Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
For those who don't understand the difference between points a and b. In general, when playing on small maps, there was a popular strategy: to rush with a growth bonus to reach the castle at 121 (131) and capture it. This is where the restriction came from, which prevented capturing the castle and defending it with the growth bonus. I mentioned that it was outdated about 5 years ago.
Xocenk
In Miron's message, which Sanin is deleting (strangely, instead of just deleting the "insults"), there was also some constructive feedback.
It's quite an honor to separate constructive feedback from someone's garbage. We could also add a rule for prevention. Those who can't communicate normally – goodbye!
Xocenk
There are no rules regarding mirror matches in SOD.
Even if we add rules, they will be 95% the same as the standard rules. There's no point in introducing any specific restrictions for SOD. But we should add something, I agree.
The outcome of this game determined whether the team of 5 would advance to the semi-finals. The teams were tied 1-1, and the decisive third match ended in a 2-2 draw. Is it really acceptable to penalize someone for such a violation in such an important game?
Firstly, the decisive game was the one that followed. Secondly, why should the application of the rules depend on whether it's a decisive game or not? The fact that the rules don't specify any gradation of punishment for violations, only technical penalties, is also a problem that has been discussed for a long time, including by me. As a result, we have what we have.
I'm always amused by how everyone gets so righteously indignant when these situations arise, but where were you all before? If you agreed to play by the current rules, then both parties agreed to them, so what's the point of waving your fists after the game? Decisions on these seemingly insignificant rematches have been made repeatedly (in "One for All" it's practically a tradition). Each time, there was an uproar, and then the rematch on xl+u was cancelled. In the previous "OzV," there was an absolutely similar situation on Diamond in the Browser vs. battanas match. Why weren't the rules changed back then? I'm not even mentioning the fact that they promised to do it back in 2015.
Regarding the blue color on the minimap, the issue isn't about why it was chosen, but about the fact that if a rematch was allowed, there would have been a different choice or a different price. I think this is obvious.
I can't say anything about the rules of "One for All." The concept of "One for All" was introduced by someone who is no longer actively involved in the forum. Who should now be responsible for clarifying this is unknown. As an organizer, I would also benefit from a clear set of rules for "One for All."
I have a question for Sanin. Did Faria consult with you regarding the redraft? Who made the decision about the ban – you or him?
Just for my own understanding...
There wasn't really any decision to be made. For me, it's not even a decision; it's absolutely obvious – there's a violation, there should be a punishment; otherwise, what's the point of having rules?
And the banning is being handled by your side; I would simply admit defeat if I were Chemik, as he has already done several times in similar situations.
By the way, as the organizer, I wouldn't even wait for the judges and the arbitration committee from CIS, because the situation is obvious in my opinion. I only waited because I am an interested party and shouldn't be the one making the decision.
Let me rephrase the question: did Faria want to "submit a replay" for review? Or did you insist on fair play – is that what fair play means to you?
Yes, in my understanding, fair play means not breaking the rules, and if the rules are broken, then admitting defeat. As for the first part of the question, I have already expressed my opinion on the matter; what Faria thinks, you should ask him. And how we make decisions within the team is our own business.
Any decision made by a person is their own business. It's hard to give a clear answer, it seems, it all depends on the situation... Never mind, I understand everything.
Don't bother Sanin, I insisted on Redrush right away, and Faria had no choice! It's a team tournament, and I could insist because they were trying to pressure me into playing Redrush. I signed up and agreed, we're changing the rules, I'm all for it, but as long as these rules exist, please follow them... And that's not an indicator of who's better, sometimes people just buy their way to victory....
Added 3 minutes later So, go away, you overly righteous people! Let's play by the rules!
So, maybe it's time to decide and rewrite the rules? Almost half of them are no longer relevant. Is it necessary to make life difficult for newcomers? Sanin
It's absolutely obvious - there's a violation, there should be a punishment, otherwise, what's the point of the rules?
As a judge, I think you should first of all be fair. If someone is exploiting technical loopholes in the rules, they should receive a blue mark. After all, there was a clarification in the rules: "if it can affect the outcome of the battle," who is it for?
Maybe it's time to decide and rewrite the rules? Almost half of them are outdated. Is it really necessary to make things difficult for newcomers?
As a judge, I think you should first and foremost be fair. If players are exploiting the rules through technical means, they should receive a blue mark.
Firstly, Chemist is definitely not a newcomer, and secondly, I am not a judge in the tournament and, as an interested party, should not have made a decision. And I can imagine the list of players with a blue mark :D
Once again: the rules either work fully according to all points, or they are simply unnecessary. zoog
After all, there was a clarification in the rules: "if it can affect the outcome of the battle," who is it for?
Dirty_Player
This point is not applicable when attacking a town/village.
Oh, it would be nice to have the changes to the rules translated into English as well. Who would take on that task? Because the translation was already abridged, and now the changes aren't reflected in it.
"There's no need to execute me,sir Davos . I'll be dead before dawn." ICQ 716748479
Dirty_Player
