|
Looks fair enough for the admin after all
But really.. How convenient it is for team GP
" for some reason like Ryung could only play online"
Lack of fair play maybe. Errr I may be too much a TL fan boy to argue further
Anyway GG harstem I can't wait to see your video about this little drama
|
On December 22 2021 04:14 hyuu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2021 04:01 Durrrrrrr wrote:On December 22 2021 00:37 WardiTV wrote:On December 21 2021 23:48 Durrrrrrr wrote:On December 21 2021 22:56 WardiTV wrote:On December 21 2021 22:43 lepricon1992 wrote:On December 21 2021 22:18 hyuu wrote:On December 21 2021 22:04 RichardStark wrote:
Well, according to Scboy's streaming, TL has used up all the chance to playing ahead, so TL has to seek for GP's agreement for playing ahead, naturally GP didn't agree with this proposal. And since TL has to change player before the match, which is sort of violating the rule(obviously it is unreasonable to change player after the playoffs have been decided), so GP is granted for some advantages during the match, and this is why they have the server advantages.
(Sorry for the broken English, but this is more or less what happened. that's so weird, when Admin told Team Liquid : "you can play ahead of time Clem, 100% guarenteed", TL should have understood "No you have used all your chances already" also it is understandable team GP wants to avoid to face Clem, but asking even more advantage over this looks a bit too much That's not "asking for more advantage" but a compromise from my point of view. Since TL has ran out their chance of playing ahead (which is 3 times per season), GP can easily reject their request and start with 2-0 if they really want. The admin may made mistake telling TL "100% guarenteed"(btw we don't if it's real or not), but the rule is always there. That's Liquid being punished further for the admins mistake, they wouldn't have picked Clem if the admin told them the true situation from the start? What do you mean about "true situation"? Liquid needs to know they have used all replay change. That is rule. Every team is same. I mean if Liquid asked the admin the admin should have said "No you used your three chances to play from replay." What I was told is they were told yes Clem could play from replay - I'm only making my judgement from what I have been told from those involved. Now the admin has replied. Your information is incorrect. Admin never said 100% guaranteed. You can't make accusations without clear information. Don't be so sure, you can't deny this without trustable source. what was mentioned in stream was : I have the screenshot in front of me, admin said yes 100%
Even if there's a "100% yes", it should happen before they told admin Clem could only play on those 1.5 days (19th and 20 morning) .
And even though things went like this, admin did consider rescheduling the match to 28th when Clem can come back, I think he kept his promise.
|
On December 22 2021 04:14 hyuu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2021 04:01 Durrrrrrr wrote:On December 22 2021 00:37 WardiTV wrote:On December 21 2021 23:48 Durrrrrrr wrote:On December 21 2021 22:56 WardiTV wrote:On December 21 2021 22:43 lepricon1992 wrote:On December 21 2021 22:18 hyuu wrote:On December 21 2021 22:04 RichardStark wrote:
Well, according to Scboy's streaming, TL has used up all the chance to playing ahead, so TL has to seek for GP's agreement for playing ahead, naturally GP didn't agree with this proposal. And since TL has to change player before the match, which is sort of violating the rule(obviously it is unreasonable to change player after the playoffs have been decided), so GP is granted for some advantages during the match, and this is why they have the server advantages.
(Sorry for the broken English, but this is more or less what happened. that's so weird, when Admin told Team Liquid : "you can play ahead of time Clem, 100% guarenteed", TL should have understood "No you have used all your chances already" also it is understandable team GP wants to avoid to face Clem, but asking even more advantage over this looks a bit too much That's not "asking for more advantage" but a compromise from my point of view. Since TL has ran out their chance of playing ahead (which is 3 times per season), GP can easily reject their request and start with 2-0 if they really want. The admin may made mistake telling TL "100% guarenteed"(btw we don't if it's real or not), but the rule is always there. That's Liquid being punished further for the admins mistake, they wouldn't have picked Clem if the admin told them the true situation from the start? What do you mean about "true situation"? Liquid needs to know they have used all replay change. That is rule. Every team is same. I mean if Liquid asked the admin the admin should have said "No you used your three chances to play from replay." What I was told is they were told yes Clem could play from replay - I'm only making my judgement from what I have been told from those involved. Now the admin has replied. Your information is incorrect. Admin never said 100% guaranteed. You can't make accusations without clear information. Don't be so sure, you can't deny this without trustable source. what was mentioned in stream was : I have the screenshot in front of me, admin said yes 100%
Well common sense has to kick in here. What would 100% mean? Say I request to play at 4am your time tomorrow, otherwise I have no time. If you don’t agree then it’s not 100%.
