De-Pip Squad lose tournament
After two draws, the De-Pip Squad lost 7-9 to Russian team Tournament Monsters.
Cue excuses, rage and crying from Marth fanboys.
I congratulate and welcome our new Russian overlords.
Comments
-
Was there some controversy over something to do with a hatch stand off?
I'm in the UK and only just woke up but I was in Cahlaflowers channel just now and the gist of it was something to do with a hatch and commentators not knowing the rules or something.
Anyone know what happened?0 -
By "saw it first" do you mean got to it first?
Because without a body ON the hatch it's almost impossible to decide who saw it first with their eyes.4 -
@RemoveSWF said:
@Easylife said:
Was there some controversy over something to do with a hatch stand off?
I'm in the UK and only just woke up but I was in Cahlaflowers channel just now and the gist of it was something to do with a hatch and commentators not knowing the rules or something.
Anyone know what happened?There was a stupid rule involving a hatch standoff - the person who saw the hatch first wins the game. They both saw it at the same time, the game ended in a draw with two deaths and two escapes.
This led to a rematch with Marth as killer (Nurse, obviously) and another draw - two escapes and two kills. Tournament Monsters played killer next, killed three with one escape.
De-Pip Squad lost fair and square.
I thought when they explaine it they said it wasn't a hatch stand off because the hatch wasn't open?
To me it would be a stand off since they are both standing at the hatch waiting for it to open.
1 -
Then there shouldn't of been any controversy but there is.
My guess is this happened:- Marth get's to hatch first and thinks he's won. (to avoid hatch stand off rule is that first to hatch wins)
- Survivor arrives at hatch and Marth hits him.
- Survivor jumps into hatch.
- Survivor officially "wins".
This would cause controversy.
If they we're both at the hatch and the killer hit the survivor and the survivor jumps into it and escapes being the rules then noone would be angry at that but they ARE angry for some reason (not me).0 -
I quote: ''Marth came up to the closed hatch. A second later, the last survivor found it. Marth hit him. The hatch then opened, and the survivor got out. According to the rules, whoever finds the hatch first in a standoff gets the point. They, however, decided to make up a new rule that "The Hatch has to be open".
18 -
@RemoveSWF said:
@Easylife said:
Was there some controversy over something to do with a hatch stand off?
I'm in the UK and only just woke up but I was in Cahlaflowers channel just now and the gist of it was something to do with a hatch and commentators not knowing the rules or something.
Anyone know what happened?There was a stupid rule involving a hatch standoff - the person who saw the hatch first wins the game. They both saw it at the same time, the game ended in a draw with two deaths and two escapes.
This led to a rematch with Marth as killer (Nurse, obviously) and another draw - two escapes and two kills. Tournament Monsters played killer next, killed three with one escape.
De-Pip Squad lost fair and square.
I want to see a rule book that said all the crap they had. Also, they are hardly the people to know what counts as "fair" They have less than 100 hours in the game.
4 -
@MonsieurGary said:
I quote: ''Marth came up to the closed hatch. A second later, the last survivor found it. Marth hit him. The hatch then opened, and the survivor got out. According to the rules, whoever finds the hatch first in a standoff gets the point. They, however, decided to make up a new rule that "The Hatch has to be open".Now it makes sense.
1 -
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpikyTacitVelociraptorTwitchRaid
Here's the clip, for anyone who wants to make their opinion.
4 -
@RemoveSWF said:
@MonsieurGary said:
I quote: ''Marth came up to the closed hatch. A second later, the last survivor found it. Marth hit him. The hatch then opened, and the survivor got out. According to the rules, whoever finds the hatch first in a standoff gets the point. They, however, decided to make up a new rule that "The Hatch has to be open".Everybody knows what "hatch standoff" means apart from De-Pip Squad nuthuggers. It's when a killer and survivor are next to an open hatch, the killer can't hit the survivor because they'll escape and the survivor can't run away or they'll get killed.
