|
|
|
as a sixjax member, well i can only actually speak for myself but the problem really isnt the fnatic vs col series, but the fact that col in reality didnt play in this tournament, just because they get some members from a team that was in it the results shouldnt transfer either root finished the tour or they DQed but oh well thats just imo
|
On June 23 2011 14:21 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:17 kpzd wrote:On June 23 2011 14:10 On_Slaught wrote:
That sixjax article was really depressing to read. On it's face it seems like a pathetic move by fnatic.
Saying 'sixjax should win more" is moot considering they clearly DID win enough to get in. The amount of wins sixjax won are more than enough to qualify them. However because of 1. fnatic throwing a series and 2. a tiebreaker that involves a team which doesn't even have the player who was key in beating sixjax to get that tie-breaker advantage, a team got screwed.
There is no way you can look at this and say it is fair or that sixjax wasn't screwed. The fnatic part is messed up but i'm sure xeris can sweet talk that away. If fnatic didn't have a guaranteed playoff spot do you think that series would have played out that way? Ofc not.
Also, giving col the root tiebreaker adv when kiwi and slush aren't even on that team anymore is bullshit.
The only way this could have been solved properly is to have a play-in series. No, because coL is still ROOT. Just because they were acquired and changed names doesn't change the fact that it's still the same people playing, just replace KiWi with CrunCher.. If KiWi had left ROOT and ROOT picked up a FA do you think there should be a regame because roster changes took place? Because that's all that really happened here. What is the cutoff? If Thorzain joined MyM and the rest of his teammates quit, would MyM now get all the tiebreakers and results of mouz? If more than half of col wasn't on root when they beat sixjax, then should the entire team get the benefits of that win? col wasn't even invited to this tourny and now a small part of roots team transfers their results over? Seems arbitrary. Out of curiosity, is there anything in the rules about a situation like this? On how team mergers/roster changes work? I would assume it isn't in there b/c it is so rare which would beg the question of why they went around it this way instead of a play-in, which is fair to both sides.
It's not arbitrary at all. If Thorzain joined MyM, he'd be on MyM, so he'd have their placing their seeds and going forward he could play in their matches.
If Thorzain left Mouz and Mouz disbanded, then Mouz would no longer be a part of the CW. All the past results would still be there (If you lost to Mouz you don't suddenly get those points, and if you beat Mouz you don't lose those points.
This isn't a hard rule, and it's pretty intuitive/logical. ROOT essentially changed names, and replaced a player.
|
On June 23 2011 14:22 Xeris wrote:
who's the 4th team?
mouz
|
ROOT didnt change names, they JOINED a different team.
|
On June 23 2011 14:25 CocoA wrote:
ROOT didnt change names, they JOINED a different team.
No, the brand ROOT was acquired by coL. By all intents and purposes, that means that coL=ROOT.
On June 23 2011 14:22 Xeris wrote:
who's the 4th team?
Whoops forgot that! Mouz!
|
On June 23 2011 14:24 kpzd wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:21 On_Slaught wrote:On June 23 2011 14:17 kpzd wrote:On June 23 2011 14:10 On_Slaught wrote:
That sixjax article was really depressing to read. On it's face it seems like a pathetic move by fnatic.
Saying 'sixjax should win more" is moot considering they clearly DID win enough to get in. The amount of wins sixjax won are more than enough to qualify them. However because of 1. fnatic throwing a series and 2. a tiebreaker that involves a team which doesn't even have the player who was key in beating sixjax to get that tie-breaker advantage, a team got screwed.
There is no way you can look at this and say it is fair or that sixjax wasn't screwed. The fnatic part is messed up but i'm sure xeris can sweet talk that away. If fnatic didn't have a guaranteed playoff spot do you think that series would have played out that way? Ofc not.
Also, giving col the root tiebreaker adv when kiwi and slush aren't even on that team anymore is bullshit.
