Skip to content

Posts from [2x2 Tournament] Resurrection

No ratings yet — be the first to rate!
In reply to Volodymyr
User Avatar
#108
Auto-translated
Volodymyr
We used to play together as a trio with Jeb, but then some connection issues started. Last year, with Forrest, we tried everything; his dad even built a real network. Red transmits to blue, and blue to yellow – it just wouldn't work, so we had to play hotseat mode. Well, if everything is good now, that's great.
We had a similar experience. I don't even know what to do about it. We'll have to figure it out. Is WOT more demanding on the connection than SOD? Or is it not about the version?
In reply to Dirty_Player
User Avatar
#109
Auto-translated
We haven't tried playing with SoD, so I don't know if there's a difference in the connection. At first, we suspected Hamachi, but it seems that's not the issue since we created a real network, which didn't help. It's hard to say what the problem is, but I remember that playing with more than two players in a LAN environment causes problems; I think someone wrote about it. I think asm/ can provide the most accurate answer to this question.
User Avatar
#110
Auto-translated
Here's a suggestion for discussing an idea: in a team game of 2 vs. 2, the players would share a common time limit (e.g., not 1800+300 for each player, but 3600+600 for both). I see significant advantages here: if one player on a team has a poor situation and the other has a strong one, the first player could consciously slow down to strengthen their ally. Plus, if a player plays quickly, it would add time for their ally as well. Overall, in my opinion, this would be a positive change. If people agree, we could ask the developers of Warlords (or ASM, or whoever) to implement this feature in the game.
Всем удачи ! И Морали !
User Avatar
#113
Auto-translated
I'd be happy to participate, I just need to find an ally and sign up.
In reply to marader-kisa
User Avatar
#114
Auto-translated
by the way, SoD works fine for 4 players, it was tested in GR.
Только в тишине ответит вселенная, только в наших сердцах мы обретем смелость следовать её зову. ;)
In reply to Sevensan
User Avatar
#115
Auto-translated
Dirty_Player
I don't understand. You think 4 minutes for a turn and only 2 minutes for battles? :confused: Are you serious??? Even the simplest battle takes about 30 seconds. Will you only have 4 simple battles?
It would probably be more accurate to say 4 minutes for a turn and 6 minutes for battles, totaling 10 minutes, which means at least 10 hours for a game. And there are people who count every single tile, and there are just slowpokes like me... And the time will be even longer... We'll be playing 1 game day in an hour.

There's still time before the tournament starts. I advise everyone to practice with different time controls to understand what works best and is faster. I repeat, real-time is crucial here!

And one more thing. Those who haven't found a partner can sign up individually. During the draw, we'll randomly pair you up. :smile01:

I suggest you reread the post!!!
Sevensan
What do you disagree with? 15-20 minutes is just enough time to think about your next move and do something else. If everyone thinks about their move while their opponents are moving, there will be no delays.

Or do you think that a +400 time control will give you a time advantage??? No way. Consider 400x3 = 1200 / 60 = 20 minutes. Your opponents will definitely be moving for 100%! + Let's add another 100 seconds as a margin for the last battle, and we get 25 minutes for 3 players to move!

Here, we calculate 4 minutes of pure time + let's say 6 minutes as a margin for battles. We get the same 25-30 minutes, but without stress in the worst-case scenario.

Draw your own conclusions.

Since you don't understand it yourself, don't mislead others!

3 players at 10 minutes each = 30 minutes of waiting (40 minutes for 4 players). Up to 131. That's 9 hours in the worst case. It's quite possible to play in two sessions! With a 1000+400 time control, it's roughly the same! Don't talk nonsense. If a move can be made faster than 400 seconds, it will be made that way. And slowpokes like you, who count every single tile, are rare.

P.S. If you enjoy a game where you can't make 70% of your move because of a lack of time, you're a masochist.
In reply to Sevensan
User Avatar
#116
Auto-translated
Sevensan


3 players, 10 minutes each = 30 minutes of waiting (40 minutes for 4 players). Up to 131. That's 9 hours in the worst case. It's quite possible to play two games in that time! With a control of 1000+400, it's the same thing!
Hmm, this comrade just doesn't understand that 10 minutes with pauses during battles can stretch out for weeks... Because the calculation with 9 hours is excellent, but it doesn't take into account the time spent in battles, which strong players always have a lot of...
Still, upvote :)
Всем удачи ! И Морали !
In reply to Wlk777
User Avatar
#117
Auto-translated
Wlk777
Yeah, this guy just doesn't get that 10 minutes with pauses between battles can stretch into weeks... Because calculating 9 hours is great, but it doesn't account for the time spent in battles, which strong players always have a lot of...
Anyway, upvote :)
Are you stupid? 4 minutes turn + 6 minutes for battles = 10 minutes. Seriously.

Added after 12 minutes
Rough, sorry, but I don't know how else to explain that 4 minutes is better for everyone. Anyway, it's not my business, play however you want, even with 100-minute timers in battles. Good luck.
In reply to Sevensan
User Avatar
#118
Auto-translated
Sevensan
Are you stupid? 4 minutes for a turn + 6 minutes for battles = 10 minutes. That's insane.

Well, knowing you, I assumed that 10 minutes was just without battles; you usually play that way. Still, there's no guarantee about 6 minutes per battle. I, for example, can spend a long time fighting a horde of dendroids with my starting army on a swamp map.
Всем удачи ! И Морали !
User Avatar
#119
Auto-translated
I'm not sure if pausing time during battles will encourage players to rush and play as quickly as possible. Especially if there's a battle in a chaotic environment, they might drag it out for half an hour.

I'd like to see a stream of a 2v2 game on SOD with a 4-minute time limit. Then we could clearly see how it actually works. :)
In reply to Dirty_Player
User Avatar
#120
Auto-translated
Dirty_Player
I'm not sure that if time stops during battles, players will rush and play as fast as possible. Especially if there's a battle in the "Dungeon," it could be drawn out for half an hour.
It can be even worse there; you take an Angel and cast Minor Blessing or attack a couple of Golem hordes... Sometimes you have to wait a long time for morale to build up. No, saving time and pausing battles are completely different things. IMHO.
Всем удачи ! И Морали !
In reply to Dirty_Player
User Avatar
#121
Auto-translated
Dirty_Player
I'm not sure that if time stops during battles, players will rush and play as fast as possible. Especially if there's a battle in a cramped area, they might drag it out for half an hour.

In general, anyone who likes to move quickly and doesn't care about the quality of the game can participate.
Удача любит подготовленных!!!





Стримы и обучение тут:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWlnXU5R5RLCMuWzIpBc65Q
In reply to Gomunguls
User Avatar
#122
Auto-translated
Gomunguls
Basically, anyone who likes to rush and doesn't care about the quality of the game can participate)))
Vitaly, don't joke like that. Organizers definitely don't fall into that category.
Всем удачи ! И Морали !
In reply to Gomunguls
User Avatar
#124
Auto-translated
Gomunguls
Hi)
Yeah, I'm not kidding) I think it would be interesting to try it.
So try it, I don't see you on the list of those who signed up.
Всем удачи ! И Морали !