6 ms·

Yes, the tournament would have been worse without them. What I'm saying is that does not somehow justify penalizing the other teams and the tournament writ larg

Yes, the tournament would have been worse without them. What I'm saying is that does not somehow justify penalizing the other teams and the tournament writ large to "even" the playing field if you value competitive integrity. As the article states, increasing the ping doesn't make it more fair for the other teams because they actually traveled to the event. They're physically there. It only makes it more fair for RNG who can't attend because of Covid restrictions. To paraphrase, it "punishes the teams who are there for a team that isn't." From a business perspective of course, I agree with you. It's definitely better to sacrifice the level of play for viewership (and it does sacrifice the level of play because artificially increasing the ping at a LAN event makes the game worse). But if you're running a competitive eSport and you want a fair sport, it's a terrible decision.

colinmhayes 4y ago
> increasing the ping doesn't make it more fair for the other teams because they actually traveled to the event Can't agree. Those teams had an advantage when playing RNG. Taking away that advantage does actually make the event more fair for them, even though they are being disadvantaged.
- DantesKite 4y ago
  Could you clarify what you mean by "those teams had an advantage when playing RNG"? I may have missed something. I'm not sure what advantage you're referring to.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Without the ping adjustment the travelling teams would have a ping far lower than RNG. That is not fair, even if it is out of the teams control.
- squaresmile 4y ago
  RNG already have an advantage when they are allowed to play remotely from the comfort of their home. Yes it's not the team's fault they can't travel but it is what it is. There's another tournament in 6 months. There's a reason this Frankenstein ping is unheard of in bigger esports.
  - 9935c101ab17a66 4y ago
    > RNG already have an advantage when they are allowed to play remotely from the comfort of their home Can you provide any clear evidence that indicates this is an advantage?
    - troon-lover 4y ago
  - ahtihn 4y ago
    > bigger esports I don't think there's anything bigger than League, at least in terms of viewership
bee_rider 4y ago
Fairness isn't a perk applied to a team, it is a property of the game. Unless "ability to travel during a pandemic" is considered a skill for this game, it should not be factored into the competition. So, if teams who can't travel to be game are going to be included, then the host must find a way to provide a fair game. This means that remote and local players should have the same latency.
- DantesKite 4y ago
  > Fairness isn't a perk applied to a team, it is a property of the game. Could you clarify what this means? I’m not entirely sure I understand what you mean. I think I just need a little more context. > if teams who can't travel to be game are going to be included, then the host must find a way to provide a fair game. I agree with the logic but disagree with the premise: teams who can’t travel to play the game shouldn’t be included in the tournament in the first place, because it places an undue burden on the other teams and lowers the quality of play. > Unless "ability to travel during a pandemic" is considered a skill for this game I don’t think it’s a skill; it’s a basic obligation individuals and teams must fulfill.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    >> Fairness isn't a perk applied to a team, it is a property of the game. > Could you clarify what this means? I’m not entirely sure I understand what you mean. I think I just need a little more context. You have described fairness in terms of punishing or rewarding players for certain non-game behavior. But, this is not the right way to think of fairness, in the context of a competitive game. A competitive game has a set of rules, which the players compete under. In a fair competitive game, those rules don't favor a particular set of players. Regardless of whether they deserve it or not, players who couldn't show up in person would be playing under a handicap if there was no lag correction. >> if teams who can't travel to be game are going to be included, then the host must find a way to provide a fair game. > I agree with the logic but disagree with the premise: teams who can’t travel to play the game shouldn’t be included in the tournament in the first place, because it places an undue burden on the other teams and lowers the quality of play. >> Unless "ability to travel during a pandemic" is considered a skill for this game > I don’t think it’s a skill; it’s a basic obligation individuals and teams must fulfill. Sure, it is an understandable position to hold, that players who can't show up shouldn't be able to play. Riot clearly disagrees with you(for business reasons probably, mostly). I sort of disagree with you, mostly because I think that while we're in this weird liminal stage of the pandemic, I think we should try to accommodate people who want to engage from home. But this is a soft disagreement, I think there are good arguments either way. However, once the decision is made about which players will be included in the tournament, if the tournament is to be taken seriously it must present a level playing field to the players who've been let in.

colinmhayes 4y ago

> increasing the ping doesn't make it more fair for the other teams because they actually traveled to the event Can't agree. Those teams had an advantage when playing RNG. Taking away that advantage does actually make the event more fair for them, even though they are being disadvantaged.

DantesKite 4y ago
Could you clarify what you mean by "those teams had an advantage when playing RNG"? I may have missed something. I'm not sure what advantage you're referring to.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Without the ping adjustment the travelling teams would have a ping far lower than RNG. That is not fair, even if it is out of the teams control.
squaresmile 4y ago
RNG already have an advantage when they are allowed to play remotely from the comfort of their home. Yes it's not the team's fault they can't travel but it is what it is. There's another tournament in 6 months. There's a reason this Frankenstein ping is unheard of in bigger esports.
- 9935c101ab17a66 4y ago
  > RNG already have an advantage when they are allowed to play remotely from the comfort of their home Can you provide any clear evidence that indicates this is an advantage?
  - troon-lover 4y ago
- ahtihn 4y ago
  > bigger esports I don't think there's anything bigger than League, at least in terms of viewership

bee_rider 4y ago

Fairness isn't a perk applied to a team, it is a property of the game. Unless "ability to travel during a pandemic" is considered a skill for this game, it should not be factored into the competition. So, if teams who can't travel to be game are going to be included, then the host must find a way to provide a fair game. This means that remote and local players should have the same latency.

DantesKite 4y ago
> Fairness isn't a perk applied to a team, it is a property of the game. Could you clarify what this means? I’m not entirely sure I understand what you mean. I think I just need a little more context. > if teams who can't travel to be game are going to be included, then the host must find a way to provide a fair game. I agree with the logic but disagree with the premise: teams who can’t travel to play the game shouldn’t be included in the tournament in the first place, because it places an undue burden on the other teams and lowers the quality of play. > Unless "ability to travel during a pandemic" is considered a skill for this game I don’t think it’s a skill; it’s a basic obligation individuals and teams must fulfill.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  >> Fairness isn't a perk applied to a team, it is a property of the game. > Could you clarify what this means? I’m not entirely sure I understand what you mean. I think I just need a little more context. You have described fairness in terms of punishing or rewarding players for certain non-game behavior. But, this is not the right way to think of fairness, in the context of a competitive game. A competitive game has a set of rules, which the players compete under. In a fair competitive game, those rules don't favor a particular set of players. Regardless of whether they deserve it or not, players who couldn't show up in person would be playing under a handicap if there was no lag correction. >> if teams who can't travel to be game are going to be included, then the host must find a way to provide a fair game. > I agree with the logic but disagree with the premise: teams who can’t travel to play the game shouldn’t be included in the tournament in the first place, because it places an undue burden on the other teams and lowers the quality of play. >> Unless "ability to travel during a pandemic" is considered a skill for this game > I don’t think it’s a skill; it’s a basic obligation individuals and teams must fulfill. Sure, it is an understandable position to hold, that players who can't show up shouldn't be able to play. Riot clearly disagrees with you(for business reasons probably, mostly). I sort of disagree with you, mostly because I think that while we're in this weird liminal stage of the pandemic, I think we should try to accommodate people who want to engage from home. But this is a soft disagreement, I think there are good arguments either way. However, once the decision is made about which players will be included in the tournament, if the tournament is to be taken seriously it must present a level playing field to the players who've been let in.