Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
I have a question: there are 8 templates, but only 7 schemes – is it possible to obtain the missing scheme (if I'm not mistaken, it's the Spider template)?
For the tournament, 7 templates are defined, and the Spider template is not on that list, so the scheme is likely missing as well.
immortal
16 years ago
Auto-translated
Yes, the tournament will be played on 7 templates, which are listed in the regulations, so I didn't draw a diagram for the map editor. If needed, I can do it later...
Added 4 minutes later ch00per
Please tell me, I downloaded IRMG and the templates. Maps are created from the templates that come with IRMG, but not from the ones downloaded separately with diagrams; it gives an error. Maybe some checkboxes need to be unchecked.
You also need to check the "Show Advanced" box and set the object density to 0.110 there. In general, yes, an error sometimes occurs; you just need to try generating the map again. It is not necessary to exit IRMG for this. It is better to place the templates in the directory where you installed IRMG; the path to the templates will be ...IRMG\Templates\Hugetemplates and ...IRMG\Templates\Largetemplates.
The issue of the number of groups is open for discussion, and this aspect may be adjusted as registration progresses and justified proposals are received. However, as Ice mentioned, I genuinely want to give each participant the opportunity to compete against as many players as possible. Regarding the deadlines, they will certainly be regulated, and sanctions will be applied to those who delay. In my opinion, prolonging the tournament for months because of a couple of "busy" players is, at the very least, disrespectful to all the other participants, or, if you will, a loss of interest on the part of the organizers in their own tournament. I think there's a hint here... anyway, I'm just expressing my opinion.
Perhaps we could hold a championship and put everyone in one group?:eek: Then we'll definitely get a lot of playtime, and we can start right away :) At the same time, we could introduce a limit on games – if you don't play, say, 3 games in a month, you're out.
immortal
16 years ago
Auto-translated
I think that would be too much... 12-15 games per group stage is enough.
BOLIVAR
16 years ago
Auto-translated
Perhaps it would be worth mentioning the template name in the reports. Since it is treated as equally important as the faction.
Maybe we can hold a championship and put everyone in one subgroup?:eek: Then we'll definitely have enough games to play, and we can start already :) At the same time, introduce a limit on games — if you haven't played, say, 3 games in a month — goodbye
To be honest, that's my pipe dream, but we have to face the facts — 25 games for each player is a lot, and not because it's too many, but because there will be slackers and throwers, and balancing the standings based on results will be extremely difficult. So for now, we'll stick with two groups — currently it looks like 13 people each. By the way, 8 players from each group will advance to the final stage, so most of those who want to and have time to play will still get a chance to fight in the finals as well)
To be honest, this is my pink dream, but we need to face reality: 25 games per player is too many, not because it's a lot, but because there will be dodgers and throwers, and balancing the matchups based on results will be extremely difficult. So for now, we'll stick to two groups; currently it looks like 13 people per group. By the way, 8 people from each group will advance to the final stage, so most of those who want to and have time to play will have a chance to fight in the finals as well)
Agreed, perhaps such large subgroups will help determine whether the community is ready for such a long-running event :rolleyes: As for the second part of my proposal, I consider it quite viable—limiting it to something like 1 game per week is too strict, but 3 games per month is, IMHO, quite realistic; during that time you can go on vacation, go on a business trip, and still manage to play if you want ;) And I think no one doubts that limits are necessary—previous tournaments both here and on other resources have long made that clear
I agree, perhaps such large subgroups will help determine whether the community is ready for such a long-term event:rolleyes: And I think the second part of my proposal is quite viable - limiting it to 1 game per week is too strict, but limiting it to 3 games per month seems quite realistic, in that time you can go on vacation, go on a business trip, and still have time to play if you want ;) And I think no one doubts that there needs to be a limit, previous tournaments here and on other resources have been talking about this for a long time.
So, that's where the catch is:D I understand you perfectly, shift work is a forced thing;), but unfortunately, I can't fulfill your request:( IMO, 3 games per MONTH is a great deal, if I want, I can play three games in a week, so my advice is, if you really want to play, in the breaks between the "taiga":smile31: try to beat:smile10: as many opponents as possible, and I will try to help you with that;)
So, that's where the catch is:D I completely understand you; playing is a chore, but unfortunately, I can't fulfill your request:( IMO, 3 games a MONTH is a great schedule; if I wanted to, I could play three in a week, so my advice is, if you really want to play, in the breaks between the "Taiga" tournament:smile31:, try to beat:smile10: as many opponents as possible, and I'll try to help you with that;)
If I'm not mistaken, the last tournament had 10 days for the games, and even then, it came down to flipping a coin :) maybe we shouldn't reduce it? Just punish those who miss 2 rounds in a row without a valid reason...:smile33:
If I'm not mistaken, the previous tournament also had 10 days for each game, and even then, it came down to flipping a coin. Maybe we shouldn't reduce it? Just punish those who miss 2 rounds in a row without a valid reason...:smile33:
Let's consider this situation in relation to the specifics of the tournament rules. If we give 10 days for each game, and considering that there will be 13-14 people in each group, it will take 120-130 days just for the group stage, which is 4-4.5 months:eek: It's already mid-March, which means the group stage will end only at the end of July, and then there's another month and a half for the final stage, so we'll finish in September, which is too long:eek: And it's not about my ambitious decision that doesn't require objections; it's about the fact that if the tournament, according to the official rules, has a time frame of HALF A YEAR, I'm afraid that half of its participants will forget what it's called in the best case, and in the worst case, they will lose interest:(
Let's consider this situation in relation to the specific rules of the tournament. If we give 10 days per game, and considering that there will be 13-14 people in each group, we'll need to allocate 120-130 days just for the group stage, which is 4-4.5 months:eek: It's already mid-March, which means the group stage will only end at the end of July, and then there's another month and a half for the final stage, meaning we'll only finish in September. I think that's too long:eek: And it's not about my ambitious decision that doesn't require objections; it's about the fact that if the tournament, according to the official regulations, has a time frame of HALF A YEAR, I'm afraid that a good half of its participants will forget what it's called, at best, and at worst, they'll lose interest:(
I suggest making the groups more compact... maybe 3 groups? and then the deadlines will be more interesting...
I think two groups might be too few. Playing a minimum of 12 games in a group to determine the top 16 seems like an exaggeration. Experience shows that in groups, some players often either disappear or have significantly incompatible schedules, while in the playoffs, things usually move faster. Therefore, I suggest approaching it from a different angle and arranging the maximum number of games in the next round, while limiting the groups to a maximum of 6-7 players, with 2-3 players advancing from each group, and then each playing against each other, for example:smile13:
Another suggestion: award 2 points for a win and 1 point for a loss, so that players who participate have an advantage over those who don't.
I agree, let's have more groups of 8 people, and dedicate one week strictly to the game. We can finish everything within a month and a half, even with all the follow-up games, and let 4-5 people from each group advance! Although I like the idea of larger groups, the reality described by Leo is concerning.
Groups should consist of 6 to ? players, with 4 or 6 participants advancing to the next round.
Points awarded for a win: 3, for a loss: 1.
Duration: minimum 7 days, maximum 10 days. Games within subgroups should be divided into rounds (here, a "round" is 1 game between 2 players in a subgroup). After 7 or 10 days, a round is considered complete. Players who have completed their match, i.e., have a published match report (at a minimum), are awarded points for a win/loss based on the result. Those who have not played receive 0 points. The next round begins, and so on.
In the end: deadlines are met, the tournament is not prolonged, and inactive players are penalized...
