Posts from Controversial issues and their resolutions.

Post #269

1. Any rule violation (if any) applies only to completed games.
2. There are save files and a "message history from the Quip" – which confirms all my words, including the opponent's admission of checking the save files before day 1-1-5.
I repeat – I sent the save files to the judge only out of personal interest to clarify the circumstances.
3. Thank you, Moderators.

Dear judges,
Please consider this case thoroughly and make an objective decision.
Users Yakudza and Alex_R, please upload your save files for this game (all save files).

I hope this conflict will be resolved fairly.

Sincerely.

As the judge, I confirm that I have received some saves (so far only from Alex_R); I am waiting for the rest.
Currently, I am having some problems with my internet connection.

Once everything is sorted out, we will figure it out.

In the meantime, I ask Alex_R and Yakudza to send me via ICQ 252-O39-393
your correspondence with your opponents (or rather, those parts of it that you deem necessary, specifically how you agreed on the rules for this game).

Added after 6 hours 25 minutes
We have already encountered problems with moving from respawn to respawn multiple times.
Specifically, I personally have already mentioned two games in which I violated the rules regarding breaking through a respawn.
Here is the first game, for which I was awarded victory, but I once again ask the esteemed SS-D to annul this game, as both players violated the rules.
Here is the second game, where I violated the same rule and suffered a defeat.

I have learned a lot since then. I began to pay close attention to guards when moving from respawn to respawn. And in cases where it is unclear to me where these guards are located (they can be shifted so far or even absent entirely), I don't go in that direction at all. This has happened repeatedly. vitalic showed me this example, as it seems, in one of the games with him, when he told me via ICQ: "strange, didn't find guards for the Inferno respawn; I'll look for them; a glitch, so I... won't go there".

Now regarding the game
Yakudza (Castle, Valeska, Valeska) def Alex_R (Dungeon, Gunnar, Gunnar) 1-1-3.

First of all, the game is recognized as having taken place.
On day 1-1-7 Yakudza left the game, which indicated that he did not intend to continue and no longer cared who won or lost—his spirits had sunk and his morale was gone.

Following this, it seemed, a technical defeat for Yakudza should have followed.

However, analysis of the saves after the game showed that on day 1-1-3 to 1-1-4 Alex_R violated clause 5 of article 9 of the rules for HoMM3 online games on heroesworld.ru, concerning the prohibition of entering neighboring territories without first breaking through the shifted guards protecting the passage.

In view of this, Yakudza is awarded a technical victory in this game, and Alex_R is awarded a technical defeat.

P.S. All suggestions, wishes, and comments regarding the judging of this game, as well as your agreement/disagreement
with the judges' decision, can be sent to me via private message or to my email address.

but I am again asking respected SS-D to cancel this game, because both players violated the rules.

no problem, I probably just missed your request, it was written like this: P.S. The game should not be counted, as both players violated the rules.

Yakudza is awarded a technical victory in this game, Alex_R is awarded a technical defeat.

I confirm, I support :smile14:

For some reason, I also tend to think that both players violated the rules.... (although I haven't had time to look at the saves yet... but yesterday, in all this "argument," I already explained why I think so...).
At Yakudza's request, I will upload the saves to the forum....;) ;)
___Best regards;)____

Waiting, waiting, waiting... I'm not in a hurry.
I see everything, I know everything.

Also, there are violations of the rules from both sides, so it doesn't matter who violated them first. From Alex

I think this is important, and I think that adjustments to the rules will need to be made.

Following the judge's decision, here are my comments:

During the day, I sent the judge the ICQ logs and saves, from which he could draw his own conclusions (so there is no need to wait for me to send anything; I already did this a long time ago).

