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.
The game starts after the map is created and red makes the first move. The fact that blue was killed on turn 111 is simply a case of a standard rush strategy. The anarchy rules state that there is no rule regarding meeting and blocking, and also that it is possible to pass by the shifted guard without any issues. In this case, the opponents know what they are getting into when they agree to play without rules. If blue has restarts available, they can use them during red's turn. Regarding the ethical aspect of the issue, I don't see any difference between killing on turn 111 and turn 112, because in both cases, there was a bugged passage or a shifted guard.
It's strange that you focused on such an obvious thing.
I didn't focus on it personally for you, but for the forum readers; judging by the posts, not everyone clearly understands this point. But it would be useful for maintaining good relations.
That's correct. A fixed map clearly shows us that "you shouldn't use SH, it's bad and unfair." And I agree with you; you really shouldn't use it. But how does it follow from this that killing an opponent on day 111 in a Castle is fair or unfair? Maybe you can show another fixed map where it is allowed to kill a blue player with a clearly weaker army on day 111? Or where it is forbidden.
It doesn't directly follow, but the analogy was yours, I believe. And fairness/unfairness only follows from understanding the game...
regarding the restarts: when Vic came up with the rules for Anarchy and drew the template, there were as many as 5 restarts in my memory, precisely to provide additional equal chances. But at the same time, he specifically stated that there would be no restart if players meet on ANY day! including day 1 (accompanying this with the phrase "it's his own fault"))). And all the Anarchy Tournaments that were held under his supervision adhered to this number of restarts. On Hireswold, to save time, the number of restarts was reduced for such a dispersive template, and if there is any unfairness to be found, it is only in this. However, everyone plays, and nothing happens.
Listen, buddy, let's say I get two restarts, and you get one." Is that called fair play?
Listen, buddy, let's say I get Galtrane, and you get Piguegram. Is that called fair play? Fire Gosha on day 111? Shouldn't you attack a Castle on day 111 if you can? By the way, in the described case, the blue player almost always takes restarts himself, without waiting for his turn.
When he is killed on day 111, he doesn't make any decisions (I'll clarify again that there were no restarts before that, the game has just started).
If there were no restarts, then minus 1. A restart for an unplayable starting position. It happens all the time. This is not "unfair," but "bad luck."
listen, buddy, let me have Galtran, and you have Pyguedram is that what you call a fair game? fire Gosha on day 111? not attack the Castle on day 111, even if you can? by the way, in the described case, the blue player almost always takes restarts himself, without waiting for his turn)))
Yes, of course. It will be a fair, but not equal game. :D I'll allow myself an unforgivable theorization, but in 5% of cases, the player who starts with Pyguedram will win against the player who starts with Galtran. And yes, don't attack the Castle on day 111. wowa
but, at the same time, I specifically mentioned that there would be no restart if you meet on ANY day! including day 1 (accompanying it with that very phrase "you are to blame yourself")))
It seems I'm starting to understand. So, is it allowed on Anarchy and SHA? After all, it will be prohibited by a separate rule about bugs, but on Anarchy, the rules are abolished. I don't really remember Anarchy (it's still a group of templates, not just one), and I don't know if water is possible there.
Well, he was fighting in the Castle, i.e., he entered the game.
You could say the same about the SHA bug: at some point, the first player will come to kill the second, and then the second will actually enter the game (well, there you go, but you wrote that he wouldn't get a turn))) MedjersoN_HP
It seems I'm starting to understand. So, is it allowed on Anarchy and with SHA? After all, it will be prohibited by a separate rule regarding bugs, but on Anarchy, the rules are abolished.
Clause 2.13 does not cease to apply on Anarchy. Dirty_Player
The game starts when the map is created and Red makes his move. The fact that Blue was killed on turn 111 is just a simple red rush. On Anarchy, it is stated that there is no replay for encounters and blocks, as well as that you can safely pass by moved guards. In this case, opponents know what they are getting into when they agree to play without rules. If Blue has replays available, he can use them during Red's turn. As for the ethical side of the issue, I don't see any difference between killing on turn 111 and 112, because in both cases there was a bugged passage or a moved ГО.
All of this is fair and reasonable, but you are describing the situation from the point of view of the rules. I only welcome this approach, but initially, when raising this topic, I was interested in the opinion of those who put moral considerations above the letter of the rules. I asked about fair play.
What am I getting at? I believe that Redwyte did not violate the rule of fair play; Wowa believes that he did. Unfortunately, none of the members of the Arbitration Committee have expressed their position on this matter. There is a suggestion: maybe we could somehow specify the concept of fair play? I would highlight the following signs of unfair play: 1. Using third-party programs that are not allowed in the rules and give an advantage. The rules currently mention Cranium and HD Mod; it would be worth adding a few more permitted and well-known programs; 2. Opening saves before the end of the game; 3. Watching an opponent's stream/getting information about an unfinished game; 4. Not repeating a previously made move after a disconnect or crash; 5. Simulating a disconnect or crash; 6. Impersonating another player or having another player impersonate oneself; 7. Using obvious game bugs that are not allowed by the rules. [I remember a couple of years ago there was a bug where buying one angel in the Castle resulted in two being purchased; later, this was fixed in HD Mod. Another example: Dirty's story about buying seven Titans in Refuge. Or yet another strategy from Maydak. This also includes the SHA bug, if it weren't for the autumn precedent, which essentially legalized this bug for a short time].
I am proceeding from the fact that unfair play is gaining advantages not предусмотренных the game. Killing Blue in the Castle on turn 111 on Anarchy is perfectly provided for by the game - therefore, this is a normal fair victory, just like any other fair "victory with replays".
That's all fair and reasonable, but you're describing the situation from the perspective of the rules. I welcome this approach, but when I initially raised this topic, I was interested in the opinions of those who prioritize moral considerations over the letter of the rules. I was asking about fair play.
When playing the Anarchy template, the rules change, and losing on Anarchy at level 111 or 112 is perfectly acceptable according to the rules. If you don't want to lose that way, don't play Anarchy.
ДаУ
11 years ago
Auto-translated
M200 2sm2c: In Conflux, the passage was not guarded, below is essentially a GO, the opponent attacked without breaking through the GO. Reply who can sort it out and we'll give the passwords.
Dark
11 years ago
Auto-translated
Pity and Vasily are the security guards of FLAX, beat him.
=Logistik=
11 years ago
Auto-translated
He already stuck his hooves into the Snow Globe :smile17: and I came in from Conflux :smile10:
M200 2sm2c: In Conflux, the passage was not guarded; below is essentially a GO [General Obstacle?], the opponent attacked without breaking through the GO. Let us know who can sort this out, we will provide the passwords.
Generally, such a buggy mess should be restarted. Do you mean an objective restart? If the opponent is against it, then save and wait for the judges' decision—let them figure out where you can move and where you can't. There was already a restart for the match, by the way!
... And if the Conflux guard is Pit Fiends, then why didn't he clear them himself before stepping onto the snow?
Interesting situation: if you step onto the snow without clearing the passage guard (Pit Fiends/Basilisks), it's a defeat. BUT the situation is that the Troglodyte external dwelling is ours, and to take it, you need to make this step where the hero stands (there's no approach from below; if there were, you'd only approach the external dwelling from below). The hero has the right to claim his external dwelling even by stepping onto the snow in the process. However, attacking each other is only possible after clearing the guard. BUT how should the opponent interpret the situation if he sees that the opponent is standing on his land ??? probably the same way as the owner of the external dwelling — the hero simply claims his external dwelling and no attack is possible until the passage guard is cleared. Another situation: the owner of the snow spawn (Red) did not see Blue's move and only just arrived in that area and attacks the hero standing on the snow — if nothing fatal (information) happened, a save before the attack and play without attacking until the passage guard is cleared, or a technical restart at the judges' discretion.
Dirty_Player
11 years ago
Auto-translated
The situation unfolded as follows: Blue started building up a Trog outpost, and Red attacked him. Technically, and purely formally, Blue was the one who broke the rules.
Depending on the situation, this is what happened: Blue went to attack the Troglodyte nest, and Red attacked him. In theory, Blue technically violated the rules.
So, why is Blue to blame for anything?
2.6.3. It is allowed to enter an adjacent zone without breaking through the passage guard in order to visit an object belonging to that zone, in which the player is located.
And why is Red to blame for anything? As can be seen from the resources lying on the road, Red has not been here yet. As can be seen from the direction and location of Blue, he could only have reached this point from above. We also see a clear transition between the zones. We also see that it is impossible to reach the point where Blue is located without breaking through the guard between the zones, which, logically, should be there, and not shifted several cells in a completely different direction. Therefore, it is logical that Red did not see that the passage guard was shifted and moved somewhere else and assumed that Blue had already broken through this guard...
