Changes to the rules for offline Heroes 3 tournaments! — Tournament history (offline)

Qwerty

10/1/2008 7:34 AM UTC

Auto-translated

1. I am in favor of holding OFFICIAL tournaments on the patch. However, this does not exclude holding several tournaments without the patch. This will be able to satisfy the needs of different players.
2. The second criterion is the sum of parameters AFTER the battle, taking into account the equipped artifacts. The third criterion, in my opinion, would not hurt. In VK tournaments, this should be the amount of mercury. There were many disputes about this at the time, so let's keep this "feature" of the tournament. In other official tournaments, the third criterion may be different, for example, the sum of valuable resources, the sum of valuable resources plus half the sum of wood and stone, the amount of gold, the amount of hero experience, the strength of the hero's army, etc.

Орден Феникса – харизматический :) лидер

AlexSpl

10/1/2008 7:41 AM UTC

Auto-translated

1. Regarding the patch: Even without the "traffic light" system, having enough time allows you to generate morale, luck, ability drops, etc., beyond the normal probability. If someone spends hours doing this, that's their choice, but I don't have that much time. I just want to somehow level the playing field in terms of time spent by different players. If you need morale in the first round, let's make it so that it always drops – that's the whole issue.

2. Regarding the removal of the third criterion: The probability that the results will match based on two criteria is very low if those criteria are chosen intelligently.

3. Before the battle.

In reply to Qwerty

AmberSoler

10/1/2008 9:01 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Qwerty;198219

1. I am in favor of holding OFFICIAL tournaments on the patch.

I am probably old-fashioned, conservative, or maybe I'm just too lazy to install the patch... Well, do whatever you want with me... :) I'll go back to Heroes of P&M then, if you forbid me to play the third game according to the old rules... Consider this an ultimatum. :smile14: I'm creating a pretty good precedent, aren't I? :D

P.s. With my behavior, I am emphasizing the unseriousness and artificiality of the problem being discussed here... Offline play will never have parity for all players. One person was lucky and got a morale bonus five times in a row, and the other was unlucky and had the lights go out at their house on the last evening of the tournament... These two events, strangely enough, have the same nature - they are probabilistic and (pay attention!) have nothing to do with the heroes! ;) Gentlemen, let's think and listen to each other, instead of pretending...

Practice has shown that all players can be divided into two categories: some will always think that the opponent has some kind of advantage, and the others don't care about this advantage...

The patch still won't help the first group calm down, because there are still many flaws in the game, and this is not the last one. And the second group doesn't really need it. Let's immediately define the goal of this event - yes, we are interested in discussing, finding a subjective middle ground, and coming up with a couple more unnecessary restrictions in the game. Those who play will continue to play. Those who don't play won't see anything interesting in it...

Added after 22 minutes

Vanechka;198204

If we are talking about who is cheating and all that... The patch can help, and only in eliminating exactly this kind of problems.
But here's the question: who exactly needs this, and for what purpose?

I completely agree with these words.

Сначала было слово...
FizMiG v.2.0 *** Очередное обновление справочника! *** http://vk.com/fizmig

In reply to AmberSoler

Kyle

10/1/2008 9:28 AM UTC

Auto-translated

AmberSoler;198244

Someone got lucky and triggered morale five times in a row...

Heh, I might get that lucky with the traffic light in every battle, imagine how lucky I am... :D

AmberSoler;198244

P.s. With my behavior, I emphasize the unseriousness and artificiality of the problem being discussed...

Unfortunately, this is not an artificial problem, because you yourself say:

AmberSoler

Because the main task of the host is to ensure that all players participating in a specific tournament have equal opportunities.

and if you allow players to play either with or without a patch, then this main task will not be solved, because the one who plays without a patch has the opportunity to generate morale (luck, unicorn blindness, double damage from Death Knights, etc.) in any place convenient for him. The one who uses the patch is deprived of this.
Therefore, a decision must be made: either with a patch or without it. There is no third option yet.

In reply to Kyle

AmberSoler

10/1/2008 9:38 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Kyle;198260

Haha, I can have that kind of luck with the traffic light in every battle, imagine how lucky I am... :D
Therefore, we need to decide whether to use the patch or not. There is no third option for now.

