Controversial issues and their resolutions. — General

ewgeniy

3/27/2008 3:48 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Well, at that time, the rules were different, and I didn't change them. The point is this: a Necropolis hero made it to the treasure room without defeating the guards. In my opinion, the guards are located too far away; I don't even know what to say. Anyway, here's a screenshot:

Attachments 1

1 file attached • Total size: 174.9 KB

Клан"Homo Homini":smile19: Полезные ссылки:smile01:

В. Уэйтс©

Но поскольку я нищий,
у меня лишь есть мечты.
Я разостлал свои мечты пред вашими ногами.
Ступайте бережно, ибо вы ступаете по моим мечтам.

временно ушел с форума, переодически заглядываю. кому нужен пишите в скайп ewgeniy1985. в аське 384385000 очень редко.

In reply to ewgeniy

invisible

3/27/2008 10:32 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I request that the judge, vbn, review these save files and determine whether there was a violation by the player using Necropolis.

I apologize for the interruption, but this is not a simple issue and is not covered by the current rules. In this case, it is most likely a bug in the map generator, which Wicc has mentioned several times. Specifically, there are two paths that are significantly far apart, and only one guard. More precisely, the map generator placed a rock (or simply shifted it slightly away from the main mountain range) in the middle of one path, which can be bypassed on both sides, resulting in only one guard. On the one hand, the blue player allegedly violated the rules by not clearing the shifted guard. On the other hand, it can be argued that it is not the guard that is shifted, but the terrain itself, which is not covered by the current rules (at least not yet). Therefore, even if the blue player saw the golems, it is difficult to understand (or rather, impossible in this case) whether, for example, the red player did not clear this path earlier.
In general, while we wait for the judge's verdict, I would like experts to share their opinions so that we can make some amendments to the rules in case of similar map generator bugs.

Я ламер и играть не умею, нах!:smile33:

Dreamcatcher

3/28/2008 2:28 AM UTC

Auto-translated

So, are there daily saves? Maybe I missed a folder earlier and didn't check it? If this is a terrain glitch, I suggest discussing it in the rules thread.

http://dreamcatcher.metroland.ru/

Captain

3/28/2008 10:26 AM UTC

Auto-translated

IMHO, there were no violations.
We cleared out the trolls near the gold mine; they are stronger than the group of golems.

Дипломатия - искусство говорить собаке "хорошая собачка" до тех пор пока не найдешь подходящую палку.

vitalic

3/29/2008 8:15 AM UTC

Auto-translated

vbn;164917

vitalic, Did you report your observations to Dudge?
And what did he say? Did he disagree? Did you try to reach a compromise without involving outsiders?

After the game, I immediately wrote to my opponent, telling him that this is not how it should be done, and if the generator glitched, he could notify his opponent and come to a compromise. The opponent didn't react much, either he's new to the game and doesn't understand that when transitioning from grass to barbarian land, there should always be a guard at the passage, and moreover, a gold mine on these maps should only be in the treasure zone.
Not receiving a clear answer, I wrote to Evgeny (sent him the saves), and he said that Sir vbn should decide.
No answer followed for a week, but a report about the game appeared. So, decide, the tournament needs to be brought to the final, and Tanya must definitely play (I can give up my place to her), otherwise, it all seems wrong.

In reply to vitalic

Dudge

3/29/2008 9:05 AM UTC

Auto-translated

I am ready to play with Tanya, and if I lose, I will consider this game just for rating. As for infiltrating the neighboring respawn without breaking through the guard, I did find it in the rules, but it says about a shifted guard, not about there being no guard at all. Moreover, in that situation, I can say that the trolls guarding the gold mine were a shifted guard, and I broke through them! I see no rules violation.

Attachments 1

1 file attached • Total size: 136.9 KB

In reply to Dudge

vitalic

3/29/2008 10:05 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Dudge;165405

I am ready to play with Tanya, and if I lose, I will consider this game as just for rating. As for penetrating the neighboring respawn without breaking through the guards, I did find it in the rules, but it says about a shifted guard, not that there is no guard at all. Moreover, in that situation, I can say that the trolls guarding the gold mine were a shifted guard, and I broke through them! I don't see any violation of the rules.

Trolls guard the gold mine, passage is possible after breaking through the golems. For such tricks in the international tournament, the Poles were given a loss!!! And one must be more cautious and not use bugs of the generator

In reply to vitalic

Dudge

3/29/2008 10:23 AM UTC

Auto-translated

vitalic;165425

Trolls guard the gold mine; passage is possible after defeating the golems. Such tactics in an international tournament cost the Poles the match!!! And you need to be more careful and not exploit generator bugs.