The only way this could have been solved properly is to have a play-in series. No, because coL is still ROOT. Just because they were acquired and changed names doesn't change the fact that it's still the same people playing, just replace KiWi with CrunCher.. If KiWi had left ROOT and ROOT picked up a FA do you think there should be a regame because roster changes took place? Because that's all that really happened here. What is the cutoff? If Thorzain joined MyM and the rest of his teammates quit, would MyM now get all the tiebreakers and results of mouz? If more than half of col wasn't on root when they beat sixjax, then should the entire team get the benefits of that win? col wasn't even invited to this tourny and now a small part of roots team transfers their results over? Seems arbitrary. Out of curiosity, is there anything in the rules about a situation like this? On how team mergers/roster changes work? I would assume it isn't in there b/c it is so rare which would beg the question of why they went around it this way instead of a play-in, which is fair to both sides. It's not arbitrary at all. If Thorzain joined MyM, he'd be on MyM, so he'd have their placing their seeds and going forward he could play in their matches. If Thorzain left Mouz and Mouz disbanded, then Mouz would no longer be a part of the CW. All the past results would still be there (If you lost to Mouz you don't suddenly get those points, and if you beat Mouz you don't lose those points. This isn't a hard rule, and it's pretty intuitive/logical. ROOT essentially changed names, and replaced a player.
Root no longer exists. Half of its members joined a team who was not in the tournament. The majority (iirc) of the col line-up is NOT ex-root members. How is root disbanding not make them simply isappear from the CW like you mention in your post? You guys make it sound like they just changed their names and have the same team but it is a vastly different team.
Root did NOT change names. Root disappeared off the fucking planet. CoL is a completely different team that happens to have a couple of the same players. It is the same as the mouz example. Even if col now owns "root," they are not competing as that team since that competitive team no longer exists.
|
On June 23 2011 14:24 CocoA wrote:
as a sixjax member, well i can only actually speak for myself but the problem really isnt the fnatic vs col series, but the fact that col in reality didnt play in this tournament, just because they get some members from a team that was in it the results shouldnt transfer either root finished the tour or they DQed but oh well thats just imo
I believe the only match where non-ROOT players were used was the week before this, and i'm pretty sure that every non-ROOT player that played lost so I wouldn't say it's unfair. I mean, every person that played this week was from the original ROOT.
Either way, there wasn't any precedent for this so you can't fault the admins for making this compromise.
|
On June 23 2011 14:28 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:24 kpzd wrote:On June 23 2011 14:21 On_Slaught wrote:On June 23 2011 14:17 kpzd wrote:On June 23 2011 14:10 On_Slaught wrote:
That sixjax article was really depressing to read. On it's face it seems like a pathetic move by fnatic.
Saying 'sixjax should win more" is moot considering they clearly DID win enough to get in. The amount of wins sixjax won are more than enough to qualify them. However because of 1. fnatic throwing a series and 2. a tiebreaker that involves a team which doesn't even have the player who was key in beating sixjax to get that tie-breaker advantage, a team got screwed.
There is no way you can look at this and say it is fair or that sixjax wasn't screwed. The fnatic part is messed up but i'm sure xeris can sweet talk that away. If fnatic didn't have a guaranteed playoff spot do you think that series would have played out that way? Ofc not.
Also, giving col the root tiebreaker adv when kiwi and slush aren't even on that team anymore is bullshit.