Regarding the game: Yes, on the 7th day of the game, I simply exited, stopping the game, extremely outraged by the deception of Aleх_R. His deception consists of the following: I intended to attack his castle on the 6th day of the game; the guard there consisted of a few griffins and a pack of troglodytes (there are saves confirming this), but Aleх_R started writing to me in-game, telling me not to dare attack his castle, as he thought we had agreed to attack only his heroes until the 6th day. I replied that I would never have agreed to waive a restart for attacking an opponent on the fifth day of the game if attacking heroes was allowed, but attacking the castle (and other things, like caches, for example) was not... What else am I supposed to do on an opponent's already stripped respawn, other than attacking everything possible? And if Alex pleaded to keep playing instead of taking a restart, then all attack restrictions in the game should be lifted thereafter; otherwise, for the player who came to the opponent's side, it is disadvantageous and foolish to continue playing without attacking. Via ICQ, I set the condition for continuing the game that I would immediately attack all his heroes starting from the 5th day of the first week—and Alex agreed to this (the judge has the ICQ logs for this). And now he starts talking this nonsense about non-aggression toward the castle until the 7th day (even though he saw me running toward his castle with my main hero during my turn, surely not just to stand nearby; perhaps he hoped I would wait for a new growth, he would buy it up, and I would only then attack with a first-week army????) Alex wrote to me in-game that he thought attacking heroes was allowed, but attacking the castle was not, and that's why he hadn't even split the units inside the dungeon into singles (a Stronghold was built there). In the end, I decided that since that was the case, I would give him a chance to split the units, as it wouldn't be noble to take advantage of his delusion and attack, so I didn't attack the castle but stood in front of it. Then, on his turn, instead of splitting the units into singles, Aleх_R jumps into his dungeon with his main hero and a full army and writes to me in-game: "Now you can attack"!!! :eek: I was shocked by such deception and audacity, and therefore I immediately just exited the game!!!! although I could have continued and would have won 1000 percent, as I had a huge advantage in army and skills (I had 29 maxmen, 1 angel, lots of pikemen, 2 vampires, and a tent with a ballista, skills 4 7 4 2, expert archery, leadership, and logistics, and a spellbook, whereas Gunnar at that moment had skills 4 2 3 2, no spellbook, only basic logistics, an army of lots of pikemen, a pack of ordinary harpies, 3 minotaurs, few medusas, 7 eyes, and a pack of troglodytes). If Gunnar had attacked me in an open field, he would have been killed without a chance; I wouldn't have attacked on the 7th day, but waited one more day to bring in the growth for the next day (since Gunnar cannot attack me with growth on his first game day, I would have stayed near the castle) and simply stood by his castle with full growth (I had horses with a Stronghold + vampires in my secondary, Alex had minotaurs with a castle, but after building the castle, Alex had no money to buy the army at the start of the game; a chain of heroes was set up to transfer the army on the first day, and there was plenty of money to buy the entire army for the first day of the second week). I would have given the angel to the "noob" to capture Aleх_R's secondary, beat them out of money there, run around his respawn with mages using Haste, and finish off those noobs. And that's it, Aleх_R would have only one castle left, income and resources only from it, unable to leave (I would immediately attack the empty castle), and if he attacked me, he would lose instantly; otherwise, in the second week, I would have built angels and by the third, I would have taken his castle almost without losses. But despite this, I did not want to continue playing with such a player after his deception and simply exited the game...

The judge assessed my actions when I refused to continue the game and exited as me surrendering, because due to the fact that I communicated with Alex about non-aggression toward his castle on the 6th day in-game, there is no evidence in the ICQ logs that Aleх_R had no right to change the number of troops in the castle, and especially to enter it with the main hero, pulling in troops from the secondary as well :( ( do not agree to anything in-game, only via ICQ)
(although, logically, I would not have agreed not to attack if I weren't sure that the number of troops would not change the next day and would remain the same as on the 6th day when I could have attacked—but this is also only indirect evidence of Alex's deception, not direct, as the judge considered). In the end, he considered the game finished with a 117 surrender, as Yakudza surrendered for personal reasons...

BUT THIS SURRENDER IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE RULES; IT TURNS OUT I SIMPLY REFUSED TO CONTINUE THE GAME AND IT DOES NOT MATTER WHY (JUST AS I REFUSED IN THE FIRST GAMES HERE WHEN FEEDING A HERO WITH AN ARMY TO MONSTERS IN THE FIRST AND SECOND WEEKS—I ALSO EXITED THE GAMES AND SIMPLY SURRENDERED, REFUSING TO CONTINUE THE GAME FURTHER; SIMILARLY HERE—THIS IS A NORMAL CAPITULATION, ONCE YOU EXITED AND REFUSED TO CONTINUE, NOT A VIOLATION OF THE RULES),

But after the game, I reviewed the saves and discovered a gross violation of the rules (I believe intentional, because even if he ran through by accident, he should have said so immediately (and I would have simply suggested he touch nothing there and run back, and we would have continued playing normally), but he remained silent until the end of the game, and still didn't break through the passage guard).

