Posts from Турниры HeroesWorld Cup & World Cup - 2012

And these are the circumstances, and especially what you wrote on the HP forum, it doesn't do you any favors.

I don't care about sentimentality or diplomatic gestures. Especially on the portal, especially when Redwhait HP

even politely asked to explain his vision regarding the saves

, calling the saves suspicious without any argumentation. And the phrase addressed to Sticky, he somehow attributed to himself. That is, the guy has already taken a negative position. So, in this situation, constructive dialogue is impossible.
I don't need any honor. I don't need to indulge the provocateurs and put myself on the same level as them. And emotions are inevitable here.

The overly loud name of the tournament attracted cheaters from all over the world. If it were called the "Mukhosransk Open Championship," that wouldn't have happened. But then who would bother to play it in SMKU and Jebus Cross without control...

Okay, let's just hold small, informal competitions on anarchy servers or something similar, and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. That way, we'll suffer less, as the player attrition is greater than the influx of new players.

The name is indeed very grand. I don't want to repeat myself. It would have been better to call it International Cup. IMHO.

The funniest thing isn't that they're trying to portray Rebellius as a maphacker. It's much funnier that they're trying to make him out to be a clueless maphacker.

Let's just put ourselves in the shoes of a player who's ready to cheat on the map to achieve victory. How would he act if he's playing to win (and a mentally sound maphacker always plays to win)? No matter how hard he tries, the cheater will have to play from the very beginning. Just jumping ahead to day 14+ is unlikely to guarantee a victory. He needs to have a good feel for the game from the very first days. Even if he plays without drawing too much attention. That's how Eddie and Vitalik played. That's why their win rate was so high. RBV approached the game without taking it seriously, which is why he often lost. Therefore, it's logical to assume that the investigation should focus on the saves from the first or second week. To assume that the player played fairly for the first 10-20 days, relying on skill, and then made a jump on the fourth week, knowing the map in advance, is only possible if you're delusional.

Can I assume that the "JUDGES:D" of the tournament didn't think of this? No. I don't think they're idiots. Therefore, there's an ulterior motive behind Rebellius's disqualification. What that motive is isn't very clear. At the very least, Blackknight's reputation is such that 80% of players don't want to play against him. And it seems that certain perceptions about the other players will also have to be re-evaluated.

The funniest thing isn't that they're trying to portray Rebellius as a maphacker. It's much funnier that they're trying to portray him as a clueless maphacker.

Let's just put ourselves in the shoes of a player who's ready to cheat on the map to achieve victory. How will he act if he's playing for the result (and a mentally sound maphacker always plays to win)? No matter how hard he tries, the perpetrator will have to play from the very beginning. Just jumping ahead to day 14+ is unlikely to guarantee a victory. He needs to have a good feel for the game from the very first days. Even if he plays without drawing too much attention. That's how Eddie and Vitalik played. That's why their win rate was so high. RBV approached the game without taking it seriously, which is why he often lost. Therefore, it's logical to assume that we should look at the saves from the first or second week. To assume that the player played fairly, relying on skill, for the first 10-20 days, and then, on the fourth week, makes a blind jump, knowing the map in advance, is possible only in a state of delirium.

Can I assume that the "JUDGES:D" of the tournament didn't think of this? No. I don't think they're idiots. So, there's an ulterior motive behind the disqualification of Rebellius. What it is isn't very clear. At least, Blackknight's reputation is such that 80% of players don't play against him. And it seems that certain opinions about the others will also have to be reconsidered.

I'll give it a +1, and I'll add something about the jury:
Of those who were involved, I only saw Neo and Redwait, there may be other people that Sticky didn't mention. And Vik. His opinion is authoritative, but I don't think he approached the analysis of the saves with the same enthusiasm as in the past when he was passionate about it.
Neo - he clearly explained everything, he is a lawyer after all :) So, there are no questions for the jury.
But about Red - mmm.... It seems that he had a conflict with Rebo even before...
But that's not the point. If Red gives a signal like "screw you - Cheater" or "screw you - Warlock".... Well, I think the meaning is clear, Red, no offense.
In short, of the judges mentioned, only Neo, in my opinion, corresponds to this status.
Why Sticky didn't have an open discussion (like with Vitalik, for example) before making a decision is unclear.

The skill tree clearly shows a map hack. 1. Only a madman (or a cheater who knows it will come after defense) would refuse Air at level 4 and not take Earth at level 5 with such cons. 2. He didn't check the cost of the Road spell! (which, by the way, was a tier 3 spell, and he wouldn't have taken it, and he didn't check the distant cost of 100-249 (which was also a tier 3 spell!) but immediately, without checking, went into the middle cost of 100-249 (a tier 2 spell) – that's just ridiculous, is he taking us for fools?

Then he takes a +3 cost spell and, without taking another +3, and without a book, goes to the Treasury – what kind of move is that? And the fact that it's on 126 (!) He broke out of an UNEXPLORED Treasury and went home, and completely out of nowhere, took a +3 cost spell and settled in the Citadel – that's just laughable. It's funny, even.

In short, he's a cheater, and there's nothing to talk about.

It's unclear why Stiky didn't hold an open discussion (like with Vitalik, for example) before making the decision.

He did, though, in a roundtable discussion. The only problem was that there wasn't much activity before the decision was made.

In my opinion, if a Chinese player analyzes the map from the very beginning and has a clear advantage, he simply plays calmly with his own skill and wins — there’s no cheating involved. That’s why it’s hard to get several games as proof. In our game, I took 2 resets right away because the draws were terrible, and I decided to play on luck... then he reset, and I got a super good draw: 3 stacks came, lizards were built, and in the tavern there were two native units, both with bows, and one had flies (later I went through the respawn and everything was super too)... then he writes to me, "Alright, I’ll take another reset, let luck decide." Then the draw wasn’t great for me, but fortunately ГО wasn’t on the way, so I broke through several guards to his respawn and got a fast-meeting reset — then I got lucky and this draw came up... But in a similar situation, when you have to fight against a "chocolate" opponent, the flaws in the moves become visible... A tournament of this level rarely happens, and getting into it is a great stroke of luck. I understand how frustrating it must be for the other players who faced him... We’ll probably play against the Chinese player next weekend; I’ll also provide a broadcast for the forum, but honestly, even though my fighting spirit to play against him is already gone, I’ll see this through to the end!!! It will be either Jebus Cross or a blockscheme for him))

By the way, I wanted to add... he didn’t take long turns; he couldn’t have analyzed everything himself — that’s for sure. The moves speak for themselves, so if you think about it, he’s not working alone...

And what if we assume that he has a program that allows him to identify the skill tree? In that case, it wouldn't take much time.

The very idea that a team working in that way is acceptable for our mentality is absurd. Maybe it's normal for them, who knows...

I moved the discussion from the Round Table here.

A bit of technical info.
How is judging done at the World Championship? Simple controversial situations are resolved by the host - StickyFingaz. If one of the disputing parties is not satisfied with the decision, they ask to involve the judges. And the issue is settled by a majority vote.
The info on judges is on the World Championship website:
Judges: StickyFingaz, black_knight, Pit for LM, Tiamath, Spell5632.

How did the situation with rebellious develop?
Save files came from black_knight. Sticky asked the judges to review them. I am not aware of what negotiations took place with other judges.
As for me, I could not understand the player's logic and asked Sticky to find out what rebellious was guided by.
I have an AC archive where I put save files that were reported. Sticky asked if I had anything on Rebellius. No, no one had ever contacted me about him.
After my games with Rebellius, Sticky asked me to look at my saves.

Here I should say that after the well-known events three and two years ago, I absolutely stopped caring how my opponent plays. If he plays unfairly, well, that will be on his conscience... Why should I worry? I will somehow notice blatant cheating with 2K skeletons, but fishing for maphack, I have enough games from others to deal with.

I quickly looked it over, said that I accept the defeat and have no complaints. Besides, there wasn't much to cheat with there anyway. Jebus Cross is too transparent a template to catch maphack on. And the other two games were too short. There was a question about Pandora's boxes. I said that I don't know how to determine the contents of guarded Pandora's boxes, but maybe some method exists. We had Sem as a specialist.

After this, Sticky said the matter would be discussed with the judges. Both I and BK were removed from further participation as participants and interested parties, for which I am very grateful to Sticky.
Since there were too few judges left (only a Pole and a Chinese remained), apparently Sticky brought in more guys from HP. But I can't say anything more about that.
I did not communicate with any of the judges about this, except Neo, I did not bribe anyone, and I did not use my authority to pressure anyone.

2. Why is the issue of rematches for players black_knight and yarzapp not being raised? After all, both of them, based on the judges' conclusions about maphack, are the injured parties. And one of them must play against Pit for LM for the right to compete in the next round.

In a similar situation in a Jebus tournament, the judges made the same decision. Disqualification of the player and annulment of the latest result. A rematch of part of the tournament is not done in such cases.
Although Pit for LM wrote to both Sticky and Neo that it would be better to leave everything as is, send Neo directly to Maretti, and BK and I were already planning to play the day before yesterday. Sticky did not allow it.

