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)
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#1908
Auto-translated
Well, in general, what's the point of dragging this out? In the last few pages, Wicc came up with two excellent ideas:
- regarding shackles
- regarding castle siege.
Therefore, I will immediately supplement the working formulation to take these thoughts into account. So, what are we talking about.
The text below should be considered as a whole; a sentence in the rules is inseparable from the formulation of the game's meaning and follows from it.

The existing rule regarding a stalemate contradicts the meaning/spirit of the game, which is proposed to be formulated as follows:
"THE GOAL OF THE GAME IS TO DEFEAT THE OPPONENT BY COMPLETELY ELIMINATING HIM".
A new formulation of the rule is proposed.

Stalemate in battle.

1. A stalemate in battle is created by the opponent who avoids direct contact between troops and does not inflict damage on the opponent.
2. 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. Having received the offer of a draw, the attacker must either accept a draw in the game or retreat.
3. An exception is a stalemate during a castle siege, if the attacker has lost the catapult and, at the same time, cannot freely penetrate behind the castle walls without taking damage - this is a loss for the attacker, and he must retreat. If the attacker has the opportunity to freely penetrate behind the castle walls without taking damage, and the defender creates a stalemate, then the defender chooses - to lose the battle or offer a draw.
4. In the event that one of the opponents is wearing shackles, the player creating the stalemate must make a move that is losing for him and accept the battle, in one way or another attacking the opponent, or allowing him to attack himself.
5. 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.
https://www.twitch.tv/grando__
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
User Avatar
Offline The_
Registered:
Posts: 1,325
#1909
Auto-translated
Well, in short, what's the point of dragging it out? In the last few pages, Wicc came up with two good ideas:
- regarding shackles.

Wicc came up with them? Well, okay, I don't mind, as long as they make changes. Otherwise, I don't think they'll be accepted, and maybe that's for the best. Wicc's arguments seem more convincing, even if they're not perfect.
241-568-808
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#1910
Auto-translated
Let's look at it chronologically. He mentioned it at least twice. The first time was a long time ago, almost at the very beginning. As for whether they will accept it or not, we'll see. It's obvious that opinions are divided almost equally. Among those who actively participated in the discussions: For the change (to varying degrees, but quite clearly): britvochka, maretti, oldboy, cobra, dzhavdet, volodymyr, santa klaus. Against (to varying degrees, joining the arguments that were being made): vikk, r55max, dirty, jurist, roger_daltavilla, snoopy, bishop. Seems to be for the change: slot_d, sheimonu, The. Seems to be against: lebron, heroin. Wat? (too much text, go away, you're annoying): browser, zloy romantik. Sorry if I forgot someone or misunderstood.
https://www.twitch.tv/grando__
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
Offline zoog
Registered:
Posts: 2,570
#1911
Auto-translated
Wicc
dragging monsters across the battlefield up and down with a single fly
Monsters are supposed to be less intelligent; exploiting the AI is the basis of many game strategies.
removing retaliation
Not true. If removing retaliation wasn't considered by the game creators, then why and how did they implement it?)
Even chains weren't originally planned by NWC.
That's not true. Troop transfer was created for chains.

Experts on the interportal, provide the rules for other resources! I only know about HP; it's the same there. In my opinion, the only real argument for changing the rule is the imbalance among players with different rules.

Oldboy, it's bad that victory sometimes goes to the "wrong" player due to a mistake, but you can't write down everything in the rules.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Grando
User Avatar
Offline R55Max
Registered:
Posts: 1,963
#1912
Auto-translated
Oldboy
Now, Bishop, try to argue logically whose position is closer to the spirit of the game. Mine or R55Max's? Or maybe I missed some fundamental idea in his arguments?
You simply don't notice many things and jump from one thing to another, trying to impose your philosophy instead of the current one.

First of all, I will emphasize that draws should simply not be considered in such situations, because this introduces an element of negotiation into the game (we can talk about it at length, but let's skip it). In group stages, in games with negotiated outcomes, this can be very easily manipulated, and by referring to the terrain, a draw can be posted, which either puts the player who agreed to the game or his friend into the next round.
R55Max's main arguments revolve around the fact that if the attacker attacked but did not win the battle, then the defender is not to blame, but the attacker is. I have already written that I consider this to be an argument from a kindergarten - "I'm just sitting here, not bothering anyone, and he came and wants to take my toys."

