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 Preparing for the "Van Kanegem" tournament.Auto-translated
Secondly, everyone is ignoring my suggestion that to determine the finalists in the "universal" category, we should use only the 6 best results for each player, instead of all results from all stages. This would increase the number of participants competing for the prize places in the "universal" category. The reasoning is that 6 results out of 10 stages represent a complete game across all stages for three versions of Heroes out of five. So why shouldn't these players also be able to compete for the prize places for the title of "universal"?
This is a brilliant suggestion, and I don't know why I didn't think of it myself! You are absolutely right. Six is perhaps too few, but at least eight would be better.
That's a brilliant suggestion, and I can't believe I didn't think of it myself! You're absolutely right. However, six is a bit too few; at least eight would be better.
Well, that's something we can discuss. Let's assume that someone fundamentally doesn't play Heroes 4 because they don't consider it a proper Heroes game. And their computer can't handle Heroes 5. But they participate in the Kanigam stages for Heroes 1, 2, and 3. Why should we exclude such people (like vbn, for example) from being potential contenders for prize-winning places in the "Universal" category? Three versions are more than two – that should be enough. And 6 stages are more than half of all the stages for Heroes 1. In my opinion, that's acceptable. And imagine the intense competition that could result! And notice – personally, this proposal isn't beneficial for me, but I'm still suggesting it and voting for this calculation of prize winners for the "Universal" category.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. If you exclude four rounds, for example, two from the fifth version and two from the fourth, then how can it be considered a universal champion? I believe that the absolute champion should be determined by the sum of, for example, the eight best stages. And a universal champion should be determined by the sum of the five best stages, one from each version! Here is such a suggestion.
to IronAxe and Kamikaze Let's not clutter up the tournament thread with more discussions about calculating the rating! (I hope a moderator will move this to the appropriate place) I won't express my opinion on who benefits from what right now – I'll just say that we already have systems for calculating the rating and a method for selecting the overall winner, but since the initiator of the tournament has left, there's no one to manage it (which is very sad)... and I see that many of those present have stopped calculating the rating, and no one has stepped in to cover for those who left... :smile27: P.S. No selective results – everything must be counted, or at least determine the leaders separately for each version, and then choose the overall winner based on the ratio of places taken in all parts of the game!!!
to IronAxe and Kamikaze Let's not clutter the tournament thread with yet another discussion about the rating calculation! (I hope a moderator will move this to the appropriate place) I won't say now who benefits from what – I'll just say that we already have rating calculation systems, and the method for selecting the overall champion is already in place.
Who are you talking to? :) Rating systems exist :) We have dozens of them, but it's still UNKNOWN which one will be used to determine the winners. The question is still up in the air :) Therefore, it's still possible and necessary to discuss it. And if you don't want to, then don't – no one is forcing you to. I don't care where the moderators move these posts. I believe that this topic relates to the Kanighem tournament; we are discussing the system for calculating the winners of this tournament – therefore, these posts do not violate the rules of this thread. PS. Maybe you're interested in the fact that the overall champion will be chosen only from among us: Axe, Alex_R, and Fireball, but I'm not very interested in that. The more contenders for the prize, the more interesting it will be, and even if I'm kicked out of the top three or top five, that's secondary. But then the value of victory will be even greater in case of success!! :) Alex_R, don't be afraid – we'll all reach the finish line! :)
Added after 26 minutes Kamikaze;110526
That's what I'm saying: if you exclude four rounds, for example, two with five players and two with four players, then what kind of overall champion is that? I believe that the absolute champion should be determined by the sum of, for example, the eight best stages. And the overall champion should be determined by the sum of the five best stages, one from each version! That's my suggestion.
Kamikaze! You're good at math, so quickly estimate how many contenders there will be according to your suggestion (taking into account eight stages and five stages, one from each, for the overall champion) and according to my suggestion (taking into account only the six best results for the calculations). I am definitely against the suggestion to calculate the overall champion based on one result from each stage. It will be the same thing. Simply, those who didn't play all the stages, namely the 4-player and 5-player versions, will have the results of only THREE stages counted, while those who played all the versions will have the results of FIVE stages counted. It's clear that their chances will increase significantly, and therefore the number of contenders for the overall champion will decrease.
Scoring systems exist :) We have dozens of them, but it is still UNKNOWN which one will be used to determine the winners. The question remains open :) Therefore, it is still possible and necessary to discuss it.
Just not in this threadIronAxe;110540
And if you don't want to, then don't discuss it - no one is forcing you to :) And I don't care much where the moderators move these posts. I believe that this thread relates to the Canighem tournament; we are discussing the system for calculating the winners of this tournament - therefore, these posts do not violate the topic of this thread.
SPAM... there are at least two threads for discussing the rating calculation, etc.IronAxe;110540
PS. Maybe you are interested in the fact that the winners of the overall standings will be chosen only from among us: Axe, Alex_R, and Fireball, but I am not very interested. The more contenders for the winners, the more interesting it will be, and even if I am kicked out of the top three or top five, that is secondary. But then the value of victory will be greater in case of success!! :) Alex_R, don't be afraid - we will all reach the finish line!
I am not afraid of anything because I already know my level, and as for the contenders, there are at least 5 of them!!!IronAxe;110540
I am definitely against the proposal to calculate the overall standings based on one result from each stage. It will be the same thing. Simply, those who did not play all the stages, namely stages 4 and 5, will have their results from only THREE stages counted, while those who played in all versions will have their results from FIVE stages counted. It is clear that their chances increase significantly, and therefore the number of contenders for the overall standings decreases.
