The second stage of the "Van Kanighem" tournament. — Tournament history (offline)

Alan

3/9/2007 4:10 PM UTC

Auto-translated

vbn;74018

Will the result for primary skills be determined by the best hero in the save, or will the skills of all heroes be summed up?

By the best one.

Тьма - это то, что позволяет смертным не забывать, как ярок бывает свет.

In reply to Alex_R

IronAxe

3/10/2007 7:37 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Alex_R;74006

1. If this bothers you so much... suggest appropriate rules (but only realistic ones).:smile16:
2. And there's also online!!! :smile30:
I'll support you in both points 1 and 2... (otherwise, you'll have to accept it) :smile51:

:) You simply won't know in an offline tournament how many times a person replayed the map. He can replay it 100 times, but he'll tell you he played it once. That's all there is to it. If you want, you can write in the rules that you can only play the map once :) And everyone will have different results, and nothing will change, because everyone will write that they played the map once according to the rules, but no one will be able to check it. You can also ban scouting - with the same result :) Like everyone will write that they played without scouting :) So you'll have to accept it anyway ;) If you want to have a good result in offline, play at your best. If you want to play once and get a result that is more based on luck, play in online tournaments.

Added after 11 minutes

Maximix;73973

That's how it is in life. The best doesn't always win, but the persistent one always does ;)

Therefore, the conclusion is: persistent is the same as the best :) And what does "best" mean in offline? Like, the best played the map once. Later it turned out that the persistent one overtook him after N attempts. So, if the best didn't complete the map the fastest, then what kind of "best" is he?

In reply to IronAxe

Maximix

3/10/2007 8:37 AM UTC

Auto-translated

From this we can conclude: the persistent one is actually the best :) And what does "best" even mean in offline? Like, the best played the map once. Later it turned out that the persistent one overtook him on the N-th attempt. It turns out the best didn't crack the map for speed, so how is he the best then?

Or maybe the best simply didn same have time :rolleyes:. The "best" showed a result of 20 days on the first attempt. The "persistent" did 40 days on the first attempt, 20 days on the 7th attempt, and 17 days on the 10th attempt. If the "best" had replayed the map a dozen times, he would have shown a result of 5 days. So, who among them is truly the best? ;)

From this we can conclude: A good online player, given enough free time, will be able to perform well in offline, and not vice versa ;)

In reply to Maximix

IronAxe

3/10/2007 10:04 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Maximix;74173

Maybe the "best" player simply didn't have enough time :rolleyes:. The "best" player achieved a time of 20 days on the first attempt. The "persistent" player achieved 40 days on the first attempt, 20 days on the 7th attempt, and 17 days on the 10th attempt. If the "best" player had replayed the map ten times, they would have achieved a time of 5 days. So, who is really the best? ;)
Therefore, the conclusion is: a good online player, given enough free time, can perform well offline, and vice versa.

This is all so debatable that the accuracy of the statements can only be verified empirically, provided that the players participating in the experiment do not deceive us about how many times they replayed the map :)
And another question - should map exploration be counted as an attempt? :)
Such significant improvements in gameplay are not made depending on the number of attempts, as you showed in the example. A good player is already close to the record result on the first attempt, and it is possible that he does not need to replay the game from the beginning to achieve it. As for online play, I've heard somewhere that pros fight each other on well-known maps that they have explored countless times

In reply to IronAxe

Maximix

3/10/2007 10:59 AM UTC

Auto-translated

IronAxe;74195

This is all so controversial - that the veracity of the statements can only be tested empirically, provided that the players participating in the experiment do not deceive us about how many times each has replayed the map :)
And another question - does scouting the map count as an attempt? :)

Don't confuse apples and oranges :)
Scouting is analyzing the map in a cheat mode using a bunch of cheat codes, to check all possible options for completing the map.
A walkthrough is going through the chosen option identified during scouting. A "clean run". If you scout properly, no more than 2-3 "clean" runs will be needed.

IronAxe;74195

Such global improvements in the walkthrough depending on attempts are not made as you showed in the example. A good player is already close to the record result from the very first attempt, and it's possible that to achieve it, they don't need to replay the game from the start. As for online, I've heard somewhere that pros fight each other on maps known to both, which only God knows how many times they've scoured from end to end :)

Yes, in the example I exaggerated a bit, :) but the main thing is the idea, not the numbers.
Regarding online, you didn't quite understand. There are two or three maps that are very interesting to play. And you can play them 50 times and not get bored.
In a serious tournament, players are given maps they have never seen before.