The only way this could have been solved properly is to have a play-in series. No, because coL is still ROOT. Just because they were acquired and changed names doesn't change the fact that it's still the same people playing, just replace KiWi with CrunCher.. If KiWi had left ROOT and ROOT picked up a FA do you think there should be a regame because roster changes took place? Because that's all that really happened here. What is the cutoff? If Thorzain joined MyM and the rest of his teammates quit, would MyM now get all the tiebreakers and results of mouz? If more than half of col wasn't on root when they beat sixjax, then should the entire team get the benefits of that win? col wasn't even invited to this tourny and now a small part of roots team transfers their results over? Seems arbitrary. Out of curiosity, is there anything in the rules about a situation like this? On how team mergers/roster changes work? I would assume it isn't in there b/c it is so rare which would beg the question of why they went around it this way instead of a play-in, which is fair to both sides. It's not arbitrary at all. If Thorzain joined MyM, he'd be on MyM, so he'd have their placing their seeds and going forward he could play in their matches. If Thorzain left Mouz and Mouz disbanded, then Mouz would no longer be a part of the CW. All the past results would still be there (If you lost to Mouz you don't suddenly get those points, and if you beat Mouz you don't lose those points. This isn't a hard rule, and it's pretty intuitive/logical. ROOT essentially changed names, and replaced a player. Root no longer exists. Half of its members joined a team who was not in the tournament. The majority (iirc) of the col line-up is NOT ex-root members. How is root disbanding not make them simply isappear from the CW like you mention in your post? You guys make it sound like they just changed their names and have the same team but it is a vastly different team. Root did NOT change names. Root disappeared off the fucking planet. CoL is a completely different team that happens to have a couple of the same players. It is the same as the mouz example. Even if col now owns "root," they are not competing as that team since that competitive team no longer exists.
Majority is correct, 4 of Complexity's 11 members are ex-ROOT.
|
On June 23 2011 14:31 cyprin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:28 On_Slaught wrote:On June 23 2011 14:24 kpzd wrote:On June 23 2011 14:21 On_Slaught wrote:On June 23 2011 14:17 kpzd wrote:On June 23 2011 14:10 On_Slaught wrote:
That sixjax article was really depressing to read. On it's face it seems like a pathetic move by fnatic.
Saying 'sixjax should win more" is moot considering they clearly DID win enough to get in. The amount of wins sixjax won are more than enough to qualify them. However because of 1. fnatic throwing a series and 2. a tiebreaker that involves a team which doesn't even have the player who was key in beating sixjax to get that tie-breaker advantage, a team got screwed.
There is no way you can look at this and say it is fair or that sixjax wasn't screwed. The fnatic part is messed up but i'm sure xeris can sweet talk that away. If fnatic didn't have a guaranteed playoff spot do you think that series would have played out that way? Ofc not.
Also, giving col the root tiebreaker adv when kiwi and slush aren't even on that team anymore is bullshit.
The only way this could have been solved properly is to have a play-in series. No, because coL is still ROOT. Just because they were acquired and changed names doesn't change the fact that it's still the same people playing, just replace KiWi with CrunCher.. If KiWi had left ROOT and ROOT picked up a FA do you think there should be a regame because roster changes took place? Because that's all that really happened here. What is the cutoff? If Thorzain joined MyM and the rest of his teammates quit, would MyM now get all the tiebreakers and results of mouz? If more than half of col wasn't on root when they beat sixjax, then should the entire team get the benefits of that win? col wasn't even invited to this tourny and now a small part of roots team transfers their results over? Seems arbitrary. Out of curiosity, is there anything in the rules about a situation like this? On how team mergers/roster changes work? I would assume it isn't in there b/c it is so rare which would beg the question of why they went around it this way instead of a play-in, which is fair to both sides. It's not arbitrary at all. If Thorzain joined MyM, he'd be on MyM, so he'd have their placing their seeds and going forward he could play in their matches. If Thorzain left Mouz and Mouz disbanded, then Mouz would no longer be a part of the CW. All the past results would still be there (If you lost to Mouz you don't suddenly get those points, and if you beat Mouz you don't lose those points. This isn't a hard rule, and it's pretty intuitive/logical. ROOT essentially changed names, and replaced a player. Root no longer exists. Half of its members joined a team who was not in the tournament. The majority (iirc) of the col line-up is NOT ex-root members. How is root disbanding not make them simply isappear from the CW like you mention in your post? You guys make it sound like they just changed their names and have the same team but it is a vastly different team. Root did NOT change names. Root disappeared off the fucking planet. CoL is a completely different team that happens to have a couple of the same players. It is the same as the mouz example. Even if col now owns "root," they are not competing as that team since that competitive team no longer exists. Majority is correct, 4 of Complexity's 11 members are ex-ROOT.
