Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Турниры HeroesWorld Cup & World Cup - 2012
Really???:D And is Reb a complete noob or what??? There weren't such phrases when his case was being investigated. Only stories about the mafia, etc. You need to be at least a little consistent, otherwise one is immediately labeled a cheater, and the other could have won fairly)))
Let's learn to read and correctly understand the meaning of what is written...
I said that having 1-2-3 streams from Tinker won't change anything. So what if he wins them? What will change?
Streams can only be used as protection against cheating when all tournament-significant games are played with them, streamed online, and with network settings and other things being checked.
And regarding Reb, if you remember (although, what "if"... you don't remember because you didn't even read it), I didn't claim that he 100% cheated, at least because I didn't watch his replays. The point of my phrases was that Reb had very poor defenses, and his behavior did not help to clear his name in the eyes of the public (except for those who were already on his side).
Let's learn to read and correctly understand the meaning of what is written...
I said that having 1-2-3 streams from Tinker wouldn't change anything. So what if he wins them? What changes?
Streams can only be used as a defense against cheating when all tournament-relevant games are played with them, streamed online, and with checks of network settings and other things.
And regarding Rebus, if you remember (although, why even "if"... you don't remember because you didn't even read it), I didn't claim that he was 100% cheating, not least because I didn't look at his saves. The point of my statements was that Rebus had very poor defenses, and his behavior didn't help his reputation in the eyes of the public (except for those who were already on his side).
I know how to read and understand the meaning of what is written. The problem is that you didn't actually write it; you implied it (because in your specific post about streams, there wasn't a single word about it). Now, you need to learn to read and understand: after Tinker's explanations, you stopped writing about "blah, blah, blah, he answers strangely (or, on the contrary, correctly and eloquently)." And then you posted that he could win honestly.
I've been following this incident from the beginning, and I've read all your posts. You have your opinion, and I have mine. We just need to not "imply" (so that later you can "smoothly backpedal" out of the conversation), but write specifically. Otherwise, it turns out that you're writing about a grandmother, but you mean that she has testicles:D And then you say: "You guys don't understand anything; I was writing about a grandfather!!!" And, by the way, I didn't write that you claimed that Rebus was 100% a cheater. "Something like, when his case was being discussed, there were no such phrases. Only stories about the mafia, etc." - here's an excerpt. And the second part of the phrase ("You need to be at least a little consistent, otherwise one is immediately a cheater, and the other could have won honestly") is a generalization: if you discuss one person's actions from a negative point of view, but you don't make the same assessment of the second person, then it turns out that you are (informally) acknowledging one as a cheater and giving arguments in favor of the other with a "+". So, who of us doesn't understand what is written and doesn't read the posts?:-)
I can read and understand the meaning of what is written. The problem is that in your case, it wasn't actually written, but rather implied (since your specific post about the streams didn't mention it at all).
What was implied are the personal fantasies of each person. What is written is objective reality.
Now, learn to read and understand: after Tinker's explanations, you stopped writing about "blah, blah, blah, he answers strangely (or, on the contrary, correctly and eloquently)." And then you posted that he can honestly win.
Maybe it's because I simply didn't read (or only skimmed) Tinker's explanations? Did that thought ever occur to you? Because it's the only correct explanation...
You just need to not "imply" (so that you can later "gracefully backpedal" from the conversation), but write specifically. Otherwise, it's like you're writing about a grandmother, but implying that she has testicles:D And then you say: you don't understand anything, I was writing about a grandfather!!!
I am being perfectly specific. Let all the "implications" be on the conscience of those who suspect me of implying things.
If you discuss one person's actions from a negative point of view, but don't make the same assessment of the second person, then you are, in fact, informally acknowledging one as a cheater and providing arguments in favor of the other. So, who among us doesn't understand what is written and doesn't read the posts?:-)
Only you. I didn't provide any arguments in favor of Tinker. Moreover, earlier in this thread, I said that I consider Tinker a cheater.
The argument about the streams was an argument against the idea of checking Tinker's honesty by recording streams.
What was meant was each person's personal fantasies. And what is written is objective reality.
Maybe it's because I just didn't read (or skimmed through) Tinker's explanations? Did that version not occur to me? But it's the only correct one...
Here, I'm writing very specifically. Let all the "implications" be on the conscience of those who suspect me of implying something.
Only you. I didn't have any arguments with a positive sign regarding Tinker. Moreover, earlier in the topic, I said that I consider Tinker a cheater.
The argument about streams was an argument with a negative sign regarding the idea of checking Tinker's honesty by recording streams.
