Forum — Tournament Committee

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

socola

Following that logic, players should have the same heroes in the tavern with the same skill tree, otherwise, it's not normal. In the "who gets the hero first" lottery, the winner is usually the one with more money and time, which doesn't make this situation very random.
And what's the point of introducing such a rule during the tournament, considering that it's not clearly defined and can lead to many controversial situations? Besides, all the participants who have commented here are clearly against it.

Yes, a mirrored tavern is a long-awaited improvement.

The point of introducing it during the tournament is that a loophole in the rules was discovered, which shouldn't exist, and which has already led to unfortunate consequences.

Those who oppose it are doing so more out of a desire to oppose, rather than out of a deep conviction about the necessity of "digging" for heroes.

In reply to Wicc

Grando

8 years ago

Auto-translated

I honestly don't understand – what exactly happened? Where is the description of the game in which the problem arose? Who bought which hero and what went wrong? What's the reason for all this commotion? And why were initially only 5+ levels chosen, and then simply 10+ levels? Why not 15 or 20?
10+ isn't even a decent hero, let alone a fallen warrior. It could be some loser who got fired from prison, or a support unit that's already swarming the taverns by week 4.
But for me, the main question is – where can I read the description of the game situation that led to the idea that an additional rule was needed?

In reply to =Lizard=

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Here it is:

Wicc

Another game was played: =Lizard= drew with De_Luxe, where both heroes died after Armageddon, and to avoid a game of "who digs up the hero first," they agreed to a draw.

I didn't like this episode very much, so I decided to take measures to prevent it from happening again.

When both heroes die, digging up a level 10+ hero is a very significant bonus.

In reply to Wicc

Grando

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Is the rule formulated as "upon the death of both popes" – or also "during their lifetime"?

In reply to Grando

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Al Feyn

Is the rule formulated as "upon the death of both popes" - or also "during their lifetime"?

The formulation "upon the death of both popes" allows for broad interpretation, so just in case, "during their lifetime" as well.

In reply to Wicc

LuckyF

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Good lord, what a monstrosity. Why do this, just to shove in something new? And why specifically for the mirror map, what makes it so fundamentally different from other maps?
And yes, let us finish the tournament under the original rules that we registered for...!

In reply to LuckyF

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

The same faces are on the arena :)

In reply to =Lizard=

De_Luxe

8 years ago

Auto-translated

I still think the rules are sufficient. At this stage, a draw is impossible. Isn't that enough? After all, it's part of the game that someone intentionally goes for a mutual kill, with the goal of uncovering something, while having a better economy. But with this amendment... it's just a messy rule.

In reply to De_Luxe

=Lizard=

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Let's not despair. There seems to be a rule: with mutual agreement, anything is allowed. So, that's how we'll play:p.

Dave_HUN

8 years ago

Just to voice my opinion here, I do not support this new rule either.
In many games even an average player will have 4-5 heroes above level 5, from prisons alone. Players who like to develop side heroes will have 7-10+ heroes above level 5, once you dismiss half of them how would you keep track of who died in combat? Furthermore,I don't see how this rule is a solution to anything. Let's say both mains die in FB, then no one can rebuy either of these mains, so the game becomes an endless chain of scout fights on a map with 20+ towns. It's boring and there would be no motivation to play along.

In reply to =Lizard=

LuckyF

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Here's an interesting point: all participants who decided to voice their opinion are against this change in the rules. But Vic doesn't care; he pushes his agenda regardless...

In reply to LuckyF

Dirty_Player

8 years ago

Auto-translated

LuckyF

Here's an interesting point: all participants who decided to voice their opinion are against this change in the rules. But Vik doesn't care; he pushes his agenda regardless...

I think he tested everything in single-player mode, and it works fine! :D

In reply to LuckyF

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

LuckyF

Here's an interesting point: all the participants who decided to voice their opinion are against this change in the rules. But Vic doesn't care; he pushes his agenda regardless...

Because Vic knows the people who "decided to voice their opinion" and is aware that many of them (not all) are simply voicing their opinion for the sake of it. If there were a different pretext, they would voice their opinion on that different pretext. It's a kind of latent revolutionary need. Making decisions based on such statements isn't very wise.

In reply to Wicc

KobRa_RR

8 years ago

Auto-translated

A good dictator shouldn't listen to the crowd.

In reply to LuckyF

AlexTheGreat

8 years ago

Auto-translated

LuckyF

Here's an interesting point: all participants who decided to voice their opinion are against this change in the rules. But Vic doesn't care; he pushes his agenda regardless...

Alright, let me say a few words. In general, when both main heroes die (if it's obvious that these are indeed the main heroes), I don't like the idea of digging up these specific heroes from the fountain! But banning the purchase of other heroes, especially those of level 10+, also seems absurd to me! You might want to dismiss a well-developed hero for some strategically important idea, and it's not a guaranteed plus. There's a risk that your opponent will buy him, but you might buy him too. This is part of the game; there aren't always 100% mathematically sound solutions. We're not robots; we can't calculate everything. You made a mistake with your priority, and then it came back to you. Or, your opponent got a log earlier, and the decision was made to counter that, which was beyond your control. In short, there are many such moments; we shouldn't bring it to the point of idiocy, especially since I haven't been able to grasp the specific, clearly calculated argumentation for the need to ban it. I repeat, the conscious buyout of main heroes also seems wrong to me. Develop other good heroes and realize the advantage, instead of cheaply collecting Nats and giving everything to one hero!

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Forum

Statistics

Library

Users Online 4 users 1601 guests

Today's Visitors 18