As a result, on all online game resources, upon the discovery of a rule violation by an opponent, the game result is annulled, and a technical defeat is automatically awarded to the rule-breaker.

I just want to advise one thing: play by the rules, and there won't be any problems. If you really want to make some changes, you need to agree on them in a way that leaves no room for misinterpretation. For example, you can agree not to use any scrolls at all, or you can use any scrolls at any time. But as it was in this case, each player could interpret the changes regarding non-aggression in their own way, and each had their own truth. Here's an example from my own experience. I was playing against an opponent, and while his main hero was somewhere else, I took all his Castles and just waited for the 7th day, when he would come back on his own. He wrote to me that he wouldn't make it back in time, and if I wanted to continue playing, he said, "if you want to play with my main hero, give back one Castle, and my weak hero will run there." I interpreted this as an offer to have a final battle, so I gave back a Castle so that the enemy wouldn't leave the game. I moved my main hero towards him. He didn't come to meet me; instead, he ran further away. I was confused and ran after him. I cornered him and attacked. He paid a ransom! Then he paid a ransom in the Castle I had given him and ran to take the rest and then retreated to another Treasury. And I, lured deep into the wilderness, wasted several days just going back! I felt deeply deceived and wanted to quit the game immediately. But then, who asked me for a final battle? No one, it was just in my head...

Well, in the game, Alex clearly stated that he wanted to divide his troops into individual units within his Castle, and there was nothing mentioned about buying anything or bringing in additional troops from the secondary market (obviously, I would never agree to that) – and on the next turn, he cynically deceived me. From now on, I've learned my lesson: I'll only agree on everything in the chat, and that's it (and regarding the fact that I agreed to only play with the condition that I would start attacking Alex from the 5th day – it's all in the chat logs). Yes, and regarding what Alex writes (repeatedly), why I looked at the save before the end of the game – this is blatant lying and distortion of facts. Here are the chat logs: Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:42 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R WHY AREN'T YOU ONLINE?
Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:45 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R I'm looking at the save, yes, you're doing well...

Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:45 PM You received a message from user Alex_R Why are you looking?
Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:45 PM You received a message from user Alex_R We haven't finished the game yet

Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:46 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R How haven't you finished the game?
Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:46 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R You yourself wrote that you can't attack before the 6th day

Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:46 PM You received a message from user Alex_R I just warned that if the game goes to the 6th day, one of the players may request a restart

Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:46 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R And I would attack you now, it's the 5th day
Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:46 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R I already know that
Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:46 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R That's why I asked
Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:47 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R I specifically asked you in the game

Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:47 PM You received a message from user Alex_R Okay, we can continue – just don't look at the save

Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:50 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R In general, okay, let's not continue this, I don't want to replay battles.... once again, I specifically asked you in the game before attacking your Castle, are we playing or not, I asked you several times, and you were silent for some reason
Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:57 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R The point is – to play and not attack, let's just not take restarts because of this
Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:57 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R Of course, I'll kill your Castle now

Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:58 PM You received a message from user Alex_R It's the 5th day now ))
Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:59 PM You received a message from user Alex_R I won't attack on the 6th day either

Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:59 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R Then let's restart
Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:59 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R What's the point of playing?
Date and time: 12/23/2007 02:59 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R I came to you, not to the secondary market
Date and time: 12/23/2007 03:00 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R And what should I do there?
Date and time: 12/23/2007 03:00 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R Just walk around and not attack anyone?
Date and time: 12/23/2007 03:00 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R And you'll be somewhere for two days, building up your forces
Date and time: 12/23/2007 03:00 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R and then on the 7th day, you'll attack with a full army – clever
Date and time: 12/23/2007 03:00 PM

You received a message from user Alex_R Okay, let's play with the 6th day – but not the 5th

Date and time: 12/23/2007 03:00 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R How can it not be the 5th?
Date and time: 12/23/2007 03:01 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R I'm attacking your Castle now
Date and time: 12/23/2007 03:01 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R I already wrote
Date and time: 12/23/2007 03:01 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R What, should I chase after you?
Date and time: 12/23/2007 03:01 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R I'm attacking your Castle with a spoon now
Date and time: 12/23/2007 03:01 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R And on the next turn – if I can reach anyone, I'll attack them too

