Posts from AK tuning and other modifications. Auto-translated

Then why haven't I been permanently banned yet, even though I have 132 points?

Kostya, tell me how you got him unbanned...

I think you should understand that a blocked mine is not a reason to restart on any map. There is no connection between restarts and mines at all.

Restarting due to a block is only given in cases where there is absolutely no way to leave the castle and you need to skip turns. If there is another way out through rough terrain, that's part of the gameplay. Restarts are for that.

Interesting, how would you then explain the phrase "develop to block"? What should be here?

Please provide a link to the rules.

The system of violations, point 6.

If at least 25 violation points are accumulated, the moderator or coordinator may raise the issue of removal from office.

Yur, I don't want to argue with you. This is a truly pointless off-topic discussion. I am ready to consider, discuss, and implement any of your reasonable suggestions (and there are many), if they are accepted. We can chat in private messages/ICQ. But you've gotten a little carried away playing the opposition, please calm down. This form of communication will definitely not end well (and even less so, be useful for the forum).

Added 8 minutes later

Interesting, how will you then explain the phrase "development to the block"? What should be here?

In my understanding, development means the ability to play, collect gold, buy heroes, and build buildings. Moreover, this is not tied to the pace, but rather to the theoretical possibility. This does not mean that you have to place knights or angels on the first turn.

If it turns out that the road is blocked, and you have to go around it on rough terrain, etc., then this is called a bad layout, and not a technical restart.

I didn't write these rules. Perhaps it is worth discussing the interpretation of this point so that it is more or less unambiguous. Let's discuss it, consider it. I'm waiting for suggestions. You can even create a separate topic to discuss the "development to the block" issue.

Violation System, point 6.

I checked the violation system and found that you have as many as 54 points... tsk, tsk... :smile23:

Yur, I don't want to argue with you. This is really pointless off-topic. I am ready to consider, discuss, and implement any of your reasonable suggestions (and there are many), if they are accepted.

So why are you arguing if you don't want to? :confused:

You have such an ironic tone and so many rhetorical questions that it doesn't look like a discussion of suggestions at all. Look at skd, Gomunguls, and the others – they are discussing things, but with you and Romantic, it's just a typical forum argument.

We can chat in private messages/ICQ.

A talk show is our everything! At the same time, it will be something for our descendants to read, in case similar discussions arise in the future.

Private messages only make sense for discussing private issues that do not concern others. But there don't seem to be any such issues...

But you've gotten a little carried away playing the opposition, calm down, please. This form of communication will definitely not end well (or be useful for the forum).

I'll calm down when we finish the discussion (by consensus or by a vote).

I checked the violation system and found that you have as many as 54 penalty points... tsk tsk tsk... :smile23:

I used to be a regular user myself and I don't claim any special privileges.

So why are you arguing if you don't want to? :confused:

Okay, I'll back off.

Added 8 minutes later
[/U]
In my understanding, development means the ability to play, collect gold, buy heroes, and build structures. And this isn't tied to the pace, but rather to the theoretical possibility. It doesn't mean you have to place knights or angels on the first turn.

If the map generation results in blocked roads, and you have to go around off-road, etc., then that's a bad layout, not a technical restart.

I didn't write these rules. Perhaps we should discuss the interpretation of this point to make it more or less unambiguous. Let's discuss it, consider it. I'm waiting for suggestions. We can even create a separate thread to discuss the replay block.

And I see it this way: a bad layout is when everything is blocked, but I can still build structures by capturing the main mines in the starting area (and it's not about the pace at which I build them). It's my problem if it takes a while. But the point is that I will be able to build them eventually.

But if there are no mines – no ore or wood – then I won't be able to build some structures at all (again, it's not about the pace, that I need to build something every turn). And depending on the castle, construction might end on the 3rd or 4th turn. So, what's the difference between sitting in a town with a block and not being able to leave, or leaving and running around a bit, collecting a couple of insignificant piles of gold, and then hitting a guard in a neighboring passage that I also won't be able to break through?
P.S. You can also build structures and buy heroes with a block, it's just that due to the bad layout, you won't be able to expand much.

And of course, if it doesn't concern the mines, then if both mines are blocked and there is some passage, then I guess I should just play this layout?

And of course, if it doesn't involve mines, if both mines are blocked and there's some kind of passage, then I guess I have to play this scenario?

According to the current rules, yes, you have to play it. The rules don't specify any connection to the mines. (This isn't about map 200). Resources can be found.

According to the current rules, yes, you will have to play. The rules do not provide for any connection to mines. (This is not about map editor 200). Resources can be found.

Okay, I understand everything.

On Bay, the strategy was "if there's no opportunity to build up, save up for 121 and break the block." But this strategy is specific to XL+U (only they played on Bay). On other maps (for example, Jebus), it might not be effective.

