Voting on whether to ban the mapmaker and the Fortress faction. — Tournament History

Сатир

12 years ago

Auto-translated

No, he's not trolling. And he's not just repeating old information either. I wouldn't normally respond like this in other threads, but just in case someone takes his words to heart and influences the vote.

In reply to Сатир

R55Max

12 years ago

Auto-translated

Satyr

He was only nominated and banned again yesterday. He didn't even get 50% of the votes.

Added 16 minutes ago

Paragraph 1 - omg. It turns out the Cartographer is balancing the game!

He's not balancing it; he has his own value, which takes up space. This space and this value can be both a plus and a minus for either side. For example, the Cartographer can clear out any of the 8x8 areas and other templates. And this depletion of the area is not always a plus for those who have already developed well, because this area will be closer to the more developed player, not to the one who is catching up in development.

The Cartographer is difficult to acquire, given the current trends, so that's a separate discussion. But the Healing Fortress is a completely different story, and I mainly support it.

3 - omg. Guard, Maxim, guard. Mobs, creatures. The ones that guard the obelisk, they guard the chest. You can ALSO raise skeletons on them (resurrect fallen creatures in battle with necromancy, for example, with the hero Galtran) and ALSO break them (attack with a hero without troops, intentionally flee to the Castle, and buy him there).

What is this song about?:D You've written a hundred times about your chests; you're told that a chest is a chest, and a pillar is a pillar. A chest is for money and experience, a pillar is for the Grail. When they ban digging for the Grail, then you can raise the issue of pillars; don't you understand the essence of the matter? You yourself write that the Healing Fortress and Cartographer are banned in the rules, but you're talking about pillars (which are allowed), while blaming me for defending the Healing Fortress (which is the main goal).

4 - dug twice, but how many did you find? 0?

Dug once. It doesn't matter who dug how many times. The point is that digging is allowed, so it's too early to remove the pillars.

In reply to R55Max

Javdet

12 years ago

Auto-translated

R55Max

I dug once. It doesn't matter who dug how many times. The point is that digging is allowed, so it's too early to remove the posts.

- Sew the collar to the neckline.
- But we don't know how...
- Nobody knows how. It's not about skill or desire, but about the act of sewing the collar to the neckline itself.

http://www.rusactors.ru/humor/krfrazi/kr_frazi_DMB.shtml

In reply to Pit for LM

Ihtiandr

12 years ago

Auto-translated

Pit for LM

For the third time now, I am writing that according to our accepted rule, 75% of votes are required to make changes to the rules of online games.
How did this rule become accepted if it didn't get 75% of the votes itself? :smile21:

In reply to Ihtiandr

Pit for LM

12 years ago

Auto-translated

Ihtiandr

How did this rule become accepted if it didn't even get 75% of the votes? :smile21:

Yes, Ihtiandr, and that is exactly what I wrote about a week ago /topic/at/688427/. Since, as the author of the rules, this question is very important to me, much more so than for anyone else, I will think about it and take some action to clarify the criteria for accepting changes to the rules. It is clearly necessary to conduct another poll :smile51:. But we need to do it correctly.

In general, we should pause for a while and play around with the changes made.

This particular poll doesn't really have much meaning in terms of "improving" the game. In essence, it just replaces one random factor with another, and nothing more. Many people simply don't vote because there is no difference. But if my cartographers became scouts ;) , and enemy forts remained forts :D, then such an option would definitely gain more than 3/4 of the votes.

In reply to Ihtiandr

Dima Surmay

12 years ago

Auto-translated

Ihtiandr

How did this rule become accepted if it didn't even get 75% of the votes? :smile21:

It's very simple, at the time when the vote for this rule took place, there was no criterion that 75% of the votes were required. So, everything is correct here.

But personally, I believe that this rule was approved incorrectly, but for a completely different reason: In that vote, the 67% option should have won, but the person conducting the vote was not thinking from a logical point of view, but simply from a numerical point of view... and this option was eliminated in the first round.

In reply to Javdet

R55Max

12 years ago

Auto-translated

Javdet

- Sew the collar to the neckline.
- But we don't know how...
- Nobody knows how. It's not about skill or desire, it's about the act of sewing the collar itself.

http://www.rusactors.ru/humor/krfrazi/kr_frazi_DMB.shtml

You're flooding the chat with nonsense and not contributing anything useful. Stop being rude.

