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 Wicc
Offline zoog
Registered:
Posts: 2,570
#1861
Auto-translated
Oldboy, I apologize – I must have read it carelessly. (
However, you forget that the attacker can always assess the chances of winning and opt for a draw.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to zoog
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#1862
Auto-translated
zoog
Oldboy, I apologize – I must have read it carelessly. (
However, you forget that the attacker can always assess the chances of winning and a draw.

I didn't understand what you meant by "forget." But it seems to me that we haven't forgotten anything.
It would be better if you described a specific situation and how the existing rule and the new one you are proposing would work in that situation.
If the new rule looks obviously worse, then there is something to discuss.

My game with Sheym served as the reason (another one, to be clear, not the only one, but another reason for Kostya) for the controversy. And in our situation, the new rule would look obviously better.
Under the old rule, I won the battle, and Sheym should retreat and lose the game. No one can clearly explain how I deserved to win this battle. And about half of the players respond in the style of "Well, yes, the rules are like that, everyone decides for themselves whether to win like that or not, it's clear that it's unfair, but the rules are like that." And why have rules that, when you win according to them, you feel like you've eaten something awful? No one answers this question clearly. They avoid it, come up with some technical reasons. "Preventing tournaments from dragging on" is a problem that is fundamentally unsolvable. You can simply stipulate that if it's a knockout game and they draw and don't finish within the time limit, a coin is flipped. And that's it. There is no dragging on. This is fairer than winning like that.
But in our case, there is no such problem – nothing prevents a draw from being entered into the group table.
So, according to the new rule, I create a draw; I am the defender, which means I decide whether to retreat or offer the opponent a draw. I would offer a draw. In response, Sheym chooses whether to retreat or agree to a draw. He will agree to a draw rather than lose.
Therefore, the new rule works better. Sheym has a better position, but he missed the terrain features in the battle and allowed me to create a draw. He didn't deserve to win either. With the old rule, he loses; with the new rule, it's a draw. That's the difference.
https://www.twitch.tv/grando__
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Grando
User Avatar
Offline St_Klaus
Registered:
Posts: 605
#1863
Auto-translated
I'm carefully reading the analysis from the very beginning. I believe that the new formulation of the rules is definitely fairer and more sporting than the old "didn't assess - retreated" option. It's not objective, at least because the attacker simply can't fully and accurately assess everything (magic, terrain, etc.). And I don't see anything terrible in the fact that the rules sometimes change. Of course, there is still room for improvement, but it's already better than it was.

Где контент?! (с)
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline Dark
Registered:
Posts: 3,694
#1864
Auto-translated
This is about terrain, and I didn't quite appreciate it. It's roughly like a resistance skill – it either works well or it doesn't. Did it work or not – that's the question.

лето 2012.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Dark
User Avatar
Offline St_Klaus
Registered:
Posts: 605
#1865
Auto-translated
darkello
The question is whether it worked out or not.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. All the arguments "in favor of the old rule" have one thing in common: the attacker is responsible for what happens if they didn't assess the situation correctly; they are to blame. But how can you accurately assess it completely? So, the Oldboy rule at least minimizes this "luck factor."

