Posts from Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

Regarding the AK, I'm not sure how to properly write these statements, I'll do my best.
The question is: We played a season with Alin and reached the final (under duress), during which a desynchronization occurred: In my replay, my stack of ducks didn't receive the morale penalty, but in his replay, the ducks received the morale penalty and he eliminated them (by the way, this is also a controversial point, as the morale penalty shouldn't have occurred due to the angel alliance, it seems to be a game bug).
The judge (Redwhait) scheduled a replay of the final (or agreed to a draw, which I don't want). I agreed to replay the final with the condition of dead wyverns and a battle of the remaining troops, according to the opponent's scenario (mathematical victory due to the elixir on bones and better stats), but the opponent doesn't respond to my requests or the judge's requests, although I see that he has read my messages and is playing in the lobby.

I ask the judges to force him to finish the season. Otherwise, impose penalties on him and record a loss in the game.

My friend i already told you that you 1st give me some other versions about what you see on the battle we have. And i told you that i was right that we left only skeletons to battle. Yes i can load the game to end the game vs you. Only to have time you and me . Happy New Year

Question for the AK: what should be done in the situation described below? We were playing SoD, and as usual, the border between zones disappeared. It's unclear which respawn point the conservatory belongs to; can it be taken or not? How can we determine this and provide a precise formulation in the rules for such situations? Also, I would like to know what the outcome of the game will be when a player accidentally enters another respawn point in such a situation and then realizes it.

I would also like to know, when in such a situation a player accidentally moves onto another respawn and then realizes it, what will be the outcome of the match?

If a player, noticing an unintentional violation on their part or observing signs of a violation, does not stop the game and does not inform the opponent, then there are grounds for a technical loss.
As for the ownership of the Griffin Conservatory in that match of yours (I watched the stream), based on the terrain it looks more like your respawn ended at the line of the crystal mine; the mine is located in a standard "nook" (which should have been a dead end): near the village, the generator very clearly marked the respawn boundary in that area of the map.

I'm surprised that such an experienced player as Vitaly couldn't understand (or didn't want to:confused:) a simple, bugged passage. In any disputed cases, the player should stop the game and write to the judges.

https://imgur.com/a/59bTK6u

- No one, except the judge/tournament organizer or a member of the Arbitration Committee, has the right to open unfinished game saves, and only in the event of a controversial situation in the game. If, at the moment a controversial situation arises that requires opening the saves, there is no connection with the judge/organizer/Arbitration Committee, the game must be interrupted and saved by both participants until they can connect with the judges.

Personally, I don't understand where the boundary lies, so I wrote here to have precise clarifications on these situations added to the rules, so that there would be no controversial questions.
In this particular game, it became clear that the bugged passage only appears when the road is discovered.

Personally, I don't understand where the boundary is, so I wrote here to have the rules clarified with PRECISE explanations for these situations, so that there would be no controversial questions.
In this match, it became clear that the bugged passage was only discovered when the road was found.

The rules contain screenshots showing bugged passages due to the mine. If you can make it more precise, suggest your options.
The AK cannot make a decision on this match, but according to the rules of fair play, you should have stopped the match when you realized that there was a bugged passage and contacted a judge.

Vitaly, the rule is very simple – play HotA. And there won't be any controversial situations, buggy playthroughs, blocks, or other nonsense. And an AK (anti-cheat) probably won't be needed either. Only true sore losers will continue to get angry, argue, and freak out. Sir Davos, it's your turn! )))

Vitaly, the rule is very simple – play HotA. And there won’t be any controversial situations, buggy passages, blocks, or other nonsense. And AK will probably not be needed either. Only true sodovites will continue to get angry, argue, and freak out. Sir Davos, it’s your turn! )))

And you, comrade Lizard, are quite the hater:smile22:
P.s. judging by the number and content of posts in the HotA topic, everyone is happy, and no one is looking for balance or discussing HotA bugs.

I'm surprised that such an experienced player as Vitaly couldn't understand (or didn't want to:confused:) a simple bugged passage.

Well, in reality, in such or similar situations, it's not always possible to identify a bugged passage at first glance, especially when lava transitions into lava.

The most correct thing to do, of course, would be to contact the judge. But what if the player was sure that it was his respawn point and didn't even think about a bugged passage? Well, most likely, it will be decided on an individual basis.

And you, comrade Lizard, are quite the hater:smile22:
P.s. judging by the number and content of posts in the HotA thread, everyone is satisfied and no one is looking for balance or discussing HotA bugs.

That's not true. Both the discussion and the work to improve HotA are in full swing; it's just not publicized on the ХВ forum. And I'm not even close to being a hater. I played SoD with you recently!:D

The most correct course of action, of course, would be to appeal to the judge. But what if the player was sure it was his respawn point and didn't even consider the possibility of a bugged passage? Well, most likely, it will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

What decision would you make in the described situation: a player on map 121 or 122 (we need to review the recording) sees the path to a neighboring respawn point, thus clearly realizing that he entered another respawn point through a bugged passage (and it is quite possible that the resource he took earlier belongs to this respawn point), did not stop the game, did not inform the opponent, had an expert review of the land, and continued playing as if nothing had happened?

