Forum — Tournament Committee

In reply to Grando

matador99

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Al Feyn

And it didn't make life easier for everyone; TT_HNK remained the most challenging.

Hmm, so you have 4 active players on your team, while we have 5.

Grando

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Congratulations. So what? The rules allow for replacing one with another. We do it, and that's it. The issue is resolved.
I'll repeat it one more time. We actually do it. Mike completely replaces the second basket. And that's it. The issue is closed. We have 5 active baskets.
It turns out we're writing two pages, and you still haven't realized that we have 5 active baskets. Mike (and it's specifically Mike) handles the work of two people.

=Lizard=

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Wicc

...an addition is made to the tournament regulations:
- if a hero of level 5+ (regardless of who leveled him up) dies and subsequently visits someone's tavern, he cannot be bought back. If he arrives at the beginning of the week with troops, the blue player should load the autosave and repeat the turn transfer...

De_Lux and I simply couldn't find a time to replay (an already rare situation), so we had to agree on a draw. And regarding the above:

1. Making such a significant change to the rules in the middle of the tournament is not a good idea. Most players, I think, will be extremely upset.

2. In the late game (141+), when buying back previously killed heroes happens most often, no one will bother to check at the zero-second mark whether they are buying back a leveled-up hero or not, just to have him join the chain.

3. Also, in the late game, previously killed leveled-up heroes can arrive in both slots. What then?

4. Often, situations arise where, after the mutual death of heroes, one of the players has much more money (and more time, for example). And, in fact, this much richer player can deliberately go for a mutual death, in order to then dig up the dead hero (or both) with a much higher probability and, thus, win.

The list can go on. And, in general, I think this rule is only suitable for Warlord Tactics, where not only heroes but also the units themselves are leveled up.

A big request, Yuri, leave this rule for the next tournament. Don't spoil this one, we're doing well.

In reply to =Lizard=

De_Luxe

8 years ago

Auto-translated

I agree, there are already enough rules; having to remember and check the hero's level before buying something is too much... It's enough that, at this stage, there can't be a draw. They'll ask for extra time to replay if a stalemate situation arises.

In reply to De_Luxe

KobRa_RR

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Many believe that such rules should be implemented programmatically, rather than introduced experimentally in the middle of a tournament.

In reply to De_Luxe

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Yes, such rules should ideally be implemented programmatically. But until that happy moment arrives, let's have an informal ban. Just like with campaign heroes. This isn't an experiment; it's a clearly necessary rule for mirror matches, which I simply forgot to include when writing the tournament regulations. Regarding "accidentally buying a leveled hero and putting him in the lineup" – well, he bought it, and I won't penalize him for that. The main thing is not to take advantage of the benefits that leveling provides (i.e., not fighting neutrals, not fighting the opponent, not using transport spells, etc.), and to dismiss him as soon as the immediate need for him disappears. In other words, assess the situation and use common sense. If the "5+ level" option seems too complicated, it can be adjusted. For example, in the event of both heroes dying, they could agree not to resurrect specifically those heroes. That is, this rule could be activated not by default at the start of the game, but after a key event. I repeat – the goal is to avoid the game of "who can resurrect a leveled hero first," because I see this as an abuse of the game's mechanics. On regular templates, this isn't so critical, but on mirror matches, it spoils the idea behind the template.

In reply to =Lizard=

socola

8 years ago

Auto-translated

We need even more absurd rules.

In reply to socola

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

socola

We need even more absurd rules.

It seems absurd until the first encounter with reality...

But when you find yourself in a situation where your opponent digs up a resource on the second try, and you fail to dig it up for 50,000, you'll be the one demanding "FIX THIS ABSURDITY IMMEDIATELY!!!" :rolleyes:

In reply to Wicc

Dirty_Player

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Wicc

It seems delusional until the first clash with reality...