If a survivor is standing on a hatch with a few gens remaining, that has NEVER been referred to as a hatch standoff until tonight.
There IS no standoff until the hatch opens because THE SURVIVOR CAN'T ESCAPE UNTIL IT'S OPEN.
You're changing the circumstance to fit your view of the outcome.
There wasn't 3 gens left. There was 0 and it was at the seconds between a survivor being sacrificed and the hatch opening.
Marth was standing on the hatch with the survivor beside him. Neither could do anything without negative outcome. This by definition is a stand off which was at the hatch.
Is a stand off at the hatch a "hatch stand off"? I guess it is open to interpretation.
6 -
@ZombieGenesis said:
You play to the bell. Never assume the game is over. Also, I don't consider it a "stand off" when one party is attacking. That's not a stand off.It was a stand-off for several seconds. A stand-off doesn't have a defined time frame.
-2 -
I think the tournament was a failure both when it comes to the rulebook and the host but what happened there was fair and the rematch happened and they lost.6
-
@Soren said:
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpikyTacitVelociraptorTwitchRaidHere's the clip, for anyone who wants to make their opinion.
That survivor clearly knows where the hatch is but he cannot stand ON it because Marth will hit him and down him before it opens so he had no choice to wait NEAR it.
Marth get's ON the hatch first (while it's closed) then the survivor moves to it as it opens, Marth then (mistakenly imo) hits him and he jumps in.I'd of given that to the survivor if I was the judge, this crap really shows why we NEED the "close the hatch" mechanic added to the game ASAP.
They felt the need to make up extra "hatch stand off rules" because of how stupid the hatch stand off is in the current game.2 -
Here's what I think was going through Math's head if I had to guess:
Oh, whoever gets to the hatch first wins, I'm stood on this closed hatch and that survivor is over there near the tree, I WIN!
I'll just hit him for fun, wait what? I lost?!1 -
I blame all of this on the hosts/whoever made the rules.
Assuming that the people at Space E-sports came up with them, this is their fault. People know that the host had 77 hours in the game, which is not enough at all to host a game, let alone make up the rules for it. Had they had more experience, they would've known to put more specific rules for the hatch. OR at least mentioned something about a case-by-case ruling.
Personally, I think Marth88 won, since in this case, it would seem the most logical to give the hatch to whoever was ON IT first.
Now to those saying that this wasn't a stand off, you're wrong. Because of the timing, the stand off had already started, and the survivor had the upper hand, since the only one who could do something was the killer. However, if the killer were to do something, he'd lose, just like in this situation.
But this tourney was a good example of a poorly run, unorganized and survivor-biased mess. Have a good day.
7 -
The real problem is that they asked a team of people to host a tournament who don't even have 100 hours in the game. If this logic is applied I should be about 5* better to do the job of hosting a tournament.
0 -
Alright, firstly. I have never watched Marth nor really know who he is other than he's a DbD streamer. So with that said I feel like from watching the clip that it was a clear hatch standoff which he won. The problem comes down to the "officials" not understanding the rules quick enough to call the match when it happened. Simple as that.
The steam I was supporting before anyone says anything was Pallet Justice who where knocked out at this point.
3 -
Smelly fanboys everywhere in here.0
-
There were so many marth fanboys in an uproar, biased as hell. I could care less which team won, but from my perspective marth straight up messed up. The hatch wasn't open yet, the death animation was still going for the other guy, he decided to swing on the guy after the hatch opens, he lost. Simple as that. Watch the clip he had plenty of time to smack him down and hook him while the other guys death animation was going on. Or just wait for it to open then its a "stand off"
2 -
The tournament caster didn't even know the hillbilly could sprint
Letting that sink in for a few minute.14 -
Why didnt Marth just hit him instantly? He even had time to pick her up????
5 -
@ZombieGenesis said:
Because he made a bad play. That's what his fans aren't wanting to own up to, Marth made a bad play and it cost his team the win.That's not saying there weren't other problems too but one does not negate the other.
