Hello
I'd like @diablo_ to have a look at this. Such a clear case of clog not being treated as such.
https://entgaming.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=53814
reconsideration
Moderator: LIHL Staff
-
- Treant
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:49 pm
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: reconsideration
about nore remark before archiving previous topic. its funny how u judge cases fairly. if u had this judge 1 week ago i wouldnt got banned for so called "clog". they were simply outplayed with bad units. the problem on u guys, is u think if 1 team has better units that team gotta win, and if its not winning, u ban the other team for invented retarded rules that u imagine. u just cant see when 1 team gets outplayed.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3484
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:26 pm
- Has thanked: 12 times
- Been thanked: 39 times
Re: reconsideration
The problem is the 'rule' is so wish washy and subjective and a rule like that shouldn't exist in a top level league. The rule has definitely 'evolved' over time. Initially it was implemented to stop clogging in a race, now it is designed to stop gaining time. I could quote Diablo believing a team should not be banned as the clogging team didn't die on that level.
It is not the clogging rule people are angry at, it is the way in which punishments have been implemented. There may 'be no bias in the decision' but there is a subjective decision rule.
I suggest mods come up with a clear solution instead of implementing a half-thought semi 'solution' when it is clear even the mods aren't on the same page.
It is not the clogging rule people are angry at, it is the way in which punishments have been implemented. There may 'be no bias in the decision' but there is a subjective decision rule.
I suggest mods come up with a clear solution instead of implementing a half-thought semi 'solution' when it is clear even the mods aren't on the same page.
- ArMeDaNdDeAdLy
- Treant
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:58 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 23 times
Re: reconsideration
When you have toks, mutants, goliaths and you try to hold a huge send on 17 which u obviously cant its only common you leak faster since the enemy team has no anti 17.There been case of 100+ on 7 when both teams had immo and personnaly when i never reported that game.You cant call clog when we have 5k and 4k values and we leak 54 to king.Its your fault you built towers such as toks that clear the level fast.Its easily anticipated and countered.All you had to do is build all your gold to non anti 17 towers, simple as that.Instead of reporting people for clog and obsessing over it and when you do it trolling the enemies, better grow a pair and get over it.
P.s i also want to be reviewed the lvl 5 not as from west.They are obligated to do it but instead they waited for me to do it.Me the enemy king
P.s i also want to be reviewed the lvl 5 not as from west.They are obligated to do it but instead they waited for me to do it.Me the enemy king
Last edited by ArMeDaNdDeAdLy on Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Artichoke
- Forest Walker
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 2:26 pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 32 times
Re: reconsideration
I don't think you can consider it bannable when we all built full value for 17 and didn't push beyond 7/7. You guys had better income and more heals. Sending before 17 would be suicide since you could hold and then just DD us whenever and win. We had bad rolls and many of us were already at 150/150 reroll. We built the best we could but of course we're gonna leak more than you when we have half your income for 8 whole levels. I think there should be a pretty strict definition of clog, i.e. when someone purposely pushes huge huge lumber after level 11 despite having very low value or when people sell units before a round. If you define clog as any time the creeps clog in middle, almost every game is going to have clogging and then to not get banned people would just have to stay really low lumber all game which kind of defeats the purpose of LTD.
- aRt)Y
- Protector of Nature
- Posts: 13142
- Joined: Fri May 03, 2013 9:15 pm
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 174 times
- Contact:
Re: reconsideration
MichaelSong has already posted a topic to discuss about clogging a few days ago and nabo is also participating in it.
You should expect their new draft in a few days.
You should expect their new draft in a few days.
- Information, Rules, Guides and everything else you need to know about ENT is on the ENT Wiki.
- Ignorantia juris non excusat • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? • Fallacy of composition
-
- Protector of Nature
- Posts: 3180
- Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:26 pm
- Has thanked: 55 times
- Been thanked: 145 times
Re: reconsideration
Yes they did win due to clogging, but it's not like they have done it on purpose. They all had more than 4100 value, stayed 7/7 at most and didn't build bad towers on purpose or anything.
That your team lost was somewhat "unfair", but only the limitations of the map can be blamed, not the actions of the other team since they didn't have done anything wrong and basically couldn't play differently, besides maybe not building that lame tot in front of someone's towers (can't remember who built it).
I also see it as not banworthy as they didn't use it on purpose. Hope this is settled now, archiving.
That your team lost was somewhat "unfair", but only the limitations of the map can be blamed, not the actions of the other team since they didn't have done anything wrong and basically couldn't play differently, besides maybe not building that lame tot in front of someone's towers (can't remember who built it).
I also see it as not banworthy as they didn't use it on purpose. Hope this is settled now, archiving.
-----
LIHL player parser, a tool to automatically parse LIHL players' Elo and create reports for it: CLICK
LIHL player parser, a tool to automatically parse LIHL players' Elo and create reports for it: CLICK
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests