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

Sure, I don't mind – feel free to improve it! But I think we should approach this process thoughtfully and change only what really needs to be changed, not everything. P.S. Okay, it's time to call the moderator. There are too many off-topic posts accumulating here... Tomorrow, Tanya will be pulling her hair out trying to find the relevant reports. Peace to all! :smile02:

The fate of this game was decided not by luck, but by the Rules. Both players agree with this. And the arguments "for" were, in my opinion, quite convincing :) And moderators are there to move posts to the appropriate topics, as requested by the forum participants :D

Moderators are there to move posts to the appropriate topics, as requested by forum members.

Moderators are not messengers; they can simply delete everything that is inappropriate; keep this in mind for the future.


The rules are perfectly acceptable. The terrain is part of the game, and it needs to be taken into account. There could theoretically be many similar situations. Ultimately, let's consider this scenario:

There's a road, and everyone has run out of moves, but one player has many moves left. They move along the road and encounter an enemy unit (carrying a Celestial Ship or another artifact). The attacking player has the same units, and the enemy has a Serpent. Why should the player with the Serpent be in a worse position (it could happen that if the defender loses, the attacker will kill the enemy hero in the city and end the game, or it could happen that the Serpent hides thanks to the terrain, and the attacker won't be able to kill it and will lose), if they can't be killed? They can't retreat or lose. They have the right to retreat, and the opponent has the right to attack. If the attack doesn't yield results, the defender is not to blame. Also, the attacker can attack with 10 Angels against 2 Angels, having +1 speed, thinking they will win, but they will get +2 speed from the opponent, who will take a strategic position and not lose.


1. Because they are attacking, and the defender is defending! The defender is not obliged to attack; they are FORCED TO DEFEND!, and it is the attacker who forces them to defend, and they are responsible for the attack! If the attack doesn't yield results, then the defense wins!

2. Immediately before the attack, the attacker sees (approximately) what the opponent has in their army. They can arrange their troops as they like, making the most advantageous arrangement for victory, taking the fastest units from the enemy, dividing them, etc., which puts them in a winning situation!

3. The attacker can scout with a unit; if there isn't one, that's the attacker's problem.

- The attacker can and should have a spell to remove the obstacle, and this is PROVIDED by the game and its creators. This spell is specifically created for such cases! It is quite rare to have this spell, and it is also rarely needed, but similar situations that arise are also rare, especially when they determine the outcome of the game. Often, the outcome is determined by one player having a Town Portal, a Dimension Door, and the other not, but we accept this and don't complain because it's part of the game.

- The defending mage can kill a swarm of skeletons because they place an obstacle with the Magic Shield spell (or whatever it's called), which doesn't change the essence of what happened. The opponent can't get close and is attacked with magic. The only difference is that the mage spends mana and kills the opponent or retreats after spending mana. But they retreat because there is no terrain.

In the case of Oldboy, it's even simpler. The birds didn't want to stand under the Angels and take a strategic position, and the result was a defeat, but in a different form.

For example, in a battle of weaklings, a hero with 7 zombie units attacked a hero with 1 fairy unit. After exchanging ranged attacks, a stalemate occurred, and according to the current rules, the attacker retreats, but according to your proposed rules, it would be the one who doesn't want to fight that retreats. This isn't necessarily bad, but it changes the perception and familiarity of such battles.

P.S. Perhaps this rule does require adjustments, but only in the part concerning shackles.

The request was to provide an example of a battle of weaklings where the new rule would clearly work worse than the existing one. I failed to do so.

After carefully considering all viewpoints (except for those individuals I previously ignored :D), I came to the conclusion that the only significant argument against the new version of the rule, which we arrived at through several iterations starting from Britvotchka's initial proposal (and by the way, Cobra, Vladimir, and Dzhavdet definitely liked this version, and I think Maretti will support it too compared to what we have now)... is that "there can never be a draw in Heroes."

From this:
firstly, the idea that "there are no draws in Heroes" is simply a misconception; I myself have read reports about draws, and even seen tournament tables where the result is recorded as a draw; you can only talk about the fact that there are tournament systems where a draw is impossible – which means
secondly, perhaps the proposed wording isn't necessarily the best option for elimination tournaments (single or double elimination), because at least there are arguments to keep full responsibility on the attacker - "win or lose"
thirdly, still no compelling argument has been made why the proposed wording cannot be applied to seasonal games, round-robin tournaments, and Swiss system tournaments, where the outcome of a match can be recorded as 1/2 : 1/2 (which accounts for the vast majority of games in the community)
(and as a specific case, apply the new wording directly to this tournament, which is currently being discussed - groups are played using a round-robin system)
(for the same reason - everything written here is not off-topic; everything written is directly related to this tournament)

something needs to be decided regarding shackles in both cases.

the argument that the attacker must always win the battle - in my opinion (but I have thought about it several times) is based solely on emotions - "I am standing here, not bothering anyone, but he attacked, so he should be responsible for everything" (so what is the basis of the argumentation in essence? fear from childhood that someone will come and take away my toys? Not to mention that the idea that "I'm not bothering anyone" is simply a lie; compare with the sequence of four points below, which relies on the meaning of the game as its first point).

still no one has commented on the simple logical chain, which clearly shows that
the existing formulation of the rules does not correspond to the spirit (meaning, call it whatever you want) of the game, and therefore, again and again leads to great disappointment among players

1. The purpose (essence/goal) of the game is the complete destruction of the opponent.
2. 1000 skeletons cannot destroy 1 angel. There is no right to victory.
3. 1 angel cannot destroy 1000 skeletons. There is no right to victory.
hence
4. The most fair outcome of this stalemate is a draw.