Exactly. For 12 hours we had to hear about how much of a god marth is (and he's very good don't get me wrong) but he makes mistakes. He made one, they need to live with it.
5 -
@Usui said:
Exactly. For 12 hours we had to hear about how much of a god marth is (and he's very good don't get me wrong) but he makes mistakes. He made one, they need to live with it.If Marth didn't hesitate he could have won that tournament for him and his squad.
He threw it.
8 -
@RemoveSWF said:
After two draws, the De-Pip Squad lost 7-9 to Russian team Tournament Monsters.Cue excuses, rage and crying from Marth fanboys.
I congratulate and welcome our new Russian overlords.
Russia vs NA? Bet the ping was spicy
0 -
The problem comes down to the hosts not knowing their own rules. You wouldn't put someone who didn't know the rules of football in charge of refereeing a football match.
Fault lies with the hosts. Not to mention the commentary was absolutely awful.
1 -
@Tills said:
The problem comes down to the hosts not knowing their own rules. You wouldn't put someone who didn't know the rules of football in charge of refereeing a football match.Fault lies with the hosts. Not to mention the commentary was absolutely awful.
No that's not the problem. The problem is everyone is blaming the tournament for marth's CLEAR mistake. You can talk about how bad the tournament was but that has nothing to do with this particular incident.
4 -
Holy ######### it's insane how many people in here love to suck russian dick
-2 -
It's really simple. Marth ######### up and got a 2nd chance, then they lost that too.
When Marth got to the hatch, he should have downed her and picked her up. He had 4-5 seconds of just standing there like a pleb. Time which could have been used to hit her, wipe and then pick up. All of that before the hatch even opened. This is the reality of what happened.
6 -
@only1biggs said:
It's really simple. Marth ######### up and got a 2nd chance, then they lost that too.When Marth got to the hatch, he should have downed her and picked her up. He had 4-5 seconds of just standing there like a pleb. Time which could have been used to hit her, wipe and then pick up. All of that before the hatch even opened. This is the reality of what happened.
I agree, he tried to force the standoff rule which i'm sure the person who came up with this rules did not account for that situation but still he should've swung at the survivor and not try to force bad rules.
3 -
If this wasn't a tournament, Marth wouldn't have swung. For that matter, he wouldn't have just stopped on the hatch if it was a real match, but would have continued to move forward and down the claudette before she could get that close to the hatch. The only reason he would stop and stand on the hatch / swing in that situation is if he thought he'd won.
It's clearly a case of poorly written rules.
You can definitely argue that Marth should have waited just to be sure, or should have asked for clarification before hand, but if a rule can be misinterpreted that easily, especially in a final, then I think it's entirely valid for fans to be upset.
1 -
tournaments in general are stupid. playing with mics being first and foremost with this tournament. at least, from what i have heard, that is the case. then, all the things that make the game the game itself are taken out. just...not my thing.0
-
@Abyssionknight said:
If this wasn't a tournament, Marth wouldn't have swung. For that matter, he wouldn't have just stopped on the hatch if it was a real match, but would have continued to move forward and down the claudette before she could get that close to the hatch. The only reason he would stop and stand on the hatch / swing in that situation is if he thought he'd won.It's clearly a case of poorly written rules.
You can definitely argue that Marth should have waited just to be sure, or should have asked for clarification before hand, but if a rule can be misinterpreted that easily, especially in a final, then I think it's entirely valid for fans to be upset.
Your opening gambit is based on nothing. "If this, if that".
Marth screwed up and had time to down the survivor and pick her up BEFORE the hatch opened. He'd have won, but he didn't. All the conversations after become irrelevant if Marth hadn't made a mistake. Everyone would be saying "congrats Marth and the de-pip squad", but here we are with more people making excuses and Marth not taking responsibility.
The rules could have been clearer, sure. But we wouldn't be talking about the rules or the hatch or what constitutes a "stand off" if Marth hadn't messed up.