|
On December 22 2021 04:19 lepricon1992 wrote:
The organizer shouldn't be blamed like this at all, they did their job pretty well, as well as protecting rights of teams and players on both side.
Obviously the Organizer is the one to blame here.
While they tried their best to solve the situation here, the ruleset/ procedure picking the Players and scheduling would benefit from some reworks, for example clear Rules on when possible games from replays should be played and a standardised procedure on how to arrange that
|
Given the new information, I don't think there is necessarily a villain in this drama. We can be picky and say that all three ends could have done better but to me it is just miscommunication. (Let's also keep in mind that SCBoy, TL, and GP spoke three different mother tongues.)
|
China6330 Posts
Yeah tbh I think it's more of a mistake and more on TL and GP's side. The admin team did their best given the circumstances.
|
Best case scenario for Psistorm - but MaxPax/Gumiho really have to step up and deliver today.
|
On December 22 2021 05:24 dbRic1203 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2021 04:19 lepricon1992 wrote:
The organizer shouldn't be blamed like this at all, they did their job pretty well, as well as protecting rights of teams and players on both side. Obviously the Organizer is the one to blame here. While they tried their best to solve the situation here, the ruleset/ procedure picking the Players and scheduling would benefit from some reworks, for example clear Rules on when possible games from replays should be played and a standardised procedure on how to arrange that
You can't have a standard procedure negotiating between two teams from two different continents , consider the time difference, a single two–way message could easily cost 24 hrs.
|
On December 22 2021 18:11 lepricon1992 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2021 05:24 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 04:19 lepricon1992 wrote:
The organizer shouldn't be blamed like this at all, they did their job pretty well, as well as protecting rights of teams and players on both side. Obviously the Organizer is the one to blame here. While they tried their best to solve the situation here, the ruleset/ procedure picking the Players and scheduling would benefit from some reworks, for example clear Rules on when possible games from replays should be played and a standardised procedure on how to arrange that You can't have a standard procedure negotiating between two teams from two different continents , consider the time difference.
The standard could be that the teams say from the start player X can only play on day y and z.
Then the admin has all the information right from the start and there is no negotiation.
Also it would eliminate the problem that here Ryung allready knew, he d dodge Clem if he says, he can only play on matchday.
If the teams had to submit their prefered play days beforehand, that entire problem wouldn t occure.
In this situation the admin absolutly did his best. It was the procedure from the beginning that wasn t optimal.
So I blame the tournament organisers (as in the organisation, not the admin alone) on this happening.
It s their job to put in rules that make the competition as fair as possible and they failed to do so in this very special case.
(I m not saying they failed completly, this is still by far the best team league we had in years, I m glad we have it and I am realy thankfull) I just think it could be even better.
|
China6330 Posts
There is only so much you can do when you got ghosted by one side for 24 hours and did not receive enough information to make a decision from another.
|
On December 22 2021 18:31 dbRic1203 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2021 18:11 lepricon1992 wrote:On December 22 2021 05:24 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 04:19 lepricon1992 wrote:
The organizer shouldn't be blamed like this at all, they did their job pretty well, as well as protecting rights of teams and players on both side. Obviously the Organizer is the one to blame here. While they tried their best to solve the situation here, the ruleset/ procedure picking the Players and scheduling would benefit from some reworks, for example clear Rules on when possible games from replays should be played and a standardised procedure on how to arrange that You can't have a standard procedure negotiating between two teams from two different continents , consider the time difference. The standard could be that the teams say from the start player X can only play on day y and z. Then the admin has all the information right from the start and there is no negotiation. Also it would eliminate the problem that here Ryung allready knew, he d dodge Clem if he says, he can only play on matchday. If the teams had to submit their prefered play days beforehand, that entire problem wouldn t occure. In this situation the admin absolutly did his best. It was the procedure from the beginning that wasn t optimal. So I blame the tournament organisers (as in the organisation, not the admin alone) on this happening. It s their job to put in rules that make the competition as fair as possible and they failed to do so in this very special case. (I m not saying they failed completly, this is still by far the best team league we had in years, I m glad we have it and I am realy thankfull) I just think it could be even better.