This argument reveals its essence in everyone who supports the current rules; learn to find the theses from what is written. I'll explain it simply:

A blue hero stands on a hill, a red unit attacks, the hill occupies a position, and they cannot dislodge it. Before the battle, the hero with the hill was standing in a specific place on the map (occupying his position, pixels). In order to take the position that is displayed in the game as a visualized sword (when an attack is shown - next to the hero with the hill, and then to a specific point of the hero), the red unit must destroy the blue hero! There is no other way for the red unit! The red hero cannot stand on the blue hero's head without anything happening; for this to happen, the blue hero must flee or retreat or lose. The blue hero does not lose, but he also has no reason to retreat, because nothing threatens him, which means the position on the general map remains with the blue hero, because he occupied it earlier! And the red hero is only trying to take his place, but cannot, which means he lost!
The real goal of the game is to destroy the opponent. And the defender is just as aggressive as the attacker. He stands there with one goal - in his turn, he takes the next step towards the complete destruction of the opponent.
The point is that in the next turn, he will do something that may destroy the opponent, and this hero, who was defending, can make a significant contribution, which is why he will stand in place and doesn't care who can't kill him.

And again, your vacillations lead to the following inconsistency:
Oldboy's rule:
3. An exception is a stalemate situation when attacking a castle, if the attacker lost the catapult, and at the same time did not have time to break down the gate - this is a loss for the attacker, and he must retreat....

He didn't have time to break down the gate - he lost, which means the walls protected the defender, which means the reason is that the superior attacking forces could not get close. This is in no way different from the fact that the defender was saved by the terrain in a battle outside the castle!

Again, I repeat that the red side (conditionally) has the opportunity to have a spell, a scout, and the ability to arrange the units before the battle. This is not a bug at all, but just an annoying situation for the attacker, of which there are plenty in the game.

Knowing that there is such a possibility of losing will only add another nuance that will need to be taken into account, but no more, because ultimately the speed of the unit and its hit points are one of the main components in the game, and it is simply absurd to nullify them.
МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...
0
⚖️
0
In reply to R55Max
Offline Grando
Registered:
Posts: 1,827
#1913
Auto-translated
R55Max
First, I want to emphasize that draws should simply not be considered in such situations, because this introduces the character of agreements into the game (there is much to be said about this, so let's skip it). In group stages of arranged games, this can be very easily manipulated; citing the terrain, one could post a draw that advances either the person who agreed to the game or their friend to the next round.
Can you give a concrete example of a group where two players can only reach an agreement through a draw, and cannot agree via 1-0 or 0-1?
Blue does not lose, but there is no point in retreating since nothing threatens him, meaning the position on the general map remains with Blue because he occupied it first! And the Red hero only tried to take his place but cannot, meaning he lost!
I will repeat once more — I propose that the essence of the game be considered the destruction of the opponent. In a specific combat situation, everything is proven only by the destruction of the opponent. If one hero stands on a cell and another enters that cell on their turn, then two heroes are standing on the cell. And one of them must destroy the other to keep the cell for themselves.
If neither could do this, it means the game has reached a stalemate and the fair outcome is a draw.
Nevertheless, I agree that higher requirements should be placed on the attacker. Because if, in the end, the attacker is the one creating the stalemate, then it looks exactly as you write. He arrived. He cannot occupy the game cell and only runs around. Then we don't care about him — I (the defender) was here and I am still here. And the attacker proved nothing. The defender moves freely within the position, while the attacker skulks and is afraid to get in the way. The attacker came to prove that he has the right to occupy this position, but he failed to prove it, so his defeat seems logical.
But if the defender creates the stalemate, it looks different. The attacker arrived, took the position, and the defender runs around (or in my case, hid in the bushes) and doesn't want to leave. Now that is a real stalemate. The attacker proved that he can come and take the position, and the defender cannot stop him. But the attacker cannot completely destroy the defender either. This is a total deadlock in which, essentially, no one deserves victory in this battle.
We can repeat the same things in a circle indefinitely, but I suggest you just understand my position once and for all and calm down. No destruction of the opponent — everything else is unconvincing. You arrived at this cell first? Well done. But that means nothing. Now I have arrived, let's figure out who is stronger.
You won't convince me with repetitions. We have already heard and understood each other.
And again, your vacillations lead to the following inconsistency:
Failed to break the gates — lost, meaning the walls shielded the defender, meaning the reason is that the superior attacking forces cannot get close. In essence, this is no different from the defender being saved by the terrain in a battle outside a Castle!
I don't feel any vacillations or inconsistencies yet. There is a difference, and it's very simple.
In this game, Castles are key strongpoints. And the rules for storming them are unambiguous. There are walls. Land units can pass through the walls without taking losses only when the gates are broken.
A player attacking a Castle, if they have no other decisive arguments to win the battle other than infantry (or if those arguments ran out), must break the walls or gates in 100 out of 100 cases to win the battle.
If they didn't do this — there is nothing to talk about. They messed up. 100%.
And to move inside the Castle and back without taking damage, specifically the gates must be broken.

