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

Please provide links to specific survey results regarding the chess timer on different templates.

Okay, there weren't any specific surveys, but there were a lot of discussions. The topic was created recently.

There were no specific polls, but there were many discussions.
The topic was created a few days ago.

This is a different matter.
Currently, the Rules include timer parameters for m200.
There were attempts to discuss this on a couple of templates, but no one was able to come up with anything concrete. The polls were poorly designed, and the results cannot be interpreted for inclusion in the Rules. If there is concrete data, it will be quick to add it to the Rules. However, obtaining it requires work. Thank you for deciding to do this.
I can suggest experimental testing in a seasonal league.

Currently, tournaments already use a chess timer. The organizer sets the limit themselves. It was easier with the SoD timer; there were few options: 6, 8, 10... But with a chess timer, there are infinitely many possibilities, and everyone wants something different. Also, integrating a chess timer into seasonal play doesn't make much sense because everything is still based on agreement.

We haven't forgotten about the program; we just don't have time for it right now.

Okay, there weren't any specific polls, but there were a lot of discussions.
The topic was created recently.

Topics with polls about the timer – that’s laughable. I remember how it ended in "Hungry Games" and what the options were.
Here's another POLL. There was huge interest in the topic.

all we need is the Monte Carlo method)

P.S. And you can also vote in ranges, iteratively - after N iterations, everything will become clear to everyone, and then you can make a definitive decision based on the assessment of 3-5 experts, time (life) will still correct the time (timer).

I have added the following amendment to the rules: In section V. Non-standard and controversial situations. Judging., a ban has been introduced on viewing the hero's skill tree:

Fair play
....
- Viewing the hero's skill tree using software is prohibited (considered maphacking).
....

Also, the AC decided to compile a complete list of permitted software and clearly state this list in the rules. If players want to use something additional, it should be done with the consent of their opponent or they need to first submit a request to the AC for permission. Also, permission to use something not included in the list may be granted by the tournament organizer for any particular tournament, and this must be stated in the regulations. Therefore, let's work together to see what we are using and what needs to be allowed, and write about it in the thread. Based on your lists, we will create a complete list of permissible software, and I will remove "in particular":

2. The use of additional programs that speed up the game process is allowed, in particular:
- Mod for improving the functional part of the interface - HoMM3 HD,
- Animation accelerator in battles - Cranim....

I wouldn't allow anything; everything should be in the player's mind.