Ok, on their roster, but how many of their members played in this clanwar? It was 1, just CrunCher.
|
On June 23 2011 14:28 On_Slaught wrote:
Root no longer exists. Half of its members joined a team who was not in the tournament. The majority (iirc) of the col line-up is NOT ex-root members. How is root disbanding not make them simply isappear from the CW like you mention in your post? You guys make it sound like they just changed their names and have the same team but it is a vastly different team.
Root did NOT change names. Root disappeared off the fucking planet. CoL is a completely different team that happens to have a couple of the same players. It is the same as the mouz example. Even if col now owns "root," they are not competing as that team since that competitive team no longer exists.
What if the situations were reversed. Would you expect a rematch between sixjax and coL if it was the old ROOT team that lost to sixjax and not the current coL team?
|
On June 23 2011 14:36 MrDudeMan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:28 On_Slaught wrote:
Root no longer exists. Half of its members joined a team who was not in the tournament. The majority (iirc) of the col line-up is NOT ex-root members. How is root disbanding not make them simply isappear from the CW like you mention in your post? You guys make it sound like they just changed their names and have the same team but it is a vastly different team.
Root did NOT change names. Root disappeared off the fucking planet. CoL is a completely different team that happens to have a couple of the same players. It is the same as the mouz example. Even if col now owns "root," they are not competing as that team since that competitive team no longer exists. What if the situations were reversed. Would you expect a rematch between sixjax and coL if it was the old ROOT team that lost to sixjax and not the current coL team?
This is how I see it. If they gave coL the win (since they took roots stats) but not the tie-breaker (since it was a diff team) then you'd have 2 teams with equal stats and no tie-breaker, necessitating a play-in series.
That is how I feel it should have been approached if this is not in the rules.
However unless somebody involved chimes in this is pretty much a dead subject since things aren't changing.
|
DDE beats Mingun 2/0 (Minigun went to coL).
ViBE losses to KiwiKaki 2/0 (KiwiKaki went to RGN).
MajOr beats CatZ 2/0 (CatZ went to coL).
CatZ/Drewbie win 2v2 (Both went to coL).
MajOr loses to KiwiKaki 1/2 (KiwiKaki went to RGN).
lol invite RGN in they beat sixjax!
Kind of silly root = coL in this tournament. When root disband so should their egmc team. It wasn't a simple name change it was a complete shift with the team breaking apart and no (far as I can tell) sponsorship carryover.
|
On June 23 2011 14:38 crms wrote:
DDE beats Mingun 2/0 (Minigun went to coL).
ViBE losses to KiwiKaki 2/0 (KiwiKaki went to RGN).
MajOr beats CatZ 2/0 (CatZ went to coL).
CatZ/Drewbie win 2v2 (Both went to coL).
MajOr loses to KiwiKaki 1/2 (KiwiKaki went to RGN).
lol invite RGN in they beat sixjax!
Kind of silly root = coL in this tournament. When root disband so should their egmc team. It wasn't a simple name change it was a complete shift with the team breaking apart and no (far as I can tell) sponsorship carryover.
That would sort of leave a hole in competition, I understand the situation for Sixjax but I feel like Colbi made a decent decision in this regard, rather than dropping a team entirely from the competition, introducing the new team that they were acquired by is fairly sensible.
|
On June 23 2011 14:40 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:38 crms wrote:
DDE beats Mingun 2/0 (Minigun went to coL).
ViBE losses to KiwiKaki 2/0 (KiwiKaki went to RGN).
MajOr beats CatZ 2/0 (CatZ went to coL).
CatZ/Drewbie win 2v2 (Both went to coL).
