Posts from Controversial issues and their resolutions.

This topic is intended solely for describing any controversial issues that arise during online battles. The essence of the problem will be outlined here, and the judge vbn will resolve it, with the result of the decision being posted here as well.

Captain (red, Tower, Torosar, Torosar) def SpiriTT (blue, Swamp, Bron, Bron) 2sm4d(3) 137
He took the opponent with a hero, not with troops + an expert in pathfinding... he bought all his unredeemed troops and...
Thank you for the game!

I do not confirm the report, as in my opinion, the opponent violated the rules by not clearing the guard on the adjacent respawn point with 70+ fire elementals. I have saves at 112 and 114.
(Unfortunately, I simply forgot to save 113), but I think this is enough. I request that you investigate. I hope for understanding.

The saves have been accepted and verified.
By the way, 50-99 fire elementals are not a guard on the adjacent respawn point, but, apparently, a guard for a quest artifact.
In this case, the guard on the respawn point - 20-49 swordsmen - was not cleared.
But in addition to the swordsmen, the passage was also guarded by fire elementals, which were cleared.
This confirms the map exploration.
Therefore, there was no violation of the rules. The incident is closed.

I also checked the saves :) If you open the map on save 1-1-2, you can see that the passage to the respawn is guarded by two monster stacks: 20-49 Knights and 20-49 Fire Elementals. On save 1-1-4, you can see — or rather, not see — the stack of Fire Elementals. Therefore, one of the two guarding stacks was defeated, which is in accordance with the rules. And the horde of Fire Elementals is clearly guarding an artifact and has nothing to do with guarding the passage ;)

Save files received and verified.
By the way, the horde of fire elementals is not a ГО on the neighboring respawn, but rather, apparently, the guard of a quest artifact.
In this case, ГО - 20-49 swordsmen, but even they were not broken through.

Before a verdict is issued, a request:
to SpiriTT: send your agreements on the rules via PM or ICQ (please, not here),
or
to Captain: confirm the fact that you violated the rules.

A request to the judge to be more attentive when analyzing maps.

P.S. see Dreamcatcher's post ;)

The judge is requested to be more attentive when analyzing maps.

Everything is correct, and the judges will try to be more attentive in the future. ;)

Added after 5 minutes
By the way, for example, in this game and here in this one, I violated the rules regarding respawn rushing (clause 5.9).

P.S. SS-D, taking advantage of the moment, I ask to strike the game vbn - Freeman from my victories.
Later I forgot that this game should not be counted and requested confirmation from Freeman.

Well, to be honest, it slightly upset me. The decision wasn't in my favor, so there's no point in being slow; just guard the artifact, right? Haha, yes, a sign of valor, definitely worthy of guarding an artifact... "IMHO" =)
I think the incident is resolved. I believe it's worth clarifying that if an artifact is nearby, it's not guarding a passage (I'm serious, just to avoid similar cases).
Sincerely...

I haven't looked at the map, but I can confidently say the following. This is most likely a quest artifact that is being guarded, and if you defeat the enemy and bring it to the corresponding seer's hut, you can receive, for example, 15,000 experience points. Do you think this isn't a fair trade?

I think everything is correct; you defeated one of the guards, so you can proceed. I once played a game where the guards were positioned so far away that they were actually on my respawn point. It was funny because they were supposed to be guarding a road, but they were on the other side of a mountain. However, there were still guards on the road, so we continued playing as usual, and we ended up attacking the wrong guards. But everything worked out fine.

Take a look at my game with vitalic. See where I broke the rules. 1) My lumber mill was already taken. 2) But I took a second lumber mill, and there doesn't seem to have been a transition to the enemy's territory, right? 3) So, what's the conclusion? Since it's the second lumber mill, it means it's already in a different territory, which means I must have missed some guards somewhere. Try to find the guards in the enemy's territory in the attached screenshot. Hint: it turns out it's a group of monks :eek:

Dear Players,
This thread is not for discussing tournament rules because:

This topic is intended only for describing any controversial issues that arise during online matches. The essence of the problem will be stated here, which will be resolved by judge vbn, and the result of the decision will also be posted here.

I think it would be better to discuss the rules in the following thread: Online Ranking (Discussion)
I hope you understand.

Sincerely.

