Cisz

They are meant to be imba. I'd say we need a fix for it's ballance.

Very nice. I can't remember any other replay with such agressive use of selling. To bad you leaked a few. I'm allmost totally sure you know that, but I have to ask: You know ofc that selling on non-rnd games makes you loose money?

Hi Noddy. That sounds like one unconventional build. Replay plz?

And don't forget the tes 13est.

I know, working on that. If I beat a very good player in round one, that's the same effort as if I beat him in the second round.

Machs counter is micro. Target the unshielded units. And placement. Place the towers in a way that gets one unshielded pass out of two, or that has some long pass in it, like at 3. Well tower is meant to be one of the three strongest towers on the map. So for the whole element shakeup to work at all, this is exactly as planned. How do you scale that with higher levels of the tower? Remember, this is one of the three strongest towers. Level three should be like waterfall. Afaik having the copied version beeing stronger than the original is not an option, as this would require a ton of extra towers (3 extra towers for each in the game, one for each level of mimic). And wouldn't making a stronger copy be pretty much like inner fire? Also, if the tower changes into another one, why not build the copied tower instead of the mimic tower? You loose the mimicing tower during the process, so the result has to be really worth it.

(continued) Here are the advancing players of my example again, complete with the players they faced, if they won or lost against them, and what rank those players had after the first two rounds (the rank is given in ()): Name Places Rank Has beaten player no. Has lost to Player 6 1/1 1 14(12), 17(12), 18(8) and 7(12), 20(12), 21(8) - Player 12 1/1 1 3(12), 11(18), 15(4) and 1(18), 2(12), 4(21), 18(8) - Player 19 1/1 1 2(12), 5(4), 7(12), 8(18) and 3(12), 14(12), 16(8) - Player 5 2/1 4 2(12), 7(12), 8(18) and 11(18), 13(4), 22(11) 19(1) Player 9 1/2 4 4(21), 16(8), 20(12), 22(11) and 8(18), 10(21), 17(12) 15(4) Player 13 1/2 4 1(18), 10(21), 21(8) and 11(18), 22(11) 5(4) Player 15 2/1 4 3(12), 11(18) and 8(18), 9(4), 10(21), 17(12) 12(1) Player 16 2/2 8 4(21), 20(12), 22(11) and 3(12), 14(12) 9(4) and 19(1) Player 18 2/2 8 14(12), 17(12) and 1(18), 2(12), 4(21) 6(1) and 12(1) Player 21 2/2 8 1(18), 10(21) and 3(12), 4(21) 13(4) and 6(1) And here I added up the ranks of the players they faced: Name Places Rank Combined rank of Combined rank of players beaten players he has lost to Player 6 1/1 1 64 (6 Players) - Player 12 1/1 1 93 (7 Players) - Player 19 1/1 1 78 (7 Players) - Player 5 2/1 4 75 (6 Players) 1 (1 Player) Player 9 1/2 4 103 (7 Players) 4 (1 Player) Player 13 1/2 4 76 (5 Players) 4 (1 Player) Player 15 2/1 4 85 (6 Players) 1 (1 Player) Player 16 2/2 8 68 (5 Players) 5 (2 Players) Player 18 2/2 8 75 (5 Players) 2 (2 Players) Player 21 2/2 8 72 (4 Players) 5 (2 Players) Apparently this has to take into account how many players they have beaten/lost to. (to be continued)