..... why don't YOU take all of Pit's games apart under a microscope .... :smile01:

The judges do not review all games in a row. Usually, the player themselves must check their game and, if questions or doubts arise, contact the judges. So go ahead and take the initiative.
Tens of this Pit's games are posted on HeroesWorld, and these games have hundreds of views. I have nothing to hide; I have NEVER played dishonestly. Get out your microscope and search, otherwise take back your words. I am ready to explain every move, every fight, every action.
I have played in roughly 15 inter-portal matches. Do you naively think that my opponents (far from noobs) and the judges did not check my games? I don't know which player was checked more than me... Once, confirmation of my game from one of the teams was delayed for a long time, and I asked the captain if they had any complaints about me. And I got an answer that just blew me away: "No, we checked you four times over, it's all clean..."
Yes, there have been a couple of times with veiled and unveiled questions about whether I cheated.
In the first case, my opponent didn't know that the game has view earth/air and was surprised that I didn't stand on the road when his hero was revealed by the view spell half a move away from me...
Another time, a Chinese judge spent 10 days thinking about how I broke through the elves with such small losses. I explained the battle setup, and the issue was resolved.

If you look at a dozen games of any player, everyone will have a similar compilation.

Is this a theoretical postulate?
I have empirical data.
No, they won't.
For several years now, I have been judging tournaments and working in the AC. During this time, over a hundred saves have passed through my brain.
I look at a save; if there is even a slightly suspicious moment, I put it in the archive and wait for the next report or ask for saves from recent games of the same player.
A "similar compilation" was only possible once, and the case was discussed on HP.
But let's recall the situation with Britvochka (Andrei, sorry). Back then, a very strange move was noticed in one of his games. However, quite a few more saves were reviewed and nothing similar was found. Some players at the time confidently claimed that Britvochka cheated in games against them, but for some reason no saves were found.
Incidentally, it was precisely from such situations that my requirement in the seasonal league to make and store saves came from. You, gentlemen, can't be begged for them...

Is this a theoretical postulate?
I have empirical data.
No, it won't add up.

Yes, a theoretical one based on practical observations. I have no desire to dig through other people's saves, anyway this argument is just for fun.
I can speak for myself, as I roughly remember my own games. Quite often I have to make moves blindly, especially on XL templates. Since on them, jumps into the unknown are a necessary measure. For example, yesterday in a game with Vitalik, it was necessary to explore new territories. 2 days of travel and voilà - on day 137, the only native Castle on the map is captured, located at a strategically important crossroads.
In the same way, I could have stumbled upon a beehive cluster, a Dragon Utopia, a Griffin Conservatory, necessary artifacts, etc... Or I might not have stumbled upon them... And such moments occur in almost every game - you guessed the direction at the start, and there are two Griffin Conservatories, you ran through with a folder for splitting - and there's a stack of horses... But there will inevitably be a percentage of failures as well.

There was a question about Pandora. I said that I don't know how to determine the contents of Pandora based on its guard, but maybe there is some way. We had a specialist...

I think I've written about Pandora many times, I don't know why it wasn't added to the FAQ.

If the guard is around 5000, then the Pandora contains spells of level 1 or 5,000 gold.
If the Pandora is around 6500, then it contains 5,000 experience.
If the Pandora is around 7500, then it contains spells of level 2 or creatures of level 1.
If the Pandora is around 10000, then it contains 10,000 gold.
If the Pandora is around 11000, then it contains 10,000 experience, creatures of level 2, and spells of level 3.
If the Pandora is around 13000, then it contains creatures of level 3 and 15,000 gold.

And why aren't we banning the Chinese player?

P.S. Should I also post about the range of guard values and how it is calculated?

Interesting observations, but there is also such a concept as the spread of guard value)))

Added after 1 hour 14 minutes
More news from the Chinese border))
I took the trouble to find the saves of my game with Thinker, to study the skill tree. I also tried to find something else interesting.
Nothing interesting was found. On Jebus Cross, he ran along a perfect trajectory, without delving too much into exploring his own spawn. There was absolutely nothing tasty in the unexplored map. The ГО was not scouted on the 1st week; it turned out to be simple nagas and, further behind the treaders, several very useful artifacts. This is naturally from the position of accusation 0.
I clicked through the skill branches - he refused armor having basic earth. Then armor was offered to him again. But there is an ironclad alibi here - an unchecked conservative is on the horizon, and mass slow won't hurt.

But I notice that already in the 2nd game, the fighter is given an element not at the 4th level-up, but at the 3rd. In theory, if it's offered at the 3rd, then there's a high probability of getting it at the 4th too. But here it was never given. And here is a question for people who understand the mechanics of the game:

The host was mine, but I admit that there might be some patches installed, like the ones the Poles had. If I load the save, will the original skill tree be reconstructed for me, or for him?

In Homunculus's game, the tree immediately changed its structure after visiting the hut with a log. So it wouldn't hurt to look at Mike's saves

If I load a save, will the initial skill tree be reconstructed, or will it remain as it was?

Aren't there any patches for skill trees? As far as I know, no one has discovered them yet. The skill trees are even taken from the Heroes of Might and Magic III game. So, there is no definitive proof, but 99% sure that it doesn't change.