So what's unfair about that?... if a player doesn't play in stages 4 and 5 (for example), then what kind of overall standing can he have? so who are you complaining about? :smile53:
I am definitely against the proposal to calculate the overall score by taking one result from each stage. It will be the same thing. Simply, those who haven't played all the stages, specifically stages 4 and 5, will have their results from only THREE stages counted, while those who have played all versions will have their results from FIVE stages counted. Obviously, their chances increase significantly, and therefore the number of contenders for the overall title decreases.
But how do you expect someone to contend for the overall title if they aren't a true all-rounder (ONLY PLAYING TWO OR THREE VERSIONS)? The nomination is for an all-rounder, but the winner hasn't played two out of five versions:eek: There is a nomination for the absolute champion! Here, you can win four stages in your favorite versions and quietly play a couple more, and you'll have a chance to climb to the top.
Added after 3 minutes IronAxe;110540
Kamikaze! You're not exactly a math whiz, so quickly estimate how many contenders will realistically be able to compete according to your proposal (considering eight stages and taking one result from each of the five stages for the overall title) and according to my proposal (considering only the six best results for calculations).
If we count based on six versions, then exactly six stages have been recorded, and if we count based on eight (I believe 80% is closer to fairness), then everything is still ahead. So, you understand that it's too early to draw conclusions.
Added after 9 minutes I recalculated, taking into account the elimination of the two worst results, and besides the fact that vbn moved to first place, there are no other significant changes!
So what's unfair about that?... if a person doesn't play Heroes 4 and 5 (for example), then how can they be considered a "universal" player? So, who are you criticizing?
He's a great "universal" player when it comes to Heroes 1, 2, and 3, isn't he? Someone else might be better at Heroes 2, 3, and 5. But how do you describe someone who plays THREE versions out of FIVE? Doesn't the term "universal" still fit???
He's an awesome all-rounder for Heroes 1, 2, and 3, right? Someone will specialize in 2, 3, and 5. But how do you call someone who plays THREE out of FIVE versions? Doesn't the term "all-rounder" fit???
It fits, but he has little chance of becoming the best all-rounder[/COLOR] if he gets a “0” in the other parts;)
How can you expect someone to compete for the title of "all-rounder" if they aren't an all-rounder (ONLY PLAYING TWO OR THREE VERSIONS OF THE GAME)?
Not two or three versions. I didn't say that. I suggested that a player should play at least THREE versions. Those who play a larger number of versions can simply discard their worst results (meaning they will have a choice). In my opinion, this is realistic and sufficient for the title of "all-rounder." At the same time, more people can realistically participate in the competition for this title and provide competition to the contenders.
Otherwise, only three people will realistically play all stages in all versions, and I've already named them. The others won't have that chance. Consequently, these three contenders will most likely compete for the title of "all-rounder," as they will accumulate points from a larger number of stages than the other participants. Well, if you don't want to increase the number of real competitors, that's fine with me; it's not that important to me anyway – it would just be more interesting to see a more intense competition.Kamikaze;110546
Nomination for "all-rounder," but the winner doesn't play in two out of five versions:eek:
And now what? Should we hang ourselves? But he plays in three out of five versions. Why isn't that enough for the title of "all-rounder"? What does it matter if there are many combinations of who is an all-rounder in what? But only three people will play all stages in all five versions. Added 2 minutes ago [/U]Alex_R;110573
It works, but he has little chance of becoming the best all-rounder[/COLOR] if he has "0" in the other parts;)
That's what I'm saying: it turns out that the three of us will essentially decide the competition for the title of "all-rounder," which isn't very interesting. And if FireBall and I hadn't played one of the versions, you would have had a great competition for the title of "all-rounder." :)
That's what I'm saying, it turns out that the three of us will be deciding the dispute for the title of "universal player," which isn't very interesting. And if FireBall and I hadn't played one of the versions. You would have had some amazing competitions for the title of "universal player" :)
Not very interesting because you feel like an outsider in our company?;) And I'll still see how you beat vbn, even considering that he's already missed 2 stages:) I still don't understand why it's "MY COMPETITION" - am I the one organizing it and participating in it?:D P.S. Arguing with you is pointless... Axe is Axe, even in Africa :)
Not very interesting, because you feel like an outsider in our company?;)
It depends on which system you're talking about :) :) Yeah, and that's why I suggest that a few other cool guys join, and they kick me down from third place (if you even manage to put me there) to, say, sixth place :)Alex_R;110576
And I'll see how you overtake vbn, even considering that he's already missed 2 stages:)
Well, I'm hoping to still get another 400 points if I'm lucky. And what are you worried about :) I know you're good. You're hoping that vbn will miss two more stages, and then he won't be a competitor to either of us in this category. But if we take my suggestion, missing four stages won't exclude vbn from being a contender for the title of all-rounder. And then we'll all be flying up and down like crazy, and you too :)Alex_R;110576
I just don't understand, why is it "MY COMPETITION" - am I organizing it myself and participating at the same time?:D
Yeah, I've realized a long time ago that you always steer the discussions towards your own position and results, so that they suffer as little as possible. That's why you're now actively opposing my suggestion. It's not me who's trying to exclude vbn from the contenders, it's you :) And don't try to shift the blame :)
Kamikaze