I want to write about a sore subject, namely the rules and their interpretation. But first, let's define what they exist for and why they arose in the game Heroes III.
The root cause of the emergence of rules, laws, acts, etc. is the need to regulate various aspects of life in order to prevent conflict situations. At the same time, rules must have a logical basis, which makes them understandable and acceptable to all parties in the relevant situation that has arisen. Rules must address the essence of an issue and cannot exist formally; if this happens, they may serve as a catalyst for various disputed situations instead of preventing them.
Now let's look at the rules that exist in our beloved game. In most computer games, the rules mostly concern organizational issues and the behavioral aspects of the players themselves. The rules of the game itself, as a rule, are already included in the product and do not require additional writing, as the game's mechanics inherently include this.
As for Heroes III, at the time of the game's creation, little attention was paid to its online component, which is why we have a huge number of rules that are directly related to the game's mechanics and either limit it or point out special moments in the application of certain in-game cases. However, no matter what, these rules, like any others, were created not for the sake of rules, but to solve the essence of the problems present in the game.
Now I want to draw your attention to the moments I have encountered.
I.
In a recent "Wars of the Magi" game, I robbed a Dragon Utopia in the following order: I landed on the Dragon Utopia with Fly, moved 2 tiles, broke the guard, returned to the Dragon Utopia, and killed the dragons inside. This action caused a storm of indignation from Darkello (considering the opponent's manner, the storm was maximal on a 10-point scale). The opponent's claim was that, by landing on the Dragon Utopia, I received information about the Dragon Utopia without breaking the guard. Formally, he is somewhat right. Now let's analyze this moment more thoroughly.
Let's start with the essence of the rule that prohibits taking objects without breaking the guard. The essence is as follows: not to give an advantage to the opponent, which could be in the form of: a) the object itself, b) information about it, c) saved movement points on various ways of taking this object.
Now I would ask you to evaluate the entire situation precisely based on the essence of the rule, namely, not obtaining an unjustified advantage by one of the parties. Guided by this, the conclusion about the need to break the guard before visiting is obvious. Let's move on to the information about the object: i.e., the opponent, using Fly, can visit the object, get information about its internal guard, and, assessing his chances, decide whether to take this object or retreat. In this case, the information plays a decisive role, and he should not receive it without breaking the guard – it's obvious. But if the player does not need this information and it does not influence his decision-making, then it turns out that it has no value for him and provides no advantages. However, he receives the information one way or another (unfortunately, he cannot refuse), so he is obliged to break the guard in any case. Now the most important question: how exactly should he break the guard? Can the opponent receive the information and break the guard later?
So, I would like to clarify. A player does not have the right to take an object, nor to receive information about it, if the guard has not been broken. But if the player, having the Fly spell, lands on the object, receives information about it, then immediately breaks the guard (without taking the object itself), then such an action is perfectly legal, because the information about the internal guard of the Dragon Utopia or another object does not give him any advantage over breaking the guard itself. In my opinion, a sufficient condition for receiving information is breaking the guard of the object, and forcing a player, who has Fly and a free tile to approach this guard, to go around it – that is, in fact, an invented limitation. After all, the essence of the rule is to prevent unjustified gaining of an advantage, which the player does not gain over the guard.
First, let's consider the essence of this problem. The issue of saving movement points is not so clear-cut:
Firstly, it arose only because of that rule which we ourselves wrote. I.e., no rule, no such issue, or if the game had provided another solution (automatic attack by the guards would be ideal);
Secondly, saving movement points in this case somewhat contradicts the essence of the game's mechanics. We are limiting his ability, thereby preventing the player from using, say, those movement tiles that he could use. Let's imagine how this should work ideally. We use Fly, land on the object, the object's guard automatically attacks us, even if it is two tiles away, and the issue resolves itself: we received the information, broke the guard in the process, and are free in our further actions. But in reality, it turns out that one player can use the tile that is free on the Dragon Utopia/Clue for visiting (if the guard is immediately nearby), while another cannot, if the guard spawned further away.
What is all this fuss about? It's about the fact that many players start using the smallest formal argument as a reason to claim their victory, appealing to the Arbitration Committee (АК). I have observed this not for the first time, and I involuntarily form an image of the АК as an inquisitional college, rather than a judicial body. I would generally recommend adding a rule clause that would explain which violations imply an obvious admission of defeat due to the severity of the offense, and which would require investigation on the merits, not on the form.
II.
Now I would like to express my opinion on the red-rush. I am doing this again because there are individuals who, in my opinion, abuse this rule, namely ignore the clause "b) on the blue player's heroes or guarded mines, if the presence of growth could influence the outcome of the battle or the losses in the battle for any of the players."
Let's thoroughly analyze this rule. Why was it introduced? It is believed that the red player has an indisputable advantage over the blue player by one game day, with all that entails. (Some might add that it distributes better along roads, but in my observations, this is very debatable) But, guys, excuse me, we are playing a turn-based strategy where the mechanics themselves provide this for us, but we are deliberately making the game disabled, because this is not a flaw of the game, it's its feature. And is this advantage really so imbalanced for red? What does blue get in return:
1. The right to choose the castle, which is significant
2. Advantage in restarts.
3. At the end of the turn, mana always replenishes, resources are awarded, while red has to think about leaving money for [unit] buyback, if an attack by the computer is expected. (say, against a boosted Angel daddy on week 1, etc.) very often red cannot sit in the castle at the end of the turn, fearing being caught, and mana still won't replenish.
So what do we get? It turns out that red cannot fully utilize his advantage (mana doesn't replenish, income isn't awarded, though logically it should, because he also completed the day), and then we completely nullify even this advantage with restrictions, giving blue a carte blanche. On many templates, red has long not been considered the best choice. Very often, a blue noob with a small army runs to red's respawn on day 7, and red, if he has no old troops nearby or in the castle, cannot even chase away the scout on the first day of the week (there aren't enough troops on a hired hero for this, and he can't use newly hired ones) – this is some kind of nonsense, a "blue-rush". And how often do some individuals like to use the right to a tech-win because of a trivial red-rush, when I accidentally forgot to leave troops. Yes, I won the fight, and would have done so even without the new troops, and the losses would have been smaller for the opponent by 1 goblin, but the fuss – heaven forbid.
I don't understand such a setup at all. Troops from the east got up earlier, made a dash by plane to the western borders, and attacked the enemy who hasn't slept enough, and what do you think? Well, it's simple, according to the rules of Heroes III we have to wait until they get up, wash their faces…
Yes, the red-rush rule is needed, but it needs serious revision. Leave it on m-templates, where it decides the outcome, and some specific ones; on XL+U remove it completely or leave only the clause about not attacking the castle.
We have tied red so tightly that sometimes it seems to me that only blue has the right to rush, a blue-rush, so to speak.
And, I strongly ask, don't write to me here about voting, etc. Voting on HeroesWorld (ХВ) has long been complete nonsense, with which the АК covers up its indecisiveness. Many issues should be decided by a competent assembly, not by this bureaucratic-liberal balalaika. How much fuss was there about the Magi specialists, they lifted the restriction, and what? Did the world turn upside down? A pity, otherwise the lovers of saying "I told you so" would have rubbed their hands.
1. PS: Regarding the saving of my movement points in the tournament against Dark, I ask not to discuss it here, as everything has already been decided between us. Dark, though a troll and fat, is adequate. (Especially since I had seen the Dragon Utopia there enough times to land directly on the guard, and I didn't even right-click check the Dragon Utopia, all this is visible on the stream).
2. PS: All of this was written by me not so much to change the rules, which would be just wonderful, but because I'm fed up with certain individuals who want to see a violation in almost every move and keep their mouths open in advance to shout about a violation as early as possible.
There are violations, and there are violations. It is one thing when a player does it intentionally, and quite another when they try to catch him on a minor detail that never has and never could decide the outcome of a match.