In reply to Maximix

IronAxe

3/10/2007 12:44 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Maximix;74228

Don't confuse flies with cutlets :)
Scouting is analyzing the map in cheat mode using a bunch of cheat codes to check all possible walkthrough options.
A Walkthrough is completing the map following an option selected during scouting. A "clean run". If scouting is done correctly, no more than 2-3 "clean" runs will be required.
Well, that's basically what I'm saying: if scouting doesn't count as an attempt, then a player could scout the map using cheat codes several times via different options so that the final clean run is ideally a single one. Why did you suddenly settle on the numbers "no more than 2-3 clean runs"? Why not 1 or 4, for example? Or do you have some compiled material based on real examples? Can you provide them? ;)

In reply to Maximix

Alan

3/10/2007 12:58 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Maximix;74228

Regarding online play, you didn't fully understand. There are two or three maps that are very interesting to play. And you can play them 50 times and not get bored.
In a serious tournament, players are given maps they have never seen before.

I haven't been to any Heroes-specific tournaments in a long time, of course. But if in a Varick tournament, at a serious competition, players are offered unfamiliar maps, they might still play, but it would be a death sentence for the tournament and it would never be held again. There is a standard set of maps, usually 6-8 (for duels), and from those, usually 4 are chosen on which the games will be played. And I strongly doubt that unfamiliar maps would be given at Heroes tournaments.

Тьма - это то, что позволяет смертным не забывать, как ярок бывает свет.

In reply to IronAxe

Maximix

3/10/2007 12:59 PM UTC

Auto-translated

IronAxe;74281

Well, that's exactly what I'm saying: if scouting doesn't count as an attempt, a player might scout the map multiple times using cheat codes, exploring different options, so that the final, perfect run would be just one. Why did you suddenly focus on the numbers – "no more than 2-3 clean runs"? Why not 1 or 4, for example? Or do you have some data based on real-life examples? Can you provide them? ;)

All my material is based solely on PERSONAL experience ;)

P.S. Proper scouting doesn't take much time. ;)

I haven't been to Heroes tournaments for a long time. But if, in a Warlords tournament, players are offered unfamiliar maps at a serious competition, they might play, but it would be a death sentence for the tournament, and it wouldn't be held again.

As far as I know, in Heroes 3, tournaments are held on random maps. I don't understand why Heroes 2 is worse.

In reply to Maximix

IronAxe

3/10/2007 5:01 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Maximix;74289

All my material is based solely on PERSONAL experience ;)
P.S. Proper scouting doesn't take much time. ;)

:) Well, let's go with personal experience. I haven't played the second game in a while, and I don't know how well or poorly I did with the second stage of the Walkthrough. But let's reveal the data allowed by the rules; I completed the map almost once :) with the following scouting: I simply don't know the cheat codes in the second game, and I would be interested in knowing two codes - to reveal the map and to quickly win a battle, so the scouting was done one turn ahead each turn, that is, I simply moved the heroes around where possible and looked at what and where I could defeat. And, of course, I looked at the map editor a couple of times to see the location of enemy Fortresses and the approaches to them. Why am I writing that I played it almost once? First, I took one enemy Fortress, and immediately abandoned this option and started another, starting to eliminate the computer players from the other player. And I played this option to the end. The final save is ready. How are things going with you? Then we'll compare the results after the Tournaments ;) Maybe someone else is interested in participating in this, that is, before the results are announced, you need to write how many times you replayed and improved your version.

Maximix;74289

As far as I know, in the third game, Tournaments are held on random maps. I don't understand why the second game is worse.

Where is this done? Randomness is such a thing that, in my opinion, it is not acceptable for a serious tournament :) Who knows what randomness might throw at you? It can скорее be called an amateur tournament, because I agree that playing on a random (map that you haven't seen yet) is more interesting, but figuring out who is better in a serious tournament on a random map? Who knows? ;)

In reply to IronAxe

Maximix

3/10/2007 5:51 PM UTC

Auto-translated

How are things going for you?

