Open AI Championship

Post #23

Finals: before start

Project

Sandbox

Round 1

Round 2

Finals

Recent comments

12 december 13:31: alex3d wrote comment on post Some more good news ;)
12 december 12:07: newpuk wrote comment on post Finals
12 december 09:50: leloy wrote comment on post Finals
11 december 23:48: VexfxjC wrote comment on post Some more good news ;)
11 december 23:38: alkozel wrote comment on post Some more good news ;)
11 december 18:26: Jeners wrote comment on post Some more good news ;)
11 december 16:59: VexfxjC wrote comment on post Some more good news ;)
11 december 16:57: VexfxjC wrote comment on post Some more good news ;)
11 december 16:08: OREZ wrote comment on post Some more good news ;)
11 december 11:58: Eugene713 wrote comment on post Some more good news ;)

VK Group

Telegram chat

Update

Today was released a series of small updates to the game simulator and the rules, namely:

  • the facility capture speed is halved;
  • the production time of aerial vehicles was increased;
  • fixed a bug with numerous score points on capturing the facility, now points are awarded only when the owner changes;
  • slightly improved technical renderer;
  • various minor improvements.


novich-OK

novich-OK

Nizhny Novgorod

True I present the current mechanics points: - the first player captures the building -> gets points - the second player does the building neutral, but perisomatic does not work -> no points to anyone, right? the first captures the building again -> again gets points

Ie select buildings from the enemy is not beneficial if not sure just bring it to the end because of the opportunity to inflate his score. Doesn’t look very reasonable.

Nov 28, 2017 7:26:57 PM
novich-OK

novich-OK

Nizhny Novgorod

…and the site is very lacking edit comments submitted…

Nov 28, 2017 7:28:20 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

all of the capture points are too bold, low tactics maximum profit as it is not logical

Nov 29, 2017 12:06:11 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

I would suggest for the building to not give points at all, for in the tactical plan of the building should be valuable to the player on points, and the functionality that they provide. Ie the player must capture the building for the use of buildings in order to defeat the enemy using their features, not just stuffed a bunch of points

Nov 29, 2017 2:13:42 PM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

I would suggest for the building to not give points at all, for in the tactical plan of the building should be valuable to the player on points, and the functionality that they provide. Ie the player must capture the building for the use of buildings in order to defeat the enemy using their features, not just stuffed a bunch of points

And it prevents like that the strategy of “sandwich”?)

Nov 29, 2017 2:25:45 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

And it prevents like that the strategy of “sandwich”?)

I voobscheto not a sandwich and not when it was not

Nov 29, 2017 2:30:08 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

The question only in that that the seizure of the building without the use of is not the solution for which you can give at least some assessment from a tactical point of view. But the seizure of the building for the production equipment, Yes - tactics. But glasses it is already possible to obtain for the destruction of the enemy who, too, such as churning out equipment at the plants

Nov 29, 2017 2:34:25 PM
Adler

Adler

Dzyarzhynsk

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

I would suggest for the building to not give points at all, for in the tactical plan of the building should be valuable to the player on points, and the functionality that they provide. Ie the player must capture the building for the use of buildings in order to defeat the enemy using their features, not just stuffed a bunch of points

+1

Nov 29, 2017 11:08:21 PM
tyamgin

tyamgin

Simferopol

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

I would suggest for the building to not give points at all, for in the tactical plan of the building should be valuable to the player on points, and the functionality that they provide. Ie the player must capture the building for the use of buildings in order to defeat the enemy using their features, not just stuffed a bunch of points

+1

Nov 30, 2017 12:11:26 AM
F10PPY
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

I would suggest for the building to not give points at all, for in the tactical plan of the building should be valuable to the player on points, and the functionality that they provide. Ie the player must capture the building for the use of buildings in order to defeat the enemy using their features, not just stuffed a bunch of points

+

Nov 30, 2017 3:12:45 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Maybe even building to remove all then. If they do not give points it will all boil down to раунду1. Since the army is not so quickly built

Nov 30, 2017 7:41:55 AM
newpuk

newpuk

Almaty

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

I would suggest for the building to not give points at all, for in the tactical plan of the building should be valuable to the player on points, and the functionality that they provide. Ie the player must capture the building for the use of buildings in order to defeat the enemy using their features, not just stuffed a bunch of points

+1

Nov 30, 2017 7:45:59 AM
ilt

ilt

Krasnogorsk

Adler

Adler

Dzyarzhynsk

+1

  • Pros The key mistake in the original sentence “must be valuable”. The rules do not provide an a priori value of the buildings. Capture a specific building on a specific move can be quite valuable.

Suppose it’s a bit subjective rule will be cancelled. What will be left? The destruction of the opponent’s unit. Even more subjective rule.

According to him, party with 1500 units, which lost 400 worse than a party with 200 units, which lost 300.

Nov 30, 2017 8:39:05 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Let’s yaderku cancel, and then I have overate attack and sometimes some stocks happen. So I admit yaderku not very valuable

Nov 30, 2017 8:51:12 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Let’s yaderku cancel, and then I have overate attack and sometimes some stocks happen. So I admit yaderku not very valuable

we are playing catch-up much as check points take, such actions cannot be evaluated as a tactical decision, nothing more, and Yes if the player you really win with fewer units, he really deserves more points than you with all your plants

Nov 30, 2017 9:07:44 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

we are playing catch-up much as check points take, such actions cannot be evaluated as a tactical decision, nothing more, and Yes if the player you really win with fewer units, he really deserves more points than you with all your plants

What prevents the enemy from doing the same.

