AW's European Nation Tournament

[I_love_desk]

I never knew about Sweden using it as you know. The rule is fair if you decide REDO or NO REDO on the spot, not at the end of a game because that is in no way fair to the other team.

They basically have to play to win for nothing, whereas if you win, you can get the win. There's no possible way for the other team to get the win as you can simply say 'redo'.

Regarding this:
"However I think that it would be bs that if one of the members died to a hacker and the other 2 pull of a 2v3 if the round had to be restarted."

That's your risk if you decide to continue. You choose when your player dies, if you wish to continue then and you win then yes that's fair. However, if you say redo and you win, then still no-win, you get a redo simple as.

That's the only fair way in my opinion, and well, it's pretty clear that's the only fair way for both teams.

I agree 100% with what you mean on the rule, but is it really worth leaving the tournament over? AW has done an amazing job of running this so far, there have been similar tournaments before which haven't made it anywhere near this far, and of course there are going to be a few problems. Even as a member of the team who got "BS"ed on that is pretty annoyed, I'm still really happy with how the tournament is going :/

 

[bcfcAnt]

I agree 100% with what you mean on the rule, but is it really worth leaving the tournament over? AW has done an amazing job of running this so far, there have been similar tournaments before which haven't made it anywhere near this far, and of course there are going to be a few problems. Even as a member of the team who got "BS"ed on that is pretty annoyed, I'm still really happy with how the tournament is going :/

I said the tournament has been going well and it's been well organised but yes, to answer your question. It is worth leaving because I don't feel like playing games where I try to win, just for the other team to decide they get a 'redo' after the match has been played.

However, if they win, they get the win. I'd rather move away from this as it's totally unfair.

What's the point in playing, if you can't get the win, but they can? That's why I left.

 

[Vietnow]

I never knew about Sweden using it as you know. The rule is fair if you decide REDO or NO REDO on the spot, not at the end of a game because that is in no way fair to the other team.

They basically have to play to win for nothing, whereas if you win, you can get the win. There's no possible way for the other team to get the win as you can simply say 'redo'.

Regarding this:
"However I think that it would be bs that if one of the members died to a hacker and the other 2 pull of a 2v3 if the round had to be restarted."

That's your risk if you decide to continue. You choose when your player dies, if you wish to continue then and you win then yes that's fair. However, if you say redo and you win, then still no-win, you get a redo simple as.

That's the only fair way in my opinion, and well, it's pretty clear that's the only fair way for both teams.

Narwhal and me already talked to each other in the middle of the game and we both decided, that a redo would be the best thing to do, it's sad that you left the tourney and i hope you had a nice time playing, but there is no reason to cause 'flame' or whatever on this thread, you propably have Andreas on skype so why just not talk to him there?

 

[bcfcAnt]

Narwhal and me already talked to each other in the middle of the game and we both decided, that a redo would be the best thing to do, it's sad that you left the tourney and i hope you had a nice time playing, but there is no reason to cause 'flame' or whatever on this thread, you propably have Andreas on skype so why just not talk to him there?

I'm not causing flame, and I said calling a redo is fair if you choose straight away. Just not choosing after the game, it's not fair. I just feel like people who are in this tournament should know about this 'rule'. I'm trying to better the tournament by stating what is fair and what's not fair.

Flame and having a discussion is two different things, clearly you're seeing it the wrong way.

 

[Vietnow]

I'm not causing flame, and I said calling a redo is fair if you choose straight away. Just not choosing after the game, it's not fair. I just feel like people who are in this tournament should know about this 'rule'. I'm trying to better the tournament by stating what is fair and what's not fair.

Flame and having a discussion is two different things, clearly you're seeing it the wrong way.

how do people decide if its a redo ingame when they have to fight. a rule is a rule
ALSO: as i said in the post before me and narwhal talked about it INGAME and decided that it should be counted as a redo.

 

[bcfcAnt]

how do people decide if its a redo ingame when they have to fight. a rule is a rule
ALSO: as i said in the post before me and narwhal talked about it INGAME and decided that it should be counted as a redo.

You're not listening to my point. Yes, a redo is fair if you call a redo as soon as the player dies. You did do that, yes, fair enough however let me explain more to you.

Now, this brings the situation to Rest of GB gaining a 3v2 advantage, however, you've already agreed a redo, so it doesn't matter.

One of Rest of GB's members died, bringing it to 2v2, suddenly the chat wakes up with "We can choose to redo or not at the end of the game." So, yes.

What you were all basically saying is that, if you win then you don't need to redo, even though you already said it. Oh, but if you lose, you redo.

Now explain to me how that is fair, because I can't see one way that is fair for the Rest of GB team.

