Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Favorites, into battle! - 11.Auto-translated
The idea that the main hero can only be a hero of the chosen faction is difficult to implement:
That's why it's nonsense.HellLighT
Now I wouldn't play HotA and try to force its changes into SoD, what a fool.
What's so special about that? Doesn't it bother you that the auction house, the chess timer, and the restructuring of the Mage Guild from TE and WotG were carried over to SoD and HotA? And the reduction of Necromancer power was also implemented in TE and WotG (only in a more radical way). If the vast majority of players express their support, making the changes is not a problem: the values of the Necromancy percentage and the numbers in the text description of the Necromancer in the hero window are changed.
Нам это идеально подойдёт! (с)
"Совесть - она либо есть, либо её нет" (с) RedWhait HP
Where and what did I write about the fact that the situation with Tantum concerns my games personally?...
The point is that you didn't consider it important to write anything specific there. (But you can. When it comes to the CIS, you are very specific. And I think that's normal - it's a matter of skill Kappa). The thing about "pouring out ideas with friends" was sarcasm. Because it seems obvious to me that if someone writes at a level of detail that is not the same as Dave's, then all these writings will remain just "interesting ideas" that I will not act upon. Even if 20 people write the same thing, but without arguments. And such writings often deserve only sarcasm in response. By creating this topic, I give you the opportunity to express your opinion, and you (many of you) are currently wasting this freedom on empty talk.
However, there is nothing new, and nothing terrible about it. Even this is better than the complete absence of this freedom. This is my position. I will soon update the agenda, sorting the ideas that have already been expressed by their chances of being implemented.
Please do not suggest any more ideas that involve programmatically changing the implementation of something. At least until the tournament begins. Be at least a little realistic. It is possible if you implement it yourself. Then, of course, suggest it. Dima Surmay
Is this a discussion about the tournament rules or about how to change the game in general?
Absolutely correct and relevant question. Let's first focus only on the Regulations and what we can realistically improve - not to realize wishful thinking, but to realistically and meaningfully improve the tournament Regulations. And when we start, we can sigh about programmatic changes. It is possible to talk about programmatic changes if someone has a real dialogue with a person who can implement them. For example, I have a dialogue with Igromant, and I see that there is a real chance that the tournament rating will be completed, which I will most likely use in the tournament. I definitely do not have such a dialogue with Baratortch or someone else who could write a plugin for the HD mod. Does anyone who is suggesting the corresponding ideas have such a dialogue?
all these writings here will remain just "interesting ideas" that I won't give the go-ahead.
And who exactly are you? That's what I don't know and don't understand. Where can I read your résumé? For me personally, the character Al Feyn only appeared during the heated discussion of CIS-2017. Not long ago, I was surprised to learn that this character has moderation status. Now, again to my surprise, I find out that this character will host the traditional HeroesWorld tournament with a ten-year history, while claiming to have the sacred authority to make any changes to this tournament at the rules level.
For testing "interesting ideas" — any at all, even the most absurd ones — a separate custom tournament could be whipped up (not an official traditional HeroesWorld tournament) — announce a prize pool for it, invite the bigwigs who could test the ideas. Who knows, something might even catch on.
Нам это идеально подойдёт! (с)
"Совесть - она либо есть, либо её нет" (с) RedWhait HP
To test "interesting ideas" — any of them, even the most absurd — you can whip up a separate custom tournament (rather than an official traditional HeroesWorld tournament), announce a prize pool for it, and invite the bigwigs who can test the ideas. Who knows, maybe something will catch on.
Why did you suddenly bring up testing interesting ideas? Did someone say that testing interesting ideas is being done based on the Lyubimchiki tournament? I definitely did not say that. There are no random interesting ideas in the Regulations. Every new move is justified and explained as to why it is there. This is an Ideas Discussion. Everyone just twists this discussion into something of their own. Moreover, I have already repeated several times in this very thread that for an idea to be applied in a tournament, it needs justification. Not just whatever someone likes or feels like. We discuss — that's fine. But if someone writes something in this thread, that does not at all mean it will be applied in the tournament. (And by the way, I won't decide personally, though I will have a say, but I will certainly consult the most skilled players who sign up for the tournament). If you like this approach less than the approach of many other tournaments — "no discussions at all, don't like it — run it yourself" — well, that's your business. This tournament has this kind of discussion approach. Discussions exist — well-argued ideas are valued — decisions will be made based on discussions with the strongest players.
Why do I think it's better to allow freedom of discussion, even if there are outbursts like Merlin's just now or Bishop who already derailed into flame wars? Because a raw idea, spoken openly for the first time and unsubstantiated, can still play its part. Someone else might look at it and figure out how to improve it. And after several iterations, a gem might emerge. "Flame wars will be forgotten, but the guild restructuring will remain." That's why discussions are open.