The absurdity isn't in that, but in the interpretation. Everything is ambiguous. It seems to be written as "do not buy a hero," but it turns out you can, just not use them. It seems there is a rule, but technical support might not even exist... and so on. The question arises not so much about power-gaming, but about the integrity of execution. Some will strictly follow the rules, while others will think "this is fine, like it doesn't matter".... Where is that line between what is allowed and what isn't? It's like with the Dragon Utopia guards who fight without losses: one spends moves to clear the guards, while another thinks "the guards don't matter."

Why create a rule that will breed controversial situations? Especially since the situation that arose occurs in less than 1% of games, so it can clearly be neglected. Either write the rule so that the interpretation is clear and unambiguous, and there is a penalty for violation.

In reply to Dirty_Player

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Well, I heard criticism directed at the very idea of the rule, rather than its specific implementation. A slight ambiguity is an invitation to a dialogue about clarifying the wording.

In reply to Wicc

socola

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Wicc

It only seems absurd until you face the reality...

But when you find yourself in a situation where your opponent digs up a hero on their second attempt, while you fail to do so after spending 50,000 gold, you'll be the one demanding, "FIX THIS NONSENSE IMMEDIATELY!!!" :rolleyes:

What is the fundamental difference in this situation for the "Mirror" map and other templates? People have always played this way, and no questions have ever arisen.
And if I intentionally let a hero die on a split map, can't I dig him up either?
Or, if I have 100,000 gold and deliberately dismiss a hero with no movement points to dig him up and attack the opponent, can't I buy him back?

In reply to socola

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

socola

What is the fundamental difference in this situation for mirror matches and other map types? Everyone has always played this way, and no questions have ever arisen.
And if I intentionally sacrifice a hero on a dividing line, can't I resurrect him either?
Or if I have 100,000 gold and deliberately dismiss a hero with no movement points, so I can resurrect him and attack my opponent? Can't I buy him back either?

The fundamental difference is that a mirror match should be symmetrical, while other map types don't need to be. Therefore, the fact that there is some degree of asymmetry in mirror matches is not normal and is a reason to think about how to fix it. The "who resurrects the hero" mechanic doesn't really fit the idea of a mirror match. Partly because it ruins good games by causing players to agree to a draw, not wanting to gamble (and I understand them).

In the future, I hope this loophole will be closed (at least in mirror matches), and for now, we'll close it with a verbal rule.

The fact that the "dismiss and buy back for 100,000" tactic is no longer possible is not a big loss; it's used in maybe 1 out of 500 games anyway. Final battles with a pawn exchange happen much more often, so they are a higher priority.

In reply to Wicc

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Changed the rule from "5+ level" to "10+ level" – so that slightly underleveled players could be bought out. Or a player who lost early in the first week.

In reply to Wicc

socola

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Wicc

The fundamental difference is that the mirror should be mirrored, and the other templates should not. Therefore, the fact that there is some degree of non-mirroring on the mirror is not the norm, but a reason to think about how to fix it. The "who gets the hero" roulette doesn't fit well with the idea of the mirror. Partly because it spoils good games by making players agree to a draw, not wanting to gamble (and I understand them).

In the future, I hope this loophole will be closed (at least on the mirrors), and for now, we'll close it with a verbal rule.

The fact that the "fire and buy for 100K" tactic disappears is not a big loss; it is used well in 1 out of 500 games. Finales with pawn exchanges happen much more often, so they are a priority.

According to this logic, players should have the same heroes in the tavern with the same skill tree, otherwise it is not the norm. In the "who gets the hero" roulette, the player with more money and time usually wins, which doesn't make this situation so random. And what is the point of introducing such a rule already during the tournament, considering that it is not clearly defined and can create a lot of controversial situations? Besides, all the participants who have responded here are clearly against it.

In reply to Dirty_Player

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

It seems like the rule states "don't buy a hero," but it turns out you can, just not use them. There's a rule, but there might not be a technical report... and so on.

This is to avoid creating unnecessary technical reports. Buying is not allowed, so if you accidentally buy one, you'll have to fire them as soon as possible without using the "report" function. In other words, a player loses 2500 gold due to their own inattention, not because of a technical report.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Forum

Statistics

Library

Users Online 7 users 1371 guests

Today's Visitors 29