And I will repeat one thought that is currently in a doubtful status. Does HD+ now change the seed before the battle or not? I understood that it does. And if it does, then nothing can be verified anymore — stalemate terrain can generate where such terrain didn't exist before.
https://www.twitch.tv/grando__
1
⚖️
0
In reply to Wicc
Offline Sav
Registered:
Posts: 476
#1915
Auto-translated
Oldboy
Does HD+ now change the seed before the battle, or not? I understand that it does. And if it does, then you can't check anything anymore - a problematic terrain can be generated in a place where such terrain didn't exist before.
No, it doesn't change anything. How many times do we have to discuss this - it's not that hard to just check. :)
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Pit for LM
Registered:
Posts: 2,468
#1916
Auto-translated
KobRa_RR
During a game with Oldboy, some questions arose regarding the Balance template:
1) I have an exit to a neighboring zone through a guard post, but below it, approximately 1.5 turns away, a mine was generated, which allows me to pass into the same zone (bugged passage), and there are no guards nearby.
Looking at the rules, we see:
2.6.5. In the absence of a passage guard, free movement between zones is permitted.
So, am I correct in understanding that I can freely pass through this passage regardless of whether I defeated the guard above or not?Yes, if this is not a passage to a treasure zone.
- It is forbidden to enter treasure zones (10 on the Balance template, 6, 9, 12 on the Panic template) through bugged passages until the corresponding guard posts according to the template scheme have been cleared.
According to the Balance template scheme, you can reach the treasure zone via several paths. You must definitely clear the last guard post (between zone 5 and 10). After that, you can use bugged passages to access the treasure zone.
If there are doubts about which zone the passage leads to, you need to send the save file and passwords to the tournament judges.
Bugged passage - a passage between zones that should not exist according to the template scheme. It differs by having weaker guards (or no guards at all), inconsistent with the template scheme. Often occurs when generating a mine, village, etc., on the border of two zones.

Here are a couple of screenshots:
/post/683339/
KobRa_RR
2) How should I understand:
1.4. Restart is allowed for the player whose only road leads to GO (for templates 2SM4d(3), Jebus cross, Balance, Nostalgia). It is taken on the day this fact is discovered, but no later than day 115.
Very often, only 2 roads are generated: 1 to GO, the other to a dead-end native village. And the rest of the exits from the respawn lead through impassable terrain. Is this a restart situation or not?
And if there is only 1 road to GO, and the remaining exits, including the native village, are through impassable terrain?
Answer:
Juristis
2) In cases where there are roads to GO and to the native village, restarts are not allowed. If there is only one road to GO, then a restart can be taken (111, if there are subjective reasons; additional, if there aren't any).
I have nothing to add to this answer; it is correct. However, two days later, similar questions arise again from Oldboy, and for some reason in the Rules topic.
Oldboy
...We played a tournament at night, with no judges present, and a disagreement arose regarding this point.
Firstly, questions and comments should not be posted in the "Rules" topic but in the "Discussion of rules" topic.
Secondly, if you encounter a problem when the judges are asleep, there is nothing you can do; you need to postpone it or try to agree among yourselves and come to a consensus, even if it does not comply with the rules.
Thirdly, such questions are best asked privately to the judges rather than on the forum; you will get an answer faster, and the judge is responsible for their words.
Oldboy
1.4. Restart is allowed for the player whose only road leads to GO (for templates 2SM4d(3), Jebus cross, Balance, Nostalgia). It is taken on the day this fact is discovered, but no later than day 115.
And accordingly, if there are two roads from the starting city:
one leading to a dead-end village on the respawn, the second to GO.
Is this situation a restart situation according to this rule?It seems that the question contains the answer itself.
No, it is not. By "only one road," we mean a situation where only ONE road exits the starting castle and, without branching out or passing through portals or underground gates, ends up at GO. 1 does not equal 2.
For such cases, you have subjective restarts, which are taken after you assess the specific game setup.

In general, restarting due to having only one road to GO is a discretionary restart, not a mandatory one (or tech restart, as some call it). Don't rush into taking it. Evaluate your game setup.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Grando
User Avatar
Offline R55Max
Registered:
Posts: 1,963
#1917
Auto-translated
Oldboy
Can you give a specific example of a group where two players can only agree through a draw and cannot agree through a 1-0 or 0-1 score?
Such situations can easily occur in any team tournament.

Any situation with an equal number of points between teams or players involves additional criteria. But, to avoid resorting to additional criteria, you can always play to a draw instead of playing for a win; there's no need to even discuss your formulation. A draw can be beneficial to both, for example, when two leaders, knowing the number of points of the nearest competitor, see that the competitor can score at most the same number of points they currently have. Therefore, a draw is good for everyone. I repeat, such cases are very likely, and if you followed any sports with group competitions, you wouldn't ask such questions.
If one stands on a cell, and the second comes to this cell during their turn, then two heroes are on the cell. And one of them must destroy the other to keep the cell for themselves.
I completely disagree. Two heroes cannot stand on the same cell! Only the defending hero stands on the cell and guards the adjacent cells or their own! To stand on a cell and have the ability to continue the turn, the aggressor must conquer it!

Firstly, if you attack a Castle, you say it's a key stronghold. Why do you think a barricade behind a landscape feature isn't a stronghold? Of course, there's Moscow, and there's Borodino, but the essence remains the same. You need flying units for a Castle, and with a certain terrain, you need single-hex units. To get into the Castle, you need to break down the walls, and to get to a barricaded unit, you need either a superior single-hex unit or a spell that removes the landscape feature. If your ballista is destroyed, they will also destroy single-hex units to prevent them from reaching.

Please explain why you are not satisfied with a spell that removes part of the terrain and opens the way. Why do you think it is necessary to remove this spell from the list and generally deprive it of meaning? I believe that if you can't pass, you must have a spell (just as flight is needed to overcome mountains, for example); if you don't have it, you retreat just as you would from a Castle. The same question applies to hex size.

Secondly, back to the cells. Red attacks the standing blue, and red cannot stand on the Adventure map after the battle in the place of blue or in the place of the position guarded by him, unless he is killed or blue retreats (because this will only happen after the battle ends). Red has no other options! Blue stood on his position and does not need to pass the turn to him, but he is safe; he has dealt with staying in the same place.
The aggressor's goal is to move the enemy from the position!
The goal of the defense is to defend against the aggressor's attack!
The goal of the defense has been achieved, and the aggressor's goal has not. This is perfectly fair.

As for the gameplay, you can specifically use defensive tactics against an opponent's attack, as Vic clearly demonstrated in the report he linked.
МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Pit for LM
User Avatar
Offline Dirty_Player
Registered:
Posts: 11,030
#1918
Auto-translated
Pit for LM

It seems the question contains the answer.
No, it doesn't. By "single road," we mean a situation where only ONE road leads from the starting castle, and it doesn't branch out or pass by portals or underground gates, leading directly to the Goal. 1 is not equal to 2.
For such cases, you have subjective restarts, which you take after evaluating a specific map.

In general, restarting due to a single road leading to the Goal is an optional restart, not a mandatory one (or a technical restart, as some call it). Don't rush to take it. Evaluate your map.
In general, when there's a native village, this rule about a single road to the Goal can be interpreted in two ways, so I suggest adding clarifications to the rules.
0
⚖️
0
In reply to Dirty_Player
User Avatar
Offline Vatya
Registered:
Posts: 987
#1919
Auto-translated
Dirty_Player
Generally, when there is a native town, this rule about one road to ГО can be interpreted in two ways, so I propose clarifying the rules.
Well, on Jebus Cross, the rule works on the same principle. There's a road to the town and to ГО — no rest. Rest only if the road leads to ГО.
0
⚖️
0
User Avatar
Offline Aiwe
Registered:
Posts: 1,330
#1920
Auto-translated
I suggest adding chess timers as an option to the rules for all templates; everything has been moving in that direction for a while now.
http://heroes3.tv/aiwe
1
⚖️
0
In reply to Grando
User Avatar
Offline Aiwe
Registered:
Posts: 1,330
#1922
Auto-translated
Oldboy
Which specific timers are you referring to?

For example, on map 200, the timer settings are 8, 4, 1, as in a tournament. On HL, it's something like 16, 8, 1. However, I'm not an expert in timers; I just believe it's time to promote them more widely, for example, by adding an option to each template to set the time not only for the classic timer but also for the chess timer.

This would significantly save overall game time, encouraging a faster pace, while also improving quality because, in a complex turn, players could take longer due to the time saved from the previous turn. In other words, it would satisfy everyone. However, this is quite obvious; I'm just suggesting legalizing this option in the rules and finding optimal timer settings for all templates.
http://heroes3.tv/aiwe
0
⚖️
0
Offline shameonyou
Registered:
Posts: 686
#1923
Auto-translated
I support the idea of adding a chess timer – as mentioned above – it encourages players to make quicker decisions in simple situations and save time for more complex ones, which is important in the late game.
__________________
The hardest battles are fought in the mind
0
⚖️
0