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

Most of us write correctly, and the translator translates about 90-95% correctly.

Personally, when I write posts that foreign players should be able to understand, I check whether they are translated correctly into English using Google Translate.

You guys are really going for it! You've written five pages, but as Tvaryna correctly noted, the situation is completely trivial.... Moreover, changing the rules based on this isn't even funny.
1. I fully agree with Kostya: the responsibility lies entirely with the attacker. If you attack, it means you are confident in your superiority, have an advantage, and are ready to resolve the situation. The defender's task, accordingly, is to wiggle out of this situation—i.e., not to lose—and for that, as they say: all is fair in war (in chess, by the way, white initially plays for a win, while black plays for a draw, and stalemate is one of black's strategies for achieving their goal).
2. Why do you assume that such terrain is a bug, and that if the developers had known... Has it not occurred to you that the developers didn't just know, but specifically introduced such terrain as an element of randomness, perhaps to increase the significance of luck? Everyone here has somehow forgotten for a moment that this is SoD: with morale, GS, single stacks for the Miner, Pickendrams, etc. I consider terrain to be a continuation of this chain.

Specifically regarding this match—it's a complete joke. As they say in football: the pitch is the same for both teams. The loser even had a chance to use this "bug," but he blundered, as they say in chess, and was punished for it, which I believe is fair (Yes, I have also thrown already won matches due to stupidity or randomness. Does anyone remember me filing complaints?). In this match, it wasn't the terrain that decided it, but the winner's focus on the result, which proved higher than the loser's.

What is the spirit of the game? Who said that someone with even an obvious advantage must necessarily win? The forum is full of reports that do not support this thesis. For example, who can clearly explain to me: how does this terrain situation differ, for instance, from a situation where a folder with all artifacts is caught while speeding up, based on the spirit of the game?

However, the proposal to change the rules isn't solely based on this particular episode. It's especially frustrating that Kostya is writing such nonsense. There have already been enough episodes. And while my experience here might not be extensive, for example, Maretti writes in a similar vein. The reasoning about some kind of responsibility of the attacker is all well and good, but if you look at it even a little bit, it doesn't hold up. Responsibility is one thing, but why should the attacker necessarily lose? For example, if it's a Necromancer who has completely crushed the opponent and is left in the final with 1000 skeletons against 1 angel and can't win, and under the new proposed rules, instead of winning, he gets a draw – isn't that a form of responsibility? It's still responsibility, but it's better balanced. Where does it come from that he must lose such a game instead of winning? The reason for this is only one: the angel (or other flying unit) has wings and can fly. But it still can't destroy the opponent. Where does the right to win come from? From nowhere. I'll repeat once more (not for the dull, but for those who are intelligent but haven't bothered to think about it yet) – the current rule was devised as a "lesser evil." And the proposed rule, as a mix of the "fight or run" and "stalemate is a lose for attacker, draw for defender" rules, is simply a clearly better "lesser evil." Once again, for Kostya, I'll quote the proposal and ask him to provide a specific example of a battle where the new rule will work noticeably worse or more awkwardly than the current one. 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 a draw offer, 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.

Why does it follow that he must necessarily lose such a game?
After all, there is only one reason for this - the angel has wings and can fly. But he is still unable to destroy the opponent.

If a player has 1 skeleton, then the date is clearly not small, and at such dates, it is worth having money for a bribe.

If a player has only 1 Skeleton, then the date is clearly not recent; at such dates, it's worth having money for a buyout.

So, what will prevent him from buying out according to the new rule?
Aren't you tired of being obtuse, guys? Half of those writing are unable to understand what they are writing about situations where the proposed new rule and the current rule work the same way.
That is, you can generally not even remember these situations. :smile38:

Haven't you guys gotten tired of being dense? Half of those who write here can't even understand what they're writing about, especially in situations where the proposed new rule and the current one work the same way.

And haven't you gotten tired of thinking you're smarter than everyone else? If an attacking Necropolis, which many people like to use as an example, has 1,000,000 skeletons and is facing 1 Angel, that's a loss for the Necropolis. Why? Because, in addition to the skeletons, there should also be combat/meat/fast stacks, or magic, or money for a bribe, or something else... Did you spend the whole game amassing skeletons, like you were rabid, and then lost to 1 Angel? Next time, be smarter and don't think that simply amassing a large number of units equals victory in Heroes.

Lyrical again.

1) The game's mathematics are as follows (logic, spirit – the meaning doesn't change with the name). The game is about eliminating the opponent.
2) An angel cannot kill skeletons. There is no right to victory.
3) Skeletons cannot kill an angel. There is no right to victory.

The fair mathematical outcome is a draw.

Want to continue the fight? Buy your way out/flee according to the rules of the game and fight.

P.S. I don't care – whether I'm smarter than others or not.

However, the suggestion to change the rules is not made because of this particular episode. It is especially disappointing that Kostya is writing such nonsense. There have already been enough episodes. And if my experience here is not extensive, then, for example, Maretti writes in a similar vein.

First, it's strange that you consider what I (or Wicc, twaryn'a) wrote to be nonsense, but you demand attention to your posts?

Where does it follow that he must lose the game instead of winning?
After all, the only reason for this is that the angel (fly) has wings and can fly. But he is still unable to destroy the opponent.
Where does the right to win come from? From nowhere.

Secondly, in Heroes, a battle cannot end in a draw (except when both are killed), so there can be no talk of a draw in the game, especially considering that draws are unnecessary time in Tournaments, where there must be a winner. In any case, someone must retreat.

And the proposed rule is like a mix of the "fight or run" and "stalemate is a lose for attacker, draw for defender" rules - it is simply a more successful "lesser of two evils".