5 -
My personal favourite was the nurses.... dash punches 🤔Dragonredking said:The tournament caster didn't even know the hillbilly could sprint
Letting that sink in for a few minute.
these guys were horrendous and the whole thing was a ######### show. Should be re done completely
3 -
USA
USA
USA
1 -
I laugh at the fact people run tournaments for this game WITH MONEY ON THE LINE.
Compared to actual eSports this game is a joke. All these tournaments do is highlight how broken the game actually is.
Seriously Mario Party has more eSport potential than this game.
3 -
@thesuicidefox said:
I laugh at the fact people run tournaments for this game WITH MONEY ON THE LINE.Compared to actual eSports this game is a joke. All these tournaments do is highlight how broken the game actually is.
Seriously Mario Party has more eSport potential than this game.
If this tournament proved one thing, then that DBD devs cant organize an official tournament and the game is not ready for a compeitive event yet
3 -
@only1biggs said:
The rules could have been clearer, sure. But we wouldn't be talking about the rules or the hatch or what constitutes a "stand off" if Marth hadn't messed up.This is where we disagree.
If Marth had lunged for the survivor, or blink lunged, and he had somehow missed, that survivor could have made it to the hatch and jumped in, or at least been on top of the hatch first the instant it opened, automatically giving them the win.
The smart play on Marth's part was to stay on the hatch. There's a 100% win chance for Marth if he gets into a stand off, and 0% chance for the survivor. Every other scenario you can imagine at that moment had at least a small chance of Marth missing his swing, and the survivor getting into the hatch. So the optimal play was to enter into a hatch stand off.
So if you knew the hatch had to be opened to count as a stand off, then Marth clearly made a mistake. If you didn't know the hatch had to be opened, and just used the normal hatch stand off definition, then Marth made the right play, and had already won when he hit that survivor. That's where the issue lies.
I personally think Marth should have waited until the hatch opened to hit the survivor, just so there would be no dispute of whether or not he won. Personally I think Marth tried to hit the survivor the instant the hatch opened, and was a half second early. The rule was so poorly written that if they were both on the hatch, it opened, and the survivor jumped in without Marth hitting them, there was no clear definition of whether that would be a stand off and Marth's win, the survivors. Hell, you could even argue that the hatch rule was vague enough that, even in the downed state, the rule as written would have counted Marth as the winner, since they were both at the open hatch, and Marth was there first (even though under no real circumstances would a downed survivor reaching hatch ever count as a stand off).
So while I think it's valid to honour the intent of the rule and give the survivor the win in that match, I also think it's fair to simultaneously view the rule itself as total garbage that ultimately cost Marth the win. If most of the tournament participants, and most of the viewers, misunderstood your rule, then you wrote a bad rule.
1 -
@Abyssionknight said:
@only1biggs said:
The rules could have been clearer, sure. But we wouldn't be talking about the rules or the hatch or what constitutes a "stand off" if Marth hadn't messed up.This is where we disagree.
If Marth had lunged for the survivor, or blink lunged, and he had somehow missed, that survivor could have made it to the hatch and jumped in, or at least been on top of the hatch first the instant it opened, automatically giving them the win.
The smart play on Marth's part was to stay on the hatch. There's a 100% win chance for Marth if he gets into a stand off, and 0% chance for the survivor. Every other scenario you can imagine at that moment had at least a small chance of Marth missing his swing, and the survivor getting into the hatch. So the optimal play was to enter into a hatch stand off.
So if you knew the hatch had to be opened to count as a stand off, then Marth clearly made a mistake. If you didn't know the hatch had to be opened, and just used the normal hatch stand off definition, then Marth made the right play, and had already won when he hit that survivor. That's where the issue lies.