"I don't like all of this" (said). In that case, I will abstain from voting. It's not a big deal. Any option is acceptable, as long as everything is clear and well-organized in the future, but I have some doubts... I think there will be some hidden issues in this matter.

Сначала было слово...
FizMiG v.2.0 *** Очередное обновление справочника! *** http://vk.com/fizmig

In reply to Kyle

Vanechka

10/1/2008 9:50 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Kyle;198260

because someone playing without the patch has the ability to generate morale (luck, unicorn blindness, double damage from death knights, etc.) in any place convenient for them.

Maslow, lead your unicorn across the field exactly until the round when its same-blindness is due. How's that for a generation option?

And besides: if I have +1 spirit, then I consider it legal to generate morale in the first round during a critical battle. But what about the patch?
Whatever can be rigged with a traffic light can be just as successfully rigged with artmoney. Whether the player broke the game or not — it's still up to the GM to decide.
I don't think I've said anything new, but still, the game becomes slightly different with the patch. Slightly not SoD. And room for generation remains, even with the patch.

In reply to Vanechka

AmberSoler

10/1/2008 10:00 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Vanechka;198267

Not quite SoD. And there is still room for one-//generation, even with the patch.

I think a considerable number of different tactical options will be developed with this same patch; it's just a matter of technique and desire... In the end, it's too early to predict how things will turn out. It would be good if it's just a loud firecracker for the joy of children and leaders... :) But what if Pandora's Box has been opened?..

Сначала было слово...
FizMiG v.2.0 *** Очередное обновление справочника! *** http://vk.com/fizmig

Fireball

10/1/2008 10:26 AM UTC

Auto-translated

What can be done with the "traffic light" can also be done with Artmana. Whether the player broke the game or not is up to the moderator to decide.

The question is, what criteria should be used to decide? The patch provides a DEFINITIVE answer. But without it... Let's read posts from supposedly experienced players.

And besides, if I have +1 to morale, then I consider it legitimate to generate morale in the first round of a critical battle.

and the moderator, in turn, has to process a certain number of such requests. I suggest limiting the number of battle retries to 50.

Interesting, have you considered that, probabilistically (without the "traffic light"), the moderator might not even get a morale boost in one turn after 50 retries? The probability of such an event is not small, approximately 11.7%. And if there are several such battles and requests in a walkthrough? After all, it has to happen in all battles. So, according to your algorithm, with 5-6 morale boosts in a walkthrough, the moderator should declare a person a cheater with a probability of around 0.5. This is, of course, a rough example, but it demonstrates that either the number of attempts needs to be increased to the heavens (poor moderators), or the algorithm doesn't work.

I think that a significant number of different tactical options will be developed with this same patch; here, it's a matter of technique and desire... In the end, it's too early to predict how things will turn out. It would be nice if it just turns out to be a loud firework for the enjoyment of children and moderators... But what if we've opened Pandora's Box?

What Pandora's Box? People have been playing like this in the second game for many years. In the fifth game, a huge number of potential battle parameters are embedded when generating the save, and it doesn't matter how you got to the battle. And as a person who periodically plays all three mentioned games, I'll say that with 100% reproducibility, the STRATEGY of the battle comes to the forefront, rather than the idol of "freebies" and a shamanic drum.

AlexSpl

10/1/2008 10:30 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Maslow, move your unicorn around the field exactly until the round when it's due for a blind own. How about this as a generation option?

Similar things can be observed in many games (HoMM II, V...), and there is no escaping it. But it won't always be possible to implement. In pure SoD, the AI is already "dumb," and you are still generating morale. And what will happen if the computer is given such an opportunity? Remember: "Damn, [the computer's squad] got morale, I need to reload, it SHOULDN'T have triggered here!". While they don't give a damn that the computer has +3 morale and it has every right to trigger.

In reply to Fireball

AmberSoler

10/1/2008 11:18 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Fireball;198277

What other program are you talking about?

I meant not a specific program that solves a specific and quite understandable task, but the very idea of creating fan-made patches and promoting them, whatever the pretext for this may be...