Nov 30, 2017 9:11:16 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

What prevents the enemy from doing the same.

-_- the question is that this is not a tactic

Nov 30, 2017 9:14:44 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

I’ll explain more popularly, there’s the bike (and maybe not the bike) that the Indian programmers are paid for the number of lines of code. So this code can inflate to through measuring the number of these strings themselves, but on the quality of execution of the program is the number of rows or does not affect (except for weight of the program) , that is, such an assessment is not a priori true

Nov 30, 2017 9:18:19 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

-_- the question is that this is not a tactic

Okay, so the retreat is also not a tactic? Sense to win on points, you can gain them by killing, capturing buildings. Tactics that in the end you have points turned out to be more than the enemy. All

Nov 30, 2017 9:19:05 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Okay, so the retreat is also not a tactic? Sense to win on points, you can gain them by killing, capturing buildings. Tactics that in the end you have points turned out to be more than the enemy. All

Is the concept of “strategic retreat” if it helped the player to get into a better position, and praebet more of the enemy then it is just a tactical move. But to fill the glasses from scratch? Maybe even on the map boxes are scattered “+ 100 points”?

Nov 30, 2017 9:21:25 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Is the concept of “strategic retreat” if it helped the player to get into a better position, and praebet more of the enemy then it is just a tactical move. But to fill the glasses from scratch? Maybe even on the map boxes are scattered “+ 100 points”?

What it means to scratch, to seize the building have to go to his units. There you can and to lose. It’s all a big risk.

Nov 30, 2017 9:26:30 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

What it means to scratch, to seize the building have to go to his units. There you can and to lose. It’s all a big risk.

Do not argue, but the player must try to capture the structure not for the “points”, and for that I would use the features of these structures to beat the enemy.

Nov 30, 2017 9:30:08 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Do not argue, but the player must try to capture the structure not for the “points”, and for that I would use the features of these structures to beat the enemy.

This approach will simply force players to think through tactics, and what is the purpose to capture, not just run “check points” let me remind you we have a tactic and not a race

Nov 30, 2017 9:34:27 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Do not argue, but the player must try to capture the structure not for the “points”, and for that I would use the features of these structures to beat the enemy.

Yes, there are some features that, if buildings do not give points, then nobody will grab, easier to beat. And it will come down to round 1.

Nov 30, 2017 9:34:56 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Yes, there are some features that, if buildings do not give points, then nobody will grab, easier to beat. And it will come down to round 1.

Why, I here for example can see the logic to take the factory to produce equipment which is not enough for use against the enemy, for example the enemy there are a lot of tanks, I don’t have helicopters or tanks. I’ll grab the plant and will scald the man.

Nov 30, 2017 9:36:50 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Why, I here for example can see the logic to take the factory to produce equipment which is not enough for use against the enemy, for example the enemy there are a lot of tanks, I don’t have helicopters or tanks. I’ll grab the plant and will scald the man.

If you lost everything you write and have not started to build anything before that, you have already lost.

Nov 30, 2017 9:40:54 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

If you lost everything you write and have not started to build anything before that, you have already lost.

I gave an example, not saying that, I’m not going to build long before that. It all depends on the pattern of the fight as a whole, but the picture can change dramatically as in the best and worse

Nov 30, 2017 9:43:37 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

http://russianaicup.ru/game/view/136248 here is a vivid example. “The rating game”. The enemy captures the building casually, his tactics better evaluated. Although I almost broke. This assessment in your opinion do “reasonable”?

Nov 30, 2017 9:49:40 AM
ilt

ilt

Krasnogorsk

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

http://russianaicup.ru/game/view/136248 here is a vivid example. “The rating game”. The enemy captures the building casually, his tactics better evaluated. Although I almost broke. This assessment in your opinion do “reasonable”?

This example proves nothing relative to the original approval, but only shows that play here are two very flawed strategy.

Nov 30, 2017 9:56:48 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

ilt

ilt

Krasnogorsk

This example proves nothing relative to the original approval, but only shows that play here are two very flawed strategy.

  1. Play two strategies without the use of the buildings.
  2. Evaluation in your opinion is correct? (The enemy just randomly drove by more houses)

Nov 30, 2017 10:00:07 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

  Play two strategies without the use of the buildings.     Evaluation in your opinion is correct? (The enemy just randomly drove by more houses)  

You assume from that that you didn’t. And want to make the game “fair”. Let’s top 100 disqualify that they are very clever strategy of writing.

Nov 30, 2017 10:03:13 AM
ilt

ilt

Krasnogorsk

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

  Play two strategies without the use of the buildings.     Evaluation in your opinion is correct? (The enemy just randomly drove by more houses)  

When you propose to change the rules, we assume that two play perfect strategy. To change the rules because someone that does not know how, silly.

The thought of organizers is perfectly acceptable. Consider the building not as a checkpoint, and how simplified the controls area. More buildings, more control. Don’t want to control the territory, the rush improve to such an extent that the points for the buildings you will not be needed.

Nov 30, 2017 10:05:03 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

You assume from that that you didn’t. And want to make the game “fair”. Let’s top 100 disqualify that they are very clever strategy of writing.

