Fair pvp. Poll (Diablo 2)
Today, with some regularity, tournaments are held according to the rules of fair pvp with prize rewards for the winners.But there are not as many people willing to participate in the tournament as we would like. In this regard, a poll is being conducted in this topic, literally:
"What prevents me from registering and participating in the fair pvp tournament?"
Some of the possible answers:
* I don’t have time
* I don’t have fair pvp experience
* Know beforehand that I’ll lose
* I don’t like fair pvp rules
* I would go to tournaments if they were held faster (I don’t like the organization)
* I not interesting because there is no balance between the characters
* I am not happy with the prize pool
* I have suspicions that opponents are using prohibited programs
* My own version
Let me remind you that the "passivity" of players in fair pvp is the player's choice of his tactics of the game, you cannot impose on the player to play aggressively. Each player, creating a character, has already chosen a style of play for himself in advance. And each character class has a different degree of attack / attack capabilities - some are strong in attack, and some in a defensive style. Mana pool also affects.
as an option: 5 summoners, 60+ minions each, 300+ attacking units in the passive zone of the map
bd_sm [TDPG]
Yes, all this can be speculated, if need be. Or as an example - a guard, a sorceress with a bow in her hands and an assistant who will fly and bite those who go beyond, but I think it will not come to that.
Corydoras, by the
way, the rules, yes, while the people are in the zone - he keeps him ansamon, as soon as he crosses - he changes the skill to an arrow, the rest start up in pursuit
Firkosorka as a solution against fair liability. And the topic becomes interesting.
But demonstrative dialogues only with people who haven't logged into the server for 10 years, not to mention their participation in fair pvp, are even more interesting.
You can immediately see how they understand the topic and priorities.
Help someone to the author to pump trolling recognition on xbr, otherwise there will be megatemes again with subsequent rollbacks like "this was a test, you were led by azazaz, this is how I originally conceived everything."
The survey needs to be conducted among the players, and the players are not sitting here, dear author.
The assassins in the gangways, sitting for an hour and a half, interfere.
There are 3 reasons from the list in connection with this, and each subsequent one follows from the previous one:
* I'm not interested, because there is no balance between the characters
* I don't like fair pvp rules
* I know that I will lose
Halachic bear Izya
what prevents you from spamming them? you choose a loka without pillars and spam.
Dobermn
Wb 60% and shadow from mb for 2 screens. There is no time to spam.
Halachic bear Izya,
well, it means you need to hit more times, not a super task. the distance of the mb at the shadow is much less than most spells, well, it does not practically damage, the mb itself is not dangerous if the trap sits and does nothing at the same time.
MOWHOCTu The
passive usually starts when everyone runs out of mana. And the ladders shoot themselves, they don't need mana.
The idea of ​​changing the cans limit is very sensible, but it will be taken with hostility without arguments, the first day on the forum or something.
Apparently, they do not seem so much as some who devote to him fanatics about "firk snorted". A funny phrase ... I guess. Do not understand the humor of these BDSM lovers.
The theme of the liability is very controversial. Any pvp has liabilities and assets. The combination of these two styles of play gives any character full access to the entire spectrum of tactics and techniques. If only one asset is forced for a player, then his behavior becomes more predictable. Therefore, it is necessary to separate a useful adequate liability and an excessive liability. Unfortunately, many are simply too inadequately driven to liabilities, just to crap one or another player. This type of trend, passive means skill noob, etc. It is not that simple.
Let's take the last tournament as an example. I think many people watched the stream. There was one ICQ (not the one that won the tournament), which had been sitting in the traps for a very long time and just waiting. Such an excessive liability should be punished somehow, and I will talk about this later. But the most interesting thing is that it was ICQ that was criticized for the passiveness, which won the tournament, at a time when it showed a good asset. Someone just really didn’t want to notice it. She was just combining a liability with an asset, which I mentioned earlier. Ok, there people have some suspicions about her using something else there. I've heard about this. But this is completely different.