Ihtiandr

12 years ago

Auto-translated

In general, I think it's wrong to change the rules based on such polls. Democracy is good, but a more complex system is needed, as the decision is quite important. The main problem with polls is that a significant portion of participants are not experienced enough to assess the situation. And they vote just for fun. Also, there are many fanatical conservatives and, conversely, radicals among the voters. Only experienced players, the elite of the community, should make the decision. For example, the Arbitration Committee (AK).

Such a system for changing the rules would be more optimal:

Any player creates a topic to collect signatures for changing the rules. If a certain number of signatures are collected (for example, 30), the bill is sent to the AK. And among the members of the AK, a final vote is held.

And if the community does not trust the AK, you can create a special legislative body and elect its members by voting.

In reply to R55Max

Javdet

12 years ago

Auto-translated

R55Max

You're flooding the chat with nonsense and not writing anything useful. Stop being rude.

Flooding - yes. But where is the rudeness here? Quoting phrases from a cult movie is rude? lol... If your behavior reminds you of some of the characters from there, then it's just a light jab)) just chill out.

In reply to Dirty_Player

Toganash

12 years ago

Auto-translated

I also agree with banning the pillar structures; how many times do we have to bump into them with our horns? As for the cartographer and the Hill Fort, they really don't offer any benefit – 0!! No one uses them, so why not remove them?

KobRa_RR

12 years ago

Auto-translated

2R55MAX, no one uses the pillars, and they just consume value – either remove them completely or allow digging for the Grail immediately, not starting from the fifth week. The same applies to the cartographer and the hill.

Wicc

12 years ago

Auto-translated

As an alternative, their functionality could be changed. For example, the mapmaker could reveal not the entire map, but only the zone in which the player is located. And the hill fort could require double the price for an upgrade, as in Heroes II. Perhaps, starting from level 7, these should be upgraded independently. With such modifications, they would be both useful and not unbalanced.

In reply to Wicc

KobRa_RR

12 years ago

Auto-translated

Wicc

As an alternative, change their functionality.

For example, make it so that the cartographer only reveals the area in which they are located, instead of the entire map.

Or, make it so that the cartographer hides the entire map from the opponent, or a portion near the cartographer, for 5000, for example.

Wicc

And make the hill fort require double the upgrade cost, like in Heroes II. Maybe, in addition to level 7, let them upgrade the rest themselves.

Triple the cost, and let them upgrade whatever they want!!!

In reply to Wicc

Javdet

12 years ago

Auto-translated

Wicc

As an alternative, you could change their functionality.

For example, the cartographer could reveal not the entire map, but only the zone in which the player is located.

And the hill fort could require double the price for an upgrade, as in Heroes II. Maybe, in addition to level 7, they could upgrade themselves.

With such changes, they would be both useful and not unbalanced.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Сатир

12 years ago

Auto-translated

And then Ostap went wild...
Let's do it this way: if someone defeats a cartographer, they send a screenshot to their opponent, and the opponent must finish the game standing up, reciting the multiplication table aloud. And if it's a hill fort, they have to sit in place until the end of the game, without even getting up to go to the bathroom.

Added 5 minutes later

Ihtiandr

In general, I think it's wrong to change the rules based on such polls. Democracy is good, but a more complex system is needed, because the decision is quite important. The main problem with polls is that a significant portion of the participants are not experienced enough to assess the situation. And they vote just for fun. Also, there are many fanatical conservatives and, conversely, radicals among the voters. Only experienced players, the elite of the community, should make the decision. For example, the Arbitration Committee (AK).

This system of changing the rules would be more optimal:

Any player creates a topic to collect signatures for changing the rules. If a certain number of signatures are collected (for example, 30), the bill is sent to the AK. And among the members of the AK, a final vote is held.

And if the community does not trust the AK, you can create a special legislative body and elect its members by voting.

A perfect bureaucrat. You could send him to the Bureau of Weights and Measures in Paris right now.

This is a very important decision; the fate of many peoples is being decided! And what about the fate of the world!
Although, in reality, there is some truth to it - I would ban the noobs from the voting. And Rmax.