"The Art of Strategy" — Tournament History online

dwp1970

16 years ago

Auto-translated

checkmarks in the tables, indicating who was supposed to play but didn't, were removed for no reason :(
it looked better with them, IMHO.

In reply to dwp1970

KillAndAction

16 years ago

Auto-translated

:eek:

Dear judges, I also ask you to provide information about the points of the players who did not have time to play against the players who were eliminated from the tournament.

Thank you in advance.

immortal

16 years ago

Auto-translated

I probably didn't understand the question correctly – will the players who were eliminated play against the players who replaced them? Is that what you meant?

In reply to KillAndAction

Leolopus

16 years ago

Auto-translated

KillAndAction

:eek:
Dear judges, I also ask you to provide information about the points of players who did not have time to play against the players who dropped out of the tournament.
Thank you in advance.

To clarify, instead of the players who dropped out, new players will be included in the tournament list, inheriting the position in the tournament table. That is, if a player with one (2, 3) loss drops out, another player is added, but already with one (2, 3) loss. The same applies to wins. It is clear that this will only be done with the consent of the new player to these conditions. In general, the tournament situation does not change; only the participant changes, and he will not play against those whom his predecessor played. This is the only scheme that will allow us to maintain order in the groups.

immortal

16 years ago

Auto-translated

Attention!
1) If the connection is lost on the 1st day, or if a dwelling is found to be blocked (it is impossible to approach it due to the terrain), or if simultaneous turns are interrupted on the first day, the game will restart with a new map generation. The heroes will be placed randomly, as in the first generation.
2) For those using the Hamachi program for the first time, after installation, you need to go to the properties of the network environment, then in the menu, select "Advanced" -> "Advanced settings" and move the Hamachi connection to the top using the arrows (so that it is the first in the list).

In reply to immortal

barma-21

16 years ago

Auto-translated

I've been reading, and I see how much you care about Vila and the creature – maybe you could add one player to each group, and basically nothing would change. It would be good for everyone, and it would be very appealing for everyone to play with them.

In reply to barma-21

Leolopus

16 years ago

Auto-translated

barma-21

I've been reading, and I don't understand why you're so worried about Vila and the creature. Maybe you could add one player to each group, and nothing would change. It would be good for everyone, and it would be very appealing for everyone to play with them.

No one is worried about anyone; the tournament rules are set, and everyone was informed in advance. Those who wanted to participate had time to do so, and those who didn't, didn't.
By the way, the creature has been in group D for about 4 days now, but he doesn't have time to play, which isn't ideal. Vila also wrote that he might only be able to play on weekends, and when replacing players in groups, you have to approach it in a differentiated way so as not to gather all the monsters in one group. So, I think everything is going as planned and according to schedule.

In reply to immortal

Kolobokk

16 years ago

Auto-translated

immortal

The same thing happened in the original game; here, you can only hope for the opponent's fairness. This issue cannot be fixed because the probability of each artifact appearing and the strength of its guard are set individually (which is what makes IRMG good), so a specific artifact is placed on the map...

I was rereading the dialogues on this topic. I think this question is not trivial...

Lеха, maybe there's a way to make the artifacts appear randomly? Is it really that important to place a specific artifact? I think both the artifacts and the guards should be chosen randomly each time a new game is created.
It seems that castles and secondary objectives, and everything else possible, should be randomized as much as possible.

In reply to Kolobokk

sir_moz

16 years ago

Auto-translated

It might be possible to prevent opening the map in the editor (or, more precisely, to make it so that if a map has been opened in the editor even once, a message will appear when entering the game on that map saying that it has already been viewed). Currently, the only guaranteed way to avoid viewing is to start and finish the game without any breaks, immediately after the judge sends the map. P.S. Regarding "maximizing randomness" – do you want to revert to the original generator where 150 bags of gold are generated? Go ahead. I have NEVER seen Vill bother to open a map; it's easier for me to play against him. And he plays better than 99% of the people who would even think of doing it. !!! QUESTION FOR THE JUDGES!!! I was reading the latest report on the game between DVP and Lyuty, and there was a clear point that caught my attention: DVP writes that he entered the Guardian Order and Arghat was already there, even though she hadn't "broken through" with her units. This is a clear violation of the rule about shifted guards; if such things are allowed, what's the point of the Guardian Order? I ask the judges to clarify the situation for me – in all the tournaments I've played, this rule has always been strictly enforced, and I'm used to it.

In reply to sir_moz

alex_nv

16 years ago

Auto-translated

sir_moz

!!! QUESTION FOR THE JUDGES!!!
I was reading the latest report about the game between DVP and Lyuty, and there was a clear point that caught my attention: DVP writes that he teleported to the Guardian Outpost (GO), and Arghat was already there, having arrived without defeating any of her warlords. This is a clear violation of the rule about staggered guards; if such things are allowed, then what is the point of the GO? I ask the judges to clarify the situation for me – in all the tournaments I have played, this rule has always been strictly enforced, and I am used to it.

I'm not a judge, of course, but what if he teleported to the GO? The rules don't seem to prohibit that, right?

In reply to sir_moz

Leolopus

16 years ago

Auto-translated

sir_moz

!!! A QUESTION FOR THE JUDGES!!!
I was reading the latest report about the game between DVP and Lyuty, and there was a clear point that caught my attention: DVP writes that he teleported to the Guardian Outpost (GO) and Arghat was already there, having arrived without defeating her own guardians. This is a clear violation of the rule about staggered defense; if such things are allowed, then what is the point of the GO? I ask the judges to clarify the situation for me – in all the tournaments I have played, this rule has always been strictly enforced, and I have become accustomed to it.