MajOr loses to KiwiKaki 1/2 (KiwiKaki went to RGN).
lol invite RGN in they beat sixjax!
Kind of silly root = coL in this tournament. When root disband so should their egmc team. It wasn't a simple name change it was a complete shift with the team breaking apart and no (far as I can tell) sponsorship carryover. That would sort of leave a hole in competition, I understand the situation for Sixjax but I feel like Colbi made a decent decision in this regard, rather than dropping a team entirely from the competition, introducing the new team that they were acquired by is fairly sensible.
Have to agree it was a sensible decision, alternatively ROOT could've just continued on as a sub-team for all intents and purposes of EGMC and only playing Destiny/Catz/Drewbie/Minigun... either way, I'm not sure about rules regarding who can play for a certain team, but I imagine it's written in a way that allows for coL to essentially participate as "ROOT" - just makes a lot more sense for Colbi to allow the namechange.
|
On June 23 2011 14:30 FawkingGoomba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:24 CocoA wrote:
as a sixjax member, well i can only actually speak for myself but the problem really isnt the fnatic vs col series, but the fact that col in reality didnt play in this tournament, just because they get some members from a team that was in it the results shouldnt transfer either root finished the tour or they DQed but oh well thats just imo I believe the only match where non-ROOT players were used was the week before this, and i'm pretty sure that every non-ROOT player that played lost so I wouldn't say it's unfair. I mean, every person that played this week was from the original ROOT. Either way, there wasn't any precedent for this so you can't fault the admins for making this compromise.
Every person that played this week was from the original root and 3-2d a fnatic team that played its manager twice and an offracer. I understand there are no rules for this situation so they had to make one up, the issue is the obvious rule in this situation is simply to have a playin match. You can't have anything fairer and simpler than that and nobody can complain afterwards. There are arguments for doing it different but at the end of the day someone is going to feel screwed with no playin match. With a playin match nobody can complain about fairness and the tourny integrity remains intact.
|
On June 23 2011 14:43 Bluest wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:30 FawkingGoomba wrote:On June 23 2011 14:24 CocoA wrote:
as a sixjax member, well i can only actually speak for myself but the problem really isnt the fnatic vs col series, but the fact that col in reality didnt play in this tournament, just because they get some members from a team that was in it the results shouldnt transfer either root finished the tour or they DQed but oh well thats just imo I believe the only match where non-ROOT players were used was the week before this, and i'm pretty sure that every non-ROOT player that played lost so I wouldn't say it's unfair. I mean, every person that played this week was from the original ROOT. Either way, there wasn't any precedent for this so you can't fault the admins for making this compromise. Every person that played this week was from the original root and 3-2d a fnatic team that played its manager twice and an offracer. I understand there are no rules for this situation so they had to make one up, the issue is the obvious rule in this situation is simply to have a playin match. You can't have anything fairer and simpler than that and nobody can complain afterwards. There are arguments for doing it different but at the end of the day someone is going to feel screwed with no playin match. With a playin match nobody can complain about fairness and the tourny integrity remains intact.
Complexity could argue for fairness if they require a play-in, considering they already beat Sixjax. Just because that player left their team during the coL acquisition doesn't mean their past results shouldn't count.
This is a pretty ambiguous situation and I don't think there really is a right/wrong. I think it's essentially up to the admins of the tournament and I think he made as best decision he could.
