Posts from Favorites, into battle! - 11. Auto-translated

30.11.2018. Changes and clarifications to the Tournament Regulations.

It's time to move on to a more thorough examination of the ideas. Below I will list the main thoughts that have already been expressed, in order of decreasing clarity of arguments and relevance of discussing these topics. The opinions expressed in this thread will undoubtedly be taken into account, but first and foremost, in order to make decisions, I will communicate with top players who have already signed up or plan to sign up for the tournament. So,

(1) Dave's idea for a global nerf of Necropolis heroes.
All Necromancers max out their necromancy skills only at the last level-up. Galthran can be chosen as a starting hero.
Variation:
When playing as Necropolis, only Tant and Galthran max out their necromancy skills only at the last level-up.
And when playing as other cities, all Necromancer heroes max out their necromancy skills only at the last level-up.

At the moment, I think the probability that something like this will be included in the tournament is high.

In connection with this and the next point, the arguments remain unclear - can we do anything worthwhile with Shakti and Gunnar? And should we?
For example, Dave (even though he doesn't seem to be planning on playing Dungeon this time) does not believe that anything needs to be done with them. Perhaps he plans to defeat them personally.

(2) The idea of playing with completely random heroes.
Arguments for: it's fun, it's new, it might help three weak towns (Inferno, Barbarian, Swamp).
Arguments against:
Some people find it fun, while others don't - partially contradicts the idea of the tournament, because some players pick not so much the town as their favorite hero.
We haven't properly discussed the fact that such a move primarily strengthens Conflux (which already plays randomly anyway).
We haven't discussed the fact that this is being done to exclude specific heroes, but why then total randomness, and not excluding these specific heroes as starters?

(3) The idea of including 8mm/6lm mix in the pool of templates (author - Russel_lDHl), presumably instead of 8mm6a.
We need to try playing it and/or listen carefully to those who have already tried playing it.
This template is probably closer to "esports" and will disrupt the proportion of groups. This can be figured out.

(4.1) Simultaneous Turns in all series of BO3 (all games after the group stage for first places, this is the entire transition stage and playoffs for group winners).
I estimate the probability of this decision at almost 100%.
There are doubts about the loser bracket.
(4.2) Turn Timer - for each day of simultaneous turns, one minute is added to the initial number.
Simultaneous turn with 117 seconds with restarts of 113 saves both players about three hours; there is no reason to consider 14 minutes significant.
I think the probability of this decision is also close to 100%; perhaps it will even be 1:30, but I will ask again.

Regarding these first four points, I will survey top players in search of arguments - as many as I can manage.
Next, I list all other ideas just for completeness.

- Set a deadline for the first round of the group stage before January 7th (on the one hand, there's New Year's Eve, but on the other hand, after New Year's, many people simply sit around and don't know what to do - why not play?).
- Currently, the simultaneous turn time is set to 117 for all templates; maybe this isn't always correct, and there are alternatives?
- As a last criterion when scores are equal, use tournament rating instead of random selection.
- Everything else that remains in the first post of the thread.

p.s. Still very much looking for more co-hosts and judges.

Enough with nerfing the heroes! Izry and Vidominy are perfectly fine. Further "improvements" will lead to WCl rules, or even worse... and ultimately to the death of the gameplay.

Against the nerf of Necro. Let's not go to the point of absurdity. Sometimes a Necro player joining is a reason to play the layout. The most that can be done is either ban starting with Tanta, or start with random heroes on all templates except Jebus Cross.

When (if) Baratorch implements the ability to ban heroes, then the situation can be reconsidered as a whole.

sometimes, a Necropolis player showing up is the only way to avoid writing "gg" in the early days when the game is very unbalanced. against nerfing Necropolis.

Some options for a global nerf to Necros in a single tournament seem too radical to me. However, starting with a random hero (or banning Tanta similarly to Galtran) seems like an easily implementable and understandable (we play this way for Conflux all the time) weakening of the strongest town in the game.
By the way, I became curious: in my own games and on streams, I've never seen a positive rollback on Necropolis. Does that even happen at all?:) I have the feeling that Necro is the sole tier 1 at least on large maps. And only after that come various Ramparts, Confluxes, Dungeons.

