Турниры HeroesWorld Cup & World Cup - 2012

Here are some general thoughts on which players to watch out for. There's a very simple criterion: the win rate in tournament-relevant games against strong opponents. It's the win rate against strong opponents, not the overall win rate, and it has to be in tournament-relevant games. I remember once being concerned about my own tournament statistics. I compiled all the tournament topics I participated in and entered the results into a spreadsheet. I immediately divided the opponents into strong and average/weak, and entered the results for each in separate columns. When the work was done, a clear picture emerged: the result against average/weak opponents was around 90%, with rare defeats, mostly random. But against strong opponents, the result was surprisingly modest – around 55%, I thought it would be higher. That is, if, on average, there are 4 defeats for every 5 wins against strong players, that's quite enough to enter a lot of tournaments, be in the list of favorites for almost any tournament, etc. Moreover, this is the statistics for TE/VT and XL+U templates, where the variance is generally lower, and the dependence on skill is higher. But in something like SoD Balance/Panic, the outcome of the game depends much more on the favor of the random number generator than on personal skill. Of course, in a single tournament, this ratio may be violated; the winner will always defeat several opponents of approximately equal skill in a row. But over the course of several tournaments, statistics will inevitably take its toll. This is clearly seen in the example of the CIS Championships – the best result in all tournaments is 71% (against strong opponents) for Bayazet, and most of the top players are around 50% or even lower. This is approximately how it should be in a game like Heroes, which has a high degree of variance. Therefore, I quite allow that even in SoD, you can achieve a 90% win rate in games against newbies (which, for example, DeepMike does on the Portal), but I absolutely do not believe that you can maintain a high win rate against top players over a long distance. Even in a VT mirror match, this is doubtful, and in SoD Balance, which I generally consider to be a coin flip when the skill level is above average, it is completely unrealistic. Under normal circumstances, the situation should be approximately as follows: there is a large group of top players who have approximately equal chances of winning a tournament, and the specific winner is largely random, depending on how things turn out. This is exactly the situation that has been in all the CIS Championships – the favorites are approximately clear, but the winner is always slightly unexpected. If, however, one of the players breaks away from this pattern, has a suspiciously high win rate, or if even before the start of the tournament, 1-2 favorites are named, and this does not surprise anyone, then something is probably wrong with these favorites. It just doesn't add up mathematically. My firm opinion is that even the most skilled player must have losses due to stupidity, due to a wrong strategy, due to a bad build order, or due to some other unforeseen reason, or due to unfavorable circumstances. But, watching the tournaments, I sometimes see certain supermen who go through the map like a tank, crushing their opponents. These are fighters without fear or reproach. Moreover, it's okay if it's clear what the source of their skill is, such as the ability to focus on the game, extensive knowledge of the game, mastery of game psychology, or something else. But sometimes it happens that the player is unremarkable, but he keeps winning and winning. If you look at his "dad-level" replays, you don't see anything special. If you read his reports and reasoning, and argue about something, he's just an ordinary player. If you talk to him in real life or look at his photos, you don't see anything special either. You don't even have to play against him. This discrepancy between the overall image of the player and his results is the main criterion for me, indicating that we should take a closer look. I think I'm not the only one who feels these things; people are not fools, and trying to deceive everyone all the time is a hopeless task. The problem is that there is a certain taboo on discussing cheating in the Heroes community – it is useful between (!) disputes, but during them, it is better to get rid of unnecessary modesty.