|
On June 23 2011 14:46 kpzd wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:43 Bluest wrote:On June 23 2011 14:30 FawkingGoomba wrote:On June 23 2011 14:24 CocoA wrote:
as a sixjax member, well i can only actually speak for myself but the problem really isnt the fnatic vs col series, but the fact that col in reality didnt play in this tournament, just because they get some members from a team that was in it the results shouldnt transfer either root finished the tour or they DQed but oh well thats just imo I believe the only match where non-ROOT players were used was the week before this, and i'm pretty sure that every non-ROOT player that played lost so I wouldn't say it's unfair. I mean, every person that played this week was from the original ROOT. Either way, there wasn't any precedent for this so you can't fault the admins for making this compromise. Every person that played this week was from the original root and 3-2d a fnatic team that played its manager twice and an offracer. I understand there are no rules for this situation so they had to make one up, the issue is the obvious rule in this situation is simply to have a playin match. You can't have anything fairer and simpler than that and nobody can complain afterwards. There are arguments for doing it different but at the end of the day someone is going to feel screwed with no playin match. With a playin match nobody can complain about fairness and the tourny integrity remains intact. Complexity could argue for fairness if they require a play-in, considering they already beat Sixjax. Just because that player left their team during the coL acquisition doesn't mean their past results shouldn't count.
What? When did col beat sixjax? I don't see that anywhere in the results...
|
On June 23 2011 14:49 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:46 kpzd wrote:On June 23 2011 14:43 Bluest wrote:On June 23 2011 14:30 FawkingGoomba wrote:On June 23 2011 14:24 CocoA wrote:
as a sixjax member, well i can only actually speak for myself but the problem really isnt the fnatic vs col series, but the fact that col in reality didnt play in this tournament, just because they get some members from a team that was in it the results shouldnt transfer either root finished the tour or they DQed but oh well thats just imo I believe the only match where non-ROOT players were used was the week before this, and i'm pretty sure that every non-ROOT player that played lost so I wouldn't say it's unfair. I mean, every person that played this week was from the original ROOT. Either way, there wasn't any precedent for this so you can't fault the admins for making this compromise. Every person that played this week was from the original root and 3-2d a fnatic team that played its manager twice and an offracer. I understand there are no rules for this situation so they had to make one up, the issue is the obvious rule in this situation is simply to have a playin match. You can't have anything fairer and simpler than that and nobody can complain afterwards. There are arguments for doing it different but at the end of the day someone is going to feel screwed with no playin match. With a playin match nobody can complain about fairness and the tourny integrity remains intact. Complexity could argue for fairness if they require a play-in, considering they already beat Sixjax. Just because that player left their team during the coL acquisition doesn't mean their past results shouldn't count. What? When did col beat sixjax? I don't see that anywhere in the results...
They were going under the name ROOT at the time, it was before they were acquired by a big multi-gaming eSports organization.
|
On June 23 2011 14:49 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:46 kpzd wrote:On June 23 2011 14:43 Bluest wrote:On June 23 2011 14:30 FawkingGoomba wrote:On June 23 2011 14:24 CocoA wrote:
as a sixjax member, well i can only actually speak for myself but the problem really isnt the fnatic vs col series, but the fact that col in reality didnt play in this tournament, just because they get some members from a team that was in it the results shouldnt transfer either root finished the tour or they DQed but oh well thats just imo I believe the only match where non-ROOT players were used was the week before this, and i'm pretty sure that every non-ROOT player that played lost so I wouldn't say it's unfair. I mean, every person that played this week was from the original ROOT. Either way, there wasn't any precedent for this so you can't fault the admins for making this compromise. Every person that played this week was from the original root and 3-2d a fnatic team that played its manager twice and an offracer. I understand there are no rules for this situation so they had to make one up, the issue is the obvious rule in this situation is simply to have a playin match. You can't have anything fairer and simpler than that and nobody can complain afterwards. There are arguments for doing it different but at the end of the day someone is going to feel screwed with no playin match. With a playin match nobody can complain about fairness and the tourny integrity remains intact. Complexity could argue for fairness if they require a play-in, considering they already beat Sixjax. Just because that player left their team during the coL acquisition doesn't mean their past results shouldn't count. What? When did col beat sixjax? I don't see that anywhere in the results...
The thing is, Complexity acquired ROOT, there is no real precedent to reference for this, so in the case of this league, Complexity also acquired all of ROOT's results, which in this case, include beating Sixjax.
The situation sucks for Sixjax, but I think Colbi made a decent decision in this regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
