Auto-translated
My job was to provide a prize for the TOP1 winner; if there are issues with fairness or balance, you should discuss them with the platform's creators. lol.
MerlinTheMagician
Posts from (none) - 2
Auto-translated
When will I get a prize for being in the bottom 1?
osfaraon
Auto-translated
Attention. Revision of point 4 of the Rules has been added to the first post.
{Added. Revision date: 09/23/2019
If the TOP3 used their right to priority in a game against TOP1, the right passes to TOP2, who also loses priority in favor of TOP3 after the game with TOP1 (i.e., the right to challenge TOP1 alternates starting with TOP3). A game on G+U that was started before the ban period can be completed without saving.
}
{Added. Revision date: 09/23/2019
If the TOP3 used their right to priority in a game against TOP1, the right passes to TOP2, who also loses priority in favor of TOP3 after the game with TOP1 (i.e., the right to challenge TOP1 alternates starting with TOP3). A game on G+U that was started before the ban period can be completed without saving.
}
Gomunguls
Auto-translated
An unpleasant situation arose that requires clarification, so I would like the tournament organizer to explain it to me.
A few days ago, I started a game with FTS, and our ratings were approximately the same. Midway through the game, he said that we needed to save the game. We agreed to finish it that evening or the next morning, but it didn't happen.
In the following days, I saw him actively playing with other players. Eventually, when he was free and I asked him if we could finish the game, his response was that his rating was now 200 points higher than mine, and we would finish it after the tournament, meaning he is no longer interested in finishing it, even though he initiated saving the game.
Is this normal? Or am I being too demanding?
Auto-translated
It has never happened before, and here it is happening again.
BISHOP
Auto-translated
An unpleasant situation arose, but it still needs to be discussed, so I would like the tournament organizer to clarify it for me.
A few days ago, I started a game with FTS, and our ratings were approximately the same. Midway through the game, he said that we needed to save the game. We agreed to finish it that evening or the next morning, but it didn't happen.
In the following days, I saw him actively playing with other players. Eventually, when he was free and I asked him if we could finish the game, his response was that his rating was now 200 points higher than mine, and we would finish it after the tournament, i.e., he is no longer interested in finishing it, even though he initiated saving the game.
Is this normal? Or am I just being too picky?
=Lizard=
Auto-translated
I'm on Vitaly's side and I think Ivan should be disqualified. There's no other way to get into the top 3 now. 2 madmen + a Pole who saved his rating and just stopped playing.
p.s. For those who think straightforwardly, here's a *sarcasm* sign.
Ihromant
Auto-translated
Polek is currently in Ukraine; tie him to a battery and make him play LUL.
osfaraon
Auto-translated
A rather unpleasant situation arose, but it still needs to be addressed, so I would like the tournament organizer to clarify it for me.
A few days ago, I started a game with FTS, and our ratings were roughly the same. Midway through the game, he said that we needed to save the game. We agreed to finish it that evening or the next morning, but it never happened.
In the following days, I saw him actively playing with other players. Eventually, when he was free and I asked him to finish the game, his response was that his rating was now 200 points higher than mine, and we would finish it after the tournament, i.e., he is no longer interested in finishing it, even though he initiated saving the game.
Is this normal? Or am I just being too picky?
Vitaly, I don't think my intervention is needed here.
If you and Ivan agreed on something before the game, it should be fulfilled. I am sure Ivan is the kind of person who keeps his promises. If you didn't specify that the game must be included in the standings for the TOP1 and my prize, then Ivan's arguments are quite understandable. I also understand that you thought it was implied. Apparently not.
Pickiness has nothing to do with it.
This is precisely why, in order to prevent the TOP players from saving their rating in the 2 weeks before the prize deadline (as the first winner did), a rule was introduced on September 23rd requiring 5 mandatory rated games for the TOP3.
Your strategy is to get close to the TOP3 during the period of mandatory games. After 2-3 such games, these leaders will start to drop out of the TOP3. And a player who makes it into the TOP3 has the priority to challenge the TOP1 or TOP2 at his discretion, which, in case of victory, will ultimately allow him to consolidate his success.
