Auto-translated
If it's not too late, I'd like to sign up.
twaryna
301303816
6lm10a
twaryna
Posts from No SOD!
Auto-translated
twaryna
-shpilenger
-614755496
-6lm10a
-614755496
-6lm10a
icq 614755496
Redwhait
Auto-translated
Give me Warlock!!!:D
406 484 472 Mininosta
406 484 472 Mininosta
Auto-translated
Playing game 41032369-0 Mininosta.
Oelm
Auto-translated
m07-643-508
TeamViewer – live draw.
TeamViewer – live draw.
Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.
Auto-translated
The selection process is as follows: the player who is first in the pair starts the elimination. Eliminating 1 template costs 500 coins. At any time, you can refuse to eliminate (say "pass"), then the opponent eliminates as many templates from the set as they wish at the same rate, after which their opponent chooses a template from the remaining ones.
For example: Mee vs FireToSky
FireToSky starts eliminating:
mirror Jebus (additional template for Mee) - 500
Mee: - pass
FireToSky: -8xm12a - 500 coins
FireToSky: -8mm6a - 500 coins
Mee chooses a template from the remaining two, receiving a 1500 coin advantage.
Whose opponent (see the highlighted part) chooses the template?
How many templates can be eliminated at most? "As many as they wish" or no more than 3 in total?
Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс
Oelm
Auto-translated
Made a slight adjustment. A player can discard all templates except one if the opponent forfeits.
It's logical to assume that the player who forfeits will ultimately choose the template.
P.S. Mirror matches are a bit problematic. So, if anyone reaches the mirror match templates, please consult with experienced players in case of problems with generation, or contact us here.
Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.
Auto-translated
I've made a slight adjustment. A player can discard all templates except one if the opponent forfeits.
It's logical to assume that the player who forfeits will ultimately choose the template.
What merits does a player who forfeits first and refuses to pay for discarding deserve to receive the free right to choose, or even an additional payment? Their opponent should have the right to pay to complete the discarding process. Otherwise, the purpose of such a system is unclear.
=Lizard=
Auto-translated
What merits should a player, who passes first and refuses to pay for the Cherk, receive to get a free choice, or even a bonus? Their opponent should have the right to complete the Cherk for a fee. Otherwise, the meaning of such a system is unclear.
It makes perfect sense: the second player can eliminate all three temples that are unfavorable to them and leave only two "preferred" temples for the first player to choose from. 1.5K for this is not too expensive. It only makes little sense when players specialize in the same thing, but in that case, the draw decides. There should be an element of chance in sports.
Auto-translated
As I understand it, we can also eliminate option 4, meaning that you can effectively choose a template for 2k if your opponent immediately forfeits, or for 1k if your opponent eliminates 1 template and then passes.
In general, for clarity, I suggest adding the following phrase to the rules (if it aligns with the organizer's intention):
"The drafting continues until 4 templates are eliminated or both players decline to continue drafting; in the latter case, the player who passes first chooses a template from the remaining ones."
In general, for clarity, I suggest adding the following phrase to the rules (if it aligns with the organizer's intention):
"The drafting continues until 4 templates are eliminated or both players decline to continue drafting; in the latter case, the player who passes first chooses a template from the remaining ones."
Награда: Лучшему игроку сезона Осень 2009 за замок Конфлюкс
Auto-translated
It makes perfect sense: the second player can eliminate all three temples that are unfavorable to them and leave only two "preferred" ones for the first player to choose from. 1.5K for this isn't too expensive.
In general, this system of paying for a ban can only be justified to encourage players who are versatile and play different strategies, forcing players with a narrow specialization to pay for their chosen strategy. It's not meant to introduce unpredictability into the strategy selection process.
From this perspective, it makes sense to give the final choice of strategy to the player who pays for it.
This only makes sense when players specialize in the same thing, but in that case, the draw decides. There should be an element of chance in sports.
In this case, it's pointless to have any kind of ban when you can simply agree on a strategy beforehand.
StickyFingaz
Auto-translated
StickyFingaz (blue, Rampart, random, Solmyr, +2000) def OUTLAW (red, Conflux, Monere), 6lm10a, 124
Thank you for the game!
Thank you for the game!
PReDS
Auto-translated
I don't know how Artem did it, but on map 113, he was on my side: there should be a ban on that. He didn't respond in chat or to calls. Anyway, it's up to the judge to decide.
Auto-translated
I don't know how Artem did it, but on the mirror map at turn 113, he was on my side: it seems like this should be prohibited. He didn't respond in chat or to calls. In short, it's up to the judge to decide.
Yes, in tournaments where they started playing this template, there was a rule: "On the 1st week, you cannot move to the other side, so there are no rematches due to this."
Here, this point is not reflected in the rules. But references to the host are inappropriate, because firstly, the players added this template themselves, and secondly, the host immediately warned that he is not familiar with the intricacies of mirror maps.
Therefore, it is necessary to either discuss such issues with the opponent before the game, or to ensure that everything is clearly stated in the rules at the beginning of the tournament. For example, the issue of shifted guards was also not always resolved unambiguously.
Cobra was most likely genuinely mistaken, intentionally moving to the other side at such an early stage of the game. I looked at the rules of the "Mirror for a Hero" tournament, where he is participating - there is also no mention of this in the rules.
If we approach this formally, in order not to continue the game, it would be logical to do a rematch, since there is also nothing said in the tournament rules about its absence. And then you can normally discuss the rules.
Oelm
Auto-translated
2PReDS and Kobra: I really hope you can find a solution that works for both of you. The issue with mirror matches is complicated by the fact that I have a slightly different view on h3dm1 than what is currently accepted. For example, I don't understand why you would start with identical heroes when it's more interesting to use different ones. I think the best option was the first one, with 9 treasures. If we rely on the traditions of mirror matches, then we should probably base it on the rules of the 2010 cup, which was played on h3dm1. It states that in the first week, players should not advance to the opponent's side of the map.
Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.