We are offered to play a match. — Tournament History

Dreamcatcher

18 years ago

Auto-translated

A tricky question. Initially, I wanted to play as Portal, to pay tribute to the resource that helped me grow as a player. But many people voted for World, so I'll play as World. But I'll be on standby.

In reply to Dreamcatcher

Alex_R

18 years ago

Auto-translated

...We are offered to play a match...
...and here we are, dividing the sandbox :) ...
1. Initially, I declined to participate due to the situation in real life, and besides, it wasn't certain that I would even make the team, but now there is more or less some clarity – I was voted into the starting lineup, and I have the opportunity to play a couple of games... I told Nagana in a private message, "I can easily play as a substitute, but only as a main player depending on the regulations" (which I still haven't seen, although the team composition should be based on it to some extent).
2. Selecting the strongest players through seasonal standings or player voting – both options provide a distorted picture (more or less). We should have decided how to select players from the beginning... if voting was supported and took place, why raise this issue again now? ...
...if someone is not satisfied with the results, they either need to accept it or offer alternatives, and we can discuss them quickly and clearly...
3. And in general, I don't understand how the players who can play for a specific resource are determined... sometimes, simply expressing a desire is enough...
...and by the way, does the atmosphere happen to encourage kicking players while they're down in case of poor performance? :)

P.S. I think it's been a long time since we should have started preparing (in all areas) for the match.

Qwerty

18 years ago

Auto-translated

The team needs at least 50% reserve (rounded up). That is, with 7 boards, 11 players are needed.
Alex_R knows how to play (by the way, I would like to see Alex_R in tournaments for the second game, both online and offline).
Pit plays well.
Invisible - even if he stays on the bench.
When developing the competition regulations, I recommend immediately defining the issue of additional players. The number, the possibility during the competition, etc.
It is better to immediately declare 12 people for the match and prohibit additional players. This is beneficial for HW, as it can gain a strategic advantage.
The issue of postponements and the duration of rounds also needs to be resolved. If there are more players on HW, this can be used by setting strict deadlines for rounds. The number of postponements and the critical deadline for completing rounds should be determined immediately; I recommend introducing the term "initiator of postponement," and in case of their absence by the critical deadline, they receive a full, round, and appetizing "zero" score, because "initiative is punishable."

In reply to Qwerty

invisible

18 years ago

Auto-translated

...and by the way, does the atmosphere happen to encourage kicking players who perform poorly?

No one will be kicking anyone or throwing rotten apples. The strongest players from both portals will participate in the tournament, and it won't be a shame for anyone to lose. The main thing is to perform well! By "well," I mean that even losing should be done with honor. A hint about the situation in the team tournament :).
Despite our constant disagreements, I still want you to play for our team!

Invisible - at least stay on the bench.

Where else would I go? I just don't have much time right now, so I need to play at least in the tournaments that I'm ALREADY registered for. And I'm also leaving around the 20th of this month for a week. There are too many "ifs" to sign up for a tournament like this and then let my team down. It's better if I'm on the bench.
Thank you to everyone who voted for me!

Nagan-4

18 years ago

Auto-translated

I don't even know what to say.
Our plans with Zerzes and Neo didn't go beyond playing one match per player. That is, 7 players from Team World and 7 players from Portal meet, and each pair plays only one match.

If there is a desire, considering the reserves, maybe we can make it so that each pair plays until one side wins 2 matches?
But for this, the other side must also want to play up to 3 matches per player.

Qwerty

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Team competitions involve a whole range of factors. The more players there are, the more rounds are beneficial. For example, 3 games per board.

Nagan-4

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Competitive matches involve a whole range of factors.
The more players there are, the more rounds are beneficial.
For example, 3 games on each board.

But will everyone be able to play three games? We need to ask the players. Maybe we'll do it this way for now... The team is formed, and each player will write here or in ICQ how many games they want (can) play in the match – one or three.
Some will say – one game, some – three games.
And we will make an offer to the Portal players. Those of them who are willing to play more will play with our players who have chosen three games.
Those who have little time to play will play with our players who have chosen one game.
But the result will only be counted based on the overall victory of the player; it doesn't matter if they won one game or three – each player brings only one team point to their team.
In total, 7 team points will be played in the match, although there will be more games, up to 21.

In reply to Qwerty

Деконтаминатор

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Qwerty;184433

When developing the competition regulations, I recommend immediately addressing the issue of postponements. The number of postponements, the possibility of postponing during the competition, etc.
... The issue of postponements and the duration of rounds also needs to be resolved. If there are more players on HW, this can be used by setting strict deadlines for rounds. The number of postponements and the critical deadline for completing rounds should be determined immediately. I recommend introducing the term "initiator of postponement," and in case of their absence by the critical deadline, they receive a resounding "zero" as a penalty, because "initiative is punishable."

I agree.
We have a strong bench of reserve players. Therefore, I support any regulations that the organizers deem convenient for most players.

Nagan-4

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Let's summarize our proposals.
1. Play until 2 wins; if the score is 1-1, a third, decisive match is played. The player who wins two matches against their opponent earns a team point for their resource.

