@Riot - Stop hiding

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ayriuss

Senior Member

10-31-2011

/signed

After seeing all the videos, and evidence of this situation on SoTL/blogs/forums posts I have this to say.

If Reginald is not unbanned, you guys as a company are a joke, he has every right to flame the **** out of Riot. Im sorry, thats just the fact. All the players of CDE were super excited when they won that game, believing full well that they would be going to Korea (I watched the live stream), as im sure Dignitas also believed, and now some post - decision BS makes them lose???.

There needs to be a ruling that what is done is done, you cant go back and change things post facto, thats just complete stupidity, if it was determined that the tournament was done incorrectly, then it should just be a case of too late, the rules, as they were posted on the site need to be the final ruling, as those were the rules that the players agreed to.

Furthermore, Dignitas should have been disqualified before ever starting the tournament as they violated the WCG rules (jatt situation).


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

權erse

Junior Member

11-01-2011

Let me get this straight. Everyone wants Riot to throw up a big fuss, force WCG to change their ruling and inso create a reputation for Riot Games for being difficult and badgering 3rd parties who wish to host gaming tournaments?

If they force a decision instead of being more strict in the future they would be seen by potential 3rd party companies picking up their game for tournaments as a difficult client and potential liability if Riot were to go so far as to withdraw thier funding.

Bad business, not an option.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Overkill4000

Senior Member

11-01-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by 權erse View Post
Let me get this straight. Everyone wants Riot to throw up a big fuss, force WCG to change their ruling and inso create a reputation for Riot Games for being difficult and badgering 3rd parties who wish to host gaming tournaments?

If they force a decision instead of being more strict in the future they would be seen by potential 3rd party companies picking up their game for tournaments as a difficult client and potential liability if Riot were to go so far as to withdraw there funding.

Bad business, not an option.
As opposed to allowing the wrong call to continue in the first place?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

RainCast

Senior Member

11-01-2011

WCG is going down the drain anyway. Supposedly this is the last year for them.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PsychoLCrazy

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Recruiter

11-01-2011

Enough respect cannot be given for Pendragon to filter through mob mentality and skip over glaring stupid comments and man up to Riot Games having some fault. In the end, there's not much that Riot Games can do without interfering with what should autonomous actions of the WCG.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

權erse

Junior Member

11-01-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overkill4000 View Post
As opposed to allowing the wrong call to continue in the first place?
Yes, WCG is in charge of the tournament it is their call to make. No matter who advised the decision advice is still not the determination.

The senario that could be even worse for business:

Employee advises bad decision, WCG goes with the bad decision that was advised by employee. Employee gets fired, Riot tells WCG we will withdraw our funding if you don't withdraw your final decision therfore discrediting your ability to make decisions about your own endeavor.

This seems to be the scenario that the small percentage of the population that is vocal wants to see. This creates a hugely bad reputation for Riot to other businesses who wish to host tournaments for profit.

Best decision to make here? Accept WCG's final decision, keep funding in the tournament, prevent this from happening in the future. There is some reputation backlash from a small percentage of the vocal community but they will still be able to have a community and a competitive scene because 3rd party companies wishing to run tournaments will see that Riot will not enforce their own determinations by withdrawing funding.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LightningLegs

Member

11-01-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by v4v3nd3774 View Post
1:11:37
"riot is the final authority"

actually what he said does nothing to confirm it was a joint decision. sounds to me more like he's saying he spoke with wcg and the conclusion was that "oh well matt marcou will handle the fallout". you're taking that quote out of context or english isn't your first language. saying the community is trained to believe riot is the final authority is not the same thing as saying riot is the final authority or was the final authority on this decision.

dan gets it at ~1:12:38
it's pretty clear that this was wcg's tournament and their decision. marcou obviously sucks at communicating with the community, but the decision was not his to make nor was it a 'joint' decision. that's a stretch.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DeadEnd2

