Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession 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.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Let me explain it differently. In Heroes, you can win without having contact with your opponent. A player who has no path to the GO on Jebus can still claim victory without ever knowing that the path was missing. And their opponent will have no opportunity to demand a replay. The same goes for that game with Sam: if I had thrown the game and surrendered, there would have been no talk of a replay; he would have calmly recorded his win despite the bug. Allowing replayed bugged setups after a loss is a one-sided game, favoring the one who has the bug.
Let me explain in another way. In Heroes, you can win without any contact with your opponent. A player who has no road to the GO on a Jebus Cross can achieve victory without ever knowing about the lack of that road. And their opponent will have no opportunity to moan for a replay. The same goes for that game with Sam: if I had thrown and surrendered, there would have been no talk of any replay; he would have calmly secured his win despite the bug. Allowing replayed bugged setups after a loss is a one-sided game, favoring the one who has the bug.
Hold on, first of all, the game ended on 121, when I broke through the monolith and came to your secondary I think, it was on that GO that I lost; secondly, I would have confirmed the report either way; my rating clearly shows I'm not particularly concerned about whether I win or not, and it's really a shame that Cobra called me a moaner, thanks to him for that; thirdly, there was a huge grassy respawn, so I didn't scout it in 1 week, the template was 2sm2s; later, after I opened the game afterwards, I saw there was no passage, and so I asked if a replay was possible in this case; you wrote that it was LOL whatever, and on that we settled it; I showed the save to Pit, he said the lack of passage had an influence, but the game could no longer be replayed; however, since there was a free slot in the lower bracket, he and Kalababa placed me there; that's the whole situation. But in our dialogue, you mentioned that you look at everything according to the rules, and according to the rules, there is no humanitarian restart, so there is a discrepancy, if we're talking about the game with Palach. But this is purely my opinion; the topic was created to discuss the pros and cons; I wrote it; I myself don't get involved in AC, so why discuss me here?
but in our conversation, you mentioned that you follow all the rules, but not the rules for a humanitarian restart, so there's an inconsistency, especially when talking about a match with the Executioner.
Okay, let's read the rules:
1.4. By default, games are played according to the official rules with changes reflected in the first post of the current season's thread. Any changes to the rules are allowed with the mutual consent of the players, except for the fair play clause. All amendments to the rules must be agreed upon in advance via ICQ.
This means that, with mutual consent, players can give each other as many restarts and autosaves as they want, allow minor rule violations, replay from the beginning, and so on. As long as the players reach an agreement between themselves, it only concerns the two of them. For example, I didn't replay that game with you because it looked like cheating, and I told you that right away. But in the current M200, Player violated the rules in a game against me, and I offered him a replay myself. This is a personal matter between two specific players, but when a judge is watching the situation, the rules come first, of course.
This means that, with mutual consent, players can give each other as many restarts and autosaves as they want, allow minor rule violations, replay from the beginning, and so on. As long as the players reach an agreement between themselves, it only concerns them. For example, I didn't replay that game with you because it looked like griefing, and I told you about it right away. But in the current m200 game against me, Player violated the rules, and I offered him a replay myself. It's a personal matter between two specific players, but when a judge is watching the situation, the rules come first.
As far as I remember, there wasn't any talk about griefing in the dialogue. In any case, griefing isn't my thing; I don't care about the rating. For me, Heroes is about playing for a couple of hours when I have time. Now your position is clear; maybe I shouldn't have voted against you, but I don't think my vote will have much influence. It seems the topic is exhausted.
Well, why do you need politics in the tribunal? In my opinion, here are the people I voted for, 7 people. I would leave three of them: Pit, Dirty, and злой_романтик, and I just listed the rest. These people generally know the answers to questions about the game, they have been on the forum for a long time, and I accept their decisions because, in my opinion, they judge objectively. As for those I voted against, firstly, the absence of an "abstain" button. Many candidates registered on the forum slightly earlier than me, and some even later. Again, a good player does not necessarily mean a good judge or organizer. And about the celebrities, I voted against Vikka because he is in favor of politics on the portal and all sorts of discussions. I believe that the Administration Council discusses things among themselves and makes a decision, like a jury. I voted against Vigo because he was banned from the forum. I voted against RedWhite, well, he sometimes has outbursts, which is not good. I should have also voted against Stinger, if possible, remove my vote for him, because he probably doesn't have time for this. And Rebelius, I personally have no questions for him, but again, he becomes a participant in controversial situations, as does Cobra, although I have communicated with both of them, and I only have positive emotions from the communication. Sanin, I encountered him in a tournament, he is too pedantic, although he allows for a "fluctuation" of the rules in his favor. I won't give an example, if necessary, I'll tell you in ICQ. The Administration Council is the face of the forum, not a gang of quarrelers with green or pink nicknames.