Сначала было слово...
FizMiG v.2.0 *** Очередное обновление справочника! *** http://vk.com/fizmig

AlexSpl

10/1/2008 1:01 PM UTC

Auto-translated

AmberSoler:
Moreover, by default, it cannot be considered a violation of the game's structure if a feature that increases the probability of a desired event is allowed, provided that the probability is initially greater than zero and is guaranteed to be achieved by increasing the number of restarts.

The probability of morale appearing depends heavily on the number of restarts!
For example, with morale +3, the probability of it appearing in two battles is already 23.4%, in three - 33%, which is significantly different from the 12.5% in your manual. And if you take into account targeted "catching," then it's even higher!

In reply to AlexSpl

AmberSoler

10/1/2008 1:13 PM UTC

Auto-translated

AlexSpl;198305

The probability of morale appearing depends very much on the number of restarts!
For example, with a morale of +3, the probability of it appearing in two battles is already 23.4%, in three - 33%, which is significantly different from the 12.5% in your manual. And if you take into account targeted "catching," then it's even 100%!

Well, of course, we are talking about different things; you seem to be familiar with mathematics, so you should understand the difference between the probability of each specific event occurring (12.5%) and a series of events in a row...

Moreover, we are not considering the battle as a whole, but each turn during the battle. Perhaps this is what confused you in the manual. With a probability of 12.5%, on average, morale will appear once every 8 rounds of the battle for each unit. I highlighted the key word "on average," as morale may appear three times in a row, and then not appear at all for a long time... Your statement is either incomplete (and I simply didn't catch what was meant), or it distorts the essence of the issue...

Сначала было слово...
FizMiG v.2.0 *** Очередное обновление справочника! *** http://vk.com/fizmig

AlexSpl

10/1/2008 1:27 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I'll just add that we can't afford to lose players! Whether they're pros or newbies. If the game stops being played because of a patch, then what's the point of even having a patch? I believe that the game will gain more than it loses with the patch, but... people are more important than any program :) And there's a difference between 10 and 11 players sending in their save files. And learning to stop exploiting this is like quitting smoking... And one more thing: I believe that the ability to trigger morale is a bug. The guys at NWC simply made a mistake by accidentally allowing the same R value to be used for animation and combat mechanics. In "Heroes 2," there's animation, and the battle scene is stable, but why? ;) Added after 9 minutes 2AmberSoler: Let's look at the first round. For each unit, the probability of triggering morale is 12.5% (checked after the unit's turn). R is constantly changing, so we can say that the probability distribution is almost uniform. If we make a second attempt (reload), then, taking into account the first attempt, the probability will increase to 23.4%! This is the same as taking two shots at a target instead of one! I repeat, if this mechanic is not a programming error, then the number 12.5% is the probability for a single battle (i.e., everything is fine online, where there is no load/save). By the way, the probabilities for "no morale" are: 1/12 (-1), 2/12 (-2), and 3/12 (-3). It seems that your manual has incorrect values. And also, review the article about the Admiral's Hat :)

In reply to AlexSpl

Dirty_Player

10/1/2008 2:12 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Kamikaze;198218

What surprises me is that more than half of those who voted for the patch don't participate in tournaments... Friends! WHAT'S UP WITH THAT???

There it is!!!! The most important thing!!! There are plenty of philosophers on the forums, but the players seem to have all disappeared!!!

AlexSpl;198311

I'll just add that we can't afford to lose players! Whether they're pros or newbies. If people stop playing this game because of the patch, then what's the point of the patch? I think the game will gain more than it loses with the patch, but... people are more important than any program :) And there's a difference between 10 and 11 players sending in their save files.

That's a very sensible thought! If any change increases the quorum, then it's a good thing, and if the quorum decreases, then it's the opposite!

Qwerty

10/1/2008 2:30 PM UTC

Auto-translated

The point is that only time will tell in which tournaments more people will play: those with a patch or those without. Because the world has changed after the introduction of the patch. And not everyone wants to play without a patch, given the customized morale and abilities.
By the way, most of those who played both with "random" and deterministic battles are in favor of the patch. Those who are against it are mostly those who "haven't read the book but strongly criticize it." A transition period is needed, with trials in different tournament conditions – and then we'll need to revisit this issue again.

Орден Феникса – харизматический :) лидер