|
On June 23 2011 14:51 kpzd wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:49 On_Slaught wrote: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.
So now the argument is that they own the name therefore they own the wins? That is a different issue.
However if somebody says they get the wins because the players joined coL then the argument still fails because 4 of the 5 wins root needed to beat coL were gotten by a player who didn't join coL when the merger happened.
I guess it depends how you look at it.
- If you think it should be based on the players who joined coL, then it doesn't work to give coL the tiebreaker since the majority of their team isn't ex-root and the player who got the most points in that specific clan war win didn't transfer. Edit: As blue points out below, if anything looking at players should give sixjax a WIN since based soley on the players left on these two teams, sixjax actually had more wins...
- If you think that by owning (buying?) the team name Root that coL gets everything the team had, regardless of how many players came over (in this scenario not a single team member would be needed to join coL as long as they owned the name) they get the tiebreaker.
|
Come on, let's have a rematch. That's perfectly fair.
|
On June 23 2011 14:52 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:49 On_Slaught wrote: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.
Sixjax 2-1d this Root lineup, it's kiwikaki who 2-0ed Six and Kiwi did not join and has never been affiliated with CoL. I fail to see why CoL should get credit for his work, if Kiwi was a member of CoL then I would understand this decision. Seeing as he is not, I don't see a strong argument for anything but the play-in round.
|
On June 23 2011 15:03 Bluest wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:52 Mordiford wrote:On June 23 2011 14:49 On_Slaught wrote: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. Sixjax 2-1d this Root lineup, it's kiwikaki who 2-0ed Six and Kiwi did not join and has never been affiliated with CoL. I fail to see why CoL should get credit for his work, if Kiwi was a member of CoL then I would understand this decision. Seeing as he is not, I don't see a strong argument for anything but the play-in round.
Because using that reasoning, would you disqualify a teams results if a player left their organization? Say Morrow left Mouz, would that remove their win against Dignitas since Morrow 2-0'd them. Complexity acquired ROOT, effectively absorbing the team for the decision made in regards to this tournament.
|
On June 23 2011 15:03 Bluest wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:52 Mordiford wrote:On June 23 2011 14:49 On_Slaught wrote: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. Sixjax 2-1d this Root lineup, it's kiwikaki who 2-0ed Six and Kiwi did not join and has never been affiliated with CoL. I fail to see why CoL should get credit for his work, if Kiwi was a member of CoL then I would understand this decision. Seeing as he is not, I don't see a strong argument for anything but the play-in round.
It doesnt matter... just wow r u people stupid? Root was a brand that coL bought hence all of Roots team accomplishments are now coLs so it doesnt matter if kiwi won them the clan war or catz they were both part of root during the clan war and that is a part of what coL bought so no rematch everything was fair DONE.
|
On June 23 2011 15:03 Bluest wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 14:52 Mordiford wrote:On June 23 2011 14:49 On_Slaught wrote: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. Sixjax 2-1d this Root lineup, it's kiwikaki who 2-0ed Six and Kiwi did not join and has never been affiliated with CoL. I fail to see why CoL should get credit for his work, if Kiwi was a member of CoL then I would understand this decision. Seeing as he is not, I don't see a strong argument for anything but the play-in round.
I'm so torn on the decision because of this. On the one hand Sixjax should not be in the playoffs because they in fact just didn't win enough. However I'm really disappointed that Sixjax is out and Col is in because to be frank the roster of Sixjax is just plain better than that of Col. This clanwar proved that ROOT'S roster was better than Sixjax, not that Complexity's roster was better (which. because of Kiwi, is how Root scored the win). This is something that will probably never happen again and I think the best that we can say is "wow that's unfortunate".
|
They should rematch, and see how much more SixJax deserves the playoffs than a team who got a free win against Diamond league non-players.
It's pretty dirty that EGMCS could watch everything that's happened and say coL deserves the playoff spot outright. At least let them fight for it.
Break the tie.
|
I have to say, Xeris... what the fuck is up with the scheduling for your team?
You guys have given a lot of walkovers in the past for games that actually counted and probably lost you series in the past, it really speaks to your strength as a team to get this far regardless but honestly it's pretty disappointing to see such disorganization in regards to clan wars...
It's kind of funny though, what happens when your team is down, fucking manager pulls up his socks and steps in the field, that's some dedication! No, but seriously, what the fuck man? Why does your team disappear in clan wars sometimes?
|
On June 23 2011 13:56 Xeris wrote:
Yep, good article from Sixjax. Honestly, I'm friends with everyone in the league. Not trying to screw anyone over. I was the only player available, I played instead of forfeitting. We already had a secured playoff spot. That's pretty much it.
Hope you all enjoy the playoffs!
So, nobody took that game sereously, I can understand that I suppose, even though, you have to ask yourself, is that really very respectful to the teams you beat(or beat you)? Now these games are broadcasted with several thousand viewers every time, is not taking that series sereously fair to the viewers, is it fair to the fans?
|
Just play a tiebreaker ! It's more fair imo 
|
• The final standings are determined by win-loss ratio. The top 4 teams at the end of the season will advance to the playoffs.