2. Reserves. I listened to the opinions of the team players. The following players were suggested: Invisible, Pit, Dubrovin Pavel, Dreamcatcher, Colorado, Retro FM.
A total of 6 people. If a main player cannot play a match for various reasons, they have the right to ask one of the reserves to substitute.
To avoid raising disputes on this topic, they choose the player who, in their opinion, can replace them equally.

Everything is logical. The players of our resource have chosen their representatives to defend the interests of the resource in the match, and these 7 representatives have named the people they trust.

3. Timeframe. The match lasts 3 weeks, meaning one match per week. It can also be played in three days.

4. Arbitration. To avoid the disputes that arose in the team tournament, we need to ask completely neutral people to arbitrate controversial situations.
Negotiations are underway.

In reply to Nagan-4

Paladin@heroes.by

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Nagan-4;184819

Arbitration. To avoid the disputes that arose in the team tournament, we need to ask completely neutral people to act as arbitrators in controversial situations.
Negotiations are underway.

I will help as much as I can :smile42:

Nagan-4

18 years ago

Auto-translated

So far, two out of three arbitrators have given their consent.
1. Paladin - a well-known player on both platforms, enjoys playing on SoD (in my opinion, he is the best player from Minsk).
2. DVStranger - a well-known player from Moscow, winner of the city team championship on Battle.net.
3. Sil from St. Petersburg - one of the organizers of the St. Petersburg championships. He has not yet confirmed his arbitration, but I hope he will also agree.

All three are from different cities, have an excellent reputation, and are strong players.
I hope they won't have much work to do.

Added after 22 hours and 11 minutes
I received a response from Zerzes, the match organizer from Portal. One condition that they consider unacceptable is a restart on day 116.
I checked with the players on our team - they don't mind removing the clause about restarting on day 116.

Thus, there are no visible obstacles left for holding a match between the two Hero communities. The rules have been agreed upon, the arbitrators have given their consent, and the players have been selected.
I ask the Portal players to list 7 players for their starting lineup.
So that we can start the games on Monday. There is no need to delay.

Loi

18 years ago

Auto-translated

If there's no confirmation from Sila, we should invite Vik!
In my opinion, that's the right thing to do.
P.S. Vik's contribution to the development of the Heroes community is invaluable, and his moral authority is very high.
Not inviting him is also a statement! I'll soften the potentially harsh tone of this post with some smileys :) :):)

In reply to invisible

Mike_HP

18 years ago

Auto-translated

invisible;183909

in my opinion, this is an amazing feature! Having 9 Phoenixes or 7-8 Behemoths on the second week is incredibly cool :)

Actually, there are no weeks with higher-level monsters; there's only a doubling of the population of lower-level monsters. And a +5 to the population of level 7 monsters can only happen at the end of the month, so it can only affect the 5th week. However, overall, I agree that this additional breeding should be banned.

In reply to Mike_HP

Dirty_Player

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Mike_HP;185157

Actually, there are no weeks of high-level monsters; there are weeks of doubled populations of low-level monsters. And a +5 to the population of level 7 monsters can only happen at the end of the month, meaning it can only affect the 5th week. However, overall, I agree that this extra spawn should be banned.

Well... I would argue with that... On the second week, there can easily be a week of level 7 monsters! Once, while playing offline, I just kept trying to generate a week of Spectral Dragons, and I eventually succeeded, although I don't remember how many attempts it took! So, the probability that a week of level 7 monsters will occur on the second or third week is extremely low, and even more so that it will coincide with one of the players – that's pure fantasy... Personally, I've only been that lucky once, and it was a long time ago, and it was with computer opponents... However, the 131st week of the Devil for Inferno pleased me!! :D

And at the end of the month, a doubling can happen!!! But the doubling only applies to a specific type of creature, and they appear on the map, namely:
Level 4 - Pegasus
Level 3 - Griffin, Serpent, Ghost
Level 2 - Gogs, Harpies, Lizards, Wolves
Level 1 - it doesn't matter... or rather, I don't remember :)

P.S.: If you're going to ban the week of monsters, then ban the plague too! Although reloading doesn't always help...

In reply to Mike_HP

Neoandy

18 years ago

Auto-translated

Mike_HP;185157

Actually, there are no weeks with higher-level monsters; there are weeks with double the population of lower-level monsters. And a +5 to the population of level 7 monsters can only happen at the end of the month, meaning it can only affect week 5. Although, overall, I agree that this additional spawn should be banned.

Just recently, I played a season game with Sir Taurus, Citadel against Fortress. On day 121, it was Hydra week! The opponent had a lot of money and seemed to have placed them in the castle, and he was able to buy 7 Hydras on week 2. With such a unit, he could easily defeat any Barbarian and any Treasure Hunter. So, it can happen.

A week with a level 6 monster is no less annoying, especially when encountered early in the secondary market, as I remember games where a week of Nags, Unicorns, and other monsters of that rank decided the outcome of an early encounter on week 2.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from We are offered to play a match.

Statistics

Library

Users Online 9 users 1309 guests

Today's Visitors 31