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 Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.
There's a question: what counts as a "block"? Are a lot of Orcs considered a "block"?
It depends on the quantity; in this case, there are 25. From my point of view, this isn't a reason to restart, as they can be defeated. It's not like there are 200%; there's an opportunity to buy heroes with melee attack and troops in the city. But I'm not the judge; I'm just a player.
It depends on the quantity; in this case, there are 25 of them. From my point of view, this isn't a reason to restart, as they can be defeated. It's not 200%, and there's an opportunity to buy heroes with creatures and troops in the city. But I'm not a judge, just a player.
Four archers, a lot of infantry, 30% of the army are lost, and the result is so bad only because gargoyles were given to the second hero; otherwise, the losses would have been even greater.
This significantly reduces the ability to continue playing. In a normal game, you make such sacrifices for some significant benefit, but here there's no choice; you have to fight, there's no alternative.
And is it necessary to check the quantity (waste time)? Are there any general rules?
We always played by the following rules: if there's a large block (20-50) of level 3 archers, or improved level 2 archers; if it's not archers, then a lot of level 4 creatures; level 1 - a crowd (100+), level 2 - a horde (50-100), then we would restart. I'll refer to Alex, Cobra, and Antal regarding these rules. We met briefly in St. Petersburg, and they all played by these unwritten rules.
If there are no such rules, then the quantity of mobs (the strength of the block) needs to be clearly defined in the rules. And there will be no unnecessary arguments.
Pit for LM
12 years ago
Auto-translated
DaU
Is it possible to cancel a seasonal report, and what is required to do so?
You need to contact me on ICQ and explain the situation.
Xellav
If there are no such rules, then it is necessary to clearly define the number of mobs (the strength of the block) in the rules. And there will be no unnecessary disputes.
This issue has been discussed many times; it is impossible to clearly define the number, as it depends heavily on the situation on the map – the castle, troops, heroes, and other conditions. In some cases, we have an impenetrable block, while in others, with the same number of the same neutral creatures, everything is quite passable. In case of doubt, without opening saves and posting them on the forum, you should immediately contact the judge of the tournament in which the game is being played.
You need to contact me on ICQ and explain the situation.
This issue has been discussed many times, and it's impossible to clearly define the number of units. It all depends heavily on the situation on the map – the castle, the troops, the heroes, and other conditions. In some cases, we have an impenetrable blockade, while in others, with the same number of the same neutral units, it's quite passable. If there are doubts, without opening the save files and posting them on the forum, you should immediately contact the judge of the tournament in which the game is being played.
And the situation is this: we used up our restarts, and I have a blockade in front of my castle: many orcs, I don't attack, I immediately say – there's a blockade of many orcs. We do a restart, and in the next scenario, the opponent loses on the 3rd turn. He confirms the report, and then says that the blockade is passable, the restart due to the blockade was incorrect, and everything should be annulled. I agreed that if the judges decide, then they can annul it. Apparently, there were no judges online, so he wrote here and asked for confirmation. This ambiguity has ruined the mood yesterday and a bit today.
Is it necessary to introduce clear rules for restarting due to a strong blockade: if the blockade consists of many (20-50) level 3 archers, or upgraded level 2 archers; if not archers: level 1 – a crowd (100+), level 2, 3 – a horde (50-100) (except for un-upgraded zombies and dwarves, for them the threshold is a crowd), many (20-50) level 4 units. Breaking through all of this results in significant losses. This is precisely why this restart is introduced – to eliminate a map glitch that guarantees a significant reduction in the chances of winning.
And there will be no need to waste time and nerves on figuring things out. Uncertainty creates opportunities for unnecessary disputes.
Wicc
12 years ago
Auto-translated
Objective restarts are considered on the day they are discovered, and claims regarding them must also be made on the day of discovery.
If the opponent agreed to a restart, then the opportunity has passed; you should have acted sooner.
IMO, that's correct.
In all my tournaments, I interpreted such episodes in this way.
You lose 4 archers, a lot of infantry, 30% of your army, and the only reason the result is this is because gargoyles were given to the second hero; otherwise, the losses would have been even greater. This significantly reduces the ability to continue playing; in a normal game, you make such sacrifices for some greater benefit, but here there is no choice; you are obliged to attack, there is no other option.
I always thought that a restart per block is triggered if 50% or more of the army is lost on it. For example, I recently had to fight 70 stone golems with GS for a Stronghold on Jebus, which were also standing under the castle. And I didn't ask for a restart per block, even though approximately the same amount of army fell on them as on yours.
zoog
12 years ago
Auto-translated
It's simple: the decision about how seriously to treat a block is made during the opponent's next turn. If it's critical, it's decided immediately after the request for a rest. If neither of those things is done, it means it wasn't important, and there's nothing to split.
numOne
12 years ago
Auto-translated
Friends, it's time for us to update the Arbitration Committee (AC) roster a bit. The passions of 2-3 years ago, with the debates about whether the AC is needed or not, have subsided. Now, the system of interaction between the AC, judges, and players is generally well-established, and time has shown that this structure is undoubtedly beneficial for the forum and greatly helps to maintain communication and tournaments in a normal state. Currently, in the closed section of the AC, some new features are being developed and discussed, which, I am sure, will again benefit all of us. Also, I believe that the current AC roster has generally performed well, but, unfortunately, real life is making its adjustments, and some members of the AC have decided to take a "break." For example, kalababa has decided to become inactive. I also plan to take an indefinite break from Heroes in general (I simply don't have enough time to play, and this reduces my interest in the forum).
Mizrael and Piterius are also currently less active. But let them decide for themselves whether they need the AC and whether they will have time to continue doing this.
