Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
I have a constructive suggestion! There's no need to flip a coin – there's a better option! So, let's say Vasya and Petya are playing. They need to at least start the game. And at some point, they decide they can't finish the game for some valid reason. They save the game and turn to the judge. The judge loads the save and looks at the thieves' guild information. Whoever is listed first in the "kingdom army strength" field wins! By the way, in all the years you've been playing "Heroes," have you ever seen a tie in the thieves' guild? I haven't! I understand that some will strongly oppose this option, but my job is to suggest it.
Partially for, partially against. Against – Leader has already written about it; I don't see the point in repeating it. I'll also add that I recently played with a friend. My army strength was higher, but I lost in the final battle. For – because, for example, in football, hockey, and other sports, the game lasts for a certain number of minutes. And the phrase: "We would have scored more, but we ran out of time!" sounds naive. Therefore, I believe that in Heroes, the game, for example, should last until turn 247, and then the winner is determined by some parameters. For example, in boxing, the number of rounds and time are limited, and in the absence of knockouts and knockdowns, the winner is determined by points, and if the opponents have an equal number of points, it is up to the judge's discretion. In football, they take penalty shootouts after the game.
By the way, it might be a good time to conduct a poll. I see there are many opinions.
Personally, I have nothing against draws. Even if they are arranged. Even if they prevent someone from reaching the final, etc. Heroes is not chess, poker, or football; it's something that combines elements of these games.
The only thing I object to is technical wins. For example, I defeated an opponent, snatched a "point," but another player gets a technical win. At the very least, it means I wasted my time because my victory cost 2-5 hours, but all I had to do was wait a week or two, and the victory would have come to me on its own.
"Одержать сто побед в ста битвах — это не вершина воинского искусства. Повергнуть врага без сражения — вот вершина. "Сущность войны — обман. Искусный должен изображать неумелость. При готовности атаковать демонстрируй подчинение. Когда ты близок — кажись далёким, но когда ты очень далеко — притворись, будто ты рядом."
For example, in boxing, if there are no knockouts or knockdowns, the number of rounds and the time are limited, and the winner is determined by points. If the opponents have an equal number of points, the decision is up to the judge.
I don't know how it is in amateur boxing, but in professional boxing, a draw can occur. And it's not necessary for all three judges to give an equal score. One might give a draw of 114-114, the second 115-113, and the third 113-115. Each judge scored the rounds differently. And no winner was determined :rolleyes:.
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
2. Even if there were 40 full-control scenarios: the stronger one should be the winner! Clearly avoiding the final battle is a sign of weakness, and in a "jump-around" battle, the player will almost certainly lose.
In a turn-based strategy game, the winner should be the one who is smarter. I remember a game where my opponent got bogged down in treasure hunting, building up his army and stats. And while he was doing that, I took all his castles and decimated his troops. And the opponent, without control or any boosts, simply didn't have time to return.
Added 3 minutes later Rabe
The only thing I object to is technical wins. I defeated an opponent, won the "first place," but another player gets the technical win. At the very least, it feels like I wasted my time, because my victory took 2-5 hours, but all I had to do was wait a week or two, and the victory would have come to me on its own.
Here's an example from your group in the Novice league: the game between Tofsla and Dau. Tofsla did everything to make the game happen, but Dau, having lost his chances of qualifying, decided not to waste his time. And what result should I record for this game?
Roger DAltavilla, 1. Full control (specifically, Flight and Dimension Door) should be banned in online tournaments. I think this is obvious – for the reason that is clear from your example. 2. Even if there are 40 full controls: the stronger one should be the winner! Clearly avoiding the final battle is a sign of weakness, and in a "jumpy" battle, he will almost certainly lose.
Here's an example from your group in the Novice league: a match between Tofsla and Dau. Tofsla did everything to ensure the game took place, but Dau, having lost his chances of qualifying, decided not to waste his time. And what result should I record for this match?
There isn't a clear-cut answer here, just like with a "written agreement." It's simply that when equally skilled players agree to a 0.5 score, it's a mutual decision, while a technical loss is a one-sided outcome. In my opinion, it would be fairer for everyone, even those who previously lost to this player, to consider it a win. This is my view.
In this case, I believe that Tofsla didn't defeat Dau, but simply earned a point. Therefore, if all the games had already been played, the Berger coefficient should not be calculated for this match. But I think the "+" in the table implies this. PS Hmm, it turns out that the match with Tofsla will be decisive for us, and I was hoping that Dau would dominate:smile51:
"Одержать сто побед в ста битвах — это не вершина воинского искусства. Повергнуть врага без сражения — вот вершина. "Сущность войны — обман. Искусный должен изображать неумелость. При готовности атаковать демонстрируй подчинение. Когда ты близок — кажись далёким, но когда ты очень далеко — притворись, будто ты рядом."
