of an absurd situation that would arise if this rule were adopted?
I see an absurd situation right now with the rules that exist.
By the way, I've made a few minor edits to the text, so I'll copy it here again.
A stalemate in battle.
A stalemate in battle occurs when one side avoids direct contact with the troops and does not inflict any damage on the opponent.
If the stalemate in battle is caused by the attacking player avoiding contact, then the attacking player is considered to have lost the battle and must retreat.
If the stalemate in battle is caused by the defending player avoiding contact, then they must choose to either offer a draw or retreat; upon receiving the offer of a draw, the attacking player must either accept the draw or retreat.
A siege of a castle with a broken catapult is not considered a stalemate – it is a loss for the attacker, and they must retreat.
In tournaments with a single-elimination system, after a draw, the players return to the situation that existed before the start of the game and begin the next generation with the same number of restarts.
Juristis
Auto-translated
I think the situation fits within the rules. The moment was certainly amusing, but it doesn't warrant such a heated discussion. I agree with Dirty and Co. that nothing should be changed; the current wording of the rule has been tested over the years, and the attacker is responsible for initiating the battle and should understand this. The example with chess is incorrect because in chess, there is one single game, not divided into many small battles; there is no attacker and defender.
The_
Auto-translated
In my opinion, I don't see any difference between the snake example and this situation, considering the rules. Oldboy's victory is clear-cut. However, whether the rules should be changed or modified is a different matter.
Also, rules can be changed after a precedent, but they never alter the outcome of the precedent itself. Again, it's just my opinion, but whatever Oldboy decides to do in this situation is the right thing to do.
Sheymu, I'm sorry, it's unpleasant to lose like that.
Also, rules can be changed after a precedent, but they never alter the outcome of the precedent itself. Again, it's just my opinion, but whatever Oldboy decides to do in this situation is the right thing to do.
Sheymu, I'm sorry, it's unpleasant to lose like that.
Auto-translated
Overall, yes, I agree with everyone who doesn't consider this situation unusual. As has already been written: an attack is an initiative of the attacker; they should have also thought about the money for a ransom.
Roger DAltavilla
Auto-translated
The new stalemate rule, as it is worded, is significantly more complex than the existing one. Furthermore, the new stalemate rule increases the possibilities for a draw. Considering that most tournaments on the forum conclude with a playoff, this is not ideal.
Auto-translated
Well, I don't know... it's approximately as complex as the number 2 being more complex than the number 1.
I don't think it's "significantly more complex."
Moreover, the existing rule is not quite correctly formulated – instead of a precise definition of a stalemate situation, it only provides one example of such a situation, which can be interpreted differently depending on the time of day and the amount of alcohol consumed (compare, for example, with the formulation of a portal or the formulation of a war trap – a stalemate situation is when the attacker cannot win – that's it, you can't do anything).
And I've also reduced the number of letters.
Stalemate in battle.
A stalemate in battle is created by the opponent who avoids direct contact between troops and does not inflict damage on the opponent.
If the attacking player creates a stalemate, then he is considered to have lost the battle and must retreat.
If the defending player creates a stalemate, then he must make a choice and either offer a draw in the game or retreat. Upon receiving the offer of a draw, the attacker must either accept the draw or retreat.
A siege of a castle with a broken catapult is not considered a stalemate – it is a loss for the attacker, and he must retreat.
In tournaments with a single-elimination system, after a draw, the players return to the situation that existed before the start of the game and begin the next generation with the same number of restarts.
And oops. It turns out that there are still things to be figured out regarding the "Chains of War" mechanic.
A stalemate in battle is created by the opponent who avoids direct contact between troops and does not inflict damage on the opponent.
If the attacking player creates a stalemate, then he is considered to have lost the battle and must retreat.
If the defending player creates a stalemate, then he must make a choice and either offer a draw in the game or retreat. Upon receiving the offer of a draw, the attacker must either accept the draw or retreat.
A siege of a castle with a broken catapult is not considered a stalemate – it is a loss for the attacker, and he must retreat.
In tournaments with a single-elimination system, after a draw, the players return to the situation that existed before the start of the game and begin the next generation with the same number of restarts.
And oops. It turns out that there are still things to be figured out regarding the "Chains of War" mechanic.
KobRa_RR
Auto-translated
A stalemate in battle.
A stalemate in battle occurs when one side avoids direct contact with troops and does not inflict any damage on the opponent.
If the stalemate is caused by the attacking player avoiding contact, then the attacking player is considered to have lost the battle and must retreat.
If the stalemate is caused by the defending player avoiding contact, then they must choose to either offer a draw or retreat; upon receiving the draw offer, the attacking player must either accept the draw or retreat.
A siege of a castle with a broken catapult is not considered a stalemate; it is a loss for the attacker, and they must retreat.