Yes eprst, I realize it five minutes. I will give an example, maybe you finally will enter the thinking of There is a war such as in Afghanistan. The military chiefs sit, think, and decide to build a checkpoint near Japan. “Rating system” - wow that is progress! +100 points

Nov 30, 2017 10:05:44 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Yes eprst, I realize it five minutes. I will give an example, maybe you finally will enter the thinking of There is a war such as in Afghanistan. The military chiefs sit, think, and decide to build a checkpoint near Japan. “Rating system” - wow that is progress! +100 points

The comparison of so-so. But on another if there is a war in Afghanistan, Afghan amerikntsy supply weapons using a base in Japan, to take the base in Japan +100 points.

Nov 30, 2017 10:07:49 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Yes eprst, I realize it five minutes. I will give an example, maybe you finally will enter the thinking of There is a war such as in Afghanistan. The military chiefs sit, think, and decide to build a checkpoint near Japan. “Rating system” - wow that is progress! +100 points

If you implement 5 minutes, then implement the already calm.

Nov 30, 2017 10:08:48 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

If you implement 5 minutes, then implement the already calm.

-_- this is a tactic, it’s not a race, it is impossible to evaluate the actions of the player for the capture points, it is possible to estimate what these points he made

Nov 30, 2017 10:09:56 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

If you implement 5 minutes, then implement the already calm.

-_- this is a tactic, it’s not a race, it is impossible to evaluate the actions of the player for the capture points, it is possible to estimate what these points he made

Nov 30, 2017 10:09:57 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

-_- this is a tactic, it’s not a race, it is impossible to evaluate the actions of the player for the capture points, it is possible to estimate what these points he made

This is the same if in the second world war fought only in the field, the capture of cities is not considered.

Nov 30, 2017 10:11:19 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

This is the same if in the second world war fought only in the field, the capture of cities is not considered.

Took the city with the aim to use them “And not for show”

Nov 30, 2017 10:12:13 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Took the city with the aim to use them “And not for show”

That is, if you conquered the city but not using him, no effect there. There is a moral or psychological

Nov 30, 2017 10:14:26 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

That is, if you conquered the city but not using him, no effect there. There is a moral or psychological

Yes, this effect is, but first and foremost there is a “PURPOSE” for which it is taken. For example take the city in the isthmus, as it is a very advantageous position to block the approach of the enemy. There are also cases when the not take the city celesoobrazno. And for the sake of “morality” to take it will not. So it’s just stupid and doesn’t carry the tactical component in the ongoing

Nov 30, 2017 10:17:49 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Yes, this effect is, but first and foremost there is a “PURPOSE” for which it is taken. For example take the city in the isthmus, as it is a very advantageous position to block the approach of the enemy. There are also cases when the not take the city celesoobrazno. And for the sake of “morality” to take it will not. So it’s just stupid and doesn’t carry the tactical component in the ongoing

Well, I take the city I gave to points to I have more than the enemy, began to make some resistance. Or stupid to get around on points if he got up a bunch in the corner

Nov 30, 2017 10:19:21 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Well, I take the city I gave to points to I have more than the enemy, began to make some resistance. Or stupid to get around on points if he got up a bunch in the corner

Again the issue is that this hole in the rules, and it is impossible to evaluate yuzaniya holes as the norm

Nov 30, 2017 10:21:33 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Again the issue is that this hole in the rules, and it is impossible to evaluate yuzaniya holes as the norm

It’s not holes, it is a tactic.

Nov 30, 2017 10:22:30 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

It’s not holes, it is a tactic.

I said, not argue with you. Then build your roadblocks in Japan

Nov 30, 2017 10:23:28 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

The comparison of so-so. But on another if there is a war in Afghanistan, Afghan amerikntsy supply weapons using a base in Japan, to take the base in Japan +100 points.

By the way just for shits and giggles, then you appreciate the “Value” built in the post from a logical point of view. That it really is possible to appreciate something. But in the game you refuse to accept it

Nov 30, 2017 10:59:29 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

By the way just for shits and giggles, then you appreciate the “Value” built in the post from a logical point of view. That it really is possible to appreciate something. But in the game you refuse to accept it

I appreciate it for 1) +100 points 2) the profit which comes from her

Nov 30, 2017 11:03:16 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

I appreciate it for 1) +100 points 2) the profit which comes from her

I.e. if the building will make no profit, you still rate it as + 100? WELL, there is such warriors decided to build a barn, and cows in the village at all and have them after 20 years and the war is now, you will still appreciate this construction of + 100? )))))) ahahaha I can’t

Nov 30, 2017 11:06:24 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

I.e. if the building will make no profit, you still rate it as + 100? WELL, there is such warriors decided to build a barn, and cows in the village at all and have them after 20 years and the war is now, you will still appreciate this construction of + 100? )))))) ahahaha I can’t

Of course. Finally do not care, 100 points. The main thing is to win the game. You there above rightly said that building it as a territory. Are you really that smart, spend your 5 minutes by addition strategy.

Nov 30, 2017 11:09:58 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Of course. Finally do not care, 100 points. The main thing is to win the game. You there above rightly said that building it as a territory. Are you really that smart, spend your 5 minutes by addition strategy.

Of course the main thing and for this we will use holes in all the cracks

Nov 30, 2017 11:11:55 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Of course the main thing and for this we will use holes in all the cracks

Give you a new theme for disturbances. Why units survive after a nuclear attack, because it is not real.

Nov 30, 2017 11:13:18 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Give you a new theme for disturbances. Why units survive after a nuclear attack, because it is not real.

The peculiarity of the conventions of the simulation, but the question is about EVALUATION, not about the logic of the game )

Nov 30, 2017 11:14:18 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Give you a new theme for disturbances. Why units survive after a nuclear attack, because it is not real.