• If there's a tie between teams at the end of the season the rankings will be determined by total points.
Technically, the rules just state that ties will be determined by points if the win-loss is tied. There's no third step where it says whoever won the heads-up during the season will be break the tie if those numbers are also the same. Considering the abnormal circumstances of the absorption of ROOT into Complexity during the season, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have them play a tie-breaker and there's nothing in the rules listed in this thread anyway that would bind the administration to a different action.
|
Tiebreaker please. Would settle the matter completely.
|
On June 23 2011 15:46 Skipton wrote:
Tiebreaker please. Would settle the matter completely.
Ya I do agree this is the best option given all the crazy circumstances... even though I love ROOT. Then again I still want to see sixjax do well, especially as the new team on the scene (at least in terms of strong teams) as well as the fact that they have shown to be a solid team based on their results.
|
I'd love to see a tiebreaker as well. However, Sixjax should have done better in their prior matches. Yeah, it's an unfortunate circumstance but there are no rules that determine this situation. Sixjax is definitely my favorite team out of all of them but they should have performed better so that they didn't have to be in this predicament. MajOr hwaiting!
|
Also, curious, if half of root went to Complexity and half went to Reign, why was Complexity allowed to join the EG Masters Cup instead of Reign?
Did they flip a coin or something?
@ zlasher below
the rules as per the op:
• The final standings are determined by win-loss ratio. The top 4 teams at the end of the season will advance to the playoffs.
• If there's a tie between teams at the end of the season the rankings will be determined by total points.
It says nothing about a tie in both win/loss and total points. :|
|
They have a system in place to breka ties for a reason, and they assimilated ROOT/coL into one, regardless of which players went over. Theres no way I could see them playing a tiebreaker, they'll continue as is. Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it is the right thing to do. The shame is that getting invited to a $10,000 team league, and not having a lineup of players ready to play is a shame.
|
I'm pretty sure coL has 17 points with 4-3 . I am not sure why the site says 16... :D
|
Complexity never beat Sixjax. Sixjax lost to Root Gaming. Root was not bought out by Complexity; the team was dissolved for reasons that are irrelevant, and part of the team went to Complexity while the rest went elsewhere. If Complexity bought Root they would have all of Root; the option to go join another team would not have been on the table. Kiwikaki without question won Root the matchup (a player that has never been on Complexity's roster). This is just unfortunate because I think everyone knows if Sixjax actually played Complexity, the outcome would probably have been different.
The thing that bothers me is how fnatic handled this match. They knew who their opponent was going to be for a long time, and they knew they were sending sen to dreamhack. EG sent players as well, but they got their matches done for this week. Fnatic has a responsibility to have their players available to play their matches if they are going to participate in a league. That's it, and they didn't do it. Imagine if EG did the same thing and played Colbi instead of Idra?
Lets hope EG does the right thing (since they allowed a team they never even invited in the first place compete instead of DQing Root for the season) and makes them do a tie breaker. As I said Complexity never beat sixjax, if anything sixjax is up 2-1 on them.
DDE > coLMingun 2-0
MajOr > coLCatZ 2-0
CatZ/Drewbie win 2v2 1-0
|
I think there are arguments in sixjax's favour, but the root =/= coL argument is the weakest one.
If there was an issue with complexity taking root's place it should've been worked out when it become apparent complexity would be taking over, not when they take your playoff spot. If sixjax has a problem with complexity taking root's place, they missed their opportunity to do something about it.
The Kiwi/slush not being on CoL is ludicrous as well. I'm sure roster changes mid season aren't against the rules.
The tie breaker is an unfortunate occurrence that needs to be accepted. The match throwing is the dirty bit that should be campaigned against. However, it seems perfectly "legal" in this scenario, so I don't know what everyone is hoping to accomplish by discussing it.
A rematch tiebreaker would be just as unfair to CoL as the current situation is to sixjax. One team is going to get screwed no matter what... you may as well go with the one that doesn't require you to renege the league's standing rules.
|
On June 23 2011 16:29 SiguR wrote:
I think there are arguments in sixjax's favour, but the root =/= coL argument is the weakest one.
If there was an issue with complexity taking root's place it should've been worked out when it become apparent complexity would be taking over, not when they take your playoff spot. If sixjax has a problem with complexity taking root's place, they missed their opportunity to do something about it.
The Kiwi/slush not being on CoL is ludicrous as well. I'm sure roster changes mid season aren't against the rules.
The tie breaker is an unfortunate occurrence that needs to be accepted. The match throwing is the dirty bit that should be campaigned against. However, it seems perfectly "legal" in this scenario, so I don't know what everyone is hoping to accomplish by discussing it.
A rematch tiebreaker would be just as unfair to CoL as the current situation is to sixjax. One team is going to get screwed no matter what... you may as well go with the one that doesn't require you to renege the league's standing rules.
Fnatic gave them a free win and boosted them into the finals, intentional or not that's what happened. coL never had a prayer otherwise, and that's probably why people let it slide until now.
edit: It wasn't a roster change. Kiwi at no point in time played for complexity gaming. Complexity is going to the finals, not Root. Root no longer exists; why is Complexity getting to ride off what players that NEVER played for them accomplished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