Где контент?! (с)
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline Juristis
Registered:
Posts: 1,423
#1867
Auto-translated
Guys, the draw rule is one of the few ways to counter a legion of skeletons. How will this be possible with your new rule? This is the first thing I don't like about the new rule. Secondly, you'll have to think much less during battles between factions. According to the current rules, when you attack some fairies with 20 skeletons or zombies, you first need to think about how you will kill these fairies, especially if the fairies have magic. Here's a simple example: let's say Vidomina has 7 fairy units, 20 mana, and 4 archers. You have Kira with skeletons and zombies, bought in the Necropolis, 30 mana, and 6 archers. If you attack as is, you won't have enough mana for all the units, and you'll have to retreat. So, you need to think and find a solution to this problem. Either rely on buying out and immediately buy another hero, or look for some upgraded serpent, or maybe a couple of archers. In general, you need to prepare for the battle first, and then attack. And this is very good; it forces players to take this aspect of the game more seriously. In your case, it will be enough to simply attack with larger forces against smaller ones, and the latter will have to retreat. And there are also factors such as morale and terrain, which you also need to keep in mind. And, for example, in Might and Magic 200, such battles happen every turn. The draw option is technically impossible, so I won't even comment on it. You say that it will be fairer if the retreating side is the one that was dodging, and that may be so, but it will greatly impoverish the tactical and strategic aspects of the game. You'll have to think much less, just attack and not worry about anything in the endgame. In War of the Throne, necromancy was removed. Is that fair? Yes. Did it impoverish the game? Yes. Experience was added to the troops. Is that fair? Maybe. Did it impoverish the game? Yes. It's not worth citing the situation in the specific Oldboy-Shemon game as an example, as this is a very rare case, and besides, the attacker had a real chance to win the battle, but he didn't take advantage of it. Besides, all players have long been used to the draw rule, and it will take a long time to get used to the new wording. And our current wording in this aspect coincides with the rules of other resources. How are we supposed to play in inter-portals?
heroes3.tv/juristis
ICQ - 488-784-621, skype - juristis18

Весна 2014.
1
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
Offline zoog
Registered:
Posts: 2,570
#1868
Auto-translated
Juristis, +1 to everything. However, in your example, you can split the skeletons and zombies into 7 stacks, 6 pixies are killed by archers, and the last one is chased down by the remaining 3 stacks. And regarding the rules - their minimization and universalization are important, as in other communities, and I'm not sure about how the "Westerners" handle this.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Juristis
User Avatar
Offline Javdet
Registered:
Posts: 3,093
#1869
Auto-translated
Juristis
Guys, the draw rule is one of the few ways to counter a legion of skeletons. How will this be possible with your new rule? This is the first thing I don't like about the new rule.
The second thing is that you'll have to think much less during battles between factions. According to the current rules, when you attack some fairies with 20 skeletons or zombies, you first need to think about how you will kill these fairies, especially if the fairies have magic.
Here's a simple example: let's say Vidomina has 7 fairy units, 20 mana, and 4 archers. You have Kira with skeletons and zombies, bought in the Necropolis, 30 mana, and 6 archers. If you attack as is, you won't have enough mana for all the units, and you'll have to retreat. This means you need to think and find a solution to this problem. Either rely on buying out and immediately buy another hero, or look for some upgraded snake creature, or maybe a couple of archers. In general, you need to prepare for the battle first, and then attack. And this is very good; it forces players to take this aspect of the game more seriously. In your case, it will be enough to simply attack with larger forces against smaller ones, and the latter will have to retreat. And there are also factors such as morale and terrain, which you also need to keep in mind. And, for example, in Might and Magic 200, such battles happen every turn. The option of a draw is technically impossible, so I won't even comment on it.
You say that it will be fairer if the one who is retreating has to retreat, but this may be the case, but it will greatly impoverish the tactical and strategic aspects of the game. You will have to think much less, just attack and not worry about anything in the endgame.
In War of the Ancients, necromancy was removed. Is that fair? Yes. Did it impoverish the game? Yes.
Experience was added to troops. Is that fair? Maybe. Did it impoverish the game? Yes.
It's not worth citing the situation in the specific Oldboy-Shemon game, as this is a very rare case, and besides, the attacker had a real chance to win the battle, but he didn't take advantage of it.
Besides, all players have long been used to the draw rule, and it will take a long time to get used to the new wording. And our current wording in this aspect coincides with the rules of other resources. How are we supposed to play in interportals?