Date and time: 12/23/2007 03:01 PM You received a message from user Alex_R Okay

Date and time: 12/23/2007 03:01 PM You sent a message to user Alex_R Okay


Firstly, at the moment when I wrote that I was looking at the save, I was looking at the save of Alex's game 111 – this is the save of the game where a restart was taken (I have the save of the next game marked as 11111, and that's why I confused them), then, when we started communicating in the chat, the turn passed to me, and I saw that it was a different save. Otherwise, I wouldn't have agreed to continue the game, but would have taken a restart due to the attack on the opponent on the 5th day...
And also, what I wrote about the other save proves the following: 1) I wrote there that Alex has "something good" (in the game where a restart was taken, that was the case, Alex had a dwelling of cats behind skeletons, a dwelling of minotaurs behind hobbits, boots of speed on ogres, a lot of money, and excellent heroes in the tavern (a specialist in ballista with trolls and orcs) – the save of this game, along with all the saves, was also sent to the judge), but in the game that we started playing, Alex has a bad situation, little money, a cat dwelling near the Castle is guarded by a lot of ifrits (it's even difficult to take on the second difficulty), the second hero doesn't have trolls at all, a specialist in harpies came...). 2) I would have then seen that Alex violated the rules (it's so obvious) – and, of course, I wouldn't have continued playing, but immediately awarded him a technical defeat. 3) I play purely for fun, and I wouldn't have continued the game if I had already looked at it.

But, most importantly, I wrote to Alex that I was already looking at the game after I announced a restart on the 5th day due to the meeting (since after he found out that we met on the 5th day, he disappeared from the chat for some time, and I decided to restart the game due to the meeting without him), then there is a proposal from Alex, despite looking at the save and the fact that I will attack him on the 5th day – to continue playing, so what claims can he have later about me looking at the save (even if I didn't look, but that's not important), if he knew about it and still wanted to continue the game??? I was looking at the save (it doesn't matter that it wasn't the one we were playing) – on absolutely legitimate grounds, and since Alex wanted to continue the game after that, it's his problem now

And Alex is presenting himself in a very bad light by lying about the fact that I looked at the save before the end of the game, although he perfectly knew that at that moment the game was over for me (due to the restart because of the meeting on the 5th day), and all of this is clearly and clearly written in the chat, and about his request to continue the game further, not looking at saves, which I did...

I would like to add some details about the specifics of zone guarding:
Guarding a passage to another map only guards the passage itself!
If monsters are guarding a chest, obelisk, hut, or something similar, then it is definitely not guarding a respawn point!
However, there are situations where roads from different respawn points intersect at one point, in which case they may have one common guard!

:smile19: Deleted :smile19:
Reason: Irrelevant to the discussion topic, and a veiled insult to the opponent.
Sincerely, Kyle.

Regarding the save – don't lie again, I even provided the log from the ICQ chat there; there are no words like "you developed well," but something else is written. And I always look at the game after the game, specifically on the first day of the game – this provides more information about how much money was available at the restart, what guards were present, and what the starting army was (and only then – separate other days). I started looking at this save (I already wrote why, although sometimes you need to read carefully what others write) – it was marked like Alex 111, as a save from the first day, while our save was marked simply as 11111, and subsequent ones – again, Alex 2, 3, etc. In general, I already wrote that it doesn't matter what I looked at, as I had the right to do so after taking the restart on day 115, even though you lied there, saying that I looked at the save before the end of the game...

Furthermore, show the ICQ log where you confirmed that you agreed to a mutual restart when I reached day 117 and wrote about the restart? There was none of that; instead, you were writing on the forum that I also violated the rules by leaving the game, and there are no words anywhere that you acknowledged this as a restart. The judge agreed with your arguments and considered that my unwillingness to continue the game after the deadline, when a restart is taken, is an admission of defeat by the player. And if the rule hadn't been so blatantly violated, the judge would have ruled in my favor, and I would have had to accept it, as I refused to continue the game, and there was no proof why. And how brazen must one be to suddenly agree to a restart on the 5th day after the defeat was awarded? Disgusting...