Thus, to maintain the quorum and a normal dialogue when discussing controversial situations, we need 2 people to replace them. As we know, these should be adequate people with experience, whom the forum trusts. Please, don't remain indifferent, and if you feel that you have the strength and have time (which, in principle, is not required in large quantities), submit an application to join the AC. This is especially true for our "veterans." If enough applications are submitted, we will hold an open vote to select two people.
Please consider the issue carefully. Don't submit an application just "because you have nothing else to do."
злой_романтик
12 years ago
Auto-translated
Land to the peasants, factories to the workers, poker players get an ace on the river, heroes get fast travel and tasty treasures, cheaters get a lifetime ban, and latecomers in tournaments get shame and technical support! ;)
So, I'm nominating myself: :smile13:
Land to the peasants, factories to the workers, aces on the river for poker players, fast roads and delicious treats for heroes, ban and shame for cheaters, and shame and technical support for those who are late to tournaments! ;) So, I nominate myself:smile13:
A quite transparent and well-thought-out program for the candidate).
Pit for LM
12 years ago
Auto-translated
The current composition of the AK is as follows:
Pit for LM (471401475) злой_романтик (296524052) Mizrael (27384379) Piterius (407907277) Dirty_Player (408722873) Gomunguls (499978341) Roger DAltavilla (624681987)
And we hope for numOne's return in the future.
Dark
12 years ago
Auto-translated
It has always been interesting to know how the composition of the Advisory Committee is determined. Is it like under communism, where those in power came to power and subsequent appointments were made by the ruling party? Or is it like under democracy, where the power to choose lies with the people for a certain period (in Russia, the Constitution of the Russian Federation acts as a regulator)?
I've always been curious, how is the composition of the Arbitration Committee determined? Is it like under communism?! They come to power, and subsequent appointments are made by the ruling party! Or is it like in a democracy where the power of choice lies with the people for a certain period (in Russia, the Constitution of the Russian Federation acts as a regulator)? :)
How the composition of the Arbitration Committee is determined is written in the first post of this thread. Don't confuse power and judging. The power on the forum lies with the coordinators and moderators, and they are under the control of the Creator. The Arbitration Committee has many responsibilities and the need to work at any time of the day. There are not many people who want to "wield power," work, run tournaments, judge controversial situations, be responsible for decisions, and coordinate all the work of our section. Although this is understandable, it involves too much responsibility, too much time, and it's too stressful... And there's no benefit, neither financial nor will they be awarded a Hero of Socialist Labor star...
Pit for LM
12 years ago
Auto-translated
The Appeals Committee decided to please our players by introducing new sanctions: :smile01:
We discussed the issue quite some time ago (not only within the Appeals Committee but also with some of our active forum members), and we made a decision, but due to Andrey's lack of time, it wasn't brought to the attention of the forum.
Currently, as a punishment, we only have the Black Mark. This mark is given for the most serious offense – cheating.
However, we don't have any other punishments for minor offenses besides administrative ones (assigning points). Moreover, moderators can only assign points for violations of the forum rules in messages on the forum. We do not have the right to punish administratively with points for what happens in private communication. There is also no way to influence those who systematically spoil the experience for others through minor actions.
Therefore, we decided to additionally introduce a system of yellow/red cards:
++=
The first yellow card will be placed in the player's signature (if the player removes it from their signature without permission, they will receive a second one). The second yellow card will be displayed under the avatar. When the third yellow card is issued, it turns into a red card under the avatar.
In the Blacklist, cheaters and players behaving unethically will now be divided as follows:
"Blacklist" Players caught cheating: using cheats, map hacks, and other serious violations. They are banned from all tournaments held on our resource (including the season tournament). A Black Mark is awarded (also displayed under the avatar).
============////============
"Problematic Players" Players who violate the rules of conduct for the Heroes-3 Online section. List of violations: - use of profanity, systematic insults and rudeness on the forum or in private communication (in Private Messages, comments in the Battle Rating System, ICQ, Skype, chats, etc.); - unjustified repeated reductions in Battle Rating that do not correspond to the content of messages (considered hooliganism on the forum); - provoking scandals on the forum; - unsubstantiated withdrawals from tournaments, systematic failure to confirm reports, systematic avoidance of completing postponed games, etc.; - disrespectful attitude towards an opponent, including: deliberate actions distracting the player during their turn, regular lateness for scheduled game times and replays, unjustified interruptions of a game without warning, abuse, and other actions that affect the honor and dignity of the opponent.
In these cases, the player receives a first Yellow Card in their signature. Yellow cards can be removed after a certain period if there are grounds to believe that the player has reformed. Upon subsequent violations, a second Yellow Card is issued (also displayed under the avatar). After further violations, the Yellow Card is replaced with a Red Card (also displayed under the avatar). Players marked with a Red Card are banned from all tournaments held on our resource (including the season tournament).
The basis for issuing a yellow card includes: - complaints from the tournament organizer; - screenshots, logs, stream recordings, messages on the forum proving the violations.
Pit for LM, "you're on the right track!" (C) :) It was high time to implement this! But I think that this system should be further developed: under the avatar, not only the level of fighting spirit and the display of awards should be shown, but also all user violations, except for the most trivial and isolated ones, in the form of corresponding icons and numbers equal to the number of violations. That is, everything that is currently reflected only in the player's profile in the "all user violations" section should be displayed for everyone to see - I am sure that after that, most sane hooligans will calm down! This will provide a strong incentive to behave properly, because the forum is a public place, with all the consequences that entails.
+ 
The first yellow card will be placed in the player's signature (if the player removes it from their signature without permission, they will receive a second one). The second yellow card will be displayed under the avatar. When the third yellow card is issued, it turns into a red card under the avatar.
In the Blacklist, cheaters and players behaving unethically will now be divided as follows:
