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.
Added 2 minutes later [/U] Yegor, what would your reaction be in a tournament game if your opponent spammed an infinite number of moves, ate everything, and killed you in one turn?![/QUOTE] I would be furious. Especially if I had been playing a lot and playing well. In this tournament, I've had 4 games, and none of them reached the finals - that's a bad streak + losses.
Added 2 minutes ago [/U] Yegor, what would your reaction be in a tournament game if your opponent spammed an infinite number of moves, ate everything, and killed you in one turn?!
Here, I wish that everyone who votes for using this bug gets similarly screwed over in an important final!..:smile08:
And if everyone is against it, then just ban it and that's it) Ask Wizard to remove the water artifacts as well, so there's no temptation.
From Red's side, there was a deliberate use of a bug. Let Redwrite forgive me, but here the main rule begins to apply – fair play. To have, let's say, an infinite number of moves for movement is using a bug, and what's more, having +1000 moves in this way is already exploiting a bug. On the other hand, it's "sort of" not described in the rules, which is why it seems that giving Red a technical win by the organizers and judges would be inappropriate. So, there are two options: either give a replay of the game, or award the win based on the save at the moment the bug was used.
Everything is correct, except for the last point. Awarding a win should only be done in cases where a replay is physically impossible. A replay would be the optimal solution. And it's right that Red shouldn't be penalized, as he didn't violate anything, but there should be some limits to decency.
Everything is correct, except for the last point. The award should only be given in cases where finishing the game is physically impossible. Replaying the game will be the optimal solution. And it's right that Red shouldn't be penalized, as he didn't violate any rules, but there should be some boundaries of decency.
What replay when the person won fairly? This bug has been known for a long time and is allowed. In general, if the AC bans it now, the question arises as to why only now, what were they thinking about before?
Why replay the game when the person won fairly? This bug has been known for a long time and is allowed. In general, if the AK bans it now, the question arises as to why only now, what were they thinking about before?
Apparently, we have different ideas about fairness and honor.
This is utter nonsense. It's complete idiocy to "improve the usability of naval units" in this way at the rules level. This is a BUG!! And bugs should be treated accordingly.
I believe that Red did not violate the rules, as it was not prohibited, and as everyone knows, what is not prohibited is allowed. And there's no need to appeal to conscience or anything like that; if it's not prohibited, it can be used.
The real question is, why wasn't this banned? (or unbanned?) I'm trying my best to understand, but I just can't!
All your face upgrades in Conflux, hit and wound, Red Rush, and even diplomacy and the Cloak of the Necromancer King – all pale in comparison to this blatant bug!
Or are we concerned about the "original spirit of the game"? Banning naval units in the text file on maps without water is something we simply can't do. It's not cool, it would impoverish the gameplay. But using such a malicious bug is perfectly normal!. It's in the spirit of the game, "well, it doesn't happen often. Why not, let's increase its usefulness."
facepalm.
But, for example, digging for the Grail from day one is a big no-no, it's overpowered.
In short, I have no words left besides profanities. Complete idiocy!
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
They started squawking, one can do it, another can't:D I didn't hesitate and found a topic with an autumn precedent. The situation is slightly different. Firstly, no complaint was submitted to the Arbitration Committee (AK). And only a few people knew about this case - mainly those who read other people's reports. Accordingly, the topic did not gain much traction. Secondly, Dirty's opinion in that case should not be qualified as an official decision on this issue; he simply expressed his personal attitude towards it. It's a normal opinion, the opinion of an ordinary player, albeit an authoritative one, but decisions should be made either by the entire AK or by holding a vote.
Yesterday's situation is completely different. 1. It's a tournament game. 2. An appeal was filed with the AK.
And about honor. I understand that it's cool because it's rare to be able to use it, but I wouldn't post such a report. Especially right after the game.
What kind of replay is this when a person won fairly? This bug has been known for a long time and is allowed. In general, if the AC bans it now, the question arises as to why only now, what were they thinking about before?
I don't even know what to say to that. So, when you go into single-player after a game to view saves and enter the code nwcnebuchadnezzar for infinite turns, and they call you a cheater!!! or what kind of scammer!!! isn't that the same as what was done or is being done by other arrogant people?
