Posts from Round table Auto-translated

Guys, considering the incredibly long time it takes for a single game...

it's probably the main problem with the game right now.
But unfortunately, the only real solution – simultaneous turns, implemented using asm – is still very raw and has a lot of bugs. And even if it's fully implemented, the average game time will only decrease by 1.5-2 hours.

S-maps won't solve the problem; they will only increase the role of randomness, which is already often decisive.

And suggestions to reduce the time limit haven't elicited anything but smiles for a long time.

Guys, considering the incredibly long playtime for a single game, why did people start playing on Large or Huge maps instead of, say, Medium?

There are templates for Large maps, and they are played at 130 percent (using a chariot), which creates panic and imbalance. In terms of balance, one player has only one path to secondary resources, while the other has all paths open. Panic is more interesting because there is at least one path between the opponents. P.S. This is just my opinion. A long time ago, when I started playing online, I played a 2v2 game with 3 dragons and 3 dungeons. The map was Medium+. My opponent suggested recreating the game, but I said I was happy to continue. My opponent captured my capital on day 113, and I took a restart.

a little bit of off-topic poker talk

On May 10th, I will hold a small training session for beginners in MTTs on PokerStars. The format will be microphone + Skype. The session will start at 6 PM Moscow time.
We will be playing MTTs with buy-ins of $5.50 - $55.

Please have a knowledge of poker terminology and be able to listen and ask the right questions :)

P.S. We will be playing almost exclusively with a specific strategy, so experienced players don't need to join and generate traffic for me ;)

since the first experiment was successful, I will conduct a similar training session this Friday :)

I'm waiting for requests in the following format:

game type (SNG, MTT, cash)
number of players (2, 6, 9, 18-180, 200+)
limit (NL5-NL200 3.30-55)

Template: Jebus Cross, can a Barbarian take the Griffin Conservatory without breaking through the enemy's defenses?

Of course, it's possible. The Guild of Order is located after the Castle, and its position between territories doesn't really matter.

If you get barbarian land when entering the Griffin Conservatory, then it's possible.

Of course, it's possible. The Garrison of Order (GO) is placed after the castle, and its position between territories doesn't matter.

In general, the boundaries of zones for different types of territories are determined precisely by the transition between the type of land; the guard tower can be located even a kilometer away. Sometimes, in Jeb, it generates a situation where the central castle can be captured without breaking the Garrison of Order.

If a Barbarian land is generated when entering the castle, then it's possible.

But what if it's a desert? Does that immediately result in a tech loss?

Regarding Jebus, the answer is clear: it depends on the strength of the object's defenses. In other words, it is possible.

And what if it's a desert? Does that automatically make it a techluze?

not sure - check with a noob.
of course, common sense suggests that since it's unguarded, that can only happen on your native respawn, so you can take it, but with the Poles (SB, not all of them), common sense doesn't work. Therefore, imo, it's easier to determine by territory.

I'm not sure - check it yourself.

Is it allowed to check objects with a "Loch" while they are behind a shifted guard? :)

Actually, even without checking, it's clear that the console shows Barbarian land.

Actually, even without checking, it's clear that the Barbarian is on the land.

Yes, it's visible. But if it were visible that the Barbarian was moving onto the Desert, would that mean it couldn't be taken? I don't think any judge would rule in favor of the technical loss in such a situation. Disputed situations are interpreted in favor of the player.

Yes, it's visible. But if it were visible that a creature is entering the wasteland, would it mean that it couldn't be taken? I don't think any judge would award a technical win in such a situation. Disputed situations are interpreted in favor of the player.

This +1. To hell with players who demand technical wins in such situations, and to hell with judges who would award them. I think there won't be either of them =)

If you move the consa one tile to the left, its belonging to the central zone will be obvious, and capturing it without breaking through the inter-zone guard will no less obviously be considered a violation of the rules for this template.
The ambiguity arises only when determining whether an object belongs to one zone or another. Then we can talk about a disputable situation. In the example I mentioned, or in the original example, everything is quite obvious, as the consa's belonging to a specific zone is clearly visible.
If, on the contrary, the entrance to the consa were in the desert, and the left tile were on its own respawn, then the player who captured the consa, seemingly in violation of the rules, could cite the disputability of the situation.

And for correctly determining the terrain type of a tile on the border of respawns, it is useful to look at the set of soil subtypes (i.e., the set of different images for each type). Then it will become clear by what principle different terrain types are joined on the map, and in most cases it will be possible to determine the terrain type on the border without checking.
You can look this up, for example, in the ERM manual.