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Member

11-01-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon View Post
I don't want to disparage the WCG, but I will say that this event has definitely caused us to more closely scrutinize the relationships that we have with tournament providers. We want them to be able to operate autonomously without our help - but at the same time we want to provide them with tools and an environment in which they can be successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancer723 View Post
The question is explicitly that Riot had a hand in the decision to go 2 best of three sets. It was stated by you guys that it was "a joint decision'. This means that Riot is in fact partially responsible for the decision itself, something that every rioter with a statement on the subject is trying to ignore and downplay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon View Post
Help me understand where this was stated by us. I'm not explicitly saying it wasn't - but I can't find the source outside of people citing SOTL, and I can't find that segment within SOTL where that was stated, especially not in those terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xallan View Post
It was not stated by you.
Quote:
Competitors,



Myself along with Riot Games have been in constant communication for the past 6 or so hours and have come the conclusion that the match is to be continued. This decision was a joint decision between WCG USA and Riot Games, and agreed upon unanimously by both parties. It will be the final ruling in the matter, without any further discussion or comment.



We have determined that another Best of 3 will need to be played, with the winner of that gaining immediate admittance to the WCG Grand Finals in South Korea. The finals of the WCG USA League of Legends tournament is going to be played in a consistent format to that of the WCG Canada Final which was Best 2 of 3 sets with a 1 set advantage to the upper bracket winner. When we made the format for the tournament, we consulted Riot Games, who provided last year's model as a recommendation. However, since the removal of the National LAN Qualifier, we have since adapted the original rule set to match our needs and make for the best competitive format possible. The original intent was to have this on stage at the LAN Finals, and because of time constraints only a one-game advantage would be awarded to the upper-bracket winners. However, since the cancellation of the LAN Finals, we altered the format back to what we consider to be the better one with regards to competitive integrity.



The current rule-set posted on the WCG USA site were intended only for the online qualifiers, and not the National Finals. In the rules we (the tournament directors) clearly reserve the right to make changes and updates to the format as we see fit, based on the progress and spirit of the competition. This is one of those times in which we will enforcing this rule. Teams were emailed after the first match and notified they would need to play ANOTHER bo3 set. We are sticking with this initial ruling.



Although the rules could have been better formatted and communicated to the players, they were nonetheless consistently enforced throughout the tournament. We believe we have settled on the best solution possible. The essence of a double-elimination tournament is that all the teams get equal opportunities not only for success, but for one failure as well. Since all MATCHES are based on a best-of-3 “maps” scenario, the team coming from upper-bracket has not actually lost a MATCH. To eliminate them from the tournament based on only the loss of one match in a double elimination bracket would go against the logic of a double elimination tournament.



Obviously we hope you will work out your differences and get this match scheduled and played in a timely manner. We're going to impose a 48 hour deadline upon which the match needs to be completed and results reported on the WCG USA Website. You have the option to forfeit if you're not satisfied with our decision, but no exception will be made if you choose to do this. I think I speak for everyone when I say that this is the fairest solution as far as tournament integrity is concerned and we hope to see an excellent match with the winner advancing to the Grand Finals in Korea.


Best of luck to both teams,



Kevin Rosenblatt

Tournament Director

WCG USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon View Post
As I've stated before...
Quote:
I don't want to disparage the WCG, but I will say that this event has definitely caused us to more closely scrutinize the relationships that we have with tournament providers. We want them to be able to operate autonomously without our help - but at the same time we want to provide them with tools and an environment in which they can be successful.
Wow. WCG really botched this on multiple levels.

This is the root of the problem. WCG screwed this whole situation up pretty badly. Matt Marcou made the mistake of trying to help WCG explain the situation and now he and the rest of Riot have become targets for the community's anger. Thanks to Pendragon and Riot for being open and available, even when it means you have to face anger that should rightfully be directed at others.
I only wish there was something more we could do besides send WCG angry emails (I have) and boycott watching any further WCG tournaments.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

StickToXYourGuns

Junior Member

11-01-2011

It seems like Pendragon can't sustain these truthful facts.
One would make a fool of oneself by saying this is incorrect or the favored term "miscummunication".
JUST ADMIT TO IT.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DorkSlayeR

Junior Member

11-01-2011

/signed