- Best answers
Honestly, this is all quite silly. I was hoping to avoid this drama, but, once again, it seems like it needs to be stirred up.BoPoH said:We dont think him as advantage, according to the ping he was balancing it.Mr.X said:Obviously you think it's an advantage to have him
Please, tell me where it is said, that we must say that our player is from USA. Any rule or so on.
Also, he was late for the begining of the game.
Anyway, you won, I just hate when referees create new rules during the match.
You must be joking to think that, in this situation of playing a "home" and "away" server type set-up, that it's not a huge blow to the fairness of the system to have a player on your team that pings better to our "home" server than we do. Givi, the player in question, was subbed in a week prior to the match, did not play on your server, and lives in America. It wasn't a "new rule created", it was a judgment call done by Lust to protect the fairness of the match and keep as even a playing field as possible -- You guys had 8 without him, so subbing him in for our server and taking him out for your server is not only unnecessary, it's just not really that fair, to be quite frank.
The entire problem lies soley on the fact that we spent so long attempting to make the matches fair, pingwise, for both parties, and they were as fair as could be expected by both sides, even if I had to play with 170 ping on your server. It's not even so much about averages as it's about you having a slight advantage on your server of choice, and a slight disadvantage on the away server. Givi's presence places someone who, on your "away" server (our "home"), you have a player that has an amazing ping, and his survivability is just as high as ours. I think we can all agree that in a high ping situation, your options as a player decrease, and you're forced to play extremely passively. Both teams take this into account when devising tactics and classes, yet Givi living in the USA and pinging lower to our server than we do throws that into a mess. All of the fairness and work was put in with the understanding the Ukraine was playing the USA, and it was a silent, unwritten understanding by all that when, attempting to figure out what servers would be most fair, people in Ukraine are playing people in the USA. It really would be quite unfair if we had 8 American citizens living in the Ukraine who didn't show up to ping testing but we just decided to sub them in last week to play on your server, yet we didn't say anything when making plans to have one "home" server and an "away" server. The entire system is structured around attempting to devise situations that are fair because of the large ping differential, but the X-factor of having a Ukraine-passport wielding person who lives in America bypasses this voluntary weakness the USA agreed to by playing the "home/away" system. Designing a system where both teams will accept a disadvantage for half the matches due to high ping, and then having one team bypassing that required built in advantage/disadvantage system is simply not fair when both teams are not embracing their advantage/disadvantage when the time requires it.
Furthermore, beyond all of that subjective opinion, the fact is that you subbed an American (lives in America but has a Ukraine passport or some sort of dual citizenship, what have you) player in a week prior to your match with us, and he did not play with you on your server (why would he? We were at 170, so he would be too), yet he conveniently is able to play when you're playing on our server. Let's be frank here: Why would a Ukraine team enlist someone living in America to play for them, unless it's to play against the American team on the American server to gain a "leg up?" You obviously had enough players to not need him when you played us on your server, because he would lag terribly, yet when it came time to switch he seemed to be able to play. He didn't show up for ping testing whatsoever, so all of us were completely uninformed about him and we all made the decisions on the server not understanding this extremely extenuating circumstance. Not only did you not, in good faith, disclose something vitally important to the balance discussions beforehand, but you're also failing to recognize the imbalance this would cause and bringing this up is only going to cause things to get messy, bloody and personal when, in all honesty, the match was well done and fair, in no small part because the fairness we spent a week on attempting to create was upheld.