So again, for you. My point is:
Whoever's team dies to a hacker, and has sufficient proof decides whether the match is a redo immediately. Not after the game has finished. Why? It's simple as I've explained, here's the outcomes.

1. You win the game, you decide it's a no redo.
2. You lose the game, you decide it's a redo.

Either way you're getting the advantage as the other team CAN NOT win that round no matter what but the team who had a player killed by a hacker CAN still win.

I believe that proves my point enough, and I believe that rule should be changed as it's a completely unfair rule.

So you're at a disadvantage because a player died to a hacker?
Okay, now you choose whether you want to continue or redo immediately. If you decide to continue that's your risk. If you decide to redo then it's a redo no matter the outcome.

I hope that's explained enough for you. Again, not trying to cause flame, I'm trying to improve AW1996's tournament, as I've said it's been great so far except for this one rule. If this rule was changed to a way it will be more fair, then I would like to join back, if you'd let me of course since I left it. However, if that rule stays, I'd rather stay well away from it for the simple fact:

I don't want to play a match where the other team dies to a hacker therefore we can no longer win said match but the other team can, as it wouldn't be my fault that team died to a hacker, why should I get a disadvantage by not being able to win the game.

Sorry if you see this as a flame however it's not. Take it as constructive criticism to improve.

Oh, I apologize for accusing Germany for being biased as Sweden apparently done the exact same thing. I didn't have knowledge of that. I still do believe this rule needs to change.

Best of luck with the rest of the tournament.

 

[MahxiXBL]

You're not listening to my point. Yes, a redo is fair if you call a redo as soon as the player dies. You did do that, yes, fair enough however let me explain more to you.

Now, this brings the situation to Rest of GB gaining a 3v2 advantage, however, you've already agreed a redo, so it doesn't matter.

One of Rest of GB's members died, bringing it to 2v2, suddenly the chat wakes up with "We can choose to redo or not at the end of the game." So, yes.

What you were all basically saying is that, if you win then you don't need to redo, even though you already said it. Oh, but if you lose, you redo.

Now explain to me how that is fair, because I can't see one way that is fair for the Rest of GB team.

So again, for you. My point is:
Whoever's team dies to a hacker, and has sufficient proof decides whether the match is a redo immediately. Not after the game has finished. Why? It's simple as I've explained, here's the outcomes.

1. You win the game, you decide it's a no redo.
2. You lose the game, you decide it's a redo.

Either way you're getting the advantage as the other team CAN NOT win that round no matter what but the team who had a player killed by a hacker CAN still win.

I believe that proves my point enough, and I believe that rule should be changed as it's a completely unfair rule.

So you're at a disadvantage because a player died to a hacker?
Okay, now you choose whether you want to continue or redo immediately. If you decide to continue that's your risk. If you decide to redo then it's a redo no matter the outcome.

I hope that's explained enough for you. Again, not trying to cause flame, I'm trying to improve AW1996's tournament, as I've said it's been great so far except for this one rule. If this rule was changed to a way it will be more fair, then I would like to join back, if you'd let me of course since I left it. However, if that rule stays, I'd rather stay well away from it for the simple fact:

I don't want to play a match where the other team dies to a hacker therefore we can no longer win said match but the other team can, as it wouldn't be my fault that team died to a hacker, why should I get a disadvantage by not being able to win the game.

Sorry if you see this as a flame however it's not. Take it as constructive criticism to improve.

Oh, I apologize for accusing Germany for being biased as Sweden apparently done the exact same thing. I didn't have knowledge of that. I still do believe this rule needs to change.

Best of luck with the rest of the tournament.

OOOOOOOOoooooo kilem

 

[bcfcAnt]

OOOOOOOOoooooo kilem

Such an artist, teach me god

 

[Frazzel]

im not even involved in this torney, but hey, what can i say...

You're not listening to my point. Yes, a redo is fair if you call a redo as soon as the player dies. You did do that, yes, fair enough however let me explain more to you.

Now, this brings the situation to Rest of GB gaining a 3v2 advantage, however, you've already agreed a redo, so it doesn't matter.

One of Rest of GB's members died, bringing it to 2v2, suddenly the chat wakes up with "We can choose to redo or not at the end of the game." So, yes.

What you were all basically saying is that, if you win then you don't need to redo, even though you already said it. Oh, but if you lose, you redo.

Now explain to me how that is fair, because I can't see one way that is fair for the Rest of GB team.

So again, for you. My point is:
Whoever's team dies to a hacker, and has sufficient proof decides whether the match is a redo immediately. Not after the game has finished. Why? It's simple as I've explained, here's the outcomes.

1. You win the game, you decide it's a no redo.
2. You lose the game, you decide it's a redo.

Either way you're getting the advantage as the other team CAN NOT win that round no matter what but the team who had a player killed by a hacker CAN still win.

I believe that proves my point enough, and I believe that rule should be changed as it's a completely unfair rule.

So you're at a disadvantage because a player died to a hacker?
Okay, now you choose whether you want to continue or redo immediately. If you decide to continue that's your risk. If you decide to redo then it's a redo no matter the outcome.

I hope that's explained enough for you. Again, not trying to cause flame, I'm trying to improve AW1996's tournament, as I've said it's been great so far except for this one rule. If this rule was changed to a way it will be more fair, then I would like to join back, if you'd let me of course since I left it. However, if that rule stays, I'd rather stay well away from it for the simple fact:

I don't want to play a match where the other team dies to a hacker therefore we can no longer win said match but the other team can, as it wouldn't be my fault that team died to a hacker, why should I get a disadvantage by not being able to win the game.

Sorry if you see this as a flame however it's not. Take it as constructive criticism to improve.

Oh, I apologize for accusing Germany for being biased as Sweden apparently done the exact same thing. I didn't have knowledge of that. I still do believe this rule needs to change.

Best of luck with the rest of the tournament.

Yep Ik Now This post = GG 12 !! (felt like gappling when i had time inbetween hits)

 

[AW1996]

Any advancements on a roster change that sees myself added to the England crew yhyh?

why not, one player leaving, another one joining

You're not listening to my point. Yes, a redo is fair if you call a redo as soon as the player dies. You did do that, yes, fair enough however let me explain more to you.

Now, this brings the situation to Rest of GB gaining a 3v2 advantage, however, you've already agreed a redo, so it doesn't matter.

One of Rest of GB's members died, bringing it to 2v2, suddenly the chat wakes up with "We can choose to redo or not at the end of the game." So, yes.

What you were all basically saying is that, if you win then you don't need to redo, even though you already said it. Oh, but if you lose, you redo.

Now explain to me how that is fair, because I can't see one way that is fair for the Rest of GB team.

So again, for you. My point is:
Whoever's team dies to a hacker, and has sufficient proof decides whether the match is a redo immediately. Not after the game has finished. Why? It's simple as I've explained, here's the outcomes.

1. You win the game, you decide it's a no redo.
2. You lose the game, you decide it's a redo.

Either way you're getting the advantage as the other team CAN NOT win that round no matter what but the team who had a player killed by a hacker CAN still win.

I believe that proves my point enough, and I believe that rule should be changed as it's a completely unfair rule.

So you're at a disadvantage because a player died to a hacker?
Okay, now you choose whether you want to continue or redo immediately. If you decide to continue that's your risk. If you decide to redo then it's a redo no matter the outcome.

I hope that's explained enough for you. Again, not trying to cause flame, I'm trying to improve AW1996's tournament, as I've said it's been great so far except for this one rule. If this rule was changed to a way it will be more fair, then I would like to join back, if you'd let me of course since I left it. However, if that rule stays, I'd rather stay well away from it for the simple fact:

I don't want to play a match where the other team dies to a hacker therefore we can no longer win said match but the other team can, as it wouldn't be my fault that team died to a hacker, why should I get a disadvantage by not being able to win the game.

Sorry if you see this as a flame however it's not. Take it as constructive criticism to improve.

Oh, I apologize for accusing Germany for being biased as Sweden apparently done the exact same thing. I didn't have knowledge of that. I still do believe this rule needs to change.

Best of luck with the rest of the tournament.

I get what you mean and I'm seeing it as constructive criticism and not as flame. I have never thought about it that way and even if I didn't plan to do this, will change the rule now if it makes everything fair for all players involved. Thank you for stating your opinion on this and I hope you will join back!

OOOOOOOOoooooo kilem

hahahahahahaha :'D the post wasn't even directed at me but still funny ;D

 

[bcfcAnt]

why not, one player leaving, another one joining

I get what you mean and I'm seeing it as constructive criticism and not as flame. I have never thought about it that way and even if I didn't plan to do this, will change the rule now if it makes everything fair for all players involved. Thank you for stating your opinion on this and I hope you will join back!

hahahahahahaha :'D the post wasn't even directed at me but still funny ;D

Thanks, I'd like to join back, sure. CommunisticPuppy was accusing me of causing flame, that's why I said that

Glad you decided to change it Tournament has been excellent so far.

If rossiebalboa took my place then that's fine xD

 

[rossiebalboa]

Thanks, I'd like to join back, sure. CommunisticPuppy was accusing me of causing flame, that's why I said that

Glad you decided to change it Tournament has been excellent so far.

If rossiebalboa took my place then that's fine xD

;-----;