Latest Posts

Topic: Widelands tournament 2016; official announcements

king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1488
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2017-02-07, 00:11

I kept count, and I have to partially agree with you. I won more fights than I lost. I disagree however with your assesment on how much this influenced the outcome of the game:

  • I was unlucky in the first phase, losing 4 fights out of 6. At that moment, you only had 2, sometimes only 1 fully promoted soldier, and if I could kill that, I could push back your whole front. being unlucky there made me lose a good chance. On your favor, it must be said that my soldiers were missing some armor promotion, so 4 to 2 is not too badly unbalanced.

  • after that, I turned my attention to sirver, pressing him and killing most of his army. I lost 3 supersoldiers there, plus a few weaker ones. my soldiers were often unlucky there, getting almost killed by one or two level 2 soldiers. though a couple fo them managed to survive against bad odds, so this compensates a bit? Dunno, but I think 2-3 fully promoted soldiers fighting 4-5 level 2 soldiers should tke no losses at all. I also admit not using my soldier at best there, but I was in a hurry to deal as much damage as possible before turning back to you. In this moment, you attacked me, and this time I got lucky; I won 5 fights out of 7. At the end of this phase, sirver was defeated, and I left notabilis to finish him. the game virtually ended there, and the overall balance of losses is 7 for you and 6 for me, ok make it 5 for me because not all the soldiers I lost were at full defensive power, still not such a huge difference. though i kept looking for a bit and confirmed that I won more fights even later.

By this time, you had made exactly 11 fully promoted soldiers, while I had made over 20. So, even with some more luck, you would not have breached my front, and you would not change the outcome of the game. though you may have stalled against me and forced me to ask for notabilis' help. Also, your soldiers were cheap, because of a glitch in the game design that allowed you to skip 2 expensive promotions and retain full efficiency, while I could only skip one - a glitch that I proposed to fix so that skipping promotions is never a good idea, there is another thread for that (https://wl.widelands.org/forum/topic/2822/?page=1). And you had better land, something on which you agree.

So, for having made more soldiers than you did, earlier than you did, I still deserved to win that game, even if the random god gave me a hand along the way. I didn't "just had a lot of luck", as you keeep saying.

It is hard to accept. You are the strongest, you crush everyone, nobody can resist you in a fair match, and then somebody comes and best you. I passed through the same experience just a few weeks ago - whether that somebody is a new guy that you underestimated or the old champion that came back stronger matters little here. It can't happen, you are the strongest. So you look for other reasons you lost. A blunder in the early game strategy. bad luck in fighting. And those reasons are true; it is true that I made a bad blunder in our first game, it is true that you had bad luck with fights here. eventually you realize that it wouldn't have mattered. you made supersoldiers faster than I was capable of making at the time, so even without that early game blunder i'd have lost. i made more soldiers than you did, so even if i hadn't been lucky, i'd have won. that's how it goes.

Anyway, if you want a showdown, pick a symmetrical map, a tribe for both to use, and give me a week. playing against you will be a pleasure regardless of the outcome. And regardless of the outcome, there is no title to win. now, if we made at least a half dozen matches, and someone won over 70% of those, then that someone could have a statistically-backed claim to be the strongest.


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1411
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2017-02-08, 21:36

king_of_nowhere wrote:

I kept count, and I have to partially agree with you. I won more fights than I lost. I disagree however with your assesment on how much this influenced the outcome of the game:

  • I was unlucky in the first phase, losing 4 fights out of 6.

That was no bad luck for you. You attacked my "fully" promoted soldiers with soldiers who lacked 2 armors. I calculated that the probability of winning such a fight is approximately 32%.

At that moment, you only had 2, sometimes only 1 fully promoted soldier, and if I could kill that, I could push back your whole front.

I made a diagram now face-tongue.png (total number of trained heroes by time)

I had trained my first hero after 80 minutes, you had trained your first hero after 100 minutes. The first time when you had trained more heroes (than I did) was after 145 minutes. It seems that you miscounted your heroes, maybe you counted some of them twice, and maybe you counted some non-heroes as heroes.

But even then, the difference between our total training amount was never more than 3 heroes! And after 235 minutes, I had trained more heroes than you again. Then I trained heroes for a while (40 minutes or more) approximately twice as fast as you did, even though you could have weakened my economy already a bit because of your luck face-wink.png

being unlucky there made me lose a good chance.

As I said, within the first 145 minutes, I'd never trained less heroes than you did.

On your favor, it must be said that my soldiers were missing some armor promotion, so 4 to 2 is not too badly unbalanced.