Regarding "impoverished," I have a different opinion, at least because in War of the Ancients, vampires were not cut. But I agree about the rare case. It's not a good idea to rewrite the basic rules based on a 1/1000 probability of terrain appearing, with the risk of creating a much bigger precedent. Although I like Oldboy's suggestions, I can't imagine what consequences might arise...
But I don't think anyone will be harmed by a small correction to the rules about battles on terrain
Даже если вас съели - у вас два выхода:smile19:

Зима 2011-12.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline BISHOP
Registered:
Posts: 1,398
#1870
Auto-translated
To everyone who thinks the old rules are unfair, especially to Oldboy, I advise you to reread R55Maks's post; in my opinion, it is quite clear and understandable why it is done this way.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline Javdet
Registered:
Posts: 3,093
#1871
Auto-translated
In general, I think the ideal way out of this stalemate would be to ask Baratorch to withdraw both heroes from the battle with their remaining armies. Even if it contradicts the tenets of the "sacred" SOD.
Даже если вас съели - у вас два выхода:smile19:

Зима 2011-12.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Juristis
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#1872
Auto-translated
More than half of the discussions arise because "writers, not readers" don't carefully read what is being proposed.
Juristis
Guys, the rule about a stalemate is one of the few opportunities to counter a legion of skeletons. How will this be possible with your new change?
By playing to a draw instead of winning. It's the same counter, just better balanced. You didn't play well enough for a win either. ;-)
Do you seriously think that by running away from skeletons you have the right to say you countered them and deserve a win?
I remember back in my first year of law school, I was taught that there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Perhaps it's worth remembering that?
I am sure that the only way to think today's rules make sense is to lie to yourself and completely turn a blind eye to the fact that the point of the game is to destroy the opponent. If you cannot destroy the opponent, you do not have the right to a win in the game.
Secondly, you'll have to think a lot less with your head in battles between low-tier units... Under the current rules, when you attack, say, some fairies with 20 bone dragons or zombies, you first need to think about how you're going to kill those fairies, especially if the fairies have magic.
I'll give a simple example: say Vidomina is standing there with 7 individual fairies, 20 mana, 4 archers. You have Kira with bone dragons and zombies bought in the Necro village, 30 mana, 6 archers. If you attack as is, you won't have enough mana for all the individual units, you'll have to retreat. So you need to think, look for a solution to this problem. Either rely on ransom and immediately buy another hero, or look for some upgraded snake, or maybe a couple of archers. In general, you need to prepare for the battle first, and then attack. And this is very good, it makes players take this aspect of the game more seriously. In your case, it will be enough to simply attack smaller forces with a large army, and they will have to retreat.
But that's the thing — those smaller forces won't necessarily have to retreat. You're not reading carefully. The defender can offer a draw, not retreat. And if the attacker planned to win the game — then they'll have to retreat. ;-)
And if the defender truly believes they are winning the game — then they will retreat, not offer a draw. And they won't be too upset about it.
And for example on M200 such battles happen every turn.
Why lie? There are just as few truly deadlocked battles there. Not even close to every turn. Besides, you need to consider what was written just above. All else being equal, whoever needs it more will retreat.
The draw option is technically unfeasible, so I won't even comment on it.
What problem do you see? The draw is not offered in the battle.
The draw is IN THE GAME OVERALL. That is, you need to weigh — what is more important to you, this battle or the entire match.
If the defender creates a stalemate situation, they ask in PM (or in the game) — draw? The attacker replies — draw. They write a report. Draw. That's it.
What is the problem with the technical implementation?
You write that it would be fairer if the one evading has to retreat, that may be true, but it will greatly impoverish the tactical and strategic components of the game. You'll have to think a lot less with your head, just blindly necro and not worry about anything in the endgame.
Necromancy is imbalanced as it is. Don't shift the blame from the sick to the healthy.
In WT they removed necromancy. Fair? Fair. Did it impoverish the game? It impoverished it.
In my opinion, it enriched it instead. A debatable (and also indirectly relevant) issue, we'll discuss it in private, and come back if we reach a consensus.
They added army experience. Fair? Possibly. Did it impoverish? It impoverished.
In my opinion, it enriched it instead. A debatable (and also indirectly relevant) issue, we'll discuss it in private, and come back if we reach a consensus.
As for citing the situation in the specific game Oldboy-Shemonyu, it's not worth it at all, as this is a very rare case, and besides, the attacker had a very real chance to win the battle, but he didn't use it.
He had a very real chance to lose almost his entire army and the game if he tried to avoid the stalemate, not to win the battle. You saw the ending, when the birds had already done all the work, but to avoid the stalemate — he would have had to put them directly under attack right away.
Besides, all players have long been accustomed to the rule about stalemates, and it will take a long time for them to get used to the new wording. And our current wording on this aspect aligns with the rules of other resources. How are we supposed to play in inter-portal games?
Yes. I believe the rule about stalemates should be changed on all resources, because what exists now is a pain in the ass and a disappointment on all resources. And among the Westerners, if I understood Maretti correctly, the generally accepted rule is fight or run.
They'll get used to it.
https://www.twitch.tv/grando__
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline The_
Registered:
Posts: 1,325
#1873
Auto-translated
I'll stick to my opinion; the rule about gauntlets is nonsense. Whether defending or attacking, if gauntlets are present, the fight should go to the end, and only one should survive. No "tactics" involving flying around or cleverly designed landscapes should be used; in my opinion, this should have been implemented from the start. As for regular battles, after listening to various opinions, I haven't reached a definitive conclusion; both sides have valid points, and everyone sees it differently.
241-568-808
0
⚖️
0
In reply to BISHOP
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#1874
Auto-translated
BISHOP
To everyone who thinks the old rules are unfair, especially comrade Oldboy, I advise you to reread R55Maks's post; in my opinion, it is quite accessible and clearly explains why things are done this way.
/post/700343/
I read it carefully. I didn’t find a single strong argument on the matter.
Examples using spells are essentially just pointless chatter. No calculations, skill, or spells will protect against a deadlocked situation in battle.
R55Max's main arguments revolve around the idea that if an attacker attacks but doesn't win the battle, then the defender isn't at fault, but the attacker is. I already wrote that I consider this an argument from kindergarten – "I'm sitting here, not bothering anyone, and he came along and wants to take my toys."
This is all a lie.
The real goal of the game is to destroy the opponent. And the defender is just as much an aggressor as the attacker. He stands there with one goal: during his turn, he takes the next step towards completely destroying the opponent.
So, it is correct to reason by putting the real meaning of the game first. And a simple logical chain has already been presented.
1. The goal/meaning/essence/spirit of the game is to destroy 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 deadlock is a draw.

