Posts from Let's talk about our Red Rush strategy... Auto-translated

There's no point in introducing it for just one season.

Then, let's introduce it for two seasons, or until there are enough complaints to warrant its removal.

What conclusions can be drawn from 5-11 games played throughout the season on the entire forum?

Well, probably the same as from a poll in which people who haven't played that many games on the specified templates throughout their careers participate...

In general, for future votes on regulations, this should be taken into account somehow. For example, if a vote is held on template XXX, then only players who have N+ official games on it should be allowed to participate. The exact value of N is up for discussion.

In general, for future votes on regulations, this should be taken into account somehow.

I've been thinking about this issue.
It's practically impossible.

For example, if there's a vote on template XXX, then only players with N+ official games on it should be allowed to participate. The exact value of N is debatable.

But how do you determine N? And what if someone has N-1? In the case of Ranked Play (RR), N should be quite large, and RR isn't possible in every game.
Let's take your results. You have a total of 21 official games on HW: 4 - Balance, 3 - 8mm6a, 1 - Nostalgia, 5 - 8xm12a, 2 - h3dm1, 3 - 6lm10a, and, presumably, 3 on 2sm4d(3) (vbn's data is lost).
You definitely don't meet the requirements for Diamond and Mininostalgia.
It's impossible to take into account your games played somewhere else. If we take yours into account, then we have to take everyone else's into account. Checking would be too much work, and trusting would be the same as what's happening now - we trust that players don't just randomly assign points.

Creating such statistics for each of the hundred people who want to vote is a waste of time; it's better to do something more useful.
Should we introduce an authorship coefficient and a noob coefficient?

Look at the results. In my opinion, people are voting reasonably. If they don't know, they don't answer. There aren't many random users, and if there are, they also vote randomly, which is an acceptable margin of error.

Regarding Ranked Play, the main argument for those voting to ban it is the uniformity of rules for all templates; it's easier for people this way.
In general, the main benefit of these polls is that players take a thoughtful look at the rules, think about them, and draw conclusions, primarily for themselves.

Personally, I almost never vote; I don't care what rules to play by, and it's even more interesting to diversify.

For rare templates, there is no point in creating polls at all — a certain standard of rules is introduced, and then it is adjusted as complaints arise.

I personally have 20+ tournament games on Mini-Nosta, and during all that time there hasn't been a single red-rush. There was one chance for it — in a game with Vitalik on White Unicorn-2, but there was a scout hero who could reach the town with old troops.

Plus, I already wrote that Mini-Nosta is a "blue" template, there's no point in pressuring red there.

I already provided the statistics for Diamond — out of ~50 reports, 1 mention of a red-rush and a blue advantage in the results.

Why isn't there a vote regarding Jebus?

Added 6 minutes later
By the way, on Diamond and Mini-Nost, you can raise the question of banning control.

Why isn't there a vote regarding Jebus?

Added 6 minutes later
By the way, on Diamond and Mini-Nost, you could raise the question of banning control.

Why?

Regarding Diamond, there was a reasonable suggestion to adjust the treasure's contents so that relics don't lie around on the ground. And let control remain as it is.

Why?

Regarding Diamond, there was a reasonable proposal to adjust the treasure contents so that relics wouldn't be lying on the ground. And let the control from utop remain.

If you remove relics from the ground, that would be a completely different template :D

Regarding Jebus Cross, red-rush doesn't matter there at all, so it would be reasonable to remove it.

In Jebus Cross, red rush doesn't work at all there, so it would be reasonable to remove it.

Is this sarcasm?)))

Is this a joke?)))

No, it isn't. And when is the right time to rush? On map 121, both gold mines are rarely fully controlled, and on map 131, when the center is already taken, the impact of the resource bonus is minimal. Of course, there are cases where players exchange resources on the second turn and fight for new resource bonuses, or someone only controls 127 in the center, but that doesn't happen very often. IMHO.

On the World Tree, a re-draw to 121 is very relevant. That's why they pay well for it at auctions.
In Conflux, with average development of both players, a clash at 131 can be very decisive.

There are, of course, cases of trading on the second and war of new growths

These cases are more and more frequent, and control on the second is already present, and growth on Jebus Cross comes not only from Castle, but also from high-level pickups, and there is plenty of money, so buying out in the first final is a common thing. So redraw has an effect.

In my opinion, the RR rule is universal, generally speaking. Is it justified to make its application/non-application dependent on a specific template? And what if the game, for example, is played on XL-U? Or Diamond on a non-standard size? What if a few more popular templates appear in the future? Should we hold a plebiscite for each one, or even worse, adapt the entire set of rules? If the rules on Mininost change in the future (e.g., they remove control) and the concept of RR becomes irrelevant on it, should we change the rule again? Soon we will be memorizing kilometers of nuances for each template. In my opinion, RR is either there or it isn't.

In my opinion, the RR rule is universal, generally speaking.

Is it justified to make its application/non-application dependent on a specific map? And what if the game is, for example, on XL-U? Or Diamond on a non-standard size? What if a few more popular maps appear in the future? Should we hold a plebiscite for each one, or even worse, adapt the entire set of rules?

If the rules for Mininost change in the future (e.g., control is removed) and the concept of RR becomes irrelevant on it, should we change the rule again? Soon we'll be memorizing kilometers of nuances for each map. ;)

In my opinion, RR either exists or it doesn't.

Reasoning this way, one could universalize all rules without tying them to a specific map. For example, staggered guard – it can be used on some maps, but not on others. Chaos, kilometers of nuances (!)

The ban on RR is really needed on small maps and maps where there is a guard tower within walking distance of the castle. That is, Small, Balance, possibly Panic, and all M-maps. Because on these maps, RR is quite often unstoppable with proper red play.

On those maps where it is difficult to rush red (almost all the others), and with proper blue play, it is even more difficult, banning RR creates more problems than balance. They have already been described.

Regarding Jeb, the question is debatable, but I have much less experience than the community, so I won't insist.

Why not make the redraw feasible, say, starting from the 4th week? Let me explain why... In the same 8mm6a, it's very realistic to encounter an opponent with 121 points due to the bugged surrender mechanic, and the advantage of the red player would be enormous. As for the 3rd week... it's debatable how serious this all is. By the 4th week, there shouldn't be much need to reroll. Or, like in World Tournament, introduce bidding...

Turns out, I accidentally voted for a ban on the Diamond server... It was a misclick; I'm actually for unbanning everywhere.