The peculiarity of the conventions of the simulation, but the question is about EVALUATION, not about the logic of the game )

Nov 30, 2017 11:14:18 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

The peculiarity of the conventions of the simulation, but the question is about EVALUATION, not about the logic of the game )

Here the structure is also features of the simulation. The world lives according to the rules described in the rules, want use buildings there. It is purely your problem.

Nov 30, 2017 11:17:42 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Here the structure is also features of the simulation. The world lives according to the rules described in the rules, want use buildings there. It is purely your problem.

Yes, the feature of the simulation. I’m not saying that their logic is something wrong. I would like to use I would have shouted something like “Nafig! I did not get to use them. AA!!” Question the pancake in the assessment from a tactical point of view that the simple capture does not count as an achievement. With the same success can of coins to scatter the field and turn the tactics PAC-man.

Nov 30, 2017 11:22:35 AM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Yes, the feature of the simulation. I’m not saying that their logic is something wrong. I would like to use I would have shouted something like “Nafig! I did not get to use them. AA!!” Question the pancake in the assessment from a tactical point of view that the simple capture does not count as an achievement. With the same success can of coins to scatter the field and turn the tactics PAC-man.

The structure is made such as to diversify the game. If they do not give 100 points is not much point. And it will come down to round 1. If you do not like come up with an alternative to how to make a round 2 different from round 1.

Nov 30, 2017 11:28:37 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

The structure is made such as to diversify the game. If they do not give 100 points is not much point. And it will come down to round 1. If you do not like come up with an alternative to how to make a round 2 different from round 1.

Well, Yes, Yes. Why do I see the logic in using them and you are not? In my opinion it is not bad to stamp the bundles of equipment, thereby crushing the enemy to win.. hmm… why do I not know what it will bring the game to one round and make the structure meaningless, it must be some secret which will not be revealed until the end of time “Sarcasm-mod=PF”

Nov 30, 2017 11:32:13 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Give you a new theme for disturbances. Why units survive after a nuclear attack, because it is not real.

By the way again neighing about your logic, why not give 100 points for a nuclear strike? Even if he did not take anyone action, it’s sort of fits in with the logic of your assessment

Nov 30, 2017 12:21:40 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Will give an example of a decent description, why it is impossible to assess the seizure of buildings. There are two players, one single plant (+100) at the second 4 (+400) One player would read for example in the plant tanks (of which 4 plants) the second helicopter. The player with the helicopters killed 400 enemy tanks, player tanks and 200 helicopters of the enemy As a result points at the first 100 for factory, 400 for equipment destroyed (500) The second 400 for plants, and 200 for destroyed equipment (600) In the end, the player who in a tactical sense were correct plays, even though it cost less than player 2

Nov 30, 2017 1:23:47 PM
jurifoll

jurifoll

Moscow

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Will give an example of a decent description, why it is impossible to assess the seizure of buildings. There are two players, one single plant (+100) at the second 4 (+400) One player would read for example in the plant tanks (of which 4 plants) the second helicopter. The player with the helicopters killed 400 enemy tanks, player tanks and 200 helicopters of the enemy As a result points at the first 100 for factory, 400 for equipment destroyed (500) The second 400 for plants, and 200 for destroyed equipment (600) In the end, the player who in a tactical sense were correct plays, even though it cost less than player 2

Well, actually, it’s incorrect to say that the player with the helicopters acted tactically correct. After all, he had 0 units and 1 plant. And the enemy units 0 and 4 of the plant. If it is not on rebate, he will win.

Another thing, there is somehow lowered now that points are given not only for the hijacking/neutral buildings, but also for the recapture of their own. That is nonsense

Nov 30, 2017 1:47:19 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

jurifoll

jurifoll

Moscow

Well, actually, it’s incorrect to say that the player with the helicopters acted tactically correct. After all, he had 0 units and 1 plant. And the enemy units 0 and 4 of the plant. If it is not on rebate, he will win. Another thing, there is somehow lowered now that points are given not only for the hijacking/neutral buildings, but also for the recapture of their own. That is nonsense

I’m not saying that the game was completed with the destruction of the opponents, the game was finished by timer

Nov 30, 2017 1:48:31 PM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

jurifoll

jurifoll

Moscow

Well, actually, it’s incorrect to say that the player with the helicopters acted tactically correct. After all, he had 0 units and 1 plant. And the enemy units 0 and 4 of the plant. If it is not on rebate, he will win. Another thing, there is somehow lowered now that points are given not only for the hijacking/neutral buildings, but also for the recapture of their own. That is nonsense

It seems it is fixed.

Nov 30, 2017 1:50:23 PM
jurifoll

jurifoll

Moscow

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

I’m not saying that the game was completed with the destruction of the opponents, the game was finished by timer

Well, actually, the sense points just to assess who would have won if the game continued indefinitely.

Nov 30, 2017 1:53:05 PM
xomachine

xomachine

ННГУ им. Лобачевского

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Well, Yes, Yes. Why do I see the logic in using them and you are not? In my opinion it is not bad to stamp the bundles of equipment, thereby crushing the enemy to win.. hmm… why do I not know what it will bring the game to one round and make the structure meaningless, it must be some secret which will not be revealed until the end of time “Sarcasm-mod=PF”

About forming packs of equipment you bent. More equipment = more points of the enemy, because in the current meta small groups have the advantage of only very well-written strategies (with the search path, prompt response, evaluation of weak points in one formation of the enemy, that’s all…), of which minority. Most fights will boil down to the same catch-up, only for the control centers, because they reduce the CD on nuclear attack, and it is now the basis of any strategy.