And, just in case, I remind you once again that the proposed new wording does not say that any tie is a draw. Players can decide for themselves how much of a stalemate they are in, and the defender still generally has a positional advantage. In many cases, the new wording will work exactly like the old one. It simply more accurately (closer to the "spirit of the game") emphasizes certain aspects in stalemate situations.
The last version (in blue) was quoted here:
/topic/at/700083/

The request was to provide an example of a "noob battle" where the new rule would clearly work worse than the existing one. I couldn't do it.

You are an interesting person. You are fixated on the phrase about the "noob battle" that was said at the very beginning of the discussion, but you have edited your "rule" several times throughout the thread. Keep it up!

1. The meaning (essence/goal) of the game is the complete destruction of the opponent.
2. 1000 skeletons cannot destroy 1 angel. There is no right to victory.
3. 1 angel cannot destroy 1000 skeletons. There is no right to victory.
4. The most fair outcome of this stalemate is a draw.

Everything is correct, a fair outcome is a draw, no questions. But it is impossible to end the battle in a draw; both heroes cannot leave the battle and go on with their business. If both heroes disappeared or went to a tavern, this option would suit me. You have already been explained 100 times why the attacker must retreat. In chess, too, when a draw is impossible, the black pieces move on because they are the defenders.

To be honest, I don't even want to argue. Let the person responsible for the rules sort it out :D

Of course, I edited the wording as the discussion progressed. Because if a good argument was made, I took it into account and improved the wording. But I didn't edit the wording retroactively. Like, I wouldn't post one version and ask for responses to it, then silently edit the original post afterward. That didn't happen. New versions of the wording appeared in the thread after successful counterarguments. If someone read the very first text, ignored everything that came after, and started "arguing" with the very first version, that's their problem; they were just too lazy to study the context. I am not selectively focusing on individual phrases. The goal is to analyze and take into account every significant counterargument in the discussion. I asked there to provide an example of a Castle battle because I thought this counterargument was directed at the latest version of the wording, but it was expressed unclearly. If it was no longer relevant, Kostya, you could have simply replied that it was no longer relevant. Your second argument – “there are no draws” – I also tried to take into account, as much as I saw sense in it. Dreaming about an ideal SoD (Simultaneous Duel), where “both heroes will end up in the tavern,” or maybe “both will stand on the map after the battle where they stood” – well, I don’t see any point in reasoning in this direction. Fortunately, there is nothing to sort through in the discussions; I wrote all the main points in the two posts above: /topic/at/700457/ (and regarding “it has been explained 100 times” – I also wrote about it – arguments that “the attacker must win the battle” are not based on the essence of the game; the defender is just as aggressive as the attacker; his goal is exactly the same – to destroy the opponent; no matter how many times you write it, it won't change anything).

Another nonsensical argument about how annoying everything is – these Coldreign guys are really getting on everyone’s nerves – what the hell is this – a tournament or a discussion about the rules? I’m already fed up with these pointless posts.

Because if a good argument was presented, I would take it into account and refine the wording.

Just ask Baratorcha to add a draw button to the battle – and there will be no need for any wording or headaches.

Are there any rules against hiring Phoenixes in a Haven?

No, it is not prohibited.

Refuge = Pandora = Quest

Everything is allowed.

Oldboy, so, in the middle of the game, any random player can attack a scout with skeletons (300 units) with pixies and get a draw? In summary: in the case of Necropolis or units with neutral morale, can you automatically get a draw (= victory, if 7 pixies are exchanged for 300 skeletons) in a battle (match, if it was an attacking stack) with just one stack?

It won't be possible to automatically achieve a draw.

I suggest adding a few words in bold to the current rule quoted in italics:

If a "stalemate" situation occurs in a battle, the attacking player must retreat. Before retreating, the player avoiding contact must make a "Draw Offer" (exception: castle siege)

A noob with pixies attacks skeletons and is the player avoiding contact. He offers a draw to the player with skeletons, who declines it because he considers himself the favorite in the game. After that, the hero with pixies, according to the rule above, must retreat because he is the attacker.

Oldboy, so it turns out that in the middle of the game, any, excuse me, noob can attack with pixies against a scout with skeletons (300 units) and get a draw? In summary: in the case of necromancers or units with neutral morale, can one stack automatically achieve a draw (= victory if 7 pixies are exchanged for 300 skeletons) in battle (a match if this was an attacking stack)?

You forgot to write – how does this “happen” for you? Here is the rule variant I propose:
/topic/at/700083/
According to it, if the attacking "noob with pixies" avoids contact in battle, he must retreat as before.
And once again - there is absolutely no "automatic draw" in the proposed wording either; there is no "automatic draw" at all.
The point is that now, if the defender avoids contact, they win the battle for some not very clear reasons, and it is proposed to replace this win specifically in this situation with a draw (and only if both opponents agree on this draw)

Thank you for your answers.