I simply don't have the authority to force anyone to play beyond what I outlined before the start in the first message.
By the way.
I am seriously considering lifting the ban on g+u from September 23rd for everyone except the TOP3, to ensure unexpected breakthroughs. This will benefit those who are desperately trying to get into the TOP3.
Otherwise, it turns out that they inflated their rating to 900+ on g+u, and then the rating increases are less significant (on other templates).
I think I was led astray by a cunning group of TOP3 players, not immediately recognizing the trick :D
I still don't understand why Lizard is among them ;)
ps If the ban is lifted, then
- I will note this in the first message with the rules
- I will edit the message where I announced this separately
- I will create a new message with information about the cancellation.
Added 24 minutes ago
This has never happened before, and here it is again.
Those who survive will be laughing later.
=Lizard=
Auto-translated
It's a strange logic, to be honest. I was the first to advocate for a complete cancellation of the G+ system or for a revision of the coefficients when calculating the rating. But when I realized that it was a battle of Don Quixote against windmills, I decided to play with the system. And yes, the paradox is that without the G+ system, I wouldn't have been able to reach the top 3.
Auto-translated
I'm seriously considering lifting the ban on G+U.
It's trendy to introduce seasons these days; they have them in Diablo, Apex, and who knows where else. Why should Heroes be any different? :rolleyes:
osfaraon
Auto-translated
Honestly, that's strange logic. I was the first to advocate for completely abolishing G+U or revising the coefficients when calculating the rating. But when I realized that it was a battle of Don Quixote with windmills, I decided to make fun of the system. And yes, the paradox is that without G+U, I wouldn't have been able to get into the top 3.
That's what I'm saying, G+U was beneficial for you to quickly compete for the TOP 3, and you were suggesting banning it.
Added 1 minute ago
Yes, yes. The title of the topic can also be edited to "G+U Season."
Now it's fashionable to introduce seasons; they have them in Diablo, Apex, and who knows where else. Why should Heroes be any worse? :rolleyes:
What kind of TOPs, such is the season. RaccAttack Poooound
Gomunguls
Auto-translated
Vitaly, I don't think my intervention is needed here.
If you and Ivan agreed on something before the game, it should be fulfilled. I'm sure Ivan is the kind of person who keeps his promises. If you didn't specify that the game must definitely count towards the competition for the TOP1 and my prize, then Ivan's arguments are quite understandable. I also understand that you thought it was implied. Apparently not.
Being picky has nothing to do with it.
The rule of 5 mandatory ranked games for the TOP3, starting from September 23rd, was introduced specifically to prevent the TOP from saving their rating in the 2 weeks before the prize deadline (as the first winner did).
Your strategy is to get close to the TOP3 during the period of mandatory games. After 2-3 such games, these leaders will start to drop out of the TOP3. And a player who makes it into the TOP3 has the priority to challenge the TOP1 or TOP2 at their discretion, which, in case of victory, will ultimately allow them to secure their success.
I simply don't have the authority to force anyone to play more than what I outlined in the first message before the start.
By the way.
I'm seriously considering canceling the ban on G+U from September 23rd for everyone except the TOP3, to ensure unexpected surges. This would be beneficial for those who are desperately trying to get into the TOP3.
Otherwise, it turns out that they racked up 900+ rating points on G+U, and then the rating gains become less significant (on other templates).
I think I was led astray by a clever group of TOP3 players, not immediately recognizing the trick :D
I still don't understand why Lizard is among them ;)
ps If the ban is lifted, then
- I will note this in the first message with the rules
- I will edit the message where I announced this separately
- I will create a new message with information about the cancellation.
Added 24 minutes ago
Those who survive will laugh about it later.
Thank you for your answer, I think everyone will draw their own conclusions.
There's no point in talking about what is already obvious. But playing only winning games and postponing those where things aren't going so well is unfair to all players.
osfaraon
Auto-translated
Friends!
Please be more understanding and patient with each other! It's not worth getting so upset and emotional over this.
Auto-translated
Are you saying that the tournament isn't very good and it's not worth the effort to win it?
I don't think the organizers would agree with you.
I don't think the organizers would agree with you.
Statistics
Welcome our newest member:
recijeb