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.
What's the problem? In chess, draws can occur after the first move in tournaments, and so what? If players reach a situation in a previous game where a draw benefits both of them, on what basis can they be forced to play until someone wins? This is a common tournament strategy... I don't understand why they should even have to explain the lack of time or anything else... Either the tournament organizer should specifically state in the description that a draw is only possible by the judge's decision, and if that's not the case, it's absurd to demand any save files when players mutually agree to a draw.
+1
There are no "Sofia rules" in Heroes, so players can agree to a draw even without playing. At least because it's impossible to control.
In fact, in many chess Swiss tournaments, there's an option to "draw with oneself," meaning a player can request a 0.5 score without playing and without an opponent being assigned once during the tournament.
JustObserver
12 years ago
Auto-translated
Yes, it's time to officially state that such things are allowed, so that there are no unnecessary disputes, as it's impossible to check anyway.
theShevanesian
12 years ago
Auto-translated
Denmark-Sweden)
HellLighT
12 years ago
Auto-translated
A Swiss draw inherently implies a plot twist where, to avoid a "foolish" loss, both players make a very reasonable and achievable move, perhaps slightly unsportsmanlike, but both are satisfied and advance to the final bracket (hypothetically). So, what do they care that you don't like it, and what rules are you using when trying to appeal to them in the Arbitration Committee?)
Pit for LM
12 years ago
Auto-translated
Sanin
It's true that it doesn't say what to do if there are no saves, but... ...The basic logic in the absence of game saves is to invalidate the result. But I understand that for this situation to be considered by the Arbitration Committee (AC), someone needs to appeal to the AC. I personally am not interested, but after the ninth round, there may well be those who want to.
Our rules include the following:
6. Players must make daily saves, keep them until the end of the tournament (i.e., until the results are summarized and the winner is awarded), and provide them upon first request from the tournament organizer/judge/AC member. If saves are missing for any reason, the organizer/judge/AC will rely on the saves provided by the opponent. Claims against the opponent and judges will not be accepted in this case.
Saves are needed by the judges when resolving controversial situations that arise between players. If one of the players appeals to the AC with a question about the game, and the other says that it was completely different, then they have to compare the saves. Fortunately, this rarely happens. For example, in the case of Coldrain and his probability calculations. I asked him to provide saves from all generations, because Heroin claimed one thing, and Coldrain claimed another. Heroin provided his saves, but Coldrain couldn't find his. The AC relied on Heroin's saves, and the probabilities changed significantly, not in favor of the accusation.
Saves are often missing. Either they forgot to check the box, or they were deleted, or they are on another computer... But in any situation, the judges can only make a decision based on evidence, not words. So be careful. The absence of saves is not a reason to invalidate a game, unless this was stated by the organizer in advance.
It is physically impossible to control whether a game has been played or not. Please understand us too. More than a dozen games are played every day. To check everything, you need to hire a special person and pay them a salary. Yes, there are reports of collusion, of fabricated games, of games played "quietly by oneself"... But you can't hide a needle in a haystack, and no matter how long the rope is, it will eventually end.
The fact that there are many problems in the Swiss system is well known. Here is Wikipedia:
In games with a significant draw rate (chess, checkers, xiangqi), artificial (collusive) draws are possible and, in some cases, desirable for players in Swiss-system tournaments. The conditions for them are created when players of approximately equal level meet, each of whom has a position in the tournament standings that suits them. In this case, the players do not benefit from playing to win, because in a sharp game, the probability of losing is higher, which means a significant loss of points. This situation provokes the opponents to a clear or "silent" agreement: start the game, play easily and without exacerbation, and agree on a draw on the second or third dozen moves, regardless of the situation. As a result, both players will receive half a point, preserving their position without unnecessary risk, usually hoping to gain points in games with weaker opponents. Of course, collusive draws are undesirable: they have a bad effect on the qualitative component of the game, reduce interest in the tournament, and, accordingly, the attractiveness of the tournaments for sponsors. Various measures have been proposed to eliminate collusive draws, such as introducing a ban on draws by mutual agreement or changing the order of scoring, but their effectiveness remains questionable.