Thats not too big a problem imo. We can use a different method in case of a small tournament. How about either playing 3 rounds of prelims and 1 final or a 4 round single elimim w/o prelims (2nd concept bad imo)? What interests me most is this: The method suggested by jolin012 seems to succesfully seed the 2nd round of the tournament w/o the organizers intervention. The best players of the event will either all be winners in the first round and get into a different game on the second, or they will happen to be in the same game initially, which leads to them beeing in different games on the second round too. I doubt this will work all the time, because if it would work, it would be a very good system and I can't see a reason why I have never heard of it so far. It's too good to be true. So far I can't see why nobody uses this, let's give it a try. If you (jolin012 and MagicalHacker) are ok with it, we should post an understandable version of this to a public section of the forums, and proceed. If it really is defunct, maybe some player will point out then, or, at worst, we will know after a few tournaments. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - How about this worst case scenario: Since the best two players advance from the second round, problems will occur if 3 or more players that should be in the final end up in the same game of round 2. For this to happen, assuming they all do as well as they should in round 1, they would have to come from three different games. And for this to be possible, they would have to be seeded like this: Game one - 1 strong player Game two - 2 strong players Game three - 3 strong players And then it could happen that the second round would have a game like 1st of game one, 2nd of game two, 3rd of game three, with all three players beeing strong. Still we can assume that the best of them are more likely to proceed to the finals, we would just loose good players in the prelims. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - And what about seeding for the finals? Am I right that we are clueless how to seed them? We could use the "combined ranking of the players they have beaten" as some sort of ranking maybe? Like this maybe (22 players), listed are the placements in each game: Round 1 Game 1 Player 8 5 Player 19 1 Player 5 2 Player 2 4 Player 7 3 Game 2 Player 9 1 Player 22 3 Player 16 2 Player 20 4 Player 4 5 Game 3 Player 3 3 Player 15 2 Player 11 4 Player 12 1 Game 4 Player 6 1 Player 14 4 Player 17 3 Player 18 2 Game 5 Player 1 3 Player 10 4 Player 21 2 Player 13 1 Round 2 (Last Game 1 round) Player 19 (1) 1 Advance Player 16 (2) 2 Advance Player 3 (3) 4 Player 14 (4) 3 Game 2 Player 9 (1) 2 Advance Player 15 (2) 1 Advance Player 17 (3) 4 Player 10 (4) 5 Player 8 (5) 3 Game 3 Player 12 (1) 1 Advance Player 18 (2) 2 Advance Player 1 (3) 5 Player 2 (4) 3 Player 4 (5) 3 Game 4 Player 6 (1) 1 Advance Player 21 (2) 2 Advance Player 7 (3) 4 Player 20 (4) 3 Game 5 Player 13 (1) 2 Advance Player 5 (2) 1 Advance Player 22 (3) 3 Player 11 (4) 4 I assumed that players tend to repeat their result in the second round, if they are strong players. Player 5 and 15 happened to end up in a game with other strong players in the first round, and do better on the second. And the lower ranks are more likely to have random results, as they probably are dependant on what elements are rolled, and other stuff. The results after this example preliminaries are: Player Places Rank Player 6 1/1 1 Advance Player 12 1/1 1 Advance Player 19 1/1 1 Advance Player 5 2/1 4 Advance Player 9 1/2 4 Advance Player 13 1/2 4 Advance Player 15 2/1 4 Advance Player 16 2/2 8 Advance Player 18 2/2 8 Advance Player 21 2/2 8 Advance Player 22 3/3 11 Player 2 4/3 12 Player 3 3/4 12 Player 7 3/4 12 Player 14 4/3 12 Player 20 4/3 12 Player 17 3/4 12 Player 1 3/5 18 Player 4 5/3 18 Player 8 5/3 18 Player 11 4/4 18 Now how do we seed the 10 players into two semifinal games? If i sum up the resulting ranks for the players they have beaten so far, I get this: (work in progress - to be continued)

Hm. If this works as intended it would provide a working seeding w/o manual interference in just two rounds. This sounds to good to be true. MagicalHacker - do you believe this is as good as I just outlined? And there is no catch? If so, we should go public and post that ruleset into the forums. Edit - I fed your tool some numbers and I don't think the method works with less than 22 players.

Anyone can get into dev team, but only a few get into testing. Karawasa doesn't let anyone test.

I disagree in two points. It's 3 hotkeys ("X", "A" ans "U") and the problem is the placement on the keyboard, not the number imo. But we are together in: Plz change it. "Q"uality up. Quantum needs a new name then, probably switch it with one of the higher levels. "F"lame has no element in commen with "F"lux and "W"ell none with "W"arp, so both names are possible.

I grew up on D&D, so bone golem sounds like the natural solution. Or "Björn the golem". Anything, just not beef golem. Oh, and did you change the rabbi yet? I feel uncomfortable shooting at jews. And that is not a joke at all.