If you want to get rid of the catch - need of a fine for the loss of the building. Then there will be sense to put protection in buildings and otherwise distribute the units. Although, it does not guarantee that the battle will not turn into standing around a handful of buildings with the periodic raids of fighter-bombers.

Nov 30, 2017 1:56:19 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

jurifoll

jurifoll

Moscow

Well, actually, the sense points just to assess who would have won if the game continued indefinitely.

Well so, the logic just on the tactics the player with one plant received 400 points and the player with 4 200 points and the evaluation point of view that is a correct assessment

Nov 30, 2017 2:01:36 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

xomachine

xomachine

ННГУ им. Лобачевского

About forming packs of equipment you bent. More equipment = more points of the enemy, because in the current meta small groups have the advantage of only very well-written strategies (with the search path, prompt response, evaluation of weak points in one formation of the enemy, that’s all…), of which minority. Most fights will boil down to the same catch-up, only for the control centers, because they reduce the CD on nuclear attack, and it is now the basis of any strategy. …

More subject to blunt their use. We appreciate that player And lost all my fiddling on the aircraft of player B? Yes, the player did not use the right tactics, for which he has not received glasses.

Nov 30, 2017 2:05:14 PM
jurifoll

jurifoll

Moscow

>If you want to get rid of the catch - need of a fine for the loss of the building.

Well, it is in fact and so it is. What’s the difference shall be deducted whether the glasses you have, or are added to the opponent? As a result, an important difference of points.

Nov 30, 2017 2:08:26 PM
xomachine

xomachine

ННГУ им. Лобачевского

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

More subject to blunt their use. We appreciate that player And lost all my fiddling on the aircraft of player B? Yes, the player did not use the right tactics, for which he has not received glasses.

Immediately after the seizure of the plant is not enough equipment to repel someone. Because either it is to put a guard or not to produce anything. Because the second is easier, all it will do. We will return to the first round adjusted to control centers. To dominate another blitzkrieg-sandwiches, maybe with a couple of taps on the capture centers and one plane for the bombings.

Nov 30, 2017 2:10:23 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

xomachine

xomachine

ННГУ им. Лобачевского

Immediately after the seizure of the plant is not enough equipment to repel someone. Because either it is to put a guard or not to produce anything. Because the second is easier, all it will do. We will return to the first round adjusted to control centers. To dominate another blitzkrieg-sandwiches, maybe with a couple of taps on the capture centers and one plane for the bombings.

As the plant will not have enough equipment? And those that were captured?

Nov 30, 2017 2:15:11 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

And more question in assessing tactical decisions of the AI players are stupid capture points not assessable

Nov 30, 2017 2:15:54 PM
Mason

Mason

Pskov

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

And more question in assessing tactical decisions of the AI players are stupid capture points not assessable

What kind of AI will be, if he, knowing that the seizure of the building off the whole hundred, would neglect this opportunity? )

Nov 30, 2017 2:39:30 PM
xomachine

xomachine

ННГУ им. Лобачевского

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

And more question in assessing tactical decisions of the AI players are stupid capture points not assessable

And those that were captured will go on (to fight or capture), for the meaning to stand and wait until the units are created sufficiently small.

Like capture solution point this is not a tactical decision.

In any case, to convince someone I don’t intend to, just Express my opinion. I like this idea in this form don’t like.

Nov 30, 2017 2:39:31 PM
Gladiator_Y

Wow here posporili)) will Add: 1 - 100 points for the occupation of a building and not a write-off when the loss is too fat. I would suggest 1 - deduct points when the loss of the structure and make the bonus possession = 50. 2 - as for yaderku - add the effect of cutting forests, draining swamps and the acceleration of the blocks with rain, but the generation of the crater and radioactive fields on n-ticks with decreasing x in the range, but to make KD 2500 ticks ))) Ahahaha

Nov 30, 2017 2:40:14 PM
Mason

Mason

Pskov

Wow here posporili)) will Add: 1 - 100 points for the occupation of a building and not a write-off when the loss is too fat. I would suggest 1 - deduct points when the loss of the structure and make the bonus possession = 50. 2 - as for yaderku - add the effect of cutting forests, draining swamps and the acceleration of the blocks with rain, but the generation of the crater and radioactive fields on n-ticks with decreasing x in the range, but to make KD 2500 ticks ))) Ahahaha

Add! Ahahaha

Nov 30, 2017 2:42:41 PM
Gladiator_Y

Wow here posporili)) will Add: 1 - 100 points for the occupation of a building and not a write-off when the loss is too fat. I would suggest 1 - deduct points when the loss of the structure and make the bonus possession = 50. 2 - as for yaderku - add the effect of cutting forests, draining swamps and the acceleration of the blocks with rain, but the generation of the crater and radioactive fields on n-ticks with decreasing x in the range, but to make KD 2500 ticks ))) Ahahaha

And after n ticks of the negative effect is to generate above the crater rain, that would be quite all bad)

Nov 30, 2017 2:43:22 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Mason

Mason

Pskov

What kind of AI will be, if he, knowing that the seizure of the building off the whole hundred, would neglect this opportunity? )

Not so, I do not neglect this opportunity, just the rating system is stupid like a cork. And Yes, predeco to use this crap to prevent the victory criterion “And I’m more buildings to take managed!”