Once again, confirmation of my post:-). 1. I didn't look at the saves (this is from the second-to-last post) 2. I didn't read the explanations ("maybe"):D 3. I wrote a lot of nonsense, but in fact, I wrote nothing... Explain where in the post: "What could prevent Tinker from winning fairly? I don't think anyone doubts that he is a strong enough player even without maphacks," - and I wrote about him, is there a reference to streams? You end up with "I don't delve into the matter, but I draw my own conclusions." Very clever approach))) And most importantly - it's correct!!!:D :D :D There is an expression: "there are two opinions: mine and the wrong one"... But it is not suitable for constructive solutions. You could have understood that by now...
Let me explain where in the post it says: "What could prevent Tinker from winning fairly? I don't think anyone doubts that he is a strong enough player and doesn't need map hacks," - and I wrote about him, is there a reference to streams?
OK, I'll explain it slowly and clearly: 1) Some people said that it would be good for Tinker to play a game and record it for a stream. 2) Then these same people will watch this stream and draw some conclusions. 3) Presumably, they were hoping that Tinker would show the full depth of his noobishness in the stream, and this would be proof that he is a cheater.
I hope this is clear so far?
4) I said that such a stream would not be proof of anything, simply because Tinker is likely to win anyway, after all, he is not a noob.
The fact that the word "stream" was not explicitly used in the post does not mean that I was talking out of thin air. It was a response within the framework of the previous discussion.
It turns out that you are saying, "I don't get involved, but I draw my own conclusions." Very clever approach))) And most importantly - it's correct!!!:D :D :D There is such an expression: "there are two opinions: mine and the wrong one"... But it is not suitable for constructive solutions. You could have understood it already...
Did I ever claim to be offering a constructive solution? Even now - did I ever claim to be offering a solution at all? I think I explained quite clearly that this is your war, not mine. Whatever decision is made, that's what it will be. I won't complain either way.
Wicc, I'll tell you the same thing: don't feed the troll. :)
Garrett and you are in different weight classes: Wicc is a recognized judge, an authority, a patriarch in the world of the Heroes game, and you are an unknown fellow countryman. :) My advice to newcomers is to be quiet and listen to what the smart guys are saying. :)
Дипломатия - искусство говорить собаке "хорошая собачка" до тех пор пока не найдешь подходящую палку.
to Wicc I thought I wouldn't have to write anything more, but alas... I would have replied after my post: "I meant streams." And that would be it, the issue resolved. I'm writing here not to support anyone, but to clarify certain points (some for myself, some for everyone). But no, it was necessary to develop an entire theory about my misunderstanding of the situation (your posts, in particular)...
Added 5 minutes later Captain
Wicc, I'll say this to you too: don't feed the troll :)
There's a difference in your weight classes: Wicc is a recognized expert, an authority, a patriarch in the world of Heroes, and you are an unknown fellow countryman. My advice to newcomers is to be quiet and listen to what the wise guys have to say.
No offense, but your post is a bit strange. I'm not arguing with Wicc about the details of Heroes, in which he is an ace. The question was (as it now turns out) about the correct understanding of what was written. I already wrote about the troll in this thread (or maybe I wrote it on HP, I don't know... here's the link again http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3). At least look up the meaning of the words. Otherwise, I'll have to write that I meant one thing, but wrote something else, and everyone else doesn't understand...
the water's rising again) okay. the stream isn't working. any other options? Well, then, how can we play with him if we can't watch his skills.
So, there's only one option: hope that the opponent plays fairly. Pit mentioned this a little higher up (about the idea itself): "Message from Mizrael What prevents...? Maybe the same thing that prevents us from watching the opponent's stream and examining the saved files of a delayed game?" And if someone is clearly cheating, then punish them. But practically any other method can be bypassed if desired. Only in reality can you be 100% sure. Or maybe some kind of software that requires two-factor authentication for saves after they are generated could solve the problem.
Here we go again, it's all just chatter. Okay, the stream isn't working. Any other ideas? Well, if we can't watch his skills, how can we play with him?
Yeah, you're right, it's just a lot of talk. But you're not really offering much yourself. Do you have the Chinese program? What did we get from them when we played the first championship against the Chinese? I've already posted it several times for everyone... With this program, you can see all the players' moves and battles!!! The file size of the video recording is about 1 MB. It's not even a recorded video, but rather a simulation of everything in Heroes (like watching a turn, but with the map open and the ability to enter the battle window). So, get the program, ask the Chinese player to send you the file, and watch it. Or play with him using this program, then you won't even have to ask, you can watch his moves yourself.
Дипломатия - искусство говорить собаке "хорошая собачка" до тех пор пока не найдешь подходящую палку.
and how often do you go to hit the GO (having a scroll with oil) on Jebus without a spellbook? In my opinion, there are enough "obvious hits" there.