MagicalHacker did yet another cool tool, a tournament simulator. It's meant to give a quick preview of his version of a four round tournament with 2 rounds prelim, semifinal and final. >> Click me, I'm a tournament tool << Edit - Totally forgot: Jolin012 and MagicalHacker developed this method for conducting the prelims together, and I think it was Jolin who came up with it in the first place.

"ROUND 2: the winner of every group goes to the finals." This does not work out at all imo. I a player wins first round and gets second on round two, he is not allowed into the finals? He had the harder game on round one, if you are corect. And a player that lost round one but wins round two advances? Allthough his combined result (3,1) is worse han the other players (1,2)? And what about tournaments where the number of finalists is not a divider of the total players, as is 16 -> 6 or 20 -> 8? You still need to convince me.

A little less than 50% and an even number.

[beta 4] Lists of all 2- and 3-element towers (4.0 b4) ldwfne # 1 ++ LD Trickery Duplicates towers 2 + + LW Ice Single target slow and dot (like poison in 3.0) 3 + + LF Electricity Bouncing spell dmg (a bit like metal in 3.0) 4 + + LN Life Gains life with kills (but slower life gain than in 3.0) 5 + + LE Quantum Can teleport itself 6 ++ DW Poison Dmg in a line (like sun in 3.0) 7 + + DF Magic ??? 8 + + DN Death Does more dmg if the target is on full health 9 + + DE Gunpowder Long range tower 10 ++ WF Kindle Aoe dot (a bit like steam in 3.0) #11 + + WN Well Speeds up other towers 12 + + WE Hydro Sometimes throws a unit in the air, dealing splash when it lands 13 ++ FN Flame Single target slow and increases dmg taken #14 + + FE Blacksmith Gives your towers a boost on dmg 15 ++ NE Rage Can cast rage on itself for some exta fire power ldwfne 1 +++ LDW Hail Attacks some random area near it with splash 2 ++ + LDF Jinx Warps creeps back on the path and damages them 3 ++ + LDN Oblivion Summons skeletons 4 ++ + LDE Laser (Placeholder till prism tower is coded) # 5 + ++ LWF Windstorm Creates moving aoe slowing and dot hurricane 6 + + + LWN Tidal Charges an aoe attack for every 10 attacks, can be discharged by the player # 7 + + + LWE Polar Slows target and causes extra dmg # 8 + ++ LFN Nova Dmg and slow to all creeps in range 9 + + + LFE Gold Gives bonus gold based on inflicted dmg #10 + ++ LNE Enchantment Decreases creeps armour, dot #11 +++ DWF Corrosion Dot and armour reduction debuff, aplied with a splash 12 ++ + DWN Drowning Chance for instant kill based on targets health #13 ++ + DWE Muck Splash attack and aoe slow with that (much like ice in 3.0) #14 + ++ DFN Voodoo Units get extra dmg based on dmg taken since cursed 15 + + + DFE Flamethrower Rapid fire splash tower with incinerate #16 + ++ DNE Roots Slows all creeps in a line 17 +++ WFN Impulse Does more damage the further away the target is 18 ++ + WFE Zeal Gets faster and faster the longer it fires w/o pause 19 + ++ WNE Beef Golem Grows and grows while dealing dmg 20 +++ FNE Quaker Has a chance to do splash dmg # - One of the stronger support towers

Now that I've seen some vids on youtube, I have to admit that the game has some fascinating looks.

What? I'm not sure what to think of this. Do you think the players that missed the final want to play for a ranking among them? I would expect that no, they don't, but I might be wrong. I don't want to set games for them where there is a great probability that they don't show up. What again?

I'm playing ladder in mpdtd, and a score is very motivating for me. Any other players around here that have ladder experience?

We still have some problems with the ruleset, but we are working on it. Do you guys have an idea where we can find more people to advertize the second tournament? I'd like to have more players this time.