(Example of an unprepared idea — what Iamsamstan wrote, off the cuff, don't judge too harshly, without inappropriate hype (and Merlin, this is directed squarely at you)). And such unsubstantiated ideas are welcome. But if you act like a guru, yet provide no justification... that's sad. You seem capable of better.
As for the first part of your message — check with Dirty about the timelines: how many people wanted to run Lyubimchiki, when they usually start, and how things went in general.
The problem is that there are fewer and fewer people willing to organize these "traditional tournaments" with a history. And if someone does take on the task, respect should be shown regardless of the number of stars on their "epaulettes," because the alternative is simply the complete absence of that particular tournament.
That situation, which is often a matter of chance in the current game, is unbalanced, but it is quite mutually balanced (for any conditional Tant from the tavern, you can find a conditional Galtran from the same tavern, or pull someone interesting out of prison, etc.). That is, over the long run, more skilled players win more often. Just like in poker. And with such a large number of random factors, there is no point in talking about the competitive aspect of Heroes. Therefore, any changes that periodically become necessary should be decided by the target audience.
Added 2 minutes later =Lizard=
And if someone takes on the task, then respect must be shown regardless of the number of stars on their epaulettes.
That's right. But if the tournament organizer himself shows disrespect to one of the potential participants (later covering it up with words about sarcasm, lol), then what will happen next in the tournament when resolving controversial situations?
Нам это идеально подойдёт! (с)
"Совесть - она либо есть, либо её нет" (с) RedWhait HP
...what will happen next in the tournament when controversial situations arise?
Read carefully in the Arbitration Committee (AK). I expressed my opinion there regarding controversial situations. Read it in the SM-Masters. I expressed my opinion there regarding the controversial situation in the match between Dima Surmey and Bolo. This should be enough to get you oriented.
Regarding respect and disrespect, I adhere to the following position: 1) Respect must first be earned, and the absence of external signs of respect does not automatically mean disrespect - there is also at least a neutral position. 2) Sarcasm directed at someone does not necessarily mean disrespect; on the contrary, it often means the opposite - if I decide to tease someone, it most likely means I see a real chance that this person can improve - and that is, in fact, a sign of respect (think about it, man!). 3) Even the absence (or, conversely, the presence) of respect for someone will not force me to deviate from a neutral position when discussing controversial situations (this is not a promise; they say we are imperfect, and so am I; this is my default position and hope). But we won't know how it will actually turn out until we test it in real situations. Fortunately, there is an instance above me - the AK - if something goes wrong.
And once again, I draw attention to this phrase, which I wrote first in this topic (independently, without any prompting from anyone): I really want to find more co-hosts and judges.
Ideally, it would be best not to respond anymore. But still, regarding the issue of argumentation and, so to speak, specifics. Otherwise, it seems strange that the topic starter sees the speck in someone else's eye but not the log in their own. Al Feyn
That's the point, you didn't think it was important to write specifically. ... Because it seems obvious to me that if someone writes at a level of detail that is not the same as Dave's, then all these writings will remain just "interesting ideas" that I will not pursue.
Al Feyn
and what about if in the game Castle vs. Elves, a Tantrum comes and wins the game? Do you think about this when you write about adding randomness? :)
Basically, one question. How many times have you lost to a Tantrum in this city pairing, on what maps, and against which players (since we're talking about specifics)?
Нам это идеально подойдёт! (с)
"Совесть - она либо есть, либо её нет" (с) RedWhait HP
Actually, just one question. How many times have you lost to Tantu in this pair of towns, on which templates, and to which players (since we're being specific)?
I would be very glad if Tantu showed up for me at the start of the game and immediately made him a daddy, possibly except for Jebus, which I rule out.
I would be very happy if Tanth got into my starting hand at the beginning of the game and I immediately made him a daddy, possibly except for Jebus Cross, I'm excluding that.
This is already a bit off-topic. It's about the specific experience of a particular player who resorted to personal attacks, so to speak. One who claims (in their own eyes) to possess a certain objectivity of judgment, reasoned arguments, support with specifics, and so on...
Нам это идеально подойдёт! (с)
"Совесть - она либо есть, либо её нет" (с) RedWhait HP
Actually, I have one question. How many times have you lost to Tant in this pair of cities, on which maps, and against which players (since we're getting specific)?