1. The technical result carries the same weight as the actual result, including for calculating the Berger coefficient.
2. From the group, the 4 people with the best results advance to the next stage. :D
I don't know how it is in amateur competitions, but in professional ones, a draw is possible. And it's not necessary for all three judges to give an equal score. One might give a draw of 114-114, the second 115-113, and the third 113-115. Each counted the rounds differently. And no winner was determined :rolleyes:.
In "Olympic" style competitions, someone still has to advance. A draw cannot happen in the final. I'm not interested in boxing, so I won't argue. In football, a draw can also occur. But if a winner needs to be determined, extra time is given. If that doesn't determine a winner, penalty shootouts follow.
1. A technical result carries the same weight as a real one, including for calculating the Berger coefficient. 2. From the group, the 4 players with the best results advance to the next stage. :D
It's the "weight" that I disagree with. And by the way, in the Novice group, we have a great example right now: 2 clear leaders who won 4 out of 5 games, and it seems like me and Tofslay (no matter what, even if we split the points 0.5 each) = 4 people. Now let's look at Night Troll. He drew with DaU, i.e., 0.5 points each. But DaU withdraws, giving Tofslay 1 point. As a result, regardless of the game's outcome, Troll is eliminated, even though he is the only one who defeated one of the qualifying round leaders. So, if DaU had managed to lose to Tofslay (like it's happening now) and given Troll a technical win, the table would have had three people with 2 points each, and if it wasn't a draw, Troll would have 100% advanced, because the Berger coefficient, thanks to Jewelmask, would be higher. In this case, based on my own self-interest (as if we were betting on a cow:cool:), I'm happy with the situation. But, based on the logic described above, I believe that the player leaving the tournament should automatically give everyone 1 point or everyone 0. I understand that in the current tournament, where more than half of the games end with a loss to mobs, it's objectively impossible to evaluate anyone, but if the same situation occurred among more experienced players, Troll would be eliminated unfairly.
"Одержать сто побед в ста битвах — это не вершина воинского искусства. Повергнуть врага без сражения — вот вершина. "Сущность войны — обман. Искусный должен изображать неумелость. При готовности атаковать демонстрируй подчинение. Когда ты близок — кажись далёким, но когда ты очень далеко — притворись, будто ты рядом."
The logic is interesting, and there's something to it, but here's one point: - what should happen to a player who honestly won against someone who withdrew from the tournament? Someone who spent their time and energy (and often, it's not some clueless newbie who withdraws, but someone like Yuri and others. Let's say you beat Yuri, and then he withdraws, and your legitimate point should turn into zero? If I were offered that, I would be extremely happy). Also, I don't know how it is in this new system, but technical wins always weigh less than clean victories, which is taken into account first when the scores are equal. P.S. The issue of withdrawals needs to be regulated much more strictly and punished more severely in the future (especially withdrawals without a valid reason), because if you look at most withdrawals, about 80% happen because: there's no chance of winning - why play/I'm tired - I don't want to. IMHO.
The following algorithm is used for elimination in round-robin tournaments:
1. If a player has played less than half of the matches, all results of their matches are annulled.
2. If a player has played half or more of the matches, they receive a technical win in all remaining matches, and their remaining opponents receive a technical loss. The results of already (actually) played matches are not revised. Technical results carry the same weight as real results.
This is the only normal elimination algorithm in round-robin tournaments; I personally tested it in previous Crusades.
perhaps many won't agree, but Heroes is not a job, but fun first and foremost. For tournaments (in most cases), there is nothing more than moral satisfaction, and all sorts of unusual situations have always existed, do exist, and will continue to exist, so we need to treat them more easily.
There's a lot of debate about what to do if someone plays a single game and then withdraws. In any case, someone's interests will suffer. Someone gets a free win, someone else has their loss annulled, and so on. In this situation, we need to find a middle ground, and it has already been found, albeit not by us:
Roger DAltavilla
In round-robin tournaments, the following algorithm is used for elimination:
1. If the eliminated player has played less than half of the matches, all results of their matches are annulled.
2. If the eliminated player has played half or more of the matches, they receive a technical loss in all remaining games, and their remaining opponents receive a technical win.
kcfgogbfalgfl