Nov 30, 2017 2:46:22 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Although I admit part of that control point and to a certain extent to estimate, but clearly not 20% of the cost base of the army

Nov 30, 2017 2:47:42 PM
Adler

Adler

Dzyarzhynsk

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

It seems it is fixed.

bug fixed not to the end. Yes, now is the time to capture more than 2 times and give the points only for the change of ownership.

but the generator points from nothing as was and remains: make the sandwich. grab one building move away from him so that the enemy started to capture. return to the building at the time when the owner is changed to neutral. capture the building fully again.(+100 points) repeat 20 times. win.

Nov 30, 2017 3:05:56 PM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Adler

Adler

Dzyarzhynsk

bug fixed not to the end. Yes, now is the time to capture more than 2 times and give the points only for the change of ownership. but the generator points from nothing as was and remains: make the sandwich. grab one building move away from him so that the enemy started to capture. return to the building at the time when the owner is changed to neutral. capture the building fully again.(+100 points) repeat 20 times. win.

The sandwich moves with the speed of the slowest unit captured the building away from the sandwich and is running away from him. The more buildings the better.

Nov 30, 2017 3:13:29 PM
newpuk

newpuk

Almaty

I think one that now games have become more like capture-the-flag?

Nov 30, 2017 3:44:20 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

newpuk

newpuk

Almaty

I think one that now games have become more like capture-the-flag?

What is it and what is the game

Nov 30, 2017 3:46:43 PM
Predelnik

Predelnik

Rock Flow Dynamics

Ideally, of course it is necessary that as less as possible of the fighting ended in time, and with the building of them as I understand it became more. A good scheme to points all of the situations are impossible IMHO.

Nov 30, 2017 4:00:06 PM
tyamgin

tyamgin

Simferopol

Adler

Adler

Dzyarzhynsk

bug fixed not to the end. Yes, now is the time to capture more than 2 times and give the points only for the change of ownership. but the generator points from nothing as was and remains: make the sandwich. grab one building move away from him so that the enemy started to capture. return to the building at the time when the owner is changed to neutral. capture the building fully again.(+100 points) repeat 20 times. win.

Dare

Nov 30, 2017 4:54:46 PM
Adler

Adler

Dzyarzhynsk

If you fight two distributed strategies, the trick can be turned at a small scale, somewhere on the edges of the card and it will decide the outcome bits, even if the strategy uses a bug in the rest a bit weaker opponent. If such a bug not to use intentionally, then this situation can occur randomly… => the outcome of the battle will decide the main battle, and some little thing with the edge. => in order to determine which of the two strategies(not using bug) more need more games than in the situation when the bug is fixed completely.

Nov 30, 2017 7:53:05 PM
AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

Adler

Adler

Dzyarzhynsk

http://russianaicup.ru/game/view/139838

He stupid meat could crush

Nov 30, 2017 7:53:16 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

AlexKol

AlexKol

BB

He stupid meat could crush

The feature of the game is that, it is impossible to prepare everything in advance for me personally, it turns out that I patch one hole, another one appears… for ideal behavior needs a lot of ice skating and events

Nov 30, 2017 8:38:41 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

  • to the heap prediction of movement of enemy groups, that doesn’t mean his tactics are predictable. Ie you can see what he’s doing, but it is impossible to fully understand what drives his actions.

Nov 30, 2017 8:40:25 PM
Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Will give an example of a decent description, why it is impossible to assess the seizure of buildings. There are two players, one single plant (+100) at the second 4 (+400) One player would read for example in the plant tanks (of which 4 plants) the second helicopter. The player with the helicopters killed 400 enemy tanks, player tanks and 200 helicopters of the enemy As a result points at the first 100 for factory, 400 for equipment destroyed (500) The second 400 for plants, and 200 for destroyed equipment (600) In the end, the player who in a tactical sense were correct plays, even though it cost less than player 2

Result a counterexample. The first player to capture all the factories, set up a bunch of equipment that throws further destruction of the rival and the seizure of buildings. The second player has formed a good sandwich and simply crawl around the map or even worth it. The first player to have no time to form a sandwich - he has a lot of objectives on the map, he presses a number. The first player kills the second almost entirely (one airplane survived sharonensis in the corner). The result: the first across the map with a bunch of equipment, but the final score 499 : 1000 in favor of the second. Is this correct? No. Now tezisno. 1. Points in the game should logically be given for receipt of benefits. And killing the opponent’s units and capture buildings to gain an advantage, so everything is correct - should be given points. (how much and when - is another question) 2. Any comparison with the real world, Japan, Afghanistan, etc.. bullshit. Do not tell. 3. And yeah, not tactics and strategy. Tactics were in the first round when it was impossible to build. Now is the capture of the resources, variability of structures + battle on the field - pure strategy.

Dec 2, 2017 11:24:32 AM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

Result a counterexample. The first player to capture all the factories, set up a bunch of equipment that throws further destruction of the rival and the seizure of buildings. The second player has formed a good sandwich and simply crawl around the map or even worth it. The first player to have no time to form a sandwich - he has a lot of objectives on the map, he presses a number. The first player kills the second almost entirely (one airplane survived sharonensis in the corner). The result: the first across the map with a bunch of equipment, but the final score 499 : 1000 in favor of the second. Is this correct? No. Now tezisno. 1. Points in the game should logically be given for receipt of benefits. And killing the opponent’s units and capture buildings to gain an advantage, so everything is correct - should be given points. (how much and when - is another question) 2. Any comparison with the real world, Japan, Afghanistan, etc.. bullshit. Do not tell. 3. And yeah, not tactics and strategy. Tactics were in the first round when it was impossible to build. Now is the capture of the resources, variability of structures + battle on the field - pure strategy.