As I said, it's balanced face-wink.png

  • after that, I turned my attention to sirver, pressing him and killing most of his army. I lost 3 supersoldiers there, plus a few weaker ones. my soldiers were often unlucky there, getting almost killed by one or two level 2 soldiers. though a couple fo them managed to survive against bad odds, so this compensates a bit? Dunno, but I think 2-3 fully promoted soldiers fighting 4-5 level 2 soldiers should tke no losses at all. I also admit not using my soldier at best there, but I was in a hurry to deal as much damage as possible before turning back to you. In this moment, you attacked me, and this time I got lucky; I won 5 fights out of 7. At the end of this phase, sirver was defeated, and I left notabilis to finish him.

SirVer's headquarter survived longer than 4 hours

the game virtually ended there

Not really... Later...

and the overall balance of losses is 7 for you and 6 for me, ok make it 5 for me because not all the soldiers I lost were at full defensive power, still not such a huge difference. though i kept looking for a bit and confirmed that I won more fights even later.

By this time, you had made exactly 11 fully promoted soldiers, while I had made over 20.

I had trained 11 after 170 minutes, you had trained 14 at this time. 5 minutes later, both of us had trained 1 more hero.

So, even with some more luck, you would not have breached my front, and you would not change the outcome of the game.

Yes, I would have face-wink.png

though you may have stalled against me and forced me to ask for notabilis' help. Also, your soldiers were cheap, because of a glitch in the game design that allowed you to skip 2 expensive promotions and retain full efficiency, while I could only skip one - a glitch that I proposed to fix so that skipping promotions is never a good idea, there is another thread for that (https://wl.widelands.org/forum/topic/2822/?page=1).

Glitches like that are not that rare in widelands and you can have the skill to recognize them. Then you can get an advantage face-wink.png

And I compared the costs. My soldiers costed still 6 logs more than yours, and logs are very expensive on this map. And for atlanteans they are even more expensive than for the empire.

My soldiers costed less fish and water, but the empire can produce it more easy on that map, it's not so expensive. Okay, my soldiers costed a little bit less farm-resources (the difference might also be 6), but those might not be much more expensive than logs on that map face-wink.png

And Einstein13 calculated that I still had a little disadvantage because of not using shields. It has been very small, but greater than zero face-wink.png

And you had better land, something on which you agree.

Better land for atlanteans, yes. But didn't you say that the yellow position is great for the empire? I can agree with that!

So, for having made more soldiers than you did,

not really

earlier than you did

wrong, surprisingly

I still deserved to win that game, even if the random god gave me a hand along the way. I didn't "just had a lot of luck", as you keeep saying.

I cannot agree at all face-wink.png

I'm still not convinced that you deserved to win that game. Your argumentation contains some mistakes... Well, for me it looks more like I deserved at least a draw in that match...

it is true that I made a bad blunder in our first game, it is true that you had bad luck with fights here. eventually you realize that it wouldn't have mattered. i made more soldiers than you did, so even if i hadn't been lucky, i'd have won. that's how it goes

no face-wink.png

Anyway, if you want a showdown, pick a symmetrical map, a tribe for both to use, and give me a week. playing against you will be a pleasure regardless of the outcome. And regardless of the outcome, there is no title to win. now, if we made at least a half dozen matches, and someone won over 70% of those, then that someone could have a statistically-backed claim to be the strongest.

So, after my newest analysis, do you really think that it would be a good idea to challenge me? face-wink.png

Edited: 2017-02-08, 21:38

“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
SirVer
Joined: 2009-02-19, 15:18
Posts: 1439
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany - Munich
Posted at: 2017-02-08, 22:01

You two are really funny face-smile.png I think you just play a best-of-nine to figure out the pecking order since it seems important to the both of you.


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1488
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2017-02-09, 14:30

I count a soldier with full attack and evade as fully promoted, even if you clearly disagreed with it. Ok, it has a 32% against a fully promoted one, but it is perfectly good for killing lesser soldiers. And I got the first one of those soldiers earlier than you did. I decided to delay the armor smith because my building resources were limited and I could not afford it, not the weaving mill and sheep farm, until later. It was better to get those level 7 soldiers out first than to wait until i could spare the resources to make armors. And if you count those soldiers among the total of what I made - you don't need to count them fully, you can just count the 6 of them as 5 or 4 - then I made almost twice as many strong soldiers as you did, in the beginning; ok, you can say that I made not 20-11 but 19-11, or 18-11. You certainly cannot pretend they did not exist. power graph also back me up on this, I had a much greater power than you - and while power graph can be misleading, because a lot of weaker soldiers give more score than a handful of more expensive, more effective stronger soldiers, that wasn't the case there.