Taking advantage of the moment :) I want to add that it's time to unban the selection of heroes in the Conflux town at the start of the game (with the exception of Luna!)

While I have the chance :) I want to add that it's time to unban the choice of heroes in the Conflux town at the start of the game (except for Luna!)

+1, all logisticians have a starting bonus except Monere:mad:, I'd also send Grindan to the ban for skirmish, he's a cheater.

Regarding bypassing guards. I've been working on rephrasing this over the past week.

2.7. Visiting locations and collecting items (resources and artifacts).
“Visiting a location” means entering it and gaining the ability to take the corresponding bonus.
Locations and items on the map are usually guarded. It is possible that several locations, resources, or artifacts are guarded by a single group of neutral monsters. In this case, the locations and items are adjacent to each other by at least one cell, and at least one of the locations or items is adjacent to the common guard of all the treasures by one cell.
If it is possible to take a guarded item or visit a guarded location without destroying the monsters, the guard is considered to be “displaced.”
Some locations also have internal guards, for example, the Crypt, the Griffin Conservatory, the Serpent Hive, Monster Treasure Vaults, and the external dwellings of creatures of levels 5-7.
2.7.1. It is allowed to “stand” on locations (i.e., position the hero directly at the entrance of the location) without breaking through the external guard, for locations where breaking through the internal guard is necessary to enter and receive the bonus.
2.7.2. It is allowed to receive bonuses in Mystic Gardens, Watermills, and Windmills, Pavilions, and to take Chests, Campfires, and resources without destroying the guard, either as if the guard were displaced or by using the spells Fly, Dimensional Door, and the artifact Angel Wings.
2.7.3. Before
- “standing” at the entrance and visiting any location without an internal guard (except for those specified in 2.7.2),
- entering any location with an internal guard to fight the guard and gain the ability to take the corresponding bonus there,
- taking the Pandora's Box, Magic Scroll, or Artifact
by any means (including using the spells Fly, Dimensional Door, and the artifact Angel Wings), the corresponding guard must be eliminated.
2.7.4. The Border Guard is considered equivalent to the guard of a location or item, and it is not allowed to take Pandora's Boxes, Magic Scrolls, Artifacts, or visit any locations behind the guard without visiting the corresponding Guardian's Tent and removing the Border Guard.