Now, Bishop, try to argue convincingly which position is closer to the spirit of the game.
Mine or R55Max’s? Or maybe I missed some fundamental idea in him?
https://www.twitch.tv/grando__
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline Wicc
Registered:
Posts: 5,099
#1875
Auto-translated
I see a contradiction in Oldboy's arguments – on the one hand, when discussing the ban on Necromancy and troop experience, he uses the argument that it "enriches the game," which is true. On the other hand, when discussing the patch, he seeks fairness rather than enriching the game. It's obvious that the current patch rule enriches the game compared to "fight or run." This is precisely what makes it valuable – it causes anal pain for reckless aggressors. The only exception I see is battles with restricted units – there, it's truly a fight to the finish, and the advantage of the defender should be limited to "if both stand still, the attacker should move first."
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline Juristis
Registered:
Posts: 1,423
#1876
Auto-translated
Wicc
I see a contradiction in Oldboy's arguments – on the one hand, when discussing the ban on necromancy and troop experience, he uses the argument that it "enriches the game," which is true. On the other hand, when discussing the patch, he seeks justice rather than enriching the game.

It's obvious that the current patch rule enriches the game compared to "fight or run." This is precisely what makes it valuable – it causes immense frustration for reckless aggressors.

The only exception I see is battles with handcuffs – there, it's truly a fight to the finish, and the advantage of the defender should be limited to "if both stand still, the attacker should move forward."
That's the contradiction I wanted to point out. I agree about the handcuffs; they are a significant advantage in such cases.

Added 2 minutes later
Oldboy, the option of a draw in the game is such a bizarre idea that I'm amazed you don't see it yourself. Having to replay an entire game because of some trivial reason – that's quite an idea. Considering that a game in Heroes can last for several weeks, for example.
heroes3.tv/juristis
ICQ - 488-784-621, skype - juristis18

Весна 2014.
0
⚖️
0