As for sirver, regardless of how long his hq survived, the moment he could no longer stand up to notabilis the game was won. My original plan had been from the beginning to expand fast and block you, while notabilis attacked sirver; the former adapted to the map better than the latter, so I was confident notabilis could win and then we could go 2v1 against you. Then I found out I grew in power faster than you, so I tried to rush you instead. which, if I had been lucky, would have happened. I did not succceed, so I instead decided to weaken sirver. I did enough damage that I was sure notabilis could finish the job, then i turned back to you. the only way the game could have changed there was for you to break past me and reach your teammate. which would have eventually happened, because with limited farm spaces atlanteans can eventually outproduce everyone else. By that time, however, notabilis would have had enough power to stop you there.

WorldSavior wrote:

So, after my newest analysis, do you really think that it would be a good idea to challenge me? ;-)

it's always a good idea to challenge you because it makes for interesting games. I play - not just widelands, but any game - because I like to put my skill against that of an equal opponent. winning easily is not entertaining. that's why I tried my best to teach everyone else. If I just cared about winning, I wouldn't have written guides and dispensed tips in the forum, would I?

SirVer wrote:

You two are really funny face-smile.png I think you just play a best-of-nine to figure out the pecking order since it seems important to the both of you.

It's not about the pecking order. It's about the analysis of the game. And in particular about the fact that I think I played really good (only significant mistake, I should have gotten a couple more soldiers on your side before attacking; that way, i would have lost none) and earned the victory, with luck not being a determinant factor (it did determine whether i could take him alone or I needed the help of notabilis, though), while he claims that without luck he'd have won the match.

You may remeber than in previous games I did argue for me being screwed from early on and having less chances than he himself gave me credit for having.


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1411
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2017-02-11, 18:27

king_of_nowhere wrote:

I count a soldier with full attack and evade as fully promoted, even if you clearly disagreed with it. Ok, it has a 32% against a fully promoted one

...if he attacks. Don't forget that the chance is even lower if he will be attacked face-wink.png

, but it is perfectly good for killing lesser soldiers.

That's true. And you killed a remarkable number of my soldiers....

And I got the first one of those soldiers earlier than you did.

That's true. You trained 5 of them before you started to train heroes. But you could upgrade just one to a hero. The other four died, and you can expect that they just killed 2 of my heroes, and weaker soldiers.

I decided to delay the armor smith because my building resources were limited and I could not afford it, not the weaving mill and sheep farm, until later. It was better to get those level 7 soldiers out first than to wait until i could spare the resources to make armors. And if you count those soldiers among the total of what I made - you don't need to count them fully, you can just count the 6 of them as 5 or 4 - then I made almost twice as many strong soldiers as you did, in the beginning; ok, you can say that I made not 20-11 but 19-11, or 18-11. You certainly cannot pretend they did not exist.

But I didn't calculate if they were worth the effort to train them... I lost many weak soldiers and some towers, some high towers, some heroes, but you lost 4 expensive soldiers face-wink.png

power graph also back me up on this, I had a much greater power than you - and while power graph can be misleading, because a lot of weaker soldiers give more score than a handful of more expensive, more effective stronger soldiers, that wasn't the case there.

With empire, it's easy to use your colosseum too often face-wink.png

As for sirver, regardless of how long his hq survived, the moment he could no longer stand up to notabilis the game was won. My original plan had been from the beginning to expand fast and block you, while notabilis attacked sirver; the former adapted to the map better than the latter, so I was confident notabilis could win and then we could go 2v1 against you. Then I found out I grew in power faster than you, so I tried to rush you instead. which, if I had been lucky, would have happened. I did not succceed, so I instead decided to weaken sirver. I did enough damage that I was sure notabilis could finish the job, then i turned back to you. the only way the game could have changed there was for you to break past me and reach your teammate. which would have eventually happened, because with limited farm spaces atlanteans can eventually outproduce everyone else.

Yes, they can do so, that's the only reason why I've choosen them instead of the empire face-wink.png

By that time, however, notabilis would have had enough power to stop you there.

Well, it seems that you underestimate SirVer... I completed my diagram now with the numbers of him and notabilis. You weakened SirVer and pushed him back, but you could not avoid that he build a fortress, and when it was completed, he had trained suddenly as much heroes as notabilis did, and he had some partially attack-trained soldiers. In general your team has also been quite lucky in the fight "SirVer vs notabilis"....