But you should remember that the other team also has the right to set their request, just like in this case GP finally said they want 1-0 advantage although admin declined and offered them server advantage. It's not that easy like one team apply for rep and tell you when they could play then schedule can be confirmed, negotiation will always happen as long as rep application submits.
|
On December 22 2021 18:57 lepricon1992 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2021 18:31 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 18:11 lepricon1992 wrote:On December 22 2021 05:24 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 04:19 lepricon1992 wrote:
The organizer shouldn't be blamed like this at all, they did their job pretty well, as well as protecting rights of teams and players on both side. Obviously the Organizer is the one to blame here. While they tried their best to solve the situation here, the ruleset/ procedure picking the Players and scheduling would benefit from some reworks, for example clear Rules on when possible games from replays should be played and a standardised procedure on how to arrange that You can't have a standard procedure negotiating between two teams from two different continents , consider the time difference. The standard could be that the teams say from the start player X can only play on day y and z. Then the admin has all the information right from the start and there is no negotiation. Also it would eliminate the problem that here Ryung allready knew, he d dodge Clem if he says, he can only play on matchday. If the teams had to submit their prefered play days beforehand, that entire problem wouldn t occure. In this situation the admin absolutly did his best. It was the procedure from the beginning that wasn t optimal. So I blame the tournament organisers (as in the organisation, not the admin alone) on this happening. It s their job to put in rules that make the competition as fair as possible and they failed to do so in this very special case. (I m not saying they failed completly, this is still by far the best team league we had in years, I m glad we have it and I am realy thankfull) I just think it could be even better. But you should remember that the other team also has the right to set their request, just like in this case GP finally said they want 1-0 advantage although admin declined and offered them server advantage. It's not that easy like one team apply for rep and tell you when they could play then schedule can be confirmed, negotiation will always happen as long as rep application submits.
In my scenario the teams would have submittet there linups like this:
TL:
Clem (only on 19th or 20th)
Harstem (only live)
uThermal (live or 20th)
Substitute Kelazuhr (live or 20th)
GP
Ryung (only live)
Prince (19th or live)
Percival (20th or live)
Substitute Cham (19th, 20th or live)
then the Admin has complete information right from the start and can denie TL the replay games.
So there is no need for any negotiation, if there is a standard in place
|
On December 22 2021 19:47 dbRic1203 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2021 18:57 lepricon1992 wrote:On December 22 2021 18:31 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 18:11 lepricon1992 wrote:On December 22 2021 05:24 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 04:19 lepricon1992 wrote:
The organizer shouldn't be blamed like this at all, they did their job pretty well, as well as protecting rights of teams and players on both side. Obviously the Organizer is the one to blame here. While they tried their best to solve the situation here, the ruleset/ procedure picking the Players and scheduling would benefit from some reworks, for example clear Rules on when possible games from replays should be played and a standardised procedure on how to arrange that You can't have a standard procedure negotiating between two teams from two different continents , consider the time difference. The standard could be that the teams say from the start player X can only play on day y and z. Then the admin has all the information right from the start and there is no negotiation. Also it would eliminate the problem that here Ryung allready knew, he d dodge Clem if he says, he can only play on matchday. If the teams had to submit their prefered play days beforehand, that entire problem wouldn t occure. In this situation the admin absolutly did his best. It was the procedure from the beginning that wasn t optimal. So I blame the tournament organisers (as in the organisation, not the admin alone) on this happening. It s their job to put in rules that make the competition as fair as possible and they failed to do so in this very special case. (I m not saying they failed completly, this is still by far the best team league we had in years, I m glad we have it and I am realy thankfull) I just think it could be even better. But you should remember that the other team also has the right to set their request, just like in this case GP finally said they want 1-0 advantage although admin declined and offered them server advantage. It's not that easy like one team apply for rep and tell you when they could play then schedule can be confirmed, negotiation will always happen as long as rep application submits. In my scenario the teams would have submittet there linups like this: TL: Clem (only on 19th or 20th) Harstem (only live) uThermal (live or 20th) Substitute Kelazuhr (live or 20th) GP Ryung (only live) Prince (19th or live) Percival (20th or live) Substitute Cham (19th, 20th or live) then the Admin has complete information right from the start and can denie TL the replay games. So there is no need for any negotiation, if there is a standard in place
in this case:
You can't say no to Clem before the line up is decided for both team, cause if it's Clem vs Prince/Percival there is no time clash. And after line up is decided, it would be unfair to change player roster.