Copying the report from the season:


Yakudza (Castle, Valeska, Valeska) def. Alex_R (Dungeon, Gunnar, Gunnar) 1-1-3

The opponent grossly violated the rules by entering another player's territory without clearing the guard (although it was more than obvious, even a blind person couldn't have missed it - :smile19: Removed :smile19:). Because of this, he should be declared the loser. :smile19: Removed :smile19:

And there was another moment in the game: on the fifth day, I came to Alex_R's territory and could have attacked him with a scout on his scout. I wrote to him in the game - what should we do? (I wrote many times, but he didn't answer for some reason). Then I left the game - he wrote to me, asking why I left, saying we should continue playing. I said that I could have attacked him, and that would be a restart. He said - let's not attack each other until the 6th day. :smile19: Removed :smile19: He was somewhere, leveling up, and I was supposed to just sit around and run around the already empty territory. I said - no, either restart, or I will attack and kill, because I have nothing else to do now that I'm here. In the end, he agreed, and on the 5th day, I killed his scout and took the artifact for the 1st Angel with minor losses near his Dungeon. And on the next day, I reached his Castle, where there were few Griffons and a pack of Trolls, and suddenly Alex_R wrote to me in the game - you can't attack the Castle, only the heroes. I was shocked by such nonsense. If we agreed to attack, then we attack. Why did I even run there if I was just going to be vulnerable to a full army with reinforcements? Moreover, Alex_R saw that I was running and could have taken measures in his turn, since he convinced me to continue the game and not restart. Okay, I went along with him again, stood right in front of the Castle, didn't attack, so that he would have the opportunity to place troops there (this was the only reason I thought he asked me to attack the next day). And then, in his turn, Alex_R, as if nothing had happened, ran into the Castle with Gunnar and a full army and wrote: now attack...
I was just shocked by such audacity. The guy simply didn't have time to move his army to the Castle and that's why he demanded that I not attack... :smile19: Removed :smile19:

In the end, there was still no confirmation, although Alex_R was still online after the report, and then others wrote to me :smile19: Removed :smile19:
Write the nicknames CORRECTLY!
They said that we should have discussed the rules before the game!!!!!

I don't understand, what are the rules for online tournaments written for then, or are people playing without rules at all, or according to the rules, but there are no rules, and with each opponent, you have to come up with new ones (as I understand it).

And regarding the restart on the 6th day (this is no longer relevant in this game, since the opponent grossly violated the rule, I believe - knowing that he violated it, but just for the future...) He first forces me to continue playing, but at the same time not attack his heroes (given that I came to his territory) - where is that in the rules? And how do the rules say that he forced me not to attack his Castle, with guards on the 6th day, saying that only heroes can be attacked, and then brazenly entered it with all his forces the next day... (although I was sure that he had no right to buy anyone or build anything then, otherwise it turns out - in a battle, part of the army is in the battle, and the guy will tell the opponent, wait, you can't attack, the next day he brings reinforcements (while the opponent is just standing nearby, like I was with the Castle) and happily writes - now attack, this is not a game, but :smile19: Removed :smile19: then...).

I request that the judges comment on this. I have the saves and the chat logs.

Kyle: Please, less emotions and insults. First of all, you need to learn to respect your opponent.
Your situation will be considered by the judges.

Yakudza (castle,Valeska,Valeska) def Alex_R (dungeon,Gunnar,Gunnar) 1-1-3

I do not confirm the report - as the game was not completed...
On 1-1-5, the opponent appeared on my starting territory and asked if he could attack or not... I replied that the rules state: if an encounter occurs before 1-1-6, one of the players has the right to request a restart - after which the opponent left the game...
After negotiations in the chat, we agreed to continue the game from the fifth day - but during the next two turns, we could not agree on what was allowed and what was not... and on 1-1-7, the opponent left the game.
P.S. For personal interest, I sent the save files to the judge regarding the un-cleared guard...
Firstly, the golems that were standing off the road were indeed not noticed by me on the map...
Secondly, I believe that the guard was a little further away, specifically 50-99 wolves.
And most importantly, don't rush to make such loud statements (accusations against me) - don't forget that before agreeing to continue the game, you opened the save files!!!;)