In tournaments with a single-elimination system, after a draw, the players return to the situation that existed before the start of the match and begin the next generation with the same number of restarts.
I like Oldboy's text. By the way, in Warlords, they wanted to add a button to offer a draw (in battle)
The_
Auto-translated
to Oldboy: let's create a separate thread for discussion; I like the wording, and I fully support it. We should also add something about handcuffs.
After all, the game is called Might and Magic: Heroes, not "Catch Me If You Can" or "Get the Fuck Out."
After all, the game is called Might and Magic: Heroes, not "Catch Me If You Can" or "Get the Fuck Out."
Auto-translated
I think anyone can create a topic. Even in this situation, it's more necessary for the community. Ideally, a moderator should separate the discussion into a new topic.
I don't really understand why another topic is needed at all.
The existing wording in the rules looks frankly unfair compared to the new one. Anyone who wants to can write their counterarguments, and if there are none, the moderators can discuss the details in private and simply make changes, and then notify everyone about it.
The idea that a "hypothetical fly" has an undeniable right to be considered the winner over a "hypothetical thousand skeletons," and they should leave the battlefield solely because it can fly quickly, has never been convincing to me. It was the "lesser of two evils." Well, a draw is an even "lesser of two evils."
Javdet
Auto-translated
The situation is one-to-one identical to when 1 serpent flies away from a legion of skeletons or the destruction of a catapult.
Attacking a serpent with skeletons, the player should keep the stalemate option in mind. This case is different, rather in the category of bugs..
Volodymyr
Auto-translated
Stalemate in battle.
A stalemate in battle occurs when one of the opponents avoids direct contact between troops and does not inflict damage on the opponent.
If the attacking player creates a stalemate, then they are considered to have lost the battle and must retreat.
If the defending player creates a stalemate, then they must choose to either offer a draw or retreat. Upon receiving the draw offer, the attacking player must either accept the draw or retreat.
A siege with a broken catapult does not count as a stalemate; it is a loss for the attacker, and they must retreat.
In tournaments with a single-elimination system, after a draw, the players return to the situation that existed before the start of the game and begin the next generation with the same number of restarts.
Specifically regarding the game: in my opinion, such moments only enhance the gameplay. Skillful use of terrain – utilizing everything possible. And yes, it would be much more interesting with more complex terrain.
And why is this suddenly being called a bug? Why should two-hex units be able to reach into any hole? It's not uncommon for there to be a mountain in the middle of the field with a one-hex hole in it. Let's call it a bug because two-cell units should be running in circles
The HW stalmate rule is hopeless imho. A rule where the weaker player must flee is much more logical and will lead to much less frustration. It dosent make sense that the attacker has to flee with 3 k skells with speed 8 just because there is some obstacle on the battlefield that you can run around. No reson to award a coward who runs and wont fight. Especially the part when shackles is present is insane. Why not at least in that situation force a confrontation? I have played in other leauges with the "fight or run rule" and it works perfectly. The HW rule leads to heavy frustration again and again.
Auto-translated
Damn, now I've imagined something...
Let's say one player has a Marksman with plenty of ammunition, and the other has 5 Centaurs. In the middle, there's a strip of obstacles.
If the Marksman stops and shoots, he'll die, so he runs in circles around the obstacle. If the Centaurs stop and don't chase the Marksman, he'll gradually shoot them down.
Neither has any morale, and neither has any mana.
Who creates the stalemate? :D
...update
And here's the funny part:
If you follow the letter of what I'm suggesting, it turns out that the Marksman creates the stalemate – he avoids direct contact but doesn't deal damage.
If he's the attacker, he should retreat, and that's great.
If he's the defender, he should either retreat or offer a draw – and that's great too! The opponents won't annoy each other, and in the end, the one who needs to win the game as a whole will retreat (if there is such a player among them), or they will agree on a draw.
And that's very good
The guy with the marksmen is avoiding confrontation and has to flee ofcourse. Even if you can come up with some situation that happens once in 1000 games (which I doubt) it wont be a problem. You can say that in that situation the attacker has to run or whatever.
Statistics
Welcome our newest member:
recijeb
Users Online 9 users 1341 guests
Today's Visitors 31
- ALVYDAS
- Arandor
- AstralLein
- burymm
- Dark Jack
- dotahcxun
- elizbar1967
- fktifzobr@mail.ru
- Golvek
- Happy Life
- Heroist
- Hottler
- HwKeeper
- IchGViji
- kcfgogbfalgfl
- LifeForm
- Narron
- OrnsteinDragonslayer
- PingWing
- Ple-Sen
- Sir Syddan
- Siverfale
- Valery59
- Валера 111
- Граф Орлов
- Джек
- Драккошка
- Дугал
- Злобный Ящур
- Нэйко
- Саргон