So what should you do? Alas, it's hard to come up with something adequate here, but I have an idea. Although this will really strain the fire pvp modera, or whoever will be there to judge. Otherwise, I don't know how else it is possible. I suggest the judge to monitor pvp more closely and if, in his subjective opinion, some player demonstrates an obvious liability, i.e. sits in the traps and waits for X seconds, or even the same necr that stands still and spam invites in all 4 directions, just waiting until someone eats it all with his snout, etc. etc. in this case, if nothing changes within a certain time, the referee writes the player's name in the chat. From this moment, the countdown begins, some value of time, let's say N seconds. If the player, having seen his name, did not change anything in his behavior, then he is considered a defeat. It will also be necessary to determine whose passive unambiguously makes the other passive, whom, in fact, to warn first. After the warning, if the player corrects, then the warning is cleared, i.e. this does not mean that if later the judge notices the repetition of the liability, then immediately the loss, no, just anew the warning and countdown.
Of course, everything will then depend on the referee's experience, how much he understands what is the norm of pvp in every match-up. Perhaps the community could make a list of behavior that goes beyond the adequate liability, by which the pvp judge could then be guided. Well, by the way, in this case, the left scribble in the chat of some other people, as it was on the stream of the last turik, would be inappropriate at all, since the player would be greatly distracted by messages, checking either it's just someone's comment or a warning about the liability.
Thus, it would be possible to reduce by a certain% the hits of players in the Valley of snakes, and they would get there if they correctly alternated their assets with their liabilities after the expiration of time. I believe that the judge's notification is a much more motivating factor than some kind of forehead shooting you in the ass, driving you to the asset. Sorry, but if someone is wildly passive, he is clearly more afraid of the opponent's damage than the forecourts, and I would also rather accept this worthless ha, which will not move me the first time, than go ahead to eat spirits. I would just move to the floor of the screen, put new traps and then stand. In the case of a warning, a bell would immediately ring in my head - "I have literally a few seconds or the end." Here you will not get out.
iNtu
In the presence of experienced and understanding moderators, the problem of passiveness is solved by technical advice or comments. In the rules, this is prescribed in the regulations and zero problems, I do not agree with the opinion of the moderator - do not play.
There is only one problem - experienced modders. From the list that I last saw, half of them, to put it mildly, are not for active pvp, because the gaming experience is not enough.
When I moderated tournaments, I gave tech loses to traposids without mana, which sat up after 5 minutes of play. Nobody complained, the tournaments did not drag out.
iNtu The
argument against the magpie is rather weak, since you can put anyone there, even a telebarb, and I don't think you really want to accept this.
As for defining a liability, the devil will be in the details: there are thousands of them. It is necessary for each pair of buildings to determine what is an adequate liability and what is not. And the community needs to agree. Brrrr. It will be a sheet for hundreds of years, and the letters will be multiples more than in the rules of fair. Whereas "asset keepers" can be put even now, and strengthened as needed.
Well, of course, and if the community does not define the framework, then these 'keepers of the asset' will be bullied from all sides for their inadequacy with the same sheets. Some will whine that someone has been undeservedly ridden centuries, while others will yell that the keeper of the asset generally took a bribe on the side and turned a blind eye to the liability)).
Anyway, all this is nonsense. You promote your idea simply because you imagined it in your head and you thought it was impressionable and realistic. Alas, often the imagination has nothing to do with reality. What you suggested would not be considered pvp at all, and it certainly wasn't interesting to anyone. This is already called a kindergarten. And what is needed is not childishness, but some kind of seriousness. Then it really feels like a tournament.
These telebarbs of guards are not needed, and in general, I would also question additional. the motivation for such a TV barb is to take and ride on someone. It should definitely be enjoyable. I think these keepers will be too happy trigger. And is that better than a calm, but no less deadly warning? It is enough just to warn, this is for an adult ... If someone does not understand, he will lose. It's so simple .. No damn, there will be guards running after the players and they just don't like it - it's stupid to bring down the players. Rave. 'The devil is in the details', yeah, but there will be a devil in the telebarbs ... I'm generally interested in how you imagined it in detail. This is something like an ant in front of the rails: 'the smart will not go uphill, the smart will bypass the mountain', or how the Americans spent billions of dollars to develop handles for use in space stations,
The judge, too, can even now start to issue warnings and intensify as needed, so here the custodians of the asset generally somehow drove sideways ... There is no need to complicate where it is not needed and make a circus out of it.
99% of players don't have runes to dress up for pvp.
And you don't need to write walls "WHY DOESN'T PLAY PVP?"