What decision would you make in the described situation: a player on 121 or 122 (need to check the recording) sees the road of a neighboring respawn, thus clearly confirming that they entered another respawn through a bugged passage (and it's quite likely that the conga they picked up earlier might belong to that respawn), but did not stop the game, did not inform the opponent, had expert view of the land, and continued playing as if nothing had happened?

Your opinion sounds like that joke where a husband and wife sat down to eat a cake and he accused her of cutting herself the best piece... she said to him—wouldn't you want to give me the best piece? He said he would... so why are you complaining then... same here, the conversation was pointless... the important thing here was the road, yes, but I was stupid and thought it was my 3rd city, completely forgetting about the road to the swamp... I gathered a couple of gold piles there and left when I realized I made a mistake (we were playing at 2 AM, but not a critical one)... the question is, what was the point of writing to Stinger that I had taken a couple of gold piles? It's like in that joke where you already know the answer in advance—they would have kept playing, and if the same situation happened and he did it, why the hell would I write about it?
In other words, cut the fluff: the road determined that it was a mistake, but if you remove the road factor, it's unclear where the line is.
P.S. I don't know why, but Kostya's (Dirty) opinion is always the most reasonable, others are too lazy to think or just say anything to respond?

I'm surprised that such an experienced player as Vitaly couldn't understand (or didn't want to:confused:) a simple, buggy passage. In any controversial cases, the player should stop the game and write to the judges.

https://imgur.com/a/59bTK6u

I'm not a very experienced player, and the boundary indicated by Reddy in the screenshot isn't obvious to me.
Once the path was discovered, that's a different matter. Here, the game should have been stopped, an explanation given that due to the buggy passage, the player ended up in another respawn area, and a decision made with the opponent whether they continue the game or leave the decision to the judges.
In my opinion, after the path is discovered, the game should continue without further exploration and returning to their own zone.
As for the piles of gold raised in the opponent's zone after the path is discovered, that is a violation of the rules.

I picked up a couple of piles of gold there and left when I realized I made a mistake (we were playing at 2 AM, but it wasn't critical)... the question is, what was the point of writing to Stinger that I took a couple of piles of gold?

Hmm, in this case, you simply interpreted the situation in your own favor without informing either the opponent or the judges. And that's strange. All the more strange that you also had an expert view of the land afterwards. All the more strange that you have plenty of instructional videos and a large amount of material specifically dedicated to the map generator. And the strangest thing of all is that you didn't consider it necessary to notify the opponent about a violation on your part that had already come to light, even if unintentional.
What's the point of writing to Stinger about "a couple of piles of gold" — are you serious right now? In Heroes, sometimes even 10 gold coins decide the outcome... And here, near that road, you collected three piles of 2800 gold and a pile of gems at turn 121 (and before that, at turn 117, also a campfire, a pile of shields, a chest, and gold) — in a growth buyout scenario, this is significant, especially since you were also trading resources there. That's the first thing. The second thing is that you didn't leave someone else's respawn. After that — following the collection of those "couple of piles" — you took the Griffin Conservatory on someone else's respawn, meaning when it had already become obvious that it was someone else's respawn (and the talk about "zoning out at 2 AM" is just childish). One could argue about where the respawn boundary lies — there are formal loopholes in the rules to latch onto, but, I repeat, there is your own town nearby, near which the generator clearly marked the respawn boundaries in that area — combined with the mine, that is sufficient, at the very least to pause the game and request the judges.
Or, in your opinion, is an unintentional (non-deliberate) violation not a violation, and therefore a victory in similar situations is legitimate?
I took the trouble to review the recording from your side (originally I thought the Conservatory was taken first, and then the road was revealed).
Chronology. (In my subjective view)
Turn 117 — the road is revealed — an obvious encroachment onto another respawn (but you zoned out), someone even wrote about the other respawn in the chat. Nearby the road, after it was revealed, Pyrrhus picked up a campfire, shields, a chest worth 1000, and a pile of gold worth 1000.
Turn 121 — Pyrrhus further picks up three piles of gold worth 2800 and a pile of gems near the road on someone else's respawn, securing the buyout before taking the big Conservatory at the main.
Turn 122 — Pyrrhus takes the Conservatory on someone else's respawn (just a level-3 Conservatory). After this, a view of the land is cast, but you didn't even look at the roads of the neighboring respawn (though you usually scan the whole map — there's plenty of time to check everything — what if you have to retreat to other respawns in the endgame...).
Of course, there's nothing to inform the opponent about...
In the end, you write the following in the AK thread: guys, I unintentionally broke the rules because I zoned out. So here, by "the code," everything is obvious. The opponent makes a decision — either to count it as a tech loss for you, or simply to annul the result and replay the game. At a tournament, it would be an unambiguous tech loss: all your actions after the road was revealed, starting from turn 117, constitute violations that provided a very serious advantage (an undeniable 5+ thousand for the buyout plus the controversially contested level-3 Conservatory) and the victory in the game.