Toganash
Auto-translated
Toganash, did you even read what was written above? It has already been clarified that this is not a problem with my software, but rather a consequence of changes in the HD mod patches. Well, he got it off his chest, added his two cents about how Hell is bad and ready to win (or not lose) by any means.
4.100 RC8 -> 4.100 RC9 (25.01.2016)
[!] The tweak < Sys.ReduceCpuUsage > has been renamed to < Sys.CPU.ReduceUsage > and disabled by default. (Therefore, the tweak will be disabled upon update, which will eliminate lag in the interface on some PCs).
This confirms one thing: the problem also lies in the configuration of certain machines and the specific way the HD program works. Therefore, I didn't say that this is exactly why I don't accept your claims for a replay. Don't take things out of context:
...However, this does not mean that Hell acted in this way. Given his experience, this is unlikely.
Here, I am trying to say that neither can be said with certainty, and we shouldn't draw conclusions based on just one version. It could have simply turned out that Baratorch's statement coincided with your situation. This isn't trolling; it's an appeal to look at things comprehensively.
p.s. We didn't turn to the judges because The_ will only allow a collective decision from AK...
In fact, this is an important point. As you know, AK makes decisions "at the speed of light," so first of all, you really need to contact the tournament judges. Regarding this situation, we will make a decision. But in the future, submissions to AK without a judge's decision will not be accepted.
I agree.
I don't quite understand what relevance the fact has: that someone will be satisfied? There are tournament rules, they must be followed. Submitting an application implies agreement with them. Logically, the regulations state that AK makes decisions after the Organizers have made a decision and the other participants disagree with it. At the very least, you should have informed the organizers about your decision and actions as a sign of respect.
...considering that the tournament host and also its judge uses examples from personal games to resolve the issue (so-called bias), how can any appeals be considered? And by the way, another host-judge, let's not point fingers at the man in the hat... suggested that I click faster "and then everything would be fine."
As an example, the following is meant:
Fourthly: This relates to consistency. In a game against Hell, I had some hardware problems that caused crashes. However, in the final battle of one of the games, there was a crash that wasn't my fault; the internet lagged (possibly mine), and Hell said that he didn't care, and if this happened again, he would automatically declare me the loser. The situation is very similar. His opponent could say that he doesn't care about his problem and that he should look for flaws in his own software. In this case, it wouldn't be The who says this, but Hell himself.
I don't understand what exactly Redwait is unhappy with in his statement. In my opinion, he is consistent. He disagreed with your claims and expressed his refusal by saying "click faster." I assume that he meant the fact that the main problem is the time pressure that you put yourself under, not a possible bug. He expressed himself incorrectly for a judge, but fairly in his decision.
p.p.s. I am not asking for anything to be repeated; all I ask is to load the autosave (on which the game ended) and press the horse button (M) on the main hero so that he runs where he has the green path set.
"I'm not asking for anything, but I am" - this goes into the quote collection.
Regarding "putting the horse in the right place and pressing the corresponding button," how can we put you in the same panicked state as before? There isn't a special button for that. I'm writing this to explain the subtlety of the moment.
Given that there is a recording of the turn, replaying it while adding the placement of the hero at the planned point poses no problems. I don't see any subtle nuance here...
Also, I don't see any reason for the player not to contact the tournament judges as the first instance if their opinion doesn't seem authoritative to him for one reason or another. What's the point of creating unnecessary bureaucracy if an appeal will be submitted anyway?
I suggest removing organizers from the number of judges they organize tournaments with – there’s no need to create extra bureaucracy and take on non-existent authority. That makes sense. I would like to hear AK's opinion.
I have nothing to add to the following correspondence except for two points: the logic of skd's arguments, and also: it doesn't matter whether the tournament has a prize pool or not. The status of the organizer does not change because of this and remains the same, but in the latter case, it might require participants to pay more attention to the processes and procedures within the tournament.
To ignore the opinion of the organizer who collected the prize fund, but continue to claim money? :rolleyes:
Does the ability to provide a prize fund imply competence in matters of rules and impartiality in controversial situations?
The participant's willingness to claim the prize fund implies agreement with the competence of the organizers and judges whose names were known before the start of the tournament. However, this is true for tournaments without a prize fund as well.
If you appeal to an appellate instance court bypassing the first instance, the lawsuit will not be considered.
But.
The rules for conducting tournaments stipulate that a player can contact the AK directly to resolve a contentious situation.
In the regulations of the "Mirrors" tournament, it is stated - The tournament is held according to the Rules for organizing, conducting, and participating in online HOMM3 tournaments.
Paragraph 6 of Section 5 of these rules states:
"In case of a dispute during a game, participants must contact the Organizer, Tournament Judge or AK and present all necessary information: daily saves of the game, ICQ logs, screenshots, etc."
In connection with this, changes should be made to these rules - in the event of a controversial situation, the player has the right to contact the organizer or the tournament judges to make an appropriate decision. In case of disagreement with the decision made, the player has the right to appeal to the AK for its review.
As it stands now, Hellight acted within the established rules; however, this does not mean that AK should rule in his favor.
ICQ: 564224919