Where does it say that you can't pass through a passage that doesn't have guards? The golems protect the adjacent passage. Even if you don't consider the trolls. Imagine the golems are halfway down the path. I've never heard that you need to report it. If you have daily saves... I've never encountered a shifted guard, you can check. There were 10-19 golems, and in that case, I didn't even think about defeating them because it's a DIFFERENT passage, and I was too lazy to take 2 turns for 3 skeletons.

In reply to Dudge

Dirty_Player

3/29/2008 10:42 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Vitalik <вырезано>! Be a man and accept defeat with dignity!!! Don't argue over a bunch of golems! If there were 50-99 Dragons... But here, it's even funny!

In reply to Dirty_Player

vitalic

3/29/2008 11:07 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player;165436

Vitalik <вырезано>! Be a man and accept defeat with dignity!!! Don't argue over a bunch of golems! If there were 50-99 Dragons... But this is just ridiculous!

Hello, dear sir, you need to follow the rules!!!

And I'm always happy to lose, it brings more benefit

Added 3 minutes later

Dudge;165430

Where is it written that you can't pass through a passage that has no guards? The golems protect the adjacent passage. Even if you don't take the trolls into account. Imagine the golems are halfway down the path. I've never heard that you need to report it. If you have daily saves... I've never passed through a shifted guard, you can check. There were 10-19 golems, and in that case, I didn't even think about having to defeat them because it's a DIFFERENT passage, and I was too lazy to take 2 turns for 3 skeletons.

Why argue? Sometimes there are passages with 4 free cells, but if it's a path to another zone, then you must spend movement points, defeat one of the shifted guards, and then go.

Ps stop arguing, let the judges decide

In reply to vitalic

Dudge

3/29/2008 11:19 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Yes, I don't argue. I'm saying that during the game, I cleared all the moved guards. In this case, there were simply no guards; golems guarded the SECOND passage.
Comments on the save file:
On the next turn, they were killed in order: the beams guarding the artifact (killed by Vidomina), the boars (also guarding the artifact), the gnolls, trolls, and centaurs. Somewhere there, the turn ended, and on the next turn, Gosh went into the dungeon to Nagobank.

Attachments 1

1 file attached • Total size: 181.9 KB

gm2

виталик

181.9 KB 154

In reply to vitalic

Kamikaze

3/29/2008 11:37 AM UTC

Auto-translated

I agree with Dudj. Golems guard the adjacent passage. If we consider this a bug in the generator, then there shouldn't be a mine there in principle (it should be a rock), or it would be on grass. And why not take it? In this specific case, the quote about the Poles is inappropriate... either they were punished for nothing.

Индивидуальный и клановый рейтинги Heroes World
Handmade

In reply to Dirty_Player

Dirty_Player

3/29/2008 11:43 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player;165436

Vitalik <вырезано>

It's written here as if I said something inappropriate! Well, whatever!! Everything was civil, just not relevant to the topic.

P.S.: I just don't like it when someone demands a victory because of a trivial violation of the rules... As an athlete, I can say that I'm just annoyed when in our sport, they give a loss for a mobile phone ringing!! (Even for vibration) Can you imagine? And some even run to the referee themselves so that they can win faster!!!

In reply to Dirty_Player

vbn

3/29/2008 12:47 PM UTC

Auto-translated

There doesn't seem to be anything more to discuss regarding this issue.
The discussions related to this precedent can be found in this thread, as well as here.
I no longer have the energy to add anything further on this matter.
If anyone has any remaining questions or needs clarification regarding the reason for making this particular decision, please send a private message via PM.

To avoid further controversial situations concerning issues of this kind, the rules will be updated soon.

So, the decision is in favor of Dudge.
But that does not mean he is exempt from playing against Ta Kotoraya...
And I won't even mention that the final game was played while the actual final had not yet begun.

Клан Homo homini

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth...

In reply to Dirty_Player

vitalic

4/4/2008 6:03 PM UTC

Auto-translated

with the player Loran, ICQ 288-210-773, I don't recommend playing with him; not only is he bad at the game, but he also had 250,000 in his treasury on level 116....

and why disrespect the game like that!

his email is miasko@tut.by
his IP address is 5.86.188.254

his ICQ was registered on Sat Jun 04 2005 20:58:04
so, it's not a one-day ICQ account; well, I don't have any more information.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Controversial issues and their resolutions.

Statistics

Library

Users Online 9 users 1399 guests

Today's Visitors 20