Added after 8 minutes Otherwise, if you look at it that way, you can even talk your way out of the most blatant map hack. 1. Why did the respawn follow the perfect path? - I'm a skilled guy and got lucky. 2. Why didn't you take the ground with 4 Griffin Conservatories? - Well, you need to expertize the skills! 3. Why didn't you take the last Griffin Conservatory (a level 1, and it could have been a level 4). Well... because it's a level 1, who needs it... oh... I mean... it's far away! 4. Why didn't you check the Griffin Conservatory by the road? - Well, I knew it was a level 3... I mean... anyway, I dunno, it just happened! 5. Why did you start exactly with the Griffin Conservatory +2, and not with a convenient one? - Well... got lucky... 6. Why did you break through to the Castle when they were coming to kill you? - I told you - I GOT LUC KY! why are you nagging...
and how often do you go to hit ГО (having a scroll with oil) on Jebus Cross without a spell book? In my opinion, there are enough "obvious hits" there.
I think the question is directed at me))) And it is for these decisions that judges are selected. But in reality, proving (actually proving) that a player cheated from saves is almost impossible. You can always come up with an excuse or simply say that you made moves at random and got lucky... After all, that really does happen sometimes... Here's an example: I was playing a game with a guy; as it turned out later, there was only one Dragon Utopia on the map... (and it decided the game). He ran to it, and so did I; he got there first (and I had revealed it, while he just ran to it blindly)... So, is he a cheater? There is no answer. Even if I had gotten there first, would I be a cheater? Because I scouted the only Dragon Utopia and won... So there is always an explanation... But when the saves are password-protected, that is already a guarantee (unless you have to hack them). Someone above wrote about the idea of running the game through a "mediator" computer (I understand it would store both the map and the saves). I think that's fine. But I don't know how to organize it technically. P.S. I replied after your addition. You're right, we're talking about the same thing.
Added after 3 minutes to Sevensan In this case, the circus, as you say, is that Reba was banned almost immediately, but Tinker was not. That's all. That's how the judges decided (regarding Reba, at least... and now it's unclear if they even exist). So the question again shifts to the realm of judging
and how often do you go to beat the Guardian (having a scroll with oil) on Jebus without a book? There are quite enough "obvious hits" there.
The roads are slow there, he has an expert in logistics at 121, on a dragon, and visited the stable. Maybe he shouldn't go to beat the Guardian, but first find/take a third Castle, and then beat the Guardian? Just to reiterate - only 121, HL map, slow roads...Sevensan
Or, if you look at it that way, you can even excuse the most obvious map hack. 1. Why is the respawn on the ideal trajectory? - I'm a skilled player, and I got lucky.
There (on Jebus) he has nowhere else to go, I checked, the ideal trajectory will really work for anyone.Sevensan
2. Why didn't he take the land with 4 cons? - because you need to level up skills!
Check it yourself - you can take the land there, and it won't spoil your skill tree. The skill tree is spoiled if he takes air instead of land. But he thought it was more important to take tactics and logistics. And he's right, I would do the same. And as you can see, he took the cons without magic. Sevensan
3. Why didn't he take the last con (a level 1, but it could have been a level 4)? Well... because it's a level 1, who needs it... oh... that is, it's far away!
It's really far away - if you run after it, the Homunculus with two built-up swamps will be a super monster on the 3rd week. Sevensan
4. Why didn't he check the con by the road? - because I knew it was a level 3... that is... in general, I don't know how it happened!
Yes, it's strange. Sevensan
5. Why did he start with the +2 con, and not with the convenient one? - because... I got lucky...
He started with it because he took the hippogryph lair on 117 and was closer to it. Sevensan
6. Why did he break into the Castle when they were trying to kill you? - I'm telling you - IT WAS LUCK! Why are you bothering me...
circus
He broke into the Castle on 126 to reach 127 and 131 through the Guardian and take the unbought troops from the swamp.
Is that logical?
Дипломатия - искусство говорить собаке "хорошая собачка" до тех пор пока не найдешь подходящую палку.
They can't prove it))) It's probably better to just give up)) and draw conclusions for myself regarding the Chinese and their mega players)))
Added 5 minutes later Captain
Check it yourself - you can take earth there, and your skill tree won't be affected. The tree is affected if it takes air, not earth. But he thought it was more important to take tactics and logs. And he's right, I would do the same. And as you saw, he took the cons without magic.
to Captain regarding the earth... You know, there's a saying: Chigorin always played the Chigorin Defense, and Alekhine never played the Alekhine Defense and became world champion...