I personally think Marth should have waited until the hatch opened to hit the survivor, just so there would be no dispute of whether or not he won. Personally I think Marth tried to hit the survivor the instant the hatch opened, and was a half second early. The rule was so poorly written that if they were both on the hatch, it opened, and the survivor jumped in without Marth hitting them, there was no clear definition of whether that would be a stand off and Marth's win, the survivors. Hell, you could even argue that the hatch rule was vague enough that, even in the downed state, the rule as written would have counted Marth as the winner, since they were both at the open hatch, and Marth was there first (even though under no real circumstances would a downed survivor reaching hatch ever count as a stand off).
So while I think it's valid to honour the intent of the rule and give the survivor the win in that match, I also think it's fair to simultaneously view the rule itself as total garbage that ultimately cost Marth the win. If most of the tournament participants, and most of the viewers, misunderstood your rule, then you wrote a bad rule.
You can disagree as much a you want, that means you are irrational and delusional.
He wouldn't have missed and allowed him to jump in. Stop making excuses. Stop making up things that didn't happen or could have happened. Marth lost and he lost because he made a mistake. Any killer knows he had time to put him down and pick up BEFORE the hatch opened. This is a fact. It's indisputable. Everyone can see it.
Marth's decision in this case was of course influenced by him not understanding, or the organizers not being clear with the rules etc etc..but Marth messed up. He could have won it and didn't. Then they carried on and lost again.
I'm so done with this now, when it's just so clear as to what happened. To argue otherwise is to deny reality.
7 -
@Karon said:
Holy ######### it's insane how many people in here love to suck russian dickSo we should hate all russians because of a few cheaters..? I don't particularly like or dislike them but i'm not going to defend someone just because they ######### up and give them the benefit of the doubt. Wake up sheep
1 -
@only1biggs said:
@Abyssionknight said:
@only1biggs said:
The rules could have been clearer, sure. But we wouldn't be talking about the rules or the hatch or what constitutes a "stand off" if Marth hadn't messed up.This is where we disagree.
If Marth had lunged for the survivor, or blink lunged, and he had somehow missed, that survivor could have made it to the hatch and jumped in, or at least been on top of the hatch first the instant it opened, automatically giving them the win.
The smart play on Marth's part was to stay on the hatch. There's a 100% win chance for Marth if he gets into a stand off, and 0% chance for the survivor. Every other scenario you can imagine at that moment had at least a small chance of Marth missing his swing, and the survivor getting into the hatch. So the optimal play was to enter into a hatch stand off.
So if you knew the hatch had to be opened to count as a stand off, then Marth clearly made a mistake. If you didn't know the hatch had to be opened, and just used the normal hatch stand off definition, then Marth made the right play, and had already won when he hit that survivor. That's where the issue lies.
I personally think Marth should have waited until the hatch opened to hit the survivor, just so there would be no dispute of whether or not he won. Personally I think Marth tried to hit the survivor the instant the hatch opened, and was a half second early. The rule was so poorly written that if they were both on the hatch, it opened, and the survivor jumped in without Marth hitting them, there was no clear definition of whether that would be a stand off and Marth's win, the survivors. Hell, you could even argue that the hatch rule was vague enough that, even in the downed state, the rule as written would have counted Marth as the winner, since they were both at the open hatch, and Marth was there first (even though under no real circumstances would a downed survivor reaching hatch ever count as a stand off).
So while I think it's valid to honour the intent of the rule and give the survivor the win in that match, I also think it's fair to simultaneously view the rule itself as total garbage that ultimately cost Marth the win. If most of the tournament participants, and most of the viewers, misunderstood your rule, then you wrote a bad rule.
You can disagree as much a you want, that means you are irrational and delusional.
He wouldn't have missed and allowed him to jump in. Stop making excuses. Stop making up things that didn't happen or could have happened. Marth lost and he lost because he made a mistake. Any killer knows he had time to put him down and pick up BEFORE the hatch opened. This is a fact. It's indisputable. Everyone can see it.
Marth's decision in this case was of course influenced by him not understanding, or the organizers not being clear with the rules etc etc..but Marth messed up. He could have won it and didn't. Then they carried on and lost again.
