Forum — Tournament Committee

In reply to Wicc

=Lizard=

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Wicc

...I think this is the strongest opponent Dave could have gotten in the final.

I disagree with a lot of things here, I just don't feel like arguing anymore, but after this post – you're my enemy!:D

Sav

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

So many "buts" hinder the implementation, as it seems to me, although maybe I'm just a noob and don't understand?

I'm assuming something like setting the order of hero appearance from the very beginning of the game. If a class isn't suitable in the tavern, the next hero in order is taken, and the previous one is taken as soon as it becomes possible. Heroes bought by both players are tracked, and as soon as they both die/are removed, they are added to a random location in the list. If you want to prevent main heroes from being dug up, a hero who was a main hero for at least one player will not be dug up for everyone.
It's more complicated to connect this to the AI mechanism, but that's also solvable.

In reply to Sav

<Ivor>

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Sav

Resetting, of course, didn't work and still doesn't, but I was ready to make it so that leveled-up heroes simply wouldn't appear in the tavern at a certain point, and I considered (and still consider) this to be the right thing to do.

How do these two options fundamentally differ? Besides the fact that such heroes are removed from the pool in the second option, given that the number of heroes is limited. The rejection of resetting can still be somehow understood if digging is considered a normal feature.

Dirty_Player

Honestly, I don't even understand the principle of a mirrored tavern, which theoretically could exist. How can the principles of mirroring be maintained if someone destroys heroes, fires them, or even just buys them in different slots? How can the principle of not having the same class appear in two slots be maintained, while still preserving the mirroring? What about a dead hero if the second player has him? So many "buts" hinder the implementation, as it seems to me, although maybe I'm just a noob and don't understand?

Apparently, no one has really tried to work out the concept and delve into the details. I also don't see how a mirrored tavern could be implemented in a way that would solve the problem in the case of digging up a leveled-up hero.
If the second player has such a hero, then it is obvious that he will not be able to appear in the tavern. If the second player does not have him, then in principle he can appear in the tavern for both, but why would the hero be leveled up for the second player? Why not the other way around, a level 0 hero, or also a leveled-up one, but with different stats and also lost by the second player.

I see the implementation of a mirrored tavern as follows: there is the same queue of heroes appearing in each tavern slot, which changes every week. And breaking up heroes does not affect this queue, but only pushes the queue back, or removes the top hero in the tavern slot to the end of the queue.

Dirty_Player

This story became controversial because of your stubbornness, when everyone told you that you were adding nonsense, but you still did everything your way. Because of a situation that happens in the game in less than 1% of cases, you deliberately went into conflict. This is the main complaint about you.

From my perspective, for example, everything looked more the opposite, i.e., the aforementioned stubbornness was shown by the other side, at least to no lesser extent. It's hard to imagine myself in the place of a participant in a tournament on such an imperfect version, but in such a situation, I would be on Vik's side.

In reply to Dirty_Player

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

This story became controversial because of your stubbornness, when everyone told you that you were adding nonsense, but you still did everything your way. Because of a situation that happens in the game in less than 1% of cases, you deliberately started a conflict. This is the main complaint against you.

You are mistaken about "deliberately" - I assumed that someone might not like the wording of the rule, so I immediately indicated my willingness to discuss the nuances of the wording. As a result, this discussion took place, and the final version of the rule turned out to be significantly different from the initial one.

And the fact that a mudslinging started at the same time is entirely Lucky's merit, who stubbornly insisted on the thesis that "the rules cannot be changed," and did so in an extremely rude and aggressive manner. And at that point, there was no turning back - one of us had to be removed.

I am quite satisfied with the outcome of that discussion, if only because the "non-systemic" players were exposed, with whom we would have argued sooner or later anyway. And if so, why not sooner?

If the second player has such a hero, then it is obvious that he will not be able to appear in the tavern.

The hero pool will be duplicated - there will be two of each.

In reply to HellLighT

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

HellLighT

Technically, this is an exploit, with a prestige of 0. The loser will never deserve to win the tournament; thank you for your attention :smile45:

Dirty_Player

A player who has already been eliminated makes it to the finals! CoolStoryBro! :smile45:

Oh, really? :).

And what about round-robin tournaments, where you can win 40% of the games but still win in the end?

Or tournaments from the DE group stage with 4 players? There, you can lose more than 2 series in a tournament without losing your chances of winning.

And what about the Charity Tournament, where you could re-enter the bracket for money?

Each tournament has its own rules for elimination; some are stricter, and some are less strict. If a player wins within the rules, what complaints can be made?

In reply to Sav

<Ivor>

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Sav

I assume it's something like setting the order in which heroes appear from the very beginning of the game. If a hero of a particular class isn't available in the tavern, the next hero in the order is taken.

What does "not suitable class" mean? At the beginning of the week, a free hero of the corresponding race is placed in the left slot. In the right slot, and in the further queue of both slots, are free heroes of any class.
It is implied that the game can have mirror pairs of any heroes at the same time, including for the AI. That is, it is necessary to increase the number of heroes by two times, or to remove half of the heroes from the game. In the case of removing heroes, there may simply not be enough of them.

Essentially, increasing the number of heroes by two seems to be the main technical problem.

Added 7 minutes later

Wicc

The hero pool will be duplicated - there will be two of each.