Right now, I've only done some scouting. About 40 minutes.

Then we'll compare the results after the tournament.

Yes, and I'm not even aiming to win in this comparison...;)

You never know what random events might throw at you?

That's why each player has the option to take a restart if things don't go well.
I've never been in a professional online tournament, and I'm just speaking based on logic.

In reply to Maximix

Kyle

3/10/2007 6:01 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Maximix;74359

I have never participated in a professional online tournament and am speaking only based on logic.

Really? :confused:
And yet you are the host of online tournaments... :confused: I didn't expect that.

Кто состоянием своим доволен, тому жить весело. (с)Алекса́ндр Васи́льевич Суво́ров

In reply to Maximix

IronAxe

3/10/2007 6:29 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Maximix;74359

Yes, I'm not even aiming to win this comparison... ;)

It's not about who's aiming to win. If everyone honestly states what I suggested beforehand, we can gather data on how the number of replays affects the outcome. By the way, I forgot to mention why I stopped replaying. I simply don't see how I can improve. Maybe I could improve for one day, but I'm not sure I'll be as lucky in defeating the first opponent in a replay. However, I highly doubt my result will be the best.

Maximix;74359

For this, each player has the option to restart if the situation is unfavorable. I've never been in a professional online tournament and I'm just speaking logically.

What will he base his decision to restart on? Only on what he sees in the first turn? And then it's all a mystery? Or how?

Added 2 minutes later

Kyle;74361

yes, really? :confused:
and yet you are the host of online tournaments... :confused: I didn't expect that..

But he's not claiming to be the host of professional tournaments, by the way, I myself don't really know what that is

In reply to Kyle

Maximix

3/10/2007 6:34 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Kyle;74361

Yes, really? :confused:
And yet you host online tournaments... :confused: I didn't expect that.

That's true :) I've never been to a tournament in a computer club with a prize pool, etc.
However, I was able to organize a tournament. Moreover, for the second Heroes game, the tournament is quite good (considering the number of games and participants).
But I can't call it a professional tournament, even though professional players participate in it :)

Kyle
Are we acquainted? ;)

What will he base his decision to restart on? Just what he sees on the first turn? And then it's all hidden? Or how?

You can restart up to the 3rd turn. As a rule, by the 3rd turn, it's already clear what the situation is. You can't be protected from all sorts of nasty things, even when playing with a well-tested map. When generating a save, a terrible spawn can occur (strong guards, few resources, etc.).
Read about HoMM3 at your leisure: http://www.hommportal.net/tavern/?id=156149.
I'm not saying that these rules are perfect, but they were created by very good online players.

What do contenders for victory have to do with it? If everyone honestly says what I suggested beforehand, we can gather data on the relationship between the result and the number of replays. And by the way, I forgot to say why I stopped replaying. I just don't see how I can improve. Maybe I can improve it by one day, but I'm not sure I'll be that lucky when beating the first opponent in a replay. However, I highly doubt that my result will be the best.

Okay. I'll play next weekend. I'll let you know how many times I replayed after I'm done ;)

In reply to Maximix

IronAxe

3/10/2007 9:25 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Maximix;74374

Read up on HoMM3 in your spare time: http://www.hommportal.net/tavern/?id=156149.
I'm not saying these rules are perfect, but they were composed by very good online players.

I've read the rules; probably all of this isn't without merit. But I generally don't like it when there are too many restrictions :) In Heroes, there's already a lot to consider and remember, and on top of that, you have to remember a bunch of restrictions and also analyze your opponent to see if they've cheated you on these restrictions (I mean, the opponent might do it unintentionally too :) But for now, offline games are more than enough for me. Another good thing about offlines is that here you manage your own time.

In reply to Maximix

Richard_I

3/11/2007 10:09 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Maximix;74289

All my material is based solely on PERSONAL experience ;)

P.S. Proper scouting doesn't take much time. ;)

Based on my personal experience, I can also say that 2-3 runs after almost any scouting is the most optimal. After that, you'll only waste a lot of time for, perhaps, just one day, and even then, it depends on luck. Because a good player develops a certain strategy over the years of training, and he won't deviate much from it. Therefore, in my opinion, the number of restarts doesn't have much influence on the result of a strong player.

Veni Vidi Vici
-- Julius Caesar, 47 BC