WorldSavior wrote:

So, after my newest analysis, do you really think that it would be a good idea to challenge me? ;-)

it's always a good idea to challenge you because it makes for interesting games. I play - not just widelands, but any game - because I like to put my skill against that of an equal opponent. winning easily is not entertaining. that's why I tried my best to teach everyone else. If I just cared about winning, I wouldn't have written guides and dispensed tips in the forum, would I?

Maybe you really like winning, but you have been so bored, that you wanted to teach other people at least a bit face-tongue.png

Well, I'm not sure if should react to the challenge. I don't like the idea that you want to prepare a whole week...

SirVer wrote:

You two are really funny face-smile.png I think you just play a best-of-nine to figure out the pecking order since it seems important to the both of you.

I'm not interested in a pecking order neither... Why am I funny? face-wink.png

It's not about the pecking order. It's about the analysis of the game. And in particular about the fact that I think I played really good (only significant mistake, I should have gotten a couple more soldiers on your side before attacking; that way, i would have lost none) and earned the victory, with luck not being a determinant factor (it did determine whether i could take him alone or I needed the help of notabilis, though), while he claims that without luck he'd have won the match.

Yes, you played really good, but I don't think that I played worse than you. Well, I said that I would have reached a draw, and I'm still thinking that this would have been the result which everyone of us earned...


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1488
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2017-02-11, 20:12

power graph also back me up on this, I had a much greater power than you - and while power graph can be misleading, because a lot of weaker soldiers give more score than a handful of more expensive, more effective stronger soldiers, that wasn't the case there.

With empire, it's easy to use your colosseum too often ;-)

nah, I made 5 of them, plus one every time i trained a soldier in the training camp. i only made those five because it made micromanagement a bit easier - i could have a tower set on "prefer heroes" and still have one soldier with evade in the warehouse to send to further training.

it's always a good idea to challenge you because it makes for interesting games. I play - not just widelands, but any game - because I like to put my skill against that of an equal opponent. winning easily is not entertaining. that's why I tried my best to teach everyone else. If I just cared about winning, I wouldn't have written guides and dispensed tips in the forum, would I?

Maybe you really like winning, but you have been so bored, that you wanted to teach other people at least a bit face-tongue.png

Well, I'm not sure if should react to the challenge. I don't like the idea that you want to prepare a whole week...

Of course winning against a strong opponent is more gratifying than losing against a strong opponent. but i'd rather lose against a strong opponent than win easily. Anyway, I'm also not sure I want to play again so soon. If I have a match with you I must prepare - of course we could both agree to not prepare, but could we trust each other to keep such an agreement? and even then if one played the map the first time and the other already did, he has the advantage. I'm not sure I'm motivated enough to do it before the next tournament.


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1411
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2017-02-13, 19:43

king_of_nowhere wrote:

power graph also back me up on this, I had a much greater power than you - and while power graph can be misleading, because a lot of weaker soldiers give more score than a handful of more expensive, more effective stronger soldiers, that wasn't the case there.

With empire, it's easy to use your colosseum too often ;-)

nah, I made 5 of them, plus one every time i trained a soldier in the training camp. i only made those five because it made micromanagement a bit easier - i could have a tower set on "prefer heroes" and still have one soldier with evade in the warehouse to send to further training.

That seems to be okay...

it's always a good idea to challenge you because it makes for interesting games. I play - not just widelands, but any game - because I like to put my skill against that of an equal opponent. winning easily is not entertaining. that's why I tried my best to teach everyone else. If I just cared about winning, I wouldn't have written guides and dispensed tips in the forum, would I?

Maybe you really like winning, but you have been so bored, that you wanted to teach other people at least a bit face-tongue.png

Well, I'm not sure if should react to the challenge. I don't like the idea that you want to prepare a whole week...

Of course winning against a strong opponent is more gratifying than losing against a strong opponent. but i'd rather lose against a strong opponent than win easily. Anyway, I'm also not sure I want to play again so soon.

Okay...

If I have a match with you I must prepare - of course we could both agree to not prepare, but could we trust each other to keep such an agreement?

I hope so, but I think preparing would be part of such a match. At least preparing some days. But a whole week? That seems to be a lot of time.

and even then if one played the map the first time and the other already did, he has the advantage. I'm not sure I'm motivated enough to do it before the next tournament.

Okay... Me neither face-wink.png


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1411
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2017-02-26, 20:05

By the way: Do Widelands Tournament Winner T-Shirts look like the T-Shirts of the Atlanteans - or even like their golden T-Shirts? face-smile.png


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1488
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2017-02-26, 21:42

Alas, I decided there would be no t-shirts in the end. Because if I make a couple of these events every year, it's going to be a lot of t-shirts


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1411
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2017-02-26, 22:01

Okay...


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote