Posts from Preparing for the "Van Kanegem" tournament. Auto-translated

Good day.
In this table, only one item puzzled me: the amount of mercury. Since this resource is not as universal as gold, the question arises: can it actually affect the final result in such a way? At first glance, if resources are to be considered (and should they be?), then it should probably be either gold or the sum of all "precious" resources (crystals, diamonds, mercury, sulfur).

I also have questions regarding the sum of skills. As I understand it, this refers to the sum of skills of the best hero. What about the others? Simply put, when playing for speed, the sum of skills is not that important, although this is already a less critical aspect than the mercury.

Let me explain: in one tournament, they play as elves in Heroes II = no mercury, and in another - as Barbarian in Heroes III = plenty of mercury. As a result, the imbalance in the distribution of prize Gryphons becomes...

THE SYSTEM FOR AWARDING GRAILS, POINTS, RATINGS AND PRIZES!

/topic/1406/

Sincerely, VDV_forever

Dear VDV, could you explain how the rating is calculated? (Why exactly that many points?)

Added 5 minutes later

Good afternoon.
In this table, only one point puzzled me: the amount of mercury....
....let me clarify: in one tournament they play as Elves in Heroes II, which means no mercury, and in another - as Barbarians in Heroes III, where there's plenty of mercury. As a result, an imbalance occurs in the distribution of prize Grails...

I agree with Qwerty. Perhaps it would be better to use the total value of all valuable resources instead?

Dear VDV, could you explain how the rating is calculated? (Why exactly that many points?)

This was criticized by users in the section on offline Heroes 5 tournaments.;)

Topic: Ranking system in the tournament
/topic/497/

It turned out that this calculation method is the most balanced!

I agree with Qwerty. Maybe it would be better to use the sum of all valuable resources?:)

Maybe, maybe... We need to hear the opinions of others...

Sincerely, VDV_forever

I think that evaluating based on the total value of resources is slightly more objective than evaluating based on the quantity of just one resource.

I think that evaluating based on the total value of resources is slightly more objective than evaluating based on the quantity of a single resource.

Don't go too deep into that:) After all, they primarily consider the number of days spent on the map, not the resources.

I know. I was just asked, and I shared my opinion.

I also think it would be better to calculate it based on the total value of all resources. That way, there won't be such an imbalance where you spend one resource one time and another resource another time. And you could introduce a parameter that calculates the sum of the skills of all heroes, for those who prefer to attack on all fronts with different heroes. Or calculate the average of the parameters. For example, take the sum of the skills of the three best heroes.

And why specifically valuable resources? Why not gold?

What if I can only play one version? (I'm not familiar with the first two because I started playing with the third one, and I wasn't particularly interested in the previous installments. The fourth one seemed like a completely different game and disappointed me, so I didn't focus on it. As for the fifth... the fifth one simply doesn't work because my video card is incompatible with it.) Yes, it's definitely a VERY good idea to hold Tournaments for all parts of the game, with a uniform rating system, so that it doesn't turn out that one player has a rating of 10,000 and another has 10, even though each won one tournament in different parts of Heroes. Thank you for that! But is it worth creating an overall table as well? In my opinion, it's the same as creating a single table and including ratings for games like Counter-Strike, Warcraft, Heroes, Cossacks, and others. In my opinion, players will have to choose: either take a deserved place in one version and a very low place in the overall standings, or show low (in my case, almost zero) results in the other parts to climb in the final standings. In general, this will force everyone to play games they don't know or don't want to play. Is that worth it? Or am I just not understanding something?

I propose a set of rules for the tournament "in honor of Van Cunningham".

Personally, I liked the proposed rules; there aren't any points I disagree with. Only point 2 of section 1 is somewhat unclear in terms of implementation.

In reality, a player who places high in one of the versions, especially with a large number of participants (as is likely to be the case in the third stage), has a significant chance of achieving a high overall result. For example, a player who wins two stages with 10 players each will receive at least 366 points. Meanwhile, a player who plays all stages but consistently finishes in last place in terms of time (even if they are in first place in terms of resources and development), with the same regular 10 participants, will score a maximum of 210 points. The difference is obvious.
No one is forcing anyone to play in all stages. It's simply that you can receive additional points for the mere fact of participating and submitting results, while focusing all your efforts on the version where you are particularly strong. Each stage is an independent tournament, with its own winners, etc. But the entire "Van Cunningham" tournament is a single concept.
The "Circle of the Sword" implies starting the game with the Castle of those whose strength lies in the sword – Humans, Barbarians (for example). The "Circle of Magic" correspondingly implies the Castles of the Sorceress, Necromancer, etc. And so on.

You can also count based on gold, or based on resources. It doesn't really matter. Resources are just more common to use.

And what if in the third game, you take a middle position and don't want to play in the others, just to avoid being at the bottom of the leaderboards in those versions? Then, obviously, you'll end up at the bottom of the tournament "named after Van Cunningham"... Or, if a new participant joins after six months, their chances of becoming a leader in the tournament will be much lower than those who have been playing in it from the beginning – they want to play, but they don't want to be at the bottom again... Maybe it would be worth allowing players to participate in a specific stage without subsequently being included in the overall list for all versions? Naturally, the player should decide in advance and state whether they are participating in the entire tournament and want to be included in the overall standings, or whether they intend to play only in stages...

What’s wrong with being in the overall standings? After all, there will also be a coefficient in the final table, depending on the number of stages played. Sort by it, and you’ll see that you’re no longer at the bottom, but closer to the top. The overall table is just a summary of the gaming year. No one is canceling the final tables for each stage. The overall standings are for identifying the strongest players across all versions of the game, so you don’t have to search through the results of individual tournaments.

The "Circle of the Sword" implies starting the game with a faction where swords are a key strength – for example, Haven or Barbarian. The "Circle of Magic" would correspond to factions like Academy or Dungeon. Something along those lines.

How will the faction selection be handled? Will there be several starting saves with different starting factions in each circle? – then the saves won't be identical. Or will the starting faction in each circle be the same for everyone – the one determined by the host?