Looking at Al-Fein's stats, the question arises: how often did Tant actually carry him in matches? :D
Merlin: 1) Where did you find my statement that that phrase of mine which you latched onto is valuable in my eyes? That is also a rough guess on your part. For example, why did you not take into account my other phrase, much more important and overriding any of my ideas about Tanth—this one:Al Feyn
.. based on mine and Krovka's (and even Caliban's :smile41: ) understanding of balance .. no move will be made. :D
But at the same time, there was a rough estimation from my side. 2) Not out of nowhere, of course, but based on a vague impression from all the games played. Here is my game history. If you wanted, instead of quickly typing out your fundamentally important question, you could have checked it yourself, because the answer is available to you. I don't understand why you fixed on Tanth; as far as I'm concerned, any situation fits where both players started with non-Necropolis towns, and the winner is the one who mained Necropolis. I double-checked the 2018 year for you—only 10 games against opponents of a comparable level. Necropolis won 8 of them. Including 5:2 against me by opponents (ihromant, ЯR, mda, silenthill, socola, MercuryDVZ). I won 3:0 in such situations (positive, Andres, GUNAR). I discarded some of my victories against weaker players. Total 8:2 in favor of Necropolis. Here, for example, are the reports of the game with GUNAR in the SM-Masters—specifically Tanth—mine, his. Without Tanth, the game wouldn't have been carried at all. Shakti came at me almost in a straight line through the Griffin Conservatories and would have killed me. Probably the only hero in the whole game who saved the match was Tanth. He pulled out the first final on a wing and a prayer. And this case certainly stuck in my memory very strongly, and it was primarily this one I remembered when writing my message.
p.s. I kindly ask you—calm down before your next message. Count to 20000, or better yet to 100000. Re-read the first point. Count again. I may not even reply. Even my angelic patience is not limitless.
if you wanted, instead of rushing to write your fundamentally important question, you could have checked everything yourself, because the answer is available to you
Why should I sift through any data set if you, who considers yourself objectively argumentative, according to your own beliefs, should have provided specific arguments before writing anything about the situation with Tant (since you wrote about a specific overpowered hero, Tant, who solves all problems in the Castle-Rampart pairing, and my answer was specifically about this pairing of cities)? Or does someone owe you an argument, but you don't owe anyone anything, lol? Once again. I already specifically asked you how many times you lost to Tant specifically in this pairing (and given Caliban's input, it would also be helpful to answer the question - how many times you won with Tant specifically in this pairing)... You respond with a link to a data set, which, according to your twisted logic, someone should process for you...
Added after 32 minutes And for the esteemed public, I will explain that in the data set provided by Alfein, there is NOT A SINGLE game of the declared Castle-Rampart pairing in which Tant was anyone's main hero. The data set consists of about 190 games (about 194-195). In total, in the provided data set, Tant was a "secondary main" (that is, not a starting hero) on Alfein's side 4 times: 2 games were lost - 2 were won. At the same time, against Alfein, in the entire provided data set, there was not a single game played with a "secondary Tant". Excellent argumentation - in 190 games, we won two games with a secondary Tant (and perhaps Tant wasn't there from the first day) and lost two (no doubt playing with friends), and against us, a secondary Tant was never played... Enough with the demagoguery...
Нам это идеально подойдёт! (с)
"Совесть - она либо есть, либо её нет" (с) RedWhait HP
Merlin, you really dug deep. Well, "this is a disaster, buddy." Out of the four games with Tant that you found, in my opinion, three should be discarded as unrepresentative:
* Losing to Yaru - Yaru himself was playing Necropolis.
* Winning against Montt - Montt is noticeably weaker than me.
* Losing to Igromant - Inferno lost to Konflax, who "had everything going for him" - this is a tricky one; you need to read the report to understand whether it's appropriate to consider this game when evaluating some kind of balance - it's absurd. This is the third type of lie, which is statistics. Tant had nothing to do with the result.
So, only that one game was truly representative of Tant, and I already mentioned it.
And most importantly: 1) you ignored the first point in my previous message (which is more important than the second), and 2) you stubbornly believe that for some reason that you still haven't voiced, the Castle vs. Rampart setup (which I simply used as an example of two cities that aren't worlds apart) is of paramount importance in my original statement - this makes it impossible for me to continue this (un)interesting and (un)important dialogue.
I will only say to the esteemed public that next time, whatever Merlin writes on this topic, I will definitely have something to say, but there will be no more responses.
Why there won't be any more responses will become clear from my next messages because I decided that it's more important to get down to business, and the time before the tournament starts is not unlimited.
I would add to what I managed to observe from the initial matches that against Alfein, players using the "left-wing" Necropolis faction played 12 times, with a 50% win rate (6 wins, 6 losses). And discarding certain elements from the statistics based on arbitrary reasons indicates that the person is not used to working with objective data (perhaps Alfein works at Rosstat?). And these objective data, I repeat, consist of the fact that the imbalance in Heroes is not one-sided, but mutual – and over a long distance, champions (like FTS or Stinger) win against weaker players (like Alfein or me). And, in fact, it's time to end this empty and meaningless dialogue. We've had our say – and that's enough...
Нам это идеально подойдёт! (с)
"Совесть - она либо есть, либо её нет" (с) RedWhait HP
MerlinTheMagician
