On November 24 2012 02:44 Integra wrote: So did Naniwa advance or not??
He did.
Exactly how though?
Nightend beat Nani in their 1-1 and they had the same games won to loss ratio?
I do not understand this at all :S
try reading the thread?
3-2 = 1 3-3 = 0 1 > 0 Nani > Nightend
Yeah okay, brb reading 90 odd pages (Takes a while).
What the hell do you mean 3-2? All the games are Bo3?
Nani, ForGG and Nightend are all 2-3, 5-7 Internally they all beat eachother in a circle, however Nani won 2-0 over ForGG, where as ForGG and Nightend only won 2-1
thus Nani wins
Ouch okay.
Must say that is REALLY stupid. It's like 'hey I beat you but I lose because you beat someone else....'
Oh well, I'd rather have Nani through anyway (no offence to Nightend <3). Just think they could work it out a lot better!
The only other way to do it would be to play tiebreakers right away.
On November 24 2012 02:44 Integra wrote: So did Naniwa advance or not??
He did.
Exactly how though?
Nightend beat Nani in their 1-1 and they had the same games won to loss ratio?
I do not understand this at all :S
try reading the thread?
3-2 = 1 3-3 = 0 1 > 0 Nani > Nightend
Yeah okay, brb reading 90 odd pages (Takes a while).
What the hell do you mean 3-2? All the games are Bo3?
Nani, ForGG and Nightend are all 2-3, 5-7 Internally they all beat eachother in a circle, however Nani won 2-0 over ForGG, where as ForGG and Nightend only won 2-1
thus Nani wins
Ouch okay.
Must say that is REALLY stupid. It's like 'hey I beat you but I lose because you beat someone else....'
Oh well, I'd rather have Nani through anyway (no offence to Nightend <3). Just think they could work it out a lot better!
It's more: "It's like 'hey I beat you but I lose because you beat someone else....'" against whom I lost. And that is what group stages are about, otherwise, if you only want 1v1s to count, don't have a groupstage
On November 24 2012 02:53 GrassEater wrote: Anyone remember the badmintone games at the olympics when the winner of a group would finish first in the group and play the world rank 1 or 2 team that finished second in the other group.
The players got dq:ed because they wanted to loose the game because they would get an easier quater finale. Here ppl throw games because they dont give a shit and it is unpunished. They would not become any worse if they win then if the loose, still they throw the game.
I wonder if people that rage right now were raging as well, back then when naniwa "proberushed" Nestea.... Why is Nightend through on liquipedia? Is the decision final?
On November 24 2012 02:38 Vapaach wrote: Let's all go back in time a bit, and think about what happened in GSL. Naniwa purposely lost vs Nestea and guess what, he lost his code S seed. I am not trying to say here that Ret should be punished hardcore, but I am trying to say that it is not a small matter.
Ret probably should not be allowed to take part in next two or three Dreamhack events?
That's my opinion, should just ban him from a couple events for wasting peoples time.
Should Sase be banned as well?
in my opinion (and bly's probably too), yes he should. WTF was he doing getting carriers and a mothershit with blys tournament on the line.
This is so subjective and unrealistic. It feels like some of you people live in a drama bubble.
I agree that neither Ret or Sase took their matches seriously, but why should they even play? Nothing stops them from forfeiting and leaving, they can claim they are hurt or injured if they want, are they going to be forced to play? Ideally I would like the players to play seriously every game. On the other side, player would like to not be forced to play meaningless games and reveal strategies and builds for future events.
it is disrespectful especially when other persons tournametn life depends on it to play like that, if they want to have fans they would play normal (there is a reason WHite-Ra hs more fans than ether of them cause he ALWAYS gives his best)
On November 24 2012 02:56 BeyondCtrL wrote: Seriously I would've thought Liquipedia would have control over who can alter these articles and that they would be trustworthy.
The point of Liquipedia (and Wikipedia) is public editing!
On November 24 2012 02:56 nikoYO wrote: noooooooo way dreamhack .....dune - hardcore vibes LOL these guys were friends with my uncle back in the day :D love it
On November 24 2012 02:44 Integra wrote: So did Naniwa advance or not??
He did.
Exactly how though?
Nightend beat Nani in their 1-1 and they had the same games won to loss ratio?
I do not understand this at all :S
try reading the thread?
3-2 = 1 3-3 = 0 1 > 0 Nani > Nightend
Yeah okay, brb reading 90 odd pages (Takes a while).
What the hell do you mean 3-2? All the games are Bo3?
Nani, ForGG and Nightend are all 2-3, 5-7 Internally they all beat eachother in a circle, however Nani won 2-0 over ForGG, where as ForGG and Nightend only won 2-1
thus Nani wins
Ouch okay.
Must say that is REALLY stupid. It's like 'hey I beat you but I lose because you beat someone else....'
Oh well, I'd rather have Nani through anyway (no offence to Nightend <3). Just think they could work it out a lot better!
It's more: "It's like 'hey I beat you but I lose because you beat someone else....'" against whom I lost. And that is what group stages are about, otherwise, if you only want 1v1s to count, don't have a groupstage
Of course I want group stages, everyone enjoys the ups and downs and 'what ifs', all I'm saying is I'd prefer a better way of working out who qualifies. If that means tie breakers, then gogo!
On November 24 2012 02:53 GrassEater wrote: Anyone remember the badmintone games at the olympics when the winner of a group would finish first in the group and play the world rank 1 or 2 team that finished second in the other group.
The players got dq:ed because they wanted to loose the game because they would get an easier quater finale. Here ppl throw games because they dont give a shit and it is unpunished. They would not become any worse if they win then if the loose, still they throw the game.
Do you remember in the olympics when the commentators went the whole event without swearing, or making jokes about each others mothers?
EPT
.
