Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from DISCUSSIONS on “Rules for online games in HoMM3 and formulas for calculating player rating.”Auto-translated
...Here's where things get interesting.
121. Mephala enters the tavern, intending to break through the opponent's guard. The guard consists of Archdevils. Their stats are low: +3/+3 shield and +2 speed. Nothing else. The Manticores from the box immediately take damage, and most of them die. The guard is broken, but Brogh is still there. I continue, and there's Brogh with his entire army, and the main attack force is with the Dragon standing nearby. It's too late to turn back. Brogh has 20 units, and the Dragon has even more Monarchs. I attack Brogh. I exchange units as much as I can, saving the Harpies. The battlefield, I want to note, has a place where a single-hex infantry unit can run, so that 2-hex units cannot attack it. Therefore, first, I kill the stack of Goblins and Lizards, and the Harpies take a position on a safe island. Then, there's an exchange of units with Brogh. In the final stages, Brogh offers a bribe. Next, there's the Dragon with the Monarchs. There's no way to kill the Dragon. Mephala's army is almost all she has. I decide to move to Brogh's location, thereby blocking the passage along the road, and I hope that the opponent will attack. Since I know the terrain and there's a safe island where I can hide the Harpies and win the battle.
That's what happened. On his turn, the opponent brings reinforcements and attacks Mephala. Harpies in 3 stacks. Monarchs in 2 stacks. The only chance is morale. The Monarchs wait, and the Harpies take the safe island and bring victory. There are shackles there.
Having to replay a game because of some trivial reason – that’s quite a thought. Especially considering that a game of Heroes can last for several Sundays, for example.
There’s no need to replay anything. A draw? We write a report and that’s it. The game is over. If this battle is insignificant and doesn’t affect the outcome, one side will retreat. Wicc
I see a contradiction in Oldboy’s arguments – on the one hand, when talking about banning Necromancer and troop experience, he uses the argument that it “enriches the game,” which is correct, but on the other hand, when talking about a patch, he seeks justice rather than enriching the game.
What exactly is the contradiction? At first glance, the two questions are not related. Regarding Necromancer, this is a question of global game balance. The change improves the balance, therefore it enriches the game. Regarding the patch, it’s a question of resolving a specific deadlock and resolving it as close as possible to the intended meaning of the game.
There's no need to replay anything. Are you even reading? A draw? Just write a report. That's it. The game is over. If it's something insignificant that doesn't affect the outcome, one player can concede.
But what if it's not insignificant? Do you replay the game? What if it's a club tournament? Or a mandatory continuation after a deadline has passed?
Wicc, you gave an example with harpies.
Write – what is its relevance to the discussion? How does the old rule work, and how does the new one? And which is better/fairer in this situation?
Wicc
What if it's not nonsense? Replaying the game? What if it's a club tournament? Or a mandatory continuation after the deadline for the round has passed?
Or a replay if there's still time. Or a draw. They really couldn't determine the strongest and got into a stalemate that affected the outcome of the game. No one has the moral right to win, and no one wants to lose. This is definitely not some insignificant battle of noobs. It's clear that this is a stalemate between main players.
If there's still time, replay. If not, a draw.
The whole question I'm raising is that there's no reason to award a loss to the attacker if the defender created a stalemate. All the defender has achieved is proving that they are not weaker. But they haven't proven that they are stronger. There's no reason to give them the victory.
What is the exact contradiction? At first glance, the two questions seem unrelated. Regarding necromancy, this is a matter of global game balance. The change improves the balance, thus enriching the game. Regarding the patch, this is a matter of resolving a specific deadlock situation and resolving it as closely as possible to the game's intended meaning.
The contradiction lies in the fact that when constructing the rules, in one case you use the principle of "enriching the game," while in the other case, you use the principle of "close to the game's intended meaning." Why not the other way around?
No need to replay anything. Are you even reading? A draw? They go and write a report. That's it. The game is over. If this battle is insignificant and doesn't affect the outcome, one side will retreat.
It's the playoffs of a tournament played using the very popular Double Elimination system. The opponents are busy people, with families, who have found a few days off to play this very interesting, difficult, and long game on the 6lm10a map (for example). And then, a draw! Really? But the deadline is approaching, and there won't be time to replay. So what do we do? Long live the coin toss, whoever is luckier wins!
Wicc, you gave an example with harpies. Write – what does it have to do with the discussion? How does the old rule work and how does the new one? And which is better/fairer in this situation?
I just gave an example of a similar situation.
I like games where a player wins against an opponent with a large army through tactical tricks. Here, an overpowered Brogh was defeated, and his opponent used the only possible chance.
I can find games where similar tactics were used to win battles against hundreds of demons, thousands of skeletons, and so on. And I believe that it is these tactics that enrich the gameplay and strategy of Heroes, making it a competition of players, not a competition of builds.
The playoffs of a tournament played using the very popular Double Elimination system are underway. The opponents are busy people, with families, who have found a few days off to play this very interesting, difficult, and long game on the 6LM10A map (for example). And then, a draw! Really? But time is running out, and there won't be time to replay. So what do we do? Long live the coin toss, whoever is lucky wins!
