WT Nostalgy — Tournament History online

Tofsla

9 years ago

Auto-translated

And what does my friend have to do with it, if I wanted to watch him, I would have watched him myself. I went to the pool after the game, and my opponent put on a show on the stream – the great "dad" and card reader with one glance recognized stream sniping, and with a fresh head in the morning, he even accused me of map hacking in my game, without even bothering to check if I had seen his hero there.

In reply to Alone

Alone

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Alone

MIKE (Fortress,Bro) def Alone (Rampart, Ivor) 132. Jebus -5500

It's unclear where the 13 Hydras came from – probably from the boxes behind the Gate of Oblivion.

Thanks for the game!

That's frustrating! There were 6 Hydras in the box that Ivor defended in the center, but he didn't have enough movement points to take it. This could have cost him the victory...:mad:

FireToSky

9 years ago

Auto-translated

I've been looking at the replays since morning. I haven't seen anything so blatantly cheating that I could confidently accuse someone of it.

=Lizard=

9 years ago

Auto-translated

That’s just how the game works. As I already wrote to Anton in ICQ, if someone isn’t caught red-handed, you can always find an excuse for your actions. At worst, you can just say you got lucky, and from a legal standpoint, you’ll be right.

HellLighT

9 years ago

Auto-translated

As I mentioned before, the actions don't seem logical from my perspective, but they fall within the "guesswork" framework, the main thing is not to guess too often. Everything else is based on what Tofsl himself said, about a friend of the viewer, and so on.

In reply to FireToSky

Mee

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Conclusions regarding the game Helllight vs Tofsla

No obvious maphacking was detected, and subtle maphacking can be suspected everywhere. In general, Tofsla's moves have a logical basis, including the last move, which raised the most questions.

BUT!

A detailed review of the moves revealed that on turn 116, Tofsla violated rule "8" (Only resources, shrines, and mills can be taken while bypassing guards; everything else must be cleared, even with control. First, the guards are defeated, then the object is collected. For Jebus, clearing the guards is mandatory for entering the adjacent zone).
He took a promotion and a priest without clearing the guards, gaining +1 to attack and +1 to spell power. Whether this was intentional or not, and how much it affected the outcome, is not so important; the fact remains.

For the future: if there are doubts, a save should be made (to avoid losing time) and sent to the judges for clarification, or, as a last resort, to an experienced player.

This is a tournament with prizes; let's all be more attentive to the rules!

Outcome:

No maphacking was detected. The game results are annulled; a replay is required with streams from both sides to avoid repeating conflicts!

In reply to Mee

Katherine

9 years ago

Auto-translated

I would also like to add a warning for Hellight regarding the violation of point 14: "Players must play fairly and respect each other."

In reply to HellLighT

FireToSky

9 years ago

Auto-translated

HellLighT

As I wrote earlier, the actions, from my point of view, are not logical, but they fall within the "guesswork" framework; the main thing is not to guess often. Everything else was taken from Tofsla's words, about a friend of the viewer, and so on.

In my opinion, 95% of players do not play logically. Should we suspect everyone?

Added 4 minutes ago

Mee

Conclusions about the game Helllight vs Tofsla

No obvious maphack was detected, and a subtle one can be imagined everywhere. In general, Tofsla's moves have logic, including the last move, which, perhaps, raised the most questions.

BUT!

A detailed review of the moves revealed that on turn 116, Tofsla violated point "8" (Only resources, camps, and mills can be taken bypassing the guard; everything else must be cleared, even if control is present. First, the guard is attacked, then the object is picked up. For Jebus, it is mandatory to clear the guard to enter the adjacent zone).
He took a level-up and a priest, without clearing the guard and receiving +1 to attack and +1 to spell power. Whether this was intentional or not, and how much it affected the outcome, is not so important; the fact remains.

For the future: if there are doubts, you need to make a save (so as not to lose the timer) and send it to the judges for clarification, or, as a last resort, to an experienced player.

Tournament with prizes, let's all be more attentive to the rules!

Result:

There was no maphack. The game results are annulled; a replay is required with broadcasts from both sides to avoid repeating conflicts!

What are these strange rules about mills, etc.? We've always played on Warlords Tower like this: prisons, Pandoras, and artifacts must be cleared. Everything else is optional. Or are there any differences for Minotaur? After all, no one has ever played it on Warlords Tower...

In reply to FireToSky

Katherine

9 years ago

Auto-translated

FireToSky

What are these strange rules about windmills, etc.? We've always played on Wargames Territory like this: dungeons, Pandoras, and artifacts must be cleared. Everything else is optional. Or are there any differences for the mini-tournament?

This rule was stated in the first post in bold since the topic was published. An unexpected question in the middle of the third round...

Albert@s

9 years ago

Auto-translated

I haven’t read the rules myself — it’s played intuitively, based on experience from games on WT. I haven’t looked at the saves, but I don’t think Tofsla would have cheated there. I’ve known him for quite a while — I’ve seen his gaming journey, so to speak. About a year and a half to two years ago, he was losing almost everything, but recently he really has grown from a strong WT player, which I’ve personally become convinced of — he lost a decent setup to me on Jebus (though I hadn’t played myself for about a year before that).
The situation with not getting through that guard… even if I had noticed it, I wouldn’t have said anything — that kind of low-tier guard… well, assuming of course it was a one-time case.
Generally speaking, I think that those who stream their games don’t really have the moral right to suspect someone of looking (I’m not talking about this game).
If anything, I think the opposite — those who play in a completely unconventional way are precisely the ones considered outstanding players. For example, Vanya FTS — I play with him, watch his half of the spawn purely from the overview, and I have no idea what he’s cooking over there).

Grando

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Oh, I should rewatch the save from my match with FTS. He probably took something past the guards too. :smile11:
It's impossible to say exactly how much it affected the outcome :D, but it seems like a reason to replay? :smile26:

KobRa_RR

9 years ago

Auto-translated

A Solomon-like solution, which also has its merits.

In reply to Mee

Samurai

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Mee

Maphacking did not occur. The game results are voided, and a replay is required with broadcasts from both sides to avoid a recurrence of the conflict!

It's great that Mee dug so deep and found a violation on turn 116 (which was clearly unintentional for all the players).
But
1) The decision clearly favors one player.
2) I believe the decision is unjustified and biased.
3) It's unclear on what basis Mee is investigating the game from day one, when we're talking about maphacking on the third week.

In my opinion, in Mee's decision, Tofsla suffered, while Hellight benefited: both violated the rules insignificantly, but Hellight received a warning, while Tofsla had his victory taken away.
P.S. Now Tofsla has two options: withdraw from the tournament or obviously lose the second game.
P.P.S. Question for Mee: can I also make an unfounded accusation against Hellight for maphacking and be sure that our entire game with him, starting from day one, will also be checked for violations regarding the collection of resources by the opponent while bypassing the guards? I also want something, and I'm not risking anything!

In reply to Samurai

Katherine

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Samurai

I believe the decision is unjustified and biased.

See rule 18.

Samurai

Now Tofsla has two options: withdraw from the tournament or obviously lose the second game.

What is the basis for such an obviousness of the second option?

HellLighT

9 years ago

Auto-translated

There is a difference between violating ethical standards, which is what 95% of players do, and violating the game rules, which could have led to changes in the game (2 stats taken before major conflicts could have influenced the further course of the game). In my opinion, your view is biased.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from WT Nostalgy

Statistics

Library

Users Online 6 users 1328 guests

Today's Visitors 13