I'm so done with this now, when it's just so clear as to what happened. To argue otherwise is to deny reality.
Multiple people (including me) have already said this multiple times, they're all delusional marth fanboys who think he can do no wrong.
6 -
I dig marth, he's hella good and even better person but if i had to choose between him and DICE for a tournament i'd take DICE. He actually plays the most efficient way to win every day so he knows what it takes to kill as much survivors as possible and yeah that happens to involve camping, tunneling and so on.
0 -
That’s the point....Marth's decision in this case was of course influenced by him not understanding, or the organizers not being clear with the rules etc etc..but Marth messed up.
the lack of understanding came
from previous rounds where the same situation lead to a win because killer was on the hatch before it opened, another round the killer assumed he’d won because he found the hatch first but survivor jumped in after a chase and they gave the point to the survivor because the killer wasn’t on the hatch as the survivor jumped in.
Of the rule was clear than there would be no grounds for confusion.3 -
@only1biggs said:
You can disagree as much a you want, that means you are irrational and delusional.He wouldn't have missed and allowed him to jump in. Stop making excuses. Stop making up things that didn't happen or could have happened.
I like that you're telling me not to make up things that could happen, while you yourself are making things up. I said there was a chance he could miss, while you're saying he absolutely wouldn't miss. Of the two of us, you're the one making ######### up and claiming it as factual.
Also I don't know why you think I care about Marth. As I said in my last message, it's fair to give Marth the L based on the rules as intended, but also valid to simultaneously think the rule is garbage and resulted in a ruling that cost Marth the match.
Not sure why you're so angry about people disagreeing with you that you have to throw ad hominems. It's a video game bro, just relax.
0 -
The main issue here is the rules. They are vague, poorly defined and confusing for not only the players but also the hosts who are not experienced with DBD. The rules were made by BHVR, probably in 20 minutes without thinking much about it. Both the survivor and the killer thought they were in a standoff situation. the killer would for sure not have hit the survivor if he thought they hadn't already won and the survivor would have never stood on the hatch next to the killer had he not thought he was in a hatch standoff. Both players reflect exactly the situation of a standoff, regardless of the hatch being open or closed at that time.
Was it a mistake for Marth to swing? Yes. That was a poor lack of judgment. Does it mean he lost? Only BHVR know the answer to this as they made the rules.
BHVR need to review this event and clarify their own rules, then keelhaul the person who made them so they think harder the next time they make rules for a $15,000 multinational, multiplatform tournament.
1 -
tbh EU has way better players than this team
but either way, they deserved the win at the end aside from all the lag talks which is not really their fault they play with NA players.0 -
@Paddy4583 said:
Marth's decision in this case was of course influenced by him not understanding, or the organizers not being clear with the rules etc etc..but Marth messed up.That’s the point....
the lack of understanding came
from previous rounds where the same situation lead to a win because killer was on the hatch before it opened, another round the killer assumed he’d won because he found the hatch first but survivor jumped in after a chase and they gave the point to the survivor because the killer wasn’t on the hatch as the survivor jumped in.Of the rule was clear than there would be no grounds for confusion.
And if Marth hadn't have messed up and just killed the guy, this w> @Abyssionknight said:
@only1biggs said:
You can disagree as much a you want, that means you are irrational and delusional.He wouldn't have missed and allowed him to jump in. Stop making excuses. Stop making up things that didn't happen or could have happened.
I like that you're telling me not to make up things that could happen, while you yourself are making things up. I said there was a chance he could miss, while you're saying he absolutely wouldn't miss. Of the two of us, you're the one making ######### up and claiming it as factual.
Also I don't know why you think I care about Marth. As I said in my last message, it's fair to give Marth the L based on the rules as intended, but also valid to simultaneously think the rule is garbage and resulted in a ruling that cost Marth the match.
Not sure why you're so angry about people disagreeing with you that you have to throw ad hominems. It's a video game bro, just relax.