Yes, a coin toss is fairer than awarding victory to someone who doesn't deserve it. Isn't that obvious?
Added 1 minute ago Wicc
I just gave an example of a similar situation.
I like games where a player wins against an opponent with a huge army through tactical tricks. Here, the overpowered Brogh was defeated, and his opponent used the only possible chance.
As I understand it, he wasn't defeated through tactical tricks. He was defeated thanks to a ridiculous rule that contradicts the spirit of the game. If harpies could attack the entire battlefield from that cell, then yes, he was defeated. If they couldn't, it's just an unworthy victory in a court of law, thanks to legal loopholes.
Yes. A coin flip is fairer than awarding victory to someone who doesn't deserve it. Isn't that obvious?
No, it's not obvious to me. I believe that the current rules, in some situations, represent the only chance for a player to win. Victory in such a case is entirely his due; it means he seized that chance and used it. And the opponent will know that they might encounter a similar outcome and will first think carefully about how to avoid it, rather than simply charging in headfirst. And I don't understand why a coin flip should decide the outcome of a tense battle between players, especially at a serious stage of the tournament.
The contradiction is that when designing the rules, you use the principle of "enhances the game" in one case, and the principle of "close to the meaning of the game" in another. Why not the other way around?
The rules should correspond to the meaning/spirit of the game. Arguing about enriching the game at the cost of losing its meaning is like arguing about enriching a barrel of honey with a spoonful of tar. This is what I mean by the "current rule about a stalemate situation" (a spoonful of tar) in "Heroes" (a barrel of honey). I don't see the point in such enrichment. The barrel of honey is transformed into a new substance, which is no longer so attractive. To the point where you just want to say, "Go to hell with these rules."
With the ban on necromancy in WoG, if you think about it, we are deviating from the meaning of the game, but not by much. I see the meaning there in the necromancer summoning skeletons. In WoG, he can still summon them thanks to the converter. I never claimed that the solution was ideal. I didn't come up with it, and I'm not going to defend it. Necromancy is one of the most obvious overpowered elements in the game, and the decision was also made based on the principle of choosing the "lesser of two evils." The discussion about necromancy is a completely different topic. And it's still unclear what the connection is. Why are we getting sidetracked?
Added 5 minutes later Well, with Yurist and Wicc, I think we've reached the main point where we disagree.
You believe that when creating rules, you can forget about the original essence of the game and thus transform this essence. And then live in a new reality. I state that the original essence of the game is the complete destruction of the enemy. And there is no point in multiplying entities and giving new opportunities for victory (in this case, thanks to nuances in the rules in certain situations). The fact that examples of "victories" over legions of skeletons or demons come to mind simply proves that this rule is also used as a crutch to partially solve other headaches from a completely different area - balance - necromancy and demonology on very large maps (instead of dealing with these things in their pure form).
All arguments have been made and heard. The rest is a matter of taste, which is not something to argue about.
I've been reading through these endless threads, and I decided to share my opinion.
I just don't understand Oldboy. He's obsessively trying to convince everyone that the current rules need to be changed because of one case, and not even one out of a thousand, but one out of ten thousand – that's absurd. Moreover, as I understand it, he advocates for banning necromancy and introducing new classes, claiming it will enrich the game... What can I say? It's already been implemented, and you're just heading straight to the World Tournament, but wait... there was a precedent with harpies, which, for some reason, didn't cause a global catastrophe or endless debates. No, I'd rather go back to SoD, right? Let's just change the rules that work for everyone to please one player (and not even a top player), and then, after some time, we'll have another precedent and change them again and again, right? No, no, forget it. Sorry for my language, but reading this thread in the tournament section is getting tiresome. Oldboy, if you want to write and argue, create a new thread and debate your opponents there, create a poll (but I think you won't even get 10 percent of the votes), but this is just arguing for the sake of arguing. No one will change the old, proven rules for something unclear just because of one case. I fully support Yurist and Vik regarding tactical tricks.
P.S. – I propose a new rule: those who write about unrelated topics in the tournament thread should receive penalty points for each post, up to a ban. If you have a writing urge or want to comment on something, go to the forum or create your own thread. Respect the moderators' work; it's not easy for them to sort through these dialogues, and then they have to spend time cleaning up, or else they might accidentally delete someone's report
The rules should align with the meaning/spirit of the game. Discussing how enriching the game comes at the cost of losing its meaning.
Modern tactics in Heroes have strayed very far from the meaning and spirit of the game. Essentially, all strong tactical maneuvers exploit the game's flaws and artificiality.
This includes infinite ammunition for ballistas, using a single-unit corpse to block gates, and even seemingly natural things now, like dragging monsters around the battlefield up and down with a single fly or removing retaliation. Even chains weren't originally planned by NWC.
And beautiful and clever solutions are 99% exploiting the game's bugs.
Wicc, I wrote that I suggest considering the essence of the game to be the destruction of the opponent.
None of the examples you provided contradict this essence. Tactics haven't deviated from this essence, not "long ago" or "far away."
If you have another formulation of the game's essence that contradicts the examples you provided... well, state it first, and then provide the examples.
Wicc