I do not confirm the report - as the game was not completed...
On 1-1-5, the opponent entered my territory and asked if he could attack... I replied that the rules state: if an encounter occurs before 1-1-6, one of the players has the right to request a restart - after which the opponent left the game...
After negotiations in the chat, we agreed to continue the game from the fifth day - but during the next two turns, we could not agree on what was allowed and what was not... and on 1-1-7, the opponent left the game.
P.S. For my own interest, I sent the saves to the judge regarding the un-cleared guard...
Firstly, the golems that were standing near the road were indeed not noticed by me in the dirt...
Secondly, I believe that the guard was a little further away, specifically 50-99 wolves.
And most importantly, don't rush to make such loud statements (accusations against me) - don't forget that before agreeing to continue the game, you opened the saves!!!;)

What, are you, :smile19: Deleted :smile19:, or something???? When did I open the saves, :smile19: Deleted :smile19:?
I wrote to him that I was ending the game because he was attacking me on the 5th day, I wrote to him in the game many times - but he didn't answer (which is more than suspicious), and then I wrote to him in the chat that I would be reviewing the game while he was away. Immediately, Alex_R appeared and started whining, saying let's continue the game, don't look at the saves, I agreed, waited for 5-10 minutes, but for some reason, he didn't create a game!!!! (This is when I strongly suspected that Alex_R was looking at the saves at that moment, because after that pause, he replied to me in the chat that he had read the rules, as if he was playing for the first time and hadn't read them before (and he could also have read them during my turn, when I had many battles, and he knew about it from the previous turn). Then he finally created the game, and now he's telling me here that I was looking at the saves, after I agreed to his whining and continued the game, :smile19: Deleted :smile19:. Maybe he'll write that I was playing with cheat codes and clearing everything with archers, huh? If there is a punishment for such blatant slander, it should be applied to Alex_R, because this is already beyond the limit, :smile19: Deleted :smile19:, after he has violated the rules and remained silent, as if no one noticed (about the wolves - he's just talking nonsense, they are almost in the middle of the grass and are guarding, it's great that he knows that the guard should be on the border of the territories, between the grass and the ground, and it couldn't be clearer than the golems standing there - and he came up with that).

Regarding leaving on 117 - everything is described there, don't "play dumb"...
Alex_R begged not to attack his Castle on the 6th day, although he was simply trying to deceive, because there is nothing about it in the rules, or people restart the game due to an encounter on 116 (which I did at the beginning, because I attacked his Castle on the 5th day), or, if they play by mutual agreement, then it's already with all "attacks", otherwise what's the point of playing for the one who came to the opponent. I went along with it, thinking that he would arrange his troops during his turn, and I wouldn't attack, but he was so :smile19: Deleted :smile19: that he simply cynically didn't allow me to attack because he couldn't get the main hero with the troops into the Castle, can you imagine???? Can a normal player act like that???? After such rudeness, I immediately left the game, although I had a normal army even to take his Castle with a full army...

But he didn't lose because of that, but because of a gross violation on 113, i.e. even before all those encounters and attacks, and what happened after that is already irrelevant to this game, it can only be mentioned as a potential issue for the future

Kyle: You are receiving a warning for violating the Rules of the HeroesWorld Portal, specifically for violating rule #2, for using inappropriate and offensive language in your message and for insulting a portal user.
In the future: Please be more restrained.

I checked the save files, and it's clear: ALEX is wrong. He simply drove past and didn't notice the guard of another respawn point. There's nothing else nearby, not even golems. :cool:

Wow, things really escalated here...
But please don't say that it's none of my business :D :D :smile43:
Anyway, what can I say? You're both wrong.
You're wrong because you couldn't find common ground.
First, Reper, you shouldn't have started the conflict; in this case, you did. No matter how you look at it.
Second, you shouldn't have treated your interlocutor with disrespect. Yes, I understand that it bothered you, but it really doesn't concern you. The moderators will sort it out themselves; at worst, you could have written that """the word Deceiver isn't entirely appropriate and that hasty conclusions shouldn't be made.""" But not in the way you did.

Now, Dmitry,
I understand your dissatisfaction with Reper's actions... But you shouldn't have expressed it in a rude way. Again, it's like pouring oil on the fire.
In general, supporting the conflict is no better than starting it...

Anyway, I hope this won't happen again, either in this thread or in any other...

If it continues, I'm sorry, but I will have to make comments. I don't want to :(