The comparison is solely for something you comrades began to enter the estimate meaningless actions - not. You cannot assess what is not useful. Base in Japan is just this kind of thing that defies common assessment as well as evaluation of blunt seizure of buildings. Let’s will for every “click” to give points, it is also action, but why do not appreciate? Ah Yes, because we are interested in results, not implementation

Dec 4, 2017 2:00:21 PM
Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

The comparison is solely for something you comrades began to enter the estimate meaningless actions - not. You cannot assess what is not useful. Base in Japan is just this kind of thing that defies common assessment as well as evaluation of blunt seizure of buildings. Let’s will for every “click” to give points, it is also action, but why do not appreciate? Ah Yes, because we are interested in results, not implementation

You, comrade, trying to impress that the seizure of buildings brings benefits, therefore, should be evaluated. You rested. And what a way to answer only the easy questions (in this case, only the 2nd point that, in fact, rhetorical.) Be consistent, please comment counterexample, thesis 1 and thesis 3.

Dec 4, 2017 2:13:21 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

You, comrade, trying to impress that the seizure of buildings brings benefits, therefore, should be evaluated. You rested. And what a way to answer only the easy questions (in this case, only the 2nd point that, in fact, rhetorical.) Be consistent, please comment counterexample, thesis 1 and thesis 3.

Yeah, and clicks also benefit, but the benefit depends on what you’re doing these clicks, and functionality of the buildings themselves is already more than sufficient use. Why for clicks no points to give?

Dec 4, 2017 2:48:52 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

Result a counterexample. The first player to capture all the factories, set up a bunch of equipment that throws further destruction of the rival and the seizure of buildings. The second player has formed a good sandwich and simply crawl around the map or even worth it. The first player to have no time to form a sandwich - he has a lot of objectives on the map, he presses a number. The first player kills the second almost entirely (one airplane survived sharonensis in the corner). The result: the first across the map with a bunch of equipment, but the final score 499 : 1000 in favor of the second. Is this correct? No. Now tezisno. 1. Points in the game should logically be given for receipt of benefits. And killing the opponent’s units and capture buildings to gain an advantage, so everything is correct - should be given points. (how much and when - is another question) 2. Any comparison with the real world, Japan, Afghanistan, etc.. bullshit. Do not tell. 3. And yeah, not tactics and strategy. Tactics were in the first round when it was impossible to build. Now is the capture of the resources, variability of structures + battle on the field - pure strategy.

1) I Agree has its flaws, but the assessment of the seizure or otherwise, is not subject. Just by the fact that these are two different assessments in principle. This is not a tactics rating, this score is a “fad” that strategy is not just effective against the enemy, it also performs a certain task, but its perfect it does not, it is what it was, and remains so. The AI became smarter, it just became to perform tasks which give additional points. Against the enemy, this strategy has not become better. And that’s a fact, it has become better only in regard to the fact that the system of evaluation so evaluate it. But I, as the observer for example I will say briefly - I do not believe that this strategy better. But this is IMHO.

Dec 4, 2017 2:58:32 PM
Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Yeah, and clicks also benefit, but the benefit depends on what you’re doing these clicks, and functionality of the buildings themselves is already more than sufficient use. Why for clicks no points to give?

no, clicks are not beneficial. clicks by themselves are neutral. But the result can bring both benefit and harm. Correct clicks give you points. Wrong clicks bring points to the enemy. And the building is an asset and a resource. The same advantage and the resource and units.

Dec 4, 2017 3:55:03 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

no, clicks are not beneficial. clicks by themselves are neutral. But the result can bring both benefit and harm. Correct clicks give you points. Wrong clicks bring points to the enemy. And the building is an asset and a resource. The same advantage and the resource and units.

Why? Similarly, buildings are not useful if not used. If you don’t use clicks then there is no use, why in one case is the norm, the other not? Building and clicks are the tools by which we crumble the enemy and fills the glasses. Objectively give points for how an army of one AI is more effective against the other. But neither clicks nor the number of buildings does not make the AI more effective. The efficiency depends on the algorithms behavior.

Dec 4, 2017 4:01:53 PM
Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

1) I Agree has its flaws, but the assessment of the seizure or otherwise, is not subject. Just by the fact that these are two different assessments in principle. This is not a tactics rating, this score is a “fad” that strategy is not just effective against the enemy, it also performs a certain task, but its perfect it does not, it is what it was, and remains so. The AI became smarter, it just became to perform tasks which give additional points. Against the enemy, this strategy has not become better. And that’s a fact, it has become better only in regard to the fact that the system of evaluation so evaluate it. But I, as the observer for example I will say briefly - I do not believe that this strategy better. But this is IMHO.

Once again you work out their tactics. We have a strategy. One of the most characteristic features of which smart tactical move. Pure tactics left in the first round, humble. Seizure of buildings strategicky beneficial because it gives you the profit units, operation, recharge time. And fight around buildings not only because they give points, but also because they give an advantage.

Dec 4, 2017 4:01:58 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

Once again you work out their tactics. We have a strategy. One of the most characteristic features of which smart tactical move. Pure tactics left in the first round, humble. Seizure of buildings strategicky beneficial because it gives you the profit units, operation, recharge time. And fight around buildings not only because they give points, but also because they give an advantage.