Regarding the golems – the game save is available, and everyone can see that it was very difficult not to notice the golems, especially since there is such a clear boundary between the respawn points, and Alex_R has not been playing for the first day or first game, so he should know that the guards are located between the respawn points, and not already at the castle (like the wolves that are standing there, which also guard the important area, and are not just standing there as guards of a passage without any objects nearby).
And, :smile19: Deleted :smile19:
Reason: Irrelevant to the discussion topic.
Sincerely, Kyle.

Regarding the fact that I "lie" about you, when asking me not to attack, saying that you would split the two stacks of troops into single units – I won't even comment on that.... I guess I'm abnormal, and I only attack if the opponent is building a castle near the Citadel, bringing troops from the secondary town, and blatantly running into the castle with the main hero and the entire army, and before that, I just stand and wait. I already wrote about this in previous posts; you were lucky, you tricked me, and I don't have ICQ logs where I can read that you only talk about splitting the troops and nothing else (since you wrote it in the game), so the judge ruled in my favor due to the lack of evidence, but I think those who have been reading here for a long time already know who is lying....

Regarding the choice of castles – you lied here too, ugh... Here is the ICQ log in which I first suggested that he fight, giving him the choice of a castle.

Date and time: 12/18/2007 00:09 AM
You sent a message to user Alex_R
Hello, when are you playing? Write to me, what time? Dmitry 777 wrote a lot about you, it seems like you play very badly, as I understand? I'm not very good either (I lose often, I'm very slow, and I'm very weak in theory) – but, if you want, so that you're not afraid, you can choose any castle and color, and I will also choose any for myself, except for the worst ones (Tower, Inferno, and Citadel).

And only after some time, I sent him the following in ICQ:

Date and time: 12/18/2007 07:08 PM
You sent a message to user Alex_R
And so – I'm ready to fight any day, in principle, so just let me know (as I wrote, you choose a castle for yourself and me, and you choose a color for yourself).

Note that it says "as I wrote," I wrote to him the first time, any castle, except for which ones; the second time, I didn't need to specify which ones again, for what reason.....

Although – after the game with Alex_R, I realized how weak he is as a player, and if we had agreed to play now, I would have let him choose any castle at all, even a Conflux on a Citadel.

Regarding the fact that I wrote that the Dungeon is much stronger than the Castle, and I was ready to switch and play with me on the Dungeon, and him on the Castle, and if he wins, I would immediately confirm 3 defeats – yes, that was the case. Now, knowing how weak Alex_R actually is, I would have confirmed 5 defeats if I had managed to lose to him with the Dungeon against the Castle...

Why argue, trying to prove to someone that they are an idiot and you don't eat cabbage? You won't convince anyone that they are an idiot anyway. It just brings shame to the resource, that such things happen here. My advice: forget about it. There are many other players with whom you have good relationships. Right? After all, this is just a game – it's given to us for relaxation.

Why argue, trying to prove to someone that they are an idiot, and you don't eat cabbage?
You won't convince anyone that they are an idiot anyway :(

It just brings shame to the resource, that such things happen here.

My advice is to forget about it :)
There are many other players with whom you have good relationships. Right?
And this is just a game - it's given to us for relaxation :)

Golden words...

I won't write much more here, the judge has made a decision, and I have provided the logs and saves that prove everything, and that's enough.

Okay, that’s enough. From this point on, only the judges can post in this thread. All other posts will be deleted. I hope you understand. Best regards.

Regarding the last incident under review, the judges' decision remains unchanged and is not subject to further discussion.

Request to SS-D: please count this game in the General Player Rating according to the issued decision.


I will provide an interpretation (strictly a personal view) of the portal's HoMM3 online game rules regarding players' failure to comply with the rules.

If one of the players requests an investigation into a particular Gameplay, and if it is confirmed that at any stage of the Gameplay their opponent in one way or another violated the rules of the game, taking into account the individual agreement between players on the rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), the violator is automatically awarded a technical defeat, and their opponent a technical victory.

If it turns out that both players violated the Rules at any stage of the Gameplay, then the result of the game, at the discretion of the judges, may be as follows:
1) both players are credited with a technical defeat (– 25 rating points);
2) the game automatically ceases to participate in the portal's rating system.

Note: Gameplay is recommended to be understood as all actions performed by the players that are in one way or another related to the game, starting from the moment the players meet in the message manager (forum chat, etc.) and discuss the rules, and ending with the filing of reports by both players in the appropriate thread.