So far we have two mayor things to develop: How is the second round (round 2 of the prelims) arranged? I'd say, in a way that no two players meet again and otherwise random. Or rank as in swiss maybe? Jolin012 had a different idea, something like "sorted in a way that each game has one of each rank". And which players advance to the finals? What do we do if after two rounds some players near the last rank that advances are ranked identically? Here an example tournament, 16 players, first two rounds: Round 1 Round 2 Player 1 1 Player 1 1 Player 2 4 Player 5 4 Player 3 3 Player 9 2 Player 4 2 Player 13 4 Player 5 4 Player 2 3 Player 6 1 Player 6 1 Player 7 3 Player 10 2 Player 8 2 Player 14 4 Player 9 1 Player 3 1 Player 10 4 Player 7 3 Player 11 3 Player 11 4 Player 12 2 Player 15 2 Player 13 4 Player 4 4 Player 14 3 Player 8 3 Player 15 2 Player 12 2 Player 16 1 Player 16 1 And we have the results listed here: Player Name Results Rank Player 16 1 1 1 Advances Player 6 1 1 1 Advances Player 1 1 1 1 Advances Player 9 1 2 4 Advances Player 3 1 3 5 ???? Player 12 2 2 5 ???? Player 15 2 2 5 ???? Player 8 2 3 8 Player 4 2 4 9 Player 10 2 4 9 Player 7 3 3 9 Player 14 3 4 12 Player 2 3 4 12 Player 11 3 4 12 Player 5 4 4 15 Player 13 4 4 15 I simply add the placement of each game and sort by that sum. Since several players have the same result, they have the same rank ofc. Now how to decide which of those is better? Not all of them have played each other. For example, if we allow an even number of players into the filnals, but less than 50%, we want 6 players to advance. But the players 3, 12 and 15 are ranked identically. Only two of them have met so far (3 and 15 in round 2). I tried to add up the ranks of all players they won against, but again I get a tie between two of them: Player 3 and 12 beat players with a combined rank of 38 ranks. Player 15 did worse (he beat players with 48 combined ranks), so in this example I am done, as I just need to drop one of the three, the better two advance. But what if the tie happens exactly on the border? I assume there is no way to use the outcome of just two rounds to fairly determine a detailed ranking. Is a tie likely if we even use the ranks of the players they have beaten? If someone can assure me that such a tie at about 1/3 or the ranks is very unlikely I'd go with this and use a cointoss in case of a tie. Remember, we don't have time for an extra game, we allready have 4 rounds = 4 hours + extra time to plan and meet. And we can't use things like net worth, leaks or highest wave, as we play sr and the builds are not even yet.

Great. And in case you are a certain javauser, try this command: /Nick 13est It'll help I guess.

And again, after wave 48 this time.

Get trillian or mirc then.

But still we havn't really answered the original question. The arrow opening, which isn't mine, as I copied it from GipFace, would be the "best" opening imo, but it requires fast fingers, so not everyone can play it. Or: It's not the best opening for everyone. It basically works like this: You place one or two arrow towers of the correct level at 4 (numpad notation), on two-pass. This group is strong enough to kill one creep of the current wave with one shoot. The needed towers are: Wave Towers 1 1 Super Arrow 2 1 Super Arrow 3 1 Super Arrow, 1 Basic Arrow 4 1 Super Arrow, 1 Advanced Arrow 5 2 Super Arrows 6 2 Super Arrows 7 1 Elemental Arrow (not fire) 8 1 Elemental Arrow (not earth) 9 1 Elemental Arrow (not nature) 10 1 Elemental Arrow (not dark), 1 Super Arrow 11 1 Elemental Arrow (not water), 1 Super Arrow 12 2 Elemental Arrows 13 2 Elemental Arrows (not light) If a wave requires two towers, I place them above each other, while gipface places them besides each other. We both try to achieve that they will allway target the same creep without us microing them. Both versions fail sometimes. Even if the towers correctly target the same creep and do one-shoot kills, they are only barely enough to clear a wave (and thats on the slightly slower multiplayer), so you need more towers to be on the safe side. I place those extra towers at 5, on long pass, and their job is to do extra kills. It has no value if they just damage a creep, you need valid kills. If you are fast enough, you sell those extra towers when the interest is due and rebuild them directly afterward, and between waves all towers are razed for the same reason. If I can't one shoot a wave with two arrows, I switch to cannons. So if I have fire as first element, I build 3 cannons at 4 and 2 temp cannons at 5 for wave 7 (water). You know what two pass, long pass and the numpad notation are?