It is unrealistic to ban draws, even if you force players to provide saves. We will simply provoke the falsification of saves. And they don't even have to try very hard. One player loses on turn 111, takes an auto-save, the other loses on turn 112, and both lose the desire to continue playing. So what should they provide?
It is possible to introduce a ban on a draw result, i.e., if the players come to a draw, then a replay. But this will affect the timing. In "Favorites," there were several replays (draws are impossible in cups), and we had to extend the deadline.
Personally, I don't like the Swiss system; it has too many drawbacks. I think it is not suitable for Heroes, primarily because of the long time limit for a game (we cannot provide results every day, we need to work), the loss of interest with a bad start, the temptation of collusion, and so on. But I cannot offer any other system for relatively quickly identifying 5-10 of the best players out of 50-100.
Therefore, at the moment, as Artem correctly wrote, collusion damages the reputation of the players, and nothing more. Although that is also significant.
Marmot
12 years ago
Auto-translated
In games with a significant draw rate (chess, checkers, xiangqi)
the Sofia rules, while addressing the symptoms – short draws – do not address their root cause. The root cause is usually the tournament system, in which, according to the existing scoring system, it is advantageous for a player in certain situations to draw rather than actively fight for a win, risking making a mistake and losing. For example, a knockout system does not create such conditions; in it, a player is forced to fight for every victory in order not to be eliminated from the tournament.
"I'll add my two cents": it's obvious that "Heroes" is not chess! Yes, in chess, there can be a situation where opponents move pieces for 2-3 hours, and neither can checkmate or even check the other. And the rules clearly define in which specific cases a draw is counted. But what kind of "draw" can there be in "Heroes"? Theoretically, in the final battle, you can cast Armageddon and destroy the troops of both opponents. But in any other situation, one player inevitably wins! So, a "draw" is a clear sign that the players have agreed, and in my opinion, this is completely unsportsmanlike. But of course, you know better – if there are rules and if they suit everyone..."
Воскресайте, камінні душі, Розчиняйте серця і чоло, Щоб не сказали Про вас грядущі: їх на землі не було… (Василь Симоненко. Люди – прекрасні)
bubuch
12 years ago
Auto-translated
I am confident that if, in the event of a "draw," we start flipping a coin, the number of draws will decrease significantly. These 0.5 points really disadvantage the other players, and I think that's obvious.
I'm always in favor of 0.7!
What's the problem if the judge flips a coin and awards the victory?
Otherwise, there should be no technical forfeits for unplayed games; everyone gets 0.5!
Marmot
12 years ago
Auto-translated
I have a constructive suggestion! There's no need to flip a coin – there's a better option! So, let's say Vasya and Petya are playing. They need to at least start the game. And at some point, they decide they can't finish the game for some valid reason. They save the game and contact the judge. The judge loads the save and looks at the thieves' guild information. Whoever is listed first in the "kingdom army strength" field wins! By the way, in all the years you've been playing "Heroes," have you ever seen a tie in the thieves' guild? I haven't! I understand that some people will strongly oppose this option, but my job is to offer it.
But what kind of "draw" can there be in "Heroes"? Theoretically, you could cast Armageddon in the final battle and destroy the troops of both opponents. But in any other situation, one player inevitably wins! So, a "draw" is a clear sign that the players have agreed, and in my opinion, this is completely unsportsmanlike. But you, of course, know better – if there are rules and if they suit everyone...
Here's an example: one player has full control, while the other has a large army and better stats, but no control points. They can run around endlessly.
Воздам сторицей!
Marmot
12 years ago
Auto-translated
Roger DAltavilla, 1. Full control (specifically, Flight and Dimension Door) should be banned in online tournaments. I think this is obvious – for the reason that is clear from your example. 2. Even if there are 40 full controls: the stronger player should be the winner! Clearly avoiding the final battle is a sign of weakness, and in a "jumpy" battle, the player will almost certainly lose.
Воскресайте, камінні душі, Розчиняйте серця і чоло, Щоб не сказали Про вас грядущі: їх на землі не було… (Василь Симоненко. Люди – прекрасні)
Please excuse me, but I have a question: why were Stinger and Bishop on the second board and not you? Maybe it's because they play better? Instead of complaining here, you should focus on playing and winning against them, including them. Then there would be no reason to complain, because in a different situation, a draw wouldn't have satisfied them, but instead, they simply played it safe and agreed to a draw, and 7 people will determine the final round.
