DISCUSSIONS on “Rules for online games in HoMM3 and formulas for calculating player rating.” — Online Tournaments

Myxomoar

11/25/2013 6:37 PM UTC

Auto-translated

It's kind of strange: the topic about the chess timer is buried somewhere at the bottom, while in the topic about the rules, they discuss everything except the rules themselves.

Наполеон в Москву тоже на 133 пришёл ;) (с)

zoog

11/26/2013 1:44 AM UTC

Auto-translated

dom2

Just a reminder, the third parameter of the timer (Battle Time) is the time allocated for EACH battle.

We remember, we mourn. Just a reminder that a group of harpies against a zombie horde 1) will take 15-20 minutes, and there will be up to ten such battles – any timer, whether xx1 or xx2, will run out, and 2) will happen once in 10-100 games. And if there are few troops, 2-3-4-minute battles will drain the timer in a few days. Farewell, complex combinations, long live quick play.

twaryna

Battle time exceeding 1 minute ruins the whole idea of a chess timer. IMHO.

Any reasonably skilled player will not drag out simple battles (the point of the timer is largely in this) - and in long and complex battles, a one-minute timer will ruin the game. The chess timer allows you to reduce your second number compared to the standard timer, which already encourages the player.

And we shouldn't forget about real life - the point of the chess timer is to make the game more convenient and accessible in terms of time - that is, for real life. I suggest adding a timer of x x 1.5 to the possible voting options

In reply to Dirty_Player

Sanin

11/26/2013 2:15 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

I agree that a recommended chess timer should be provided for each map, so that players can play with a chess timer if they want, and there won't be any disputes about how much time to set.

The key word is "recommended." You can recommend anything, but some people above were in favor of making it mandatory.
Regarding the specific numbers, I agree with Maretti.

Added 2 minutes later

dom2

Otherwise, there is a risk that battles like "a group of harpies against a horde of zombies" will become widespread again.

And what's wrong with that? Why should we limit the possibilities of the game with time restrictions?

ICQ 423164784

JustObserver

11/26/2013 7:07 AM UTC

Auto-translated

In Warlord Tournament, there’s no time limit for battles, but here they want to limit it to four minutes. What’s the catch?

In reply to Sanin

Aiwe

11/26/2013 7:46 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Sanin

So what's wrong with that? Why should we limit the game's possibilities with time restrictions?

Nobody is limiting anything; if you want to spend 20 minutes hitting zombies with a harpy, go ahead. I would just prefer to spend that time on something else. :)

Besides, you might not have played with these timers because they are sufficient, and the game even turns out to be of higher quality than with the classic ones, because you choose how long you want to play – but the myth that every turn would involve intense battles and frantic macro-management is just that, a myth.
So, you're panicking for no reason; first, play with the timer suggested by Vic.

No one was advocating for mandatory timers; read the previous posts carefully.

To reiterate, the idea is to add recommended chess timers to the rules.

http://heroes3.tv/aiwe

Juristis

11/26/2013 8:24 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Want to indulge in perversions, like having harpies harass hordes of zombies – go ahead, but pay for it with your time.

heroes3.tv/juristis
ICQ - 488-784-621, skype - juristis18

Весна 2014.

shpilenger

11/26/2013 8:38 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Beating a horde of zombies with harpies is a powerful combination!

Added 4 minutes later
It would be great if they added a timer for battles with opponents.

icq 614755496

In reply to shpilenger

Aiwe

11/26/2013 8:52 AM UTC

Auto-translated

shpilenger

Beating hordes of zombies with griffins is a powerful combination!

Added 4 minutes later
It would be great if they added a timer for battles with opponents.

This isn't a problem; it's one of the most interesting and shortest parts of the game.

http://heroes3.tv/aiwe

In reply to Aiwe

shpilenger

11/26/2013 9:05 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Aiwe

It's not a problem; it's one of the most interesting parts of the game and also the shortest.

There have been instances where a player would spend 40 minutes contemplating a single move in battle. Some do it intentionally, as a way to psychologically influence their opponent.

Added after 8 minutes
If a timer were added to battles between players, the game would at least not become worse. The timer would be for both players, so everyone would be on equal footing.

icq 614755496

VanjaM

11/26/2013 9:41 AM UTC

Auto-translated

To be honest, I don't see the point of the third stat at all. It's easier to just increase the first stat.

shpilenger

11/26/2013 9:55 AM UTC

Auto-translated

There's an opinion regarding the Conflux. Allow the upgrade of butterflies after building a resource storage facility in the city, and allow the upgrade of psychic elementals. New possibilities will be limited by the chess timer.

icq 614755496

shameonyou

11/26/2013 11:54 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Chingis

The most fair Jebus Cross is so "balanced"! :)

One player gets 1 mini-hive, while the other gets 5 cons, 5 hives, 5 hideouts, and 5 Dragon Utopias. :)

I was thinking, maybe we should introduce some minimum restriction for the start of the game?

Say, on respawn, the troop composition should be no less than 12 wyverns or 4 Angels. Or something like that.
Otherwise, the opponent can refuse the game, meaning a restart is taken.

Don't play Jebus Cross....

__________________
The hardest battles are fought in the mind

In reply to Aiwe

Sanin

11/26/2013 1:53 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Aiwe

No one is losing anything if you want to spend 20 minutes hitting zombies with a harpy – go ahead, I would just prefer to spend that time on something else.

But how is it not a loss? Why should I have to give up something due to time constraints in order to do something? I can understand if a blitz tournament has rules that require it, and that's the whole point, but why make general recommendations based on the considerations that Oldboy mentioned earlier, about the "minimum possible timer" rather than a timer that is comfortable for playing?

Aiwe

No one advocated for making it mandatory; read the previous posts more carefully.

To reiterate, the idea is to add recommended chess timers to the rules.

I read it.

KobRa_RR

For tournaments, it would be good to specify a mandatory chess timer. Because many people enjoy entering a battle and thinking deeply for 5 minutes about the meaning of life, or if they are given 8 minutes per turn, and they take 4 minutes, they won't give up their turn until the time runs out, and so on...

Juristis

I also support making the transition to a chess timer mandatory.

ICQ 423164784

In reply to Sanin

Dirty_Player

11/26/2013 2:02 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Sanin

The key word is "recommended." You can recommend anything, but some users above expressed support for making it mandatory.

It is recommended because, for now, the standard timer is used, but if players decide to play with a chess clock, they will have a reference point.

Aiwe

11/26/2013 2:25 PM UTC

Auto-translated

It’s clear that a mandatory chess timer can only be implemented in some tournaments organized by Vik for now. The community simply isn’t ready for it yet.
For example, you criticize the timer, but are you even willing to admit that you haven’t played anything with the timers presented by Vik, except maybe m200? So, if you, like Maretti, decide that a chess timer is a good thing, but the lack of a clear guideline leads you to run unlimited games with time settings like 18+8+4, then it will be just as Dirty said.

http://heroes3.tv/aiwe