So your standard could not work. Unless you're rejecting any potential scedule conflict, which means almost not possible for any replay games request get apporved.
|
On December 22 2021 20:01 lzhalzx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2021 19:47 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 18:57 lepricon1992 wrote:On December 22 2021 18:31 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 18:11 lepricon1992 wrote:On December 22 2021 05:24 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 04:19 lepricon1992 wrote:
The organizer shouldn't be blamed like this at all, they did their job pretty well, as well as protecting rights of teams and players on both side. Obviously the Organizer is the one to blame here. While they tried their best to solve the situation here, the ruleset/ procedure picking the Players and scheduling would benefit from some reworks, for example clear Rules on when possible games from replays should be played and a standardised procedure on how to arrange that You can't have a standard procedure negotiating between two teams from two different continents , consider the time difference. The standard could be that the teams say from the start player X can only play on day y and z. Then the admin has all the information right from the start and there is no negotiation. Also it would eliminate the problem that here Ryung allready knew, he d dodge Clem if he says, he can only play on matchday. If the teams had to submit their prefered play days beforehand, that entire problem wouldn t occure. In this situation the admin absolutly did his best. It was the procedure from the beginning that wasn t optimal. So I blame the tournament organisers (as in the organisation, not the admin alone) on this happening. It s their job to put in rules that make the competition as fair as possible and they failed to do so in this very special case. (I m not saying they failed completly, this is still by far the best team league we had in years, I m glad we have it and I am realy thankfull) I just think it could be even better. But you should remember that the other team also has the right to set their request, just like in this case GP finally said they want 1-0 advantage although admin declined and offered them server advantage. It's not that easy like one team apply for rep and tell you when they could play then schedule can be confirmed, negotiation will always happen as long as rep application submits. In my scenario the teams would have submittet there linups like this: TL: Clem (only on 19th or 20th) Harstem (only live) uThermal (live or 20th) Substitute Kelazuhr (live or 20th) GP Ryung (only live) Prince (19th or live) Percival (20th or live) Substitute Cham (19th, 20th or live) then the Admin has complete information right from the start and can denie TL the replay games. So there is no need for any negotiation, if there is a standard in place in this case: You can't say no to Clem before the line up is decided for both team, cause if it's Clem vs Prince/Percival there is no time clash. And after line up is decided, it would be unfair to change player roster. So your standard could not work. Unless you're rejecting any potential scedule conflict, which means almost not possible for any replay games request get apporved.
The teams don t know the maps in advance anyways. So it shouldn t be a problem when in this case the admin just asks TL, if they want to swap Harstem and Clem or substitute Kelazhur in. Without them knowing their opponent, just based on availabiltiy.
Because the admin gets the availability from the start, he can just adress the team, that requested an replay match without disclosing the opponets players.
So there would never be a scenario, where Ryung is asked, do you want to play vs Clem on the 20th or force another opponent on the 21st, wich is bad for obvious reasons.
|
On December 22 2021 20:16 dbRic1203 wrote:
The teams don t know the maps in advance anyways. So it shouldn t be a problem when in this case the admin just asks TL, if they want to swap Harstem and Clem or substitute Kelazhur in. Without them knowing their opponent, just based on availabiltiy.
Because the admin gets the availability from the start, he can just adress the team, that requested an replay match without disclosing the opponets players.
So there would never be a scenario, where Ryung is asked, do you want to play vs Clem on the 20th or force another opponent on the 21st, wich is bad for obvious reasons.