1. Full control (specifically, Flight and Dimension Door) should be banned in online Tournaments. I think this is obvious – for the reason that is clear from your example. 2. Even if there were 40 full controls: the stronger one should be the winner! An obvious avoidance of the final battle is a sign of weakness, and in a "jumping" battle, he will almost certainly lose.
In Heroes of Might and Magic 4, there is a great rule for this case.
For all long games, a final battle can be scheduled. This means that by the end of the designated day, each player must leave one army on the map (the rest must be dismissed or hidden in cities/garrisons/mines). The resulting save must be passed to the organizers, and the latter will create a save-arena with two armies that are an exact copy of the players' armies on the map. On the arena, the rivals will have a final battle, and its winner will win the game.
Something similar would be useful in Heroes of Might and Magic 3 as well.
Please excuse me, but I have a question: why were Stinger and Bishop on the second board and not you? Could it be because they play better?
No one said that they won with a score of 0-5, and I personally don't doubt that they play better than me. The question isn't about them specifically, and no one is disputing their results yet. It's just that this scoring principle doesn't seem fundamental to some, including me. :smile02:
Lider1
12 years ago
Auto-translated
Marmot. No offense, but you're saying this because of your own noobishness. Playing against the computer is one thing—it has its own charm at a certain stage—but online is a completely different world and entirely different heroes. It turns your worldview upside down. <blockquote1. Full control (specifically, Fly and Dimension Door) should be banned in online tournaments. After that phrase, it's only logical to hear "I stopped reading there." But how do you play HL maps then? Or maybe we should just abandon them entirely? This is lolwhat <blockquoteEven if there are 40 full controls: whoever is stronger should be the winner!Here's the thing. Just because someone is stronger today doesn't mean they'll be stronger tomorrow. When it's human vs. human, the "strength" of an army can develop with varying success.
Moreover, I'm saying that while the amount of meat is important, it isn't a guarantee of victory. There are also stats and magic. Or artifacts that prevent casting. Therefore, FB doesn't mean you'll actually win. It's not all that straightforward. <blockquoteObvious avoidance of the final battle is a sign of weakness, and in battle, a "hopper" will almost certainly lose. If we reason like that, what happens? You see an opponent and you're obligated to fight them immediately? If they want it. otherwise it's a "sign of weakness"? He came onto your territory; are you obligated to holily defend your city with the capitol until death and never run away to gear up otherwise it's a "sign of weakness". Or are you obligated not to stay in the city, but to go out into the open field and fight "like a man," otherwise it's a "sign of weakness"?
The point is that while the opponent spends their time capturing your cities, using up their move points, you can go somewhere into a treasure zone. Gather some wyverns, break the Dragon Utopia. Return and properly meet them with a superior army and stats. Perhaps even at the very end (like capturing a Castle on the 7th day under threat of vanishing into oblivion)—it's not a big deal to live without a city for a while. If everything were so straightforward, the game would be boring. This isn't checkers where battle is mandatory. If player1 has more strength at this moment in time, it's far from certain that player2, who has fly, doors, and portal, won't make their army just as strong, or even stronger, after some time. The same can be said for player1; perhaps they will find fly, or a door, or a mountain portal.
Personally, I liked bubuch's option: either play to the end, or surrender, or flip a coin. Of course, not everyone will find the strength in themselves to play a very difficult game, but as a rule, those without control get wrecked. And if you're getting wrecked and don't have the strength to actually PLAY this—surrender. Or try to negotiate a coin toss. If the option suits both. IMHO. And do you have the strength? Then fight. The timer and the opponent's mistakes can also play a role. Is too much time being spent? What did you expect? That Heroes isn't a time-consuming game? This is a full-blown addiction to wasting time. Fine, there will be one game instead of two or three. But at least it'll be brought to a logical conclusion. And yes, I am against draws in principle, but that's a problem with the regulations. Comparisons like "but in chess it's like this" don't convince me. There must be a winner; there must be a loser. Period.
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
Сатир
12 years ago
Auto-translated
This person probably hasn't played a single online game, but they keep pushing their ideas here, and people are still trying to explain things to them...