There is an "abstain" button: it means not participating in the vote.
So, let's say I'm a newbie, I don't know anything, I lose the game to you, and only then do I realize that there was no way through. But I could have done something differently... so I turn to the judge and ask, what was wrong with my actions?
According to this logic, after losing, I can go into the map and look for bugs: somewhere a zone is flooded, somewhere there's no passage, I didn't reach it, but what if... what if the opponent's computer would have lagged in that zone, what if that zone existed and I would have played differently. Rematch! ... utter nonsense.
What will be wrong in your actions is that during the game you were not able to assess the generated map. Iamsamstan didn't even fully explore his zone. And what if he had won the game? Could the opponent have asked for a restart because the map generation was buggy? For example, arguing that he didn't find a way to the opponent's secondary base, through which he could have killed him. Yes, during the game I didn't notice that there was no passage to the opponent's secondary base, only after looking at the map, but what if there was a teleport there and I would have caught it, instead of losing in the console on the way further...
Мой ник Heroes, и никто не вынесет меня Скажу я вам, мои друзья. Я некромант, я маг великий, и армия моя Непобедимая, огромная!
By that logic, after a loss I could dive into the map and look for bugs — an area flooded somewhere, a passage missing somewhere that I never even reached, and what if... what if through that zone the opponent could have been slowed down, what if that zone existed and I would have played differently. A rematch! ...utter nonsense. What would be wrong in your actions is that during the game you failed to assess the generated layout. Iamsamstan didn't even fully scout his own zone. And what if he had won the game? Could the opponent have requested a restart because the generation was bugged? For example, interpreting it as not finding a path to the opponent's secondary hero, through which he could have killed him. Yes, during the game I didn't discover that there was no path to the opponent's secondary, only after looking at the map later, but what if there had been a teleport here and I would have caught it, instead of dying at the Griffin Conservatory along the way...
we're talking about different things.. I'm talking about the fact that while playing I don't understand, say, that the passage that should be where my hero is standing - doesn't exist.. and you're saying I lost, revealed the map, found something I didn't even see in the game, and asked for a tech.;)
we're talking about different things... I'm saying that while playing, I don't understand, for example, that there's no passage where my hero is standing. But you're saying I lost, I opened the map, found something I didn't even see in the game, and asked the tech support.;)
Well, in the game that's being used as an example here, Iamsan didn't even fully explore his zone. And if the zone is already fully explored, but the player doesn't realize that there's no passage... which rule applies to that? There's a rule like this: "1.4. Restart at the player's request if the only road leads to the GO," where the restart is taken on the day of discovery, but no later than day 115! I don't see any other rules that suggest that you can take a restart because there's no passage to the second week.
Мой ник Heroes, и никто не вынесет меня Скажу я вам, мои друзья. Я некромант, я маг великий, и армия моя Непобедимая, огромная!
And if the zone has already been fully explored, but the player hasn't realized that there's no way through.
On the day when the zone is fully explored and no restart follows, the player agrees with the flawed generation (lack of a path in the game) by passing the turn, and has no right to demand a technical restart after that. That's my opinion.
Well, in the game being used as an example here, Iamsan didn't even fully explore his zone. And if the zone is already fully explored, but the player hasn't realized that they have no way forward... which rule applies to this? There's a rule like this: "1.4. Restart at the player's request if the only path leads to the GO," where the restart is taken on the day the issue is discovered, but no later than day 115! I don't see any other rules that suggest you can take a restart because you have no way forward on the second day.
Unfortunately, I was discussing the situation in general, not the specific case with Sam... so don't judge:smile13:
Unfortunately, I was discussing the situation in general, not a specific case with Sam.. so don't hold it against me :smile13:
What were you discussing in general — that a rematch due to a bug is possible? It doesn't matter here whether you scouted or not, because while you're playing, you can win by your opponent's surrender, and in that case there will be no rematch anyway. One can only imagine a very elaborate scenario where it makes sense to talk about a rematch: for example, a player on Jebus Cross never scouted the absence of a road to ГО, while the opponent has already broken into his respawn and is killing him. But if he surrendered without scouting, it means he played poorly — what rematches are there?
Sanin