In the center of the screenshot, we see two close guards:
- fairies guarding the scroll;
- minotaurs guarding the Boots, Naga Bank, and Prison (the prison is adjacent to the boots).
It is not allowed to free the hero from the prison by destroying the fairies, as they are not the guard of this location. Taking the prison, if the player kills the fairies but leaves the minotaurs, will be considered a violation of the rules. The minotaurs must be destroyed.

The point about “standing” on a location with an internal guard has always been interpreted exactly as written. If any of the players think otherwise, they are mistaken.

I still need to find a few more screenshots on the forum; I will add them to the rules for clarification.

Regarding RR (Resource Redistribution), the AC (Administration Committee) will not make a forceful, inquisitorial decision. There is a more humane way – gradually introducing the cancellation of RR in specific tournaments on certain maps, this is the right of the organizers, and they are using it. Players have already begun to get used to it. Personally, I will change the rules regarding RR in the next Favorites tournament.

or just leave the clause about not attacking the castle.

This is also ambiguous, for example, when attacking a village located roughly in the middle between the main castles. According to the rule, Red should attack without reinforcements (even if the village is empty), and the next day, Blue attacks with reinforcements.

Enough about the RR, the rule is perfectly reasonable. Red can come in at **1 and steal the growth from blue, isn't that an advantage in the late game?
As for churches, castles, and templates, that's up to the organizers, and it can't be attributed to blue's advantages.

Well, I would keep the rule about the shifted guard only applicable to artifacts, pandoras, and dungeons; let them take and visit everything else. Regarding the red rush, I think the clarification "affected the outcome of the battle" should be removed, as it provokes a lot of borderline situations where it's unclear whether it had an impact or not.

I don't understand why the rules need to be changed... Why on earth allow finding out the internal guard of an object without breaking through the external one? After all, this information is valuable—for example, understanding if the Dragon Utopia is maxed or small.

For instance, we have a rule about red-rushing: when you capture an opponent's town with growth, even if it's empty, that is a violation of the rules. But at the same time, capturing an opponent's empty town does not grant the right to a reset upon meeting, meaning it is not a battle. In my opinion, these kinds of silly rules should be corrected, while the normal ones should remain unchanged.

Enough about the RR, the rule is quite adequate. Red can come in on **turn 1 and steal the growth from blue; isn't that an advantage in the late game?
As for the castle churches and templates, that's up to the organizers, and you can't attribute that to blue's advantages.

In the late game, red rush doesn't really matter, and the growth it steals even less so. It can only be effective in the late game with M templates.
And how many HL+U games would be won thanks to the red rush? I think it would be within the margin of error.

Added 2 minutes later

I would keep the rule about staggered guard only applicable to arts, pandoras, and prisons; let them take and visit everything else.

Regarding the red rush, I think the clarification "affected the outcome of the battle" should be removed, as it provokes a lot of borderline situations where it's unclear whether it affected the outcome or not.

I agree. Guys, you need to understand that the shorter and simpler the rules, the better for the game. Even the information about the internal guard of the utopia isn't that overpowered. And what scares newcomers on HW the most? It's the long manuscript called the rules.