Third, I didn't say that the "fight or run" option is bad, it's just DIFFERENT. But I don't think it's better. I am quite happy with the current state of affairs.

Once again, for Kostya, I will quote the suggestion and ask him to provide a specific example of a battle of pawns where the new rule will work clearly worse, more awkwardly than the one that exists now.

For example, in a battle of pawns, a hero with 7 zombie units attacked a hero with 1 fairy unit. After an exchange of ranged attacks, a stalemate situation arose, and according to the current rules, the attacker retreats, but according to yours, the one who doesn't want to fight retreats. This is not bad, but it changes the assessment and familiarity of such battles.

P.S. Perhaps this rule does require adjustments, but only in the part where it says about shackles.

I agree that the part about shackles should be adjusted. Loading an autosave, dismissing troops, removing shackles, fighting again, etc. – this is quite a laborious, time-consuming, and tedious process. I think that shackles are a serious argument for the attacker to force the defender to fight. And there will be more possible developments: you gather archers to fly and attack with skeletons, forcing the opponent to pay a ransom, and he suddenly presents manacles! Moreover, when shackles work in battle, both players see it, which means the attacker can prove their presence in such a situation.

In this particular game, there was effectively a stalemate (draw) in the battle. And the current HW rules influenced the outcome of the game. If the rules were like those on another resource, as cited by Maretti in "Fight or run," forcing opponents to fight, then the winner of the game would have been the opposite player. In our case, a draw in battle = victory for the defender in the game, which is unfair. A fairer approach: a draw in battle = a possible draw in the game. I propose adding a few words in bold to the current rule quoted in italics: If a "stalemate" occurs in battle, the attacking player must retreat. Before retreating, the player avoiding contact must make an "offer of a draw in the game" (exception: siege of a castle). If a defending underdog artificially creates a stalemate situation in order to end the game in a draw (e.g., attacks with golems on the opponent's fly unit), then it is not beneficial for the favorite to offer a draw; they will retreat and come back with another army.

But why does he necessarily have to lose? For example, if it's a Necromancer who has turned his opponent into mincemeat and is left in the final with 1000 skeletons against 1 angel, and he can't win.

Because he ATTACKED! The question is: why? What was he thinking? What result did he expect?

In general, the comparisons of legions of skeletons with an angel or a fly are amusing. Do you think that a pile of meat is a strategic advantage, but greater speed is not?! I believe these advantages are in the same weight category! Even if you have a billion skeletons, if you can't catch up to the enemy, what's the point of your advantage?!

From what does it follow that he must lose such a game instead of winning?

At least from the fact that he deserves to lose, since he makes such mistakes: if he's not sure of his victory, he shouldn't attack; if he didn't take some nuance into account, it's his own fault. Let's step away for a moment from virtual reality and look at the real world, in this case, the animal world: a wolf decided he wanted to have a snack on an eagle. Wolves are quite intelligent creatures, and if a wolf can't do something alone, they organize into packs. But even a pack won't catch an eagle; it will simply fly up and sit on a branch, watching the wolves' clumsy attempts. The wolf can even climb a tree, but by the time he climbs up, the eagle will quickly fly to another tree. What do you think will happen in this encounter? That's right: the attackers will retreat, tails between their legs...

There can't be a draw here simply because this isn't chess. If in chess the only condition for victory is capturing the king, and the whole game is one big battle, then in Heroes, victory can be achieved in different ways, and one specific battle doesn't always decide the outcome, even if it's the final. There are many examples of players losing their entire army in the final, but still winning. But in this particular battle, you ended up in a stalemate; no one wants to retreat, so what should you do? Wait until the electricity is turned off for non-payment? Someone has to lose, so they decided that the attacker is "guilty" for taking the initiative (maybe you've heard that initiative is punishable?). It wouldn't make sense to declare the defender the loser, who was just living his life, not bothering anyone, quietly collecting resources, and then suddenly got attacked! And he's actually a pacifist...

Added after 18 minutes

In our case, a draw in battle = victory for the defender in the game.

Why is it =? Because after the battle, the attacker refused to continue the game, surrendering? Didn't see any prospects? But another player might see them, raise a new army, or get more magic and win... but he made that decision himself. Or maybe there really were no prospects... Well, he should have thought about it before attacking. Who could have predicted that? Maybe no one - that's the hero's fate. Bad luck, it happens...

Why is this = ? Because after the battle, the attacker refused to continue the game and surrendered? Didn't see any prospects? But another player might have seen them, built a new army, or acquired more magic and perhaps won... but he made that decision himself. Or maybe there really were no prospects... Well, he should have thought about it before attacking. Who could have predicted that? Maybe no one - that's just how it is. Bad luck, it happens...

The answer to your question was already given by the attacker.

He was stingy and attacked - now there's no army at home and no money either. Sad :(

It often happens that this is the reality - there are no prospects, not a lack of will to win.

The answer to your question was already written by the attacker

this is not an answer to my question, but his decision, which does not justify him in any way. he lost not because he lost the battle, but because he surrendered. But

There are frequent cases when there really are no prospects, rather than a weak will to win.

I agree, when you don't see any prospects, stalling for time is not the best idea. But here, as I wrote above, luck was not on his side, nothing more. That's no reason to change the rules, especially to introduce concepts foreign to this game, like a draw due to a battle.

Added 5 minutes later
Someone correctly wrote here: a precedent could be created where a deliberately losing game could be turned around by attacking a scout hero with a scout hero (or even a main hero) and creating a stalemate situation.. Now that would be truly in the spirit of the game!

Everything needs improvement, including the Rules!

And a battle between weak players doesn't pose a threat to the situation, as the favorite is more likely to retreat in such a battle than to offer a draw in the game.