Firstly, as far as I know, if a map is generated with staggered defense or no defense at all on the GO, then turn-based mode is activated immediately from the first turn. I am not an expert in iRMG, but this is exactly how knowledgeable people explained this to me. I anticipate a response like, "this (turn-based mode) may not happen" – then I would advise you to improve the generator that you are so actively promoting. Secondly, if you, Moz, did read DVP's report to the end, it clearly states that he eventually had to eliminate these guardians, and a replay was even posted about it, so the issue of staggered defense is irrelevant, like a dream you had. Thirdly, there is nothing unusual about Arghat being in the GO without defeating the defense on one or two sides. The rules do not prohibit the use of Astral, except for its use to enter the opponent's starting zone. And fourthly, I don't know if this small stone was thrown at the judges intentionally or not, but I can say one thing: all complaints and grievances are accepted only from participants in specific events, with the provision of appropriate evidence and facts, and no such complaints have been received from DVP and Lyuty, so there is no basis for a complaint.

In reply to Leolopus

sir_moz

16 years ago

Auto-translated

Regarding "finishing IRMG" – staggered guards will always exist. They were present in Heroes 3 (considering that New World Computing created an excellent generator), they were in Heroes 4, and it's unlikely that anything can be done about it. The issue isn't with the generator's mechanics, but with the hero's movement mechanics. For example, a portal has two sides – no matter where you place the guard, if the hero can physically run to that side, you'll have a staggered guard. This is also quite likely with large objects (where you can approach from multiple directions). Of course, you could imagine a system where all objects with more than one "side" are generated in "pockets," but I don't think such a solution would positively affect the aesthetic side of the maps. Now, regarding Jarls (and in general, for the future): if a portal is present in a map, for example, I break through one monster, but I might not attack the second one (this is rare, but it happens) – this is what constitutes a staggered guard, and THIS is what I'm asking about: is it allowed not to attack the second monster? (This happens constantly, particularly with the Warrior's Tomb)

In reply to sir_moz

dwp1970

16 years ago

Auto-translated

I, as a party with the right to raise certain claims from the judges' point of view, will simply express my humble opinion. In Heroes of Might and Magic, losing unfairly is simply not fair play. There is definitely a shop there, which is a key object in some battles, and therefore the opponents are not on equal footing. Because one can jump, and the other cannot (as in this game, I had a portal). And the funniest thing is, I wouldn't jump if I were in his place! I simply have a different view of "fairness" (perhaps another word would be better here, but anyone who wants to will understand me anyway) - too fastidious, but that's my personal business and doesn't concern anyone. I'm the kind of person who "simply" attacks. And he just jumped; he has a different view... And I don't judge him. It's not a fact that I wouldn't have clarified something with the judges if such a jump had somehow affected the result. In our case, it didn't matter; he jumped and even suffered because of it; you could say he set himself up. If it were me, I would have attacked. P.S. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. This is just a narrative, nothing more

R.Ll.S.h57

16 years ago

Auto-translated

Hey, is it still possible to register for the tournament? Or is it too late?

In reply to dwp1970

Leolopus

16 years ago

Auto-translated

dwp1970

I, as a party with the right to make claims from the judges' point of view, will simply express my modest opinion.
It is simply unfair to lose in a Grand Opening.
There is definitely a shop there, which is a key object in some
martial arts, and therefore the opponents are not on equal terms.
Because one can jump, and the other cannot (as in this game, I had a portal).

I removed the lyrical part; I will answer the rest in substance. I touched upon this issue based on a completely different situation, and in that situation, everything was normal and within the rules. I will take your opinion into account if I decide to hold more Tournaments. I agree that if one Grand Opening has a portal, and the other has nothing, the latter will be in a more pleasant situation in terms of visiting shops (which still need to be captured), and it can simply open the Grand Opening and thus protect itself from the sudden appearance of an opponent (which is important when the city is just a step away). But here's how people are: one has their own quirks, and the other has their own. One is honest and consistent in everything, while the other believes that one can compromise, especially in virtual space, where 99% of us have never seen and will never see each other. And I'm saying all this because, in principle, you can ban anything that might give one an advantage over the other, but that's not the problem. The problem is, who will control all these bans and how? Appealing to conscience? Please, we are not defending our homeland here, nor are we fulfilling our parental duty to our parents (or children). You can't look into everyone's soul, and no one will let you. Appealing to honesty? As I said, everyone has their own concept of it, and no one owes anything to anyone here. Therefore, I am a realist and try to ban what can at least be determined technically and mathematically. The idea of banning scanners was not mine; it was passed down, but as long as there is no anti-scanner, this ban is meaningless, like saying "I said it's forbidden," and convincing myself that everyone obeyed. It is also nonsense to say that you cannot use cheat codes to reveal the map. You can't lose a game for your opponent with your own caravan – great, but who will find out? And this is far from everything – are you feeling sad? I'm also sad, but I'm a realist and perceive crap as a stinky substance, not trying to abstract from it. So, until there are strict mechanisms to combat and counter all of the above, stamping out and multiplying uncontrolled bans is, in my opinion, foolish.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from "The Art of Strategy"

Statistics

Library

Users Online 6 users 1275 guests

Today's Visitors 13