LOL
I couldn't be further from angry... "bro"
0 -
@RemoveSWF said:
After two draws, the De-Pip Squad lost 7-9 to Russian team Tournament Monsters.Cue excuses, rage and crying from Marth fanboys.
I congratulate and welcome our new Russian overlords.
This "tournament" was a shitshow, and you know that.
3 -
The rules were written vaguely and changed after the match already ended. They were not even clarified, they were straight up altered. That is unethical and a completely illegitimate point to change the rules.
All you people saying "but eh the hatch wasn't open" there is NO PART OF THE RULE saying it needed to be open.
The fact is that the Claudette was not contesting the hatch. She was trying to hide. Marth was on the hatch and then spotted the Claudette. He was there first, and then she ran to the hatch, contesting it afterward.
Marth lost because after an 11 hour tournament he made 1 mistake based on a vague interpretation of the obscurely written rules, and his mistake was clicking a button in the 1.5 second time frame in which the casters could possibly, by any stretch of their imagination, consider it "wrong".
If he clicked earlier? Indisputable win. If he just waited a bit longer? Indisputable win.
But sure if you want to side with Space Esports and their blatantly unethical change to the rules post-match, knock yourself out. Continue rolling with the argument that "but it wasn't open yet!" even though that does not apply. If it is not in the rules then it is not a rule. And consider if the rules were written clearly. What would have happened? Marth would have waited a few seconds longer and there would have been no argument.
Hopefully there are no more tournaments for this game. Blatant cheaters not getting removed, allowing players with multiple permabans to play, casters who know nothing about the game, terrible wait times, unethical rule changes, biased decision making, stolen artwork for the tournament cover, no region lock, and failure on multiple instances to follow their own rules... Yeah, this tournament has set a good standard. A pretty good job so far.
But anyway ggs. Welcome to the team that should not have made it to the finals anyway. Remember the rule about there being a 10 minute time limit to get into your match?
Well it took well over 10 minutes for this team to resolve the issue in the semifinals after a possible lagswitch and get back to their match. They should have been DQ'd on the basis of this rule. "On the dot, no exceptions" my ass.
13 -
@Spudbar said:
The rules were written vaguely and changed after the match already ended. They were not even clarified, they were straight up altered. That is unethical and a completely illegitimate point to change the rules.As a former game tournament organizer, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, I would ALWAYS put a stipulation in my ruleset that reads exactly "All rules are subject to change at the discretion of tournament officials." Because sometimes ######### happens that brings the rules into question and you, as the TO, have to make a call. Just like any ref at any sporting event ever, you do your best to stick to the rules but when there is no rule you kinda just have to make a choice that you think is fair.
Case and point, I was running a Gears 2 event one time (and if you know anything about Gears 2 you know it is NOTORIOUS for extreme camping and stalemates on some maps). I had a list of the acceptable maps, 7 of the 10 shipped ones, and would only designate the first map of the match using a randomizer. After the first match, the losing team could choose the map (or choose to be host and let the other team choose the map, but most teams chose the map). Problem was this was the peak of the stalemate meta, and Stasis was one of the absolute worst offenders. Literally you would have more than hour long matches ON THIS ONE MAP because of all the stalemates. Now as a TO one thing you need to consider is time management. You only have the venue for so much time, therefore you want to run things as fast as possible and find ways to keep brackets short and to the point with a clear victor. So halfway through the event I straight up just banned Stasis, on the grounds that if people keep picking it the tournament will never end in time. I got a lot of heat, mainly from the teams abusing it the most, and I told them straight up that playing like this is cancer and I'm not going to put up with it anymore. I don't care if it's the only way you can win, mainly because it's complete cheese in most cases AND you guys don't even end up winning the set, just that one map and only barely. Then it goes to a normal map like Pavilion and they get completely bodied. I'm not going to sit there and let you waste me time with your scrubbiness, sorry.
2
