Regarding the pandora vs sage replay of a replay.

[PjOtTeR]

pjotter, since your european ill cut you some slack. Damnifier lagged in our first match reason he went 0-4 he coudlnt see shit and we had to sub him. But was better soon after, so yes we were affected by lag. Also, i do back up all the shit i talked, i didnt choke vs "sage" i continued my steamrolling ways, like i steamrolled your squad in pre-season and will do again reg season. Be sure to show up pjotter.

I could put a post with endless quotes of you talking shit on here, and then results of games you couldn't back ur shit up... It's like you have to assholes, and to top that you are one urself, since all your mouth produces is utter crap, while ur basicly the portraying of utter crap...

You saying you always backed ur big mouth up is like da1 saying he never had a crush on Xog...

This is all I will say on this matter because I cannot communicate with selfrighteous buckets of piss like yours truely.

[Zingy]

So, Zingy, it's not something as simple as "if one game lags, the rest must lag", it can vary from game to game. It doesn't need divine intervention.

Wow, way to oversimplify my statements. That is not at all what I implied.

Obviously there have been incidents where one game might have been affected by lag while another was not. But as you can see in this list below, several games were affected by lag, meaning it was obvious that many players were affected and that this was a "general" lag situation with the server and not an isolated incident in which only a few players in one game was affected.

There were 4 games that were played and later replayed:

1. Thunder v MYM
2. Pandora v Sage
3. Dice v Mambo
4. Plade v Hydra

According to staff, 3 of those games had extreme server lag... enough to justify a replay. Yet according to staff, the outcome of Pandora's game was not affected by lag. Interesting, considering how a close game like 49-50 could have easily tipped the other way because of lag.

How confidently can we claim whether the lag in the Pandora game was sufficient to affect the game? Afterall can't someone argue that that is a subjective matter? Well not really, let's take another look:

There is no doubt that during that timeslot there was general server lag which affected the games taking place during that timeslot. Yes, perhaps not every single player was affected, but the fact is that there was enough server lag, which caused all 4 games to be replayed.

There is no reason for only 3 of those replays to stand, but 1 of them to be thrown out.

Regardless of what Gallelo (the host) felt regarding the lag situation, the Pandora v Sage game was very close 49-50 - close enough that even marginal lag could have easily changed the outcome. It is very likely that the server situation did affect the Pandora game sufficiently (after all many people were affected) so to have merited the replay. Even if Galleleo felt lag did not affect the game, was the server situation so forgiving that in this ONE game out of 4 being played at the time, the lag did not affect anything in any way at all?

Therefore, due to the 49-50 close game and the fact that there was general server lag - a replay was merited (because lag could have affected the outcome of the game).

A replay between Pandora v. Sage was played.

Pandora won the replay.

There is no reason for another replay, since the first replay already intended to resolve the issue with the initial game.

The ONLY logical reason for another replay would be if the replay (the game played after the voided game) was itself flawed in some way. Since it wasn't, there is no need for another replay.

[Chao.]

And you're once again trying to undermine what the host of the game said - There wasn't a problem with lag in the game and he didn't see any reason for it to be replayed. Regardless of what the host felt, there must have been marginal lag? Were you there? Games have individual hosts for a reason, and i'm sorry, but if he says he didn't see anything I consider it a lot more credible source than you saying "It was general server lag". SOME people were affected much more than anyone else, mostly in a certain area of Europe and other isolated locations. You weren't at the game watching it the whole time to my knowledge so you really can't just say lag affected the outcome. You're tossing a guess out.

[Zingy]

i'm sorry, but if he says he didn't see anything I consider it a lot more credible source than you saying "It was general server lag".

Chao, is using attacks on credibility really the best approach here? Frankly i'm disappointed, I was hoping you could refute one of my main points instead of you just blindly throwing your support behind another person's beliefs.

[MirrorriM]

Actually, he can attack credibility, because he is siding with the host--a non biased ref--whereas you're telling Chao he should listen to you, a member of Pandora. Attacking your credibility would be saying something like "I dont believe you because only stupid people have the name zingy." So in this case, he isnt blindly trusting someone but listening to someone who isnt completely biased (although many can argue that too, but then we could never have any hosts for TWL). I read the log, I saw Gall saying over and over that his game was completely fine--no one complained about lag to him.

[eelam <tw>]

re

All these decisions are made subjectively, because well its very hard to be objective in these situations. But like Zingy said, the only way the we should have a rematch is if Staff took into consideration that the first game was valid, therefore implying that only Pandora's first game is valid while every1 else's wasn't which again shows biased towards us. Not only that, but staff has to prove that our players who were in, yes we had 3 euros in weren't lagging by the server which they share with other euros, but the rest of the euros were lagging :P. Galle was told to kill the game by a TWL STAFF member, but he decided not to, and this is why all this chaos is here in the first place. Galle is just a pond and should have listened to his superiors. Fire his newby ass, for he is the reason for all this chaos.

[MirrorriM]

No, you have to prove you were lagging :-P based on the log, no one told Gall they were having problems. Whereas in the other games, players were having serious lag issues. The TWL Ops should have listened to Gall, he did the right thing by letting the game finish.

[MetalHeadz]

As for this decision to replay a replay, the difference between these two replays is that in the first one, both teams were cheated out of a game that had no problems. In the second replay, only Pandora is being cheated because the second game was fair to both teams.

Ok, so sage weren't cheated out of the first game? I think it's fair to say they were to an extent. The fact of the matter is, you carried on playing that first game. If you knew it was a replay you should have all specced but by participating in the game you accept, to an extent, that the score of the game stands as a statistical representation of the game you played. Whether you 'tried' or not is arbitrary.

A third game seems fair - if you're better than them as you so adamently claim you have nothing to worry about. Can we stop this culture of coming onto the forums and bitching about every staff decision that doesn't go your way...jesus.

[kronic]

If nothing went wrong in your game Sage should have took game one with no complaints, staff should have dealt with each case separatly. Some had lag, some didnt, but Sage should have the win.

Also, games being replayed wasent made official until after they had all finished.

[kronic]

And why does everyone keep thinking it was only Euro's. I live in Canada and had 600ms during the pointless rnd 1, so did other Canucks

[Jones]

hey everyone

v
v
v
v

[Vatican Assassin]

Ok, so sage weren't cheated out of the first game? I think it's fair to say they were to an extent. The fact of the matter is, you carried on playing that first game. If you knew it was a replay you should have all specced but by participating in the game you accept, to an extent, that the score of the game stands as a statistical representation of the game you played. Whether you 'tried' or not is arbitrary.

A third game seems fair - if you're better than them as you so adamently claim you have nothing to worry about. Can we stop this culture of coming onto the forums and bitching about every staff decision that doesn't go your way...jesus.

Does this mean that in the future when staff tells us that a game is going to be canceled and replayed, but then after its over and they realize they made a mistake and they shouldn't have canceled it, that the game retroactively becomes valid and a best of 3 games is set up? Seriously is this a new rule?

This is old news but I just want everyone to know that vatican is not pleased. When staff announces that a game is being replayed, it doesn't matter what-so-ever who does what afterwards and what the score was at the time. Its being replayed, its over, invalid, new game. Of course both teams kept playing, you don't just spec and hope you don't get fucked, but you can't play normally because in the back of your mind you know that it doesn't count. Now sage won the game, but I don't know about their chat, but ours was filled with a lot of "wtf, keep playing, it doesnt matter so keep playing", everything is chaos and no matter who wins both teams know that it won't count.

Let me make myself clear, by having a third match, you (staff) are legitimitizing the first game.

The first game which you made void by telling us it doesn't count even though nothing was wrong at all. This was a mistake on your part, live up to it please. What you have done, in effect, is this: you have told us during the first game that it doesn't count, then you made it count after we won the second game. Staff> first game is invalid cuz of lag all games are going to be replayed, ok except your game cuz even though we said it doesn't count, now it does.

I hope you see a problem here. This is not bitching metalheadz, its a legitimate complaint.

[Turban]

I agree with what Vatican.. but hey, it's Pandora!

[MetalHeadz]

Ok Vati, fair comment.

At the end of the day there was a fuck up - both teams feel cheated. The only way to settle this, to assertain which squad is truly better, is to play a 3rd match. Sucks for you if you think you deserved it, I know some think sage deserve it.

[PjOtTeR]

A lot of talk but dun want to lenghten my post to extreme lenghts

Few seasons back I remember playing -Final- In twlj quarterfinals... Was a lot of botproblems or lagproblems that game, which caused the game to take a pretty long time. We had 2 games played, one won by -Final- and one by Pirates, when -Final- didn't want to play the 3rd on the rule that you dont have to play a replay or anything if it isn't within half an hour blah blah thingy.. (one game was ended half way through cus of lag or bot not sure anymore)...

Then Staff forced -Final- to play a second round, knowing why they didn't want to play it and such, while basing that decision with the same insights they had when overruling that same decision. So yes, they overruled that decision, because they, after evaluation thought they made the wrong decision... and played the final round a week later...
That is basicly what happened here aswell: They make the decision of having a replay, while no replay was needed cause lag didn't affect the game ( by hosts point of view ). Then you win that replay, and staff see's how they made the wrong decision for letting that replay be played.. and they basicly even have some sympathy for you by having a replay in the replay week.