They started clucking, one can do it, the other can't :D. I didn't even bother, I found a thread with an autumn precedent. The situation is slightly different. Firstly, there was no complaint filed with the AC. And few people knew about this case – mostly those who read other people's reports. Accordingly, the topic didn't gain much traction. Secondly, Dirty's opinion in that case shouldn't be qualified as an official decision on this issue; he simply expressed his personal opinion. It's a normal opinion, but the rules should be decided by either the entire AC or by holding a vote.
Yesterday's situation is completely different. 1. It was a tournament game. 2. An appeal was filed with the AC.
And about honor. I understand it's cool because it's rare to be able to use it, but I wouldn't post such a report. Especially right after the game.
Well, firstly, that was also a tournament game. Secondly, the rules clearly state which bugs cannot be used, and it's obvious that all members of the AC are not newbies who don't know about the Captain's Hat, which means it was approved by them ALL...! Furthermore, I completely agree with the Leader's post; it's utter nonsense, but to take away a fair (yes, Javdet, fair – you post wins in decisive matches on the first week when the opponent has an unplayable situation, or do you always let them find a playable situation?) victory that was allowed by the rules at the time from Reddit because "it's not moral, it's not honorable, blah blah blah" is absurd. The fact that Nitro submitted it for consideration by the AC should only lead to a vote, where the AC or the entire forum decides what to do with this bug in the future.
I don't understand where in the rules it says that this exploit is allowed. If I, using my professional programming skills (or ask colleagues if I don't have enough qualifications), find a vulnerability in the client or HDMod and use it, would that be within the rules? It's not written that it's prohibited. Where is the common sense?
I don't understand where in the rules it says that this exploit is allowed. If I use my professional programming skills (or ask colleagues if I don't have enough qualifications) to find a vulnerability in the client or HDmod and use it, would that be within the rules? It's not written that it's forbidden. Where is the common sense?
1. Currently, "everything that is not prohibited is permitted." 2. Tampering with the code will be immediately noticed; there have already been such "bright sparks" like RBV.
I don't understand where in the rules it says that this exploit is allowed. If I use my professional programming skills (or ask colleagues if I don't have enough qualifications) to find a vulnerability in the client or HDMod and use it, is that within the rules? It's not written that it's forbidden. Where is the common sense?
Nitro, don't act like you're someone special. The Admiral's Hat is a bug or a feature that was originally in the game and is known to all experienced players, which AK clearly is, and if its ban wasn't written in the rules, it means they decided to allow it... What you're talking about now is specifically creating vulnerabilities in the game.
I don't understand where in the rules it says that this exploit is allowed. If I, using my professional programming skills (or I'll ask colleagues if I don't have enough qualifications), find a vulnerability in the client or HDmod and use it, is that within the rules? It's not written that it's forbidden. Where is the common sense?
With all due respect and sympathy for such an upsetting defeat, I can only say the following: - using third-party/unauthorized programs is prohibited (i.e., hacking the game/saves/manually editing text files, and who knows what else - is prohibited), only legal software can be used, and a list of it is in the rules. - using in-game features without using the methods mentioned above is allowed, unless the rules state otherwise. Based on the above, two logical conclusions can be drawn: a) guided by common sense, the victory of Redwait will hardly be taken away/a replay will be scheduled, etc. - the result is, in my opinion, legitimate. b) the issue of considering the inclusion of this bug in the list of prohibitions will most likely be raised - what this will lead to is unknown, time will tell, as many issues will need to be discussed based on the prohibition of this bug (sea artifacts in the game, etc.).
I understand that it is morally difficult to accept such a defeat, but if you look at it from another angle, how many giveaways and matches have been "one-sided" only thanks to the generator, I think everyone can recall a dozen. And everyone perceives defeat to a greater or lesser extent relatively adequately, after some grumbling and complaining about fate and the god of generation. In my opinion, the situation is no different - there were simply no chances to win due to the generation.
In my opinion, there are still several prohibitions that do not fit into the picture of the game - they can be called artificially created bugs within the rules, and they occur in the game MUCH more often than this case - a striking example is the attack in handcuffs and the forced retreat, and then the replay of the turn if the defending side does not want to fight you, using the speed advantage to avoid contact.
Егор Коробейников