Image this
GGG vs GP, game on 10th. i'm GGG's team leader, and i don't want dream be caught by Ryung. And I know Ryung is playing another tourney on 8th night, so i tell the orgnizer that dream can only play a replay game on 8th night before submitting the line up. then i can got a free chance to swap my players (as i don't have any substitute player) if dream vs ryung happens.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On December 22 2021 20:16 dbRic1203 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2021 20:01 lzhalzx wrote:On December 22 2021 19:47 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 18:57 lepricon1992 wrote:On December 22 2021 18:31 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 18:11 lepricon1992 wrote:On December 22 2021 05:24 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 04:19 lepricon1992 wrote:
The organizer shouldn't be blamed like this at all, they did their job pretty well, as well as protecting rights of teams and players on both side. Obviously the Organizer is the one to blame here. While they tried their best to solve the situation here, the ruleset/ procedure picking the Players and scheduling would benefit from some reworks, for example clear Rules on when possible games from replays should be played and a standardised procedure on how to arrange that You can't have a standard procedure negotiating between two teams from two different continents , consider the time difference. The standard could be that the teams say from the start player X can only play on day y and z. Then the admin has all the information right from the start and there is no negotiation. Also it would eliminate the problem that here Ryung allready knew, he d dodge Clem if he says, he can only play on matchday. If the teams had to submit their prefered play days beforehand, that entire problem wouldn t occure. In this situation the admin absolutly did his best. It was the procedure from the beginning that wasn t optimal. So I blame the tournament organisers (as in the organisation, not the admin alone) on this happening. It s their job to put in rules that make the competition as fair as possible and they failed to do so in this very special case. (I m not saying they failed completly, this is still by far the best team league we had in years, I m glad we have it and I am realy thankfull) I just think it could be even better. But you should remember that the other team also has the right to set their request, just like in this case GP finally said they want 1-0 advantage although admin declined and offered them server advantage. It's not that easy like one team apply for rep and tell you when they could play then schedule can be confirmed, negotiation will always happen as long as rep application submits. In my scenario the teams would have submittet there linups like this: TL: Clem (only on 19th or 20th) Harstem (only live) uThermal (live or 20th) Substitute Kelazuhr (live or 20th) GP Ryung (only live) Prince (19th or live) Percival (20th or live) Substitute Cham (19th, 20th or live) then the Admin has complete information right from the start and can denie TL the replay games. So there is no need for any negotiation, if there is a standard in place in this case: You can't say no to Clem before the line up is decided for both team, cause if it's Clem vs Prince/Percival there is no time clash. And after line up is decided, it would be unfair to change player roster. So your standard could not work. Unless you're rejecting any potential scedule conflict, which means almost not possible for any replay games request get apporved. The teams don t know the maps in advance anyways. So it shouldn t be a problem when in this case the admin just asks TL, if they want to swap Harstem and Clem or substitute Kelazhur in. Without them knowing their opponent, just based on availabiltiy. Because the admin gets the availability from the start, he can just adress the team, that requested an replay match without disclosing the opponets players. So there would never be a scenario, where Ryung is asked, do you want to play vs Clem on the 20th or force another opponent on the 21st, wich is bad for obvious reasons.
I don't think you can ask from player to be available 2-3 days every week and make up the calendar as you go. It's an admin nightmare and you are setting up players to make mistake.
I think the easiest is just: The team wanting to play from replay need an agreement from the other team to do so, if they don't get it, they need a designated sub on the day or a forfeit the bo2. The TO can change the day/hours of the match as they please if they deamed so necessary, it apply to all players.
At the end of the day, if you can't be there at the time of the match, you can't be there. If it was offline no one would challenge that.
|
I think it can be simply resolved by getting rosters set a few days earlier. You don't need to add rules, it has clearly worked for the most part until this time which was caused by not having enough time for players to play the game.
These guys are all pros, I think if you have the rosters set one week in advance instead of two days it would be extremely rare you can't get a match played ahead of time (I don't think I've ever had issues with someone wanting to play ahead of time and their opponents not being able to out of a lot of tournament experience, but obviously it depends how much time there is to figure these things out.)