Yes! Building for profit at the expense of their features. Give points for unreasonable action, is not a rating. Assessment of the actions AI can be only in case if the seizure of the building led to the use of one AI, but in advance it is impossible to estimate. You can just as well estimate initially any action. But this itself is not correct. Because it does not give an objective assessment

Dec 4, 2017 4:06:31 PM
Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Yes! Building for profit at the expense of their features. Give points for unreasonable action, is not a rating. Assessment of the actions AI can be only in case if the seizure of the building led to the use of one AI, but in advance it is impossible to estimate. You can just as well estimate initially any action. But this itself is not correct. Because it does not give an objective assessment

all of the above similarly applies to the units. why for killing units give points, and for the seizure of buildings no?

Dec 4, 2017 4:09:50 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Okay let’s say there is a loader work hauling boxes. Do you think he will pay for what he one and the same box twenty times here and there? In my opinion no, because his work will be assessed only if the task, i.e. it is impossible to evaluate monkey work as an achievement. You can assess what the AI achieved with the help of captured points but it can make a primary assessment system.

Dec 4, 2017 4:10:22 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

all of the above similarly applies to the units. why for killing units give points, and for the seizure of buildings no?

Because this is the evaluation of the effectiveness of one strategy against the second. Evaluation of the seizure of the buildings does not make one strategy more effective than the second. Points out of thin air

Dec 4, 2017 4:12:37 PM
Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Why? Similarly, buildings are not useful if not used. If you don’t use clicks then there is no use, why in one case is the norm, the other not? Building and clicks are the tools by which we crumble the enemy and fills the glasses. Objectively give points for how an army of one AI is more effective against the other. But neither clicks nor the number of buildings does not make the AI more effective. The efficiency depends on the algorithms behavior.

Okay, let’s again point by point: 1. “The same way the buildings do not benefit if they do not use”. OK, good. Units do not benefit if they are not used. What now for killing units too, no points to give? 2. “If you’re not using clique and there is no benefit, why in one case is the norm, the other not?” You can’t compare it. Clicks (command) is a mechanism of control strategy. A building is a resource, just like units. 3. “The building and clicks are the tools by which we crumble the enemy and fills the glasses.” Wrong. The building and units are a resource. And clicks tool. 4. “Objectively give points for how an army of one AI is more effective against the other. But neither clicks nor the number of buildings does not make the AI more effective. ”. Points are given for useful clicks. Suddenly)) ie clicks give points - Wau) And the effectiveness of the AI is determined by the number of resource units and buildings.

Dec 4, 2017 4:14:35 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

Okay, let’s again point by point: 1. “The same way the buildings do not benefit if they do not use”. OK, good. Units do not benefit if they are not used. What now for killing units too, no points to give? 2. “If you’re not using clique and there is no benefit, why in one case is the norm, the other not?” You can’t compare it. Clicks (command) is a mechanism of control strategy. A building is a resource, just like units. 3. “The building and clicks are the tools by which we crumble the enemy and fills the glasses.” Wrong. The building and units are a resource. And clicks tool. 4. “Objectively give points for how an army of one AI is more effective against the other. But neither clicks nor the number of buildings does not make the AI more effective. ”. Points are given for useful clicks. Suddenly)) ie clicks give points - Wau) And the effectiveness of the AI is determined by the number of resource units and buildings.

Is that useful, which are estimated by means of how much these clicks nekreseli enemies, and just + 100 for it’s not a rating

Dec 4, 2017 4:17:11 PM
Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Is that useful, which are estimated by means of how much these clicks nekreseli enemies, and just + 100 for it’s not a rating

Write last time, if you do not come, alas, not destiny. Building - a resource, just like units. “evaluating the effectiveness of one strategy against the second” is not only the change in the number of units, but also buildings. You can make a click using the unit/building, who will benefit, it is possible to make a click using the unit/building that will bring harm. And again. It is possible to operate effectively buildings can be inefficient. It is also possible to operate effectively units can be inefficient. Actually all.

Dec 4, 2017 4:29:21 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

Bibr

Bibr

Maykop

Write last time, if you do not come, alas, not destiny. Building - a resource, just like units. “evaluating the effectiveness of one strategy against the second” is not only the change in the number of units, but also buildings. You can make a click using the unit/building, who will benefit, it is possible to make a click using the unit/building that will bring harm. And again. It is possible to operate effectively buildings can be inefficient. It is also possible to operate effectively units can be inefficient. Actually all.

Well I’m tired, just praise for the actions of units depend on how the AI uses them effectively, i.e. how the AI properly protivopostovlyaet the enemy, but with buildings it is not. Not evaluated the effectiveness of the use of the resource, and the fact of their possession

Dec 4, 2017 4:36:07 PM
RiSuS

RiSuS

БрГТУ

If buildings each tick brought the glasses to protect them would be much more important than under the current rules.

Dec 5, 2017 4:37:16 PM
Jeners

Jeners

Moscow

RiSuS

RiSuS

БрГТУ

If buildings each tick brought the glasses to protect them would be much more important than under the current rules.

I would in General would suggest a compromise on the points for the building. Introducing a new type of building, let’s call it for example “staff supply” in General, for all the building points to cancel a new to give, say, + 50 and + 5 times per 1000 ticks, i.e. the building as much as possible will be able to bring about 150 points (one building) capturing such a couple and in time you can provide a good increase in points, and plus the logic here is that the capture of these points is just a conscious decision

Dec 5, 2017 8:27:13 PM