A hero can only appear in the tavern queue if both mirror players have it at the same time, unless it's a split. That is, if one of the players has it in the game, it cannot appear.

Sav

8 years ago

Auto-translated

What is the fundamental difference between these two options?

There are no atmospheric reasons for the hero to "reset." It looks like a blatant workaround, which is not suitable for Heroes (unlike, apparently, Might and Magic). In any case, this is a major drawback of the option where you choose what to do and whether to do it at all.

What does it mean that the class is not suitable?

The rule of different hero classes in different slots. Not only at the beginning of the week, but always.

Essentially, doubling the number of heroes seems to be the main technical problem.

That's right. But if in Soda/Might and Magic you can't even try to do this, then in Heroes the number of heroes has already been increased, and the most complex parts of the mechanisms have already been implemented. There is still a lot of work to be done, but it is manageable.

---

But yes, the mirrored tavern solves the problem of finding a hero only in some cases (mainly when the main heroes are the same), and not in general; I was too quick to agree with that yesterday.

In reply to Sav

<Ivor>

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Sav

The rule of having different hero classes in different slots. Not just at the beginning of the week, but always.

I don't see any specific reason why this rule should be specific to the mirror tavern. The same algorithm applies as for a non-mirror tavern.

Sav

But if in SoD/VT you can't even try to do this, then in HoMM the number of heroes has already been increased, and the most complex parts of the mechanisms have already been implemented. There is still a lot of work to be done, but it is manageable.

Well, you might be exaggerating :) I doubt the version matters much here.
The main thing is the desire and the availability of time for a person with sufficient skills. I think you yourself would find it not much more difficult to do for another version.

As for increasing the number of heroes, I understand that the difficulty lies in exceeding the number of 256. If this problem is solved, then in the first approximation, no serious problems are visible. If it weren't for this limitation, then for VT, for example, even the ERM toolkit would be sufficient. At one time, I wrote a script for OH in VT with non-overlapping pools of heroes in the red and blue taverns.

Sav

8 years ago

Auto-translated

I don't see any specific reason why this rule should apply differently to a mirrored tavern. The same algorithm applies as to a non-mirrored one.

Players can buy heroes in different slots, so this rule will affect them differently. But there really isn't a problem, because I mentioned in the original post how this is solved.

You might be overreacting; the version probably doesn't matter much here.

It matters in the sense that 70% of it is already done in HotA.

Expanding the number of heroes is very complex in itself (I can say this because I have an implementation of it and I see how complex it is). It's telling that this was only done in HotA, while expanding artifacts and monsters was done in other projects as well (both in Wog and in plugins). ERM is not relevant here; if you think that something can be achieved with it, then either you haven't delved deeply into the task, or we are talking about different things (for example, you can simulate expanding the number of heroes through ERM by modifying existing heroes in the pool when they appear in the tavern, but this approach is fraught with side effects, and it's unclear what 256 has to do with it, since the simulation is based on the existing pool, whatever its size).

256 is currently a limitation in some aspects, but in my opinion, it is much easier to overcome than what has already been done.

HellLighT

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Vik, stop acting like an idiot. Losing in a tournament means being eliminated from the tournament, not losing in some stage where you know you can play without giving it your all (for example). And if you've already been eliminated, you should just sit down and watch from the sidelines. Moreover, even though I have no personal issues with Delux as a person or opponent, I think that trying to win at any cost is simply unsportsmanlike, and there's no question of dignity or deserving a place in the final. Using your mechanic of bringing players back into the tournament, which isn't outlined in the rules, is just stupid (and can be explained by the fact that you don't care about the results for the players, only about having a sample for testing the version). And the fact that you still think your opinion, which is reflected in these flawed tournaments, is correct and very good, even though no reasonable person agrees with it, is just brain-dead.

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

How innocently it all began...

It's still causing quite a stir... :D

In reply to Wicc

Grando

8 years ago

Auto-translated

It's not just one storm. It's a multitude of storms that didn't end on time. The shockwave of each of them passed, but it turns out it "went around the world" and came back.
As for the "FTS storm," it also threatens to never end. It can only end if FTS participates in the tournament. And with each passing day, there is less time to correct your mistake, Vikk.

In reply to Grando

Wicc

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Al Feyn

As for the "FTS storm," it also threatens to never end. It can only end if FTS participates in the tournament.

It might end, but it's no longer relevant to the tournament.

In reply to Wicc

Grando

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Wicc

It might be over, but it's no longer relevant to the tournament.

As far as I know, it does. Storm created Wicc. Wicc is the "head" of the tournament. Look at the picture

Storm <=> Wicc <=> Tournament

Do you see the connection? :D

In reply to Grando

Xocenk

8 years ago

Auto-translated

Al Feyn

As for the "FTS storm," it also threatens to never end. It can only end if FTS participates in the tournament. And with each passing day, there is less time to correct your mistake, Vikk.

How is FTS's participation in the tournament, to which I invited him, not Vikk, related to the relationships between FTS, other dissatisfied parties, and Vikk? What will change in these relationships with his participation or non-participation? Vikk will still believe that "capricious daddies" should not be indulged. And the other side will believe that he was wrong in that situation.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Forum

Statistics

Library

Users Online 5 users 1618 guests

Today's Visitors 18