I haven't seen a positive rollback on Necropolis in any of my games or streams. Does that even happen?:)

Yes, it does :D.
Vova gave several thousand for a tower against Necropolis on a small map.
And, by the way, he could have won; the outcome of the game depended on the details.
There was an epic final battle; you can find it in Mizrael's streams.

A random hero for Necro (including on Jebus Cross) is normal.
The idea of increasing the timer in the modern reality of its reduction looks a bit strange

Nerfing Necropolis wouldn't only strengthen Dungeon, Rampart, and Conflux, but would also weaken Swamp-Inferno-Citadel, where playing Necropolis seems more justified due to a slower start. I am categorically against cutting back Necropolis. The idea seems simply nonsensical.
I looked at my own stats, where in pairs there was a Necropolis player in Lords of War in non-Necropolis towns. Well, the statistics are not in favor of Necropolis. Banning specifically Tanta at the start (not just within the tournament) is the only correct thought regarding Necropolis.
In favor of starting with random heroes, explained in posts above.

If adding a timer of half a minute per turn with the Overlord's Hat somehow adds players who will play with the Overlord's Hat — then there's nothing wrong with that. However, one and a half minutes per turn is already way too much. And actually, I am against adding a timer when playing with the Overlord's Hat; there was an idea to suggest slightly reducing the existing timer, but apparently it's too early for that :)

2. Tournaments Rating.
Tournaments Rating was earned within the specified timeframe, so the formation of brackets for the group stage draw will primarily rely on it. If a player does not have a tournament rating, the regular rating will be used.

The Tournaments Rating is flawed because it takes into account the results of games from the Winter 2013-2014 season /topic/at/717608/

The Gamemaster will fix the season.
But besides that, several other counterarguments regarding the use of the tournament rating were expressed in private messages. They were substantial and, in essence, valid. I will structure them a bit later.

Let's not go to extremes. Sometimes, a Necropolis player joining is a reason to change the lineup.

The problem is that, from a certain point of view, such a situation in the game is already absurd. Because of this absurdity, the term "necro-rush" appeared.
That is, we are trying to move from obvious absurdity to a lesser one. (Yes, the main thing is not to move to a greater one, so we think and study the arguments).

And what is the actual goal of nerfing Necropolis? To add diversity to the gameplay? And what does that have to do with the "Favorites" tournament?
It seems to me the main problem with the tournament is the imbalance of the towns. And nerfing Necropolis itself will have little effect on that. Necropolis will become weaker, Conflux, Dungeon, Rampart, Castle will become even stronger. Then you'd need to weaken those towns as well, for example, by banning the construction of birds in Conflux, the upgrade of elves in Rampart, the upgrade of Troglodytes, the Stable in Castle, or something along those lines.
And even then, you won't achieve balance with such methods, especially since the balance will change from template to template.

It seems to me it's simpler to just make a table of fixed bans when two towns are played on a specific template. Take the opinions of the top 3 best players on a given template as the data source and average them out. Obviously, everyone has their own preferences for what the ban should be, but at least this would roughly even out the balance.

The problem is that, from a certain point of view, such a situation in the game is already absurd. This absurdity led to the term "necro-meta."
That is, we are trying to move from obvious absurdity to a lesser one. (Yes, the main thing is not to move to a greater one, so we think and study the arguments).

Well, there is necro-meta, luna-meta, logisto-meta, konser-meta, etc. In general, trying to find balance in Heroes is already absurd. But the most important thing is that when moving from "greater absurdity to lesser absurdity," we don't end up moving to an even greater one. :smile15:

They are all there, but the Necropolis faction defeats them all. That's what Dave wrote about. This is his assessment as a very strong player, and in fact, throughout the tournament and in the final, he played as Necropolis, even having Gunnar, and he won.

A strange debate about which is better, a Logistician or a Necromancer, is always decided by the number of support units and their quality. If the number and quality of support units are approximately the same (and if the initial map control is also the same, and both have full mana), then in such a confrontation, the more skilled player will win, it doesn't matter if they are playing a Necromancer or a Logistician, but I would still give preference to the Logistician in such a confrontation.