Reading the statement it's clearly just unfortunate - TL assumed that Clem would be able to play beforehand based on the rules and the fact its happened frequently, GP didn't respond right away / their player couldn't play once he knew and the admins didn't know enough to resolve it any better than they did. Unfortunate that it happened, but the event has been great otherwise 
|
On December 22 2021 21:04 WardiTV wrote:
I think it can be simply resolved by getting rosters set a few days earlier. You don't need to add rules, it has clearly worked for the most part until this time which was caused by not having enough time for players to play the game.
Fair enough
Just submitting the lineups once all matches from the previous week are done, should be eough.
Somehow I wasn t thinking about just submitting it earlier at all, that would probably do the trick
On December 22 2021 21:04 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2021 20:16 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 20:01 lzhalzx wrote:On December 22 2021 19:47 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 18:57 lepricon1992 wrote:On December 22 2021 18:31 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 18:11 lepricon1992 wrote:On December 22 2021 05:24 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 22 2021 04:19 lepricon1992 wrote:
The organizer shouldn't be blamed like this at all, they did their job pretty well, as well as protecting rights of teams and players on both side. Obviously the Organizer is the one to blame here. While they tried their best to solve the situation here, the ruleset/ procedure picking the Players and scheduling would benefit from some reworks, for example clear Rules on when possible games from replays should be played and a standardised procedure on how to arrange that You can't have a standard procedure negotiating between two teams from two different continents , consider the time difference. The standard could be that the teams say from the start player X can only play on day y and z. Then the admin has all the information right from the start and there is no negotiation. Also it would eliminate the problem that here Ryung allready knew, he d dodge Clem if he says, he can only play on matchday. If the teams had to submit their prefered play days beforehand, that entire problem wouldn t occure. In this situation the admin absolutly did his best. It was the procedure from the beginning that wasn t optimal. So I blame the tournament organisers (as in the organisation, not the admin alone) on this happening. It s their job to put in rules that make the competition as fair as possible and they failed to do so in this very special case. (I m not saying they failed completly, this is still by far the best team league we had in years, I m glad we have it and I am realy thankfull) I just think it could be even better. But you should remember that the other team also has the right to set their request, just like in this case GP finally said they want 1-0 advantage although admin declined and offered them server advantage. It's not that easy like one team apply for rep and tell you when they could play then schedule can be confirmed, negotiation will always happen as long as rep application submits. In my scenario the teams would have submittet there linups like this: TL: Clem (only on 19th or 20th) Harstem (only live) uThermal (live or 20th) Substitute Kelazuhr (live or 20th) GP Ryung (only live) Prince (19th or live) Percival (20th or live) Substitute Cham (19th, 20th or live) then the Admin has complete information right from the start and can denie TL the replay games. So there is no need for any negotiation, if there is a standard in place in this case: You can't say no to Clem before the line up is decided for both team, cause if it's Clem vs Prince/Percival there is no time clash. And after line up is decided, it would be unfair to change player roster. So your standard could not work. Unless you're rejecting any potential scedule conflict, which means almost not possible for any replay games request get apporved. The teams don t know the maps in advance anyways. So it shouldn t be a problem when in this case the admin just asks TL, if they want to swap Harstem and Clem or substitute Kelazhur in. Without them knowing their opponent, just based on availabiltiy. Because the admin gets the availability from the start, he can just adress the team, that requested an replay match without disclosing the opponets players. So there would never be a scenario, where Ryung is asked, do you want to play vs Clem on the 20th or force another opponent on the 21st, wich is bad for obvious reasons. I don't think you can ask from player to be available 2-3 days every week and make up the calendar as you go..
I think you can. At the end of the day the players are paid to play there. We all are asked to be available for our jobs as well. And while hours are a lot more flexible now while working from home, we all still have mandatory meetings/ hours/ .. where we have to show up. It s not unreaslonable to ask PRO players to do the same imo
|
Canada8989 Posts
Since I won't be able to watch it live, I just want to wish good luck to my favorite Gumibear, hopefully he can't bring some GSTL magic to carry PSI to the playoff!!
|
France12904 Posts
Maru and Bunny were on point, great to see.
I hope they will be able to defend their title, having a good seed is the first step towards playoffs victory
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