Since each block has its own value, it would be logical to set a minimum price for a block, based on which a restart can be initiated for that block. In this case, a restart could be initiated by saving the game before the battle and not attempting to win it outright. In this scenario, the player assesses the situation themselves, and the consent of the other party is not needed; they simply need to provide the save file to the judge in case of a dispute. Furthermore, it is necessary to define the limits within which the block is located in relation to the main area (possibly, for templates of different sizes, the price of the block and the limits should be set differently). I believe that on all templates, except for HL+U, the block should be within the respawn area. A price of approximately 12k for the block is reasonable, which is roughly equivalent to guarding a treasure chest on a difficult path with 8mm6a. Such a block is generally difficult to win on the first week.

A block on the only road is a restart. The limit for the block's duration is 112. If you see a unit on the only road, and defeating it will result in the death of an army or more, then it's a block, which means you should inform your opponent about a possible restart due to the block (while refraining from checking and attacking the unit yourself – you should send the save file to the tournament judge).

And what if I fight after you, and don't lose my army, but only take minor losses? This shouldn't be a factor that determines anything. The "value" of a guard can be tied to something, or special, unpleasant blocks like enchanters (although Tyraxor with his dogs can easily defeat them). Moreover, the value should always be based on the upper number in the range. I've encountered bugged guards where there were more neutral creatures than there should have been according to the value. And entering a battle just to check and potentially restart is a sad story. The downside of this approach is that even if a block is powerful, but we can break through it with minimal losses, there's a chance to take a restart. But there's nothing we can do about it. Another downside is that sometimes a block won't fit the described criteria. The percentage of the map area that is cut off, which should ideally be accessible, should also play a role. Moreover, not just territorially, but taking into account the value of the contents of the area. I think it would be right to introduce a new variable for the zone, something like the number of valuable items per square meter; I'll call it Arthur later in the text. We can use the value from the template text file, or come up with something else. Let's say in the first week, access to 3 zones was planned, but the block cut off exactly 2 of them, and you have a respawn point and 1 zone. (Arthur of the respawn)*(Size of the respawn)+(Arthur of zone 1)*(Size of zone 1)+(Arthur of zone 2)*(Size of zone 2)+(Arthur of zone 3)*(Size of zone 3) = 100% (Arthur of zone 2)*(Size of zone 2)+(Arthur of zone 3)*(Size of zone 3) = x percent, which we need to find. To calculate the percentage of the cut-off zone, we need to do it like in school: [(Arthur of zone 2)*(Size of zone 2)+(Arthur of zone 3)*(Size of zone 3)]/[(Arthur of the respawn)*(Size of the respawn)+(Arthur of zone 1)*(Size of zone 1)+(Arthur of zone 2)*(Size of zone 2)+(Arthur of zone 3)*(Size of zone 3)]*100% The problem is that it's tedious to calculate manually. Added after 29 minutes And another problem is that I'm going to sleep, and I'm writing this down while the idea is still fresh; it's RAW. Ideally, a mechanism like this should be built into the generator so that it immediately rejects such generations. Added after 8 minutes The question is not what mechanism will actually be used, but how much effort will be spent on verifying the fact of the block by the person, given the options proposed by the forum. Therefore, only those who will be directly involved in judging the saves should choose the mechanism. What time sacrifices are you willing to make for the well-being of the players? Will the margin of error in your judgments be acceptable for comfortable gameplay? Not just one game, but all the games that will have to be reviewed. After all, it is impossible to cover all injustices and situations. Remember, you are the real heroes who keep the game alive.

A block on the only road means a restart. The limit for the block's location is 112. If you see a unit on the only road, and breaking through it will result in the death of the polar army or more, then it's a block, which means a reason to inform your opponent about a possible restart due to the block (However, you cannot check and attack the unit yourself; you need to send the save to the tournament judge).

This is not how someone with such experience should mislead people. He only wrote the part in parentheses correctly.

A "bad" setup, "development," a "strong" block, "catastrophic" losses, etc.

Why try to describe "algebraic harmony" in the rules, to quantitatively describe concepts that are essentially qualitative? Leaving the subjective factor in the rules is flawed; it leads to potentially ambiguous interpretations, and therefore, to possible conflicts.

It's simple – remove this rule, and the rule should be a total of 2 days of restarts and should include these random elements, of which there are plenty in the game.

The strength of a block cannot be regulated by any rules. For Shakti with 3 stacks, or for Gurney without a ballista, or a random Necromancer in the Dungeon, the concept of a block will be very different. I receive blocks of all kinds for review, such as someone playing as a Necromancer, ending up in the Dungeon, and encountering 50-99 Gremlins on the road – that's considered a block.

And again, the question is: if you need to skip a turn or spend 5 turns buying some units to break through the "block," is it a block or not?