Jump to content


Clan Rivals - Questions and Answers


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

Dawid__GO #41 Posted 21 July 2019 - 07:23 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 20451 battles
  • 43
  • [INVIL] INVIL
  • Member since:
    04-02-2012
Rules were changed already one time this tourney. We won our head-to-head match. So why we cannot play additional match to have the clear winner? 

Coehoorn1906 #42 Posted 21 July 2019 - 09:22 PM

    Private

  • Oficer Łączności
  • 41271 battles
  • 9
  • [GE-PL] GE-PL
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014

View PostDawid__GO, on 21 July 2019 - 07:23 PM, said:

Rules were changed already one time this tourney. We won our head-to-head match. So why we cannot play additional match to have the clear winner? 

 

Because WG didnt plan a spot for you in final or sth like that ;)

Edited by Coehoorn1906, 21 July 2019 - 09:23 PM.


JagMistrz #43 Posted 21 July 2019 - 09:49 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 27524 battles
  • 12
  • Member since:
    04-23-2014

View PostCoehoorn1906, on 21 July 2019 - 08:22 PM, said:

 

Because WG didnt plan a spot for you in final or sth like that ;)

 

 I wonder what WG predicts for clans that deliberately gave up games to other clans ;)

Edited by JagMistrz, 21 July 2019 - 09:50 PM.


Keseth #44 Posted 21 July 2019 - 10:13 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 24229 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013
Guys, I didn't participate in this event but I read we can participate to auction for the event of this tank, can anyone tell me if that true? And if its true anyone knows when this auction starts? 

Berbo #45 Posted 21 July 2019 - 10:20 PM

    eSports Manager Europe

  • WG Staff
  • 33523 battles
  • 5,156
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View PostJagMistrz, on 21 July 2019 - 09:49 PM, said:

 

 I wonder what WG predicts for clans that deliberately gave up games to other clans ;)

 

Well, a lot of situations are covered by the rules. Also, some decisions are situational i.e. if situations are not covered by the rules but they could affect the fair spirit of the tournament.

These can include giving up games to other clans and/or allegations on giving up games and both can lead to penalties, but again, very situational and it's based on proofs.

 

I hope this explains.



Keyhand #46 Posted 21 July 2019 - 10:48 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 65870 battles
  • 6,707
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

View PostBerbo, on 21 July 2019 - 10:20 PM, said:

 

Well, a lot of situations are covered by the rules. Also, some decisions are situational i.e. if situations are not covered by the rules but they could affect the fair spirit of the tournament.

These can include giving up games to other clans and/or allegations on giving up games and both can lead to penalties, but again, very situational and it's based on proofs.

 

I hope this explains.

 

Would it be possible for you to elaborate this further?

As there is the possibility in all tournaments for teams to deliberately lose to others, it is safe to say that at one point or another this might happen.

My question here is: Who of the two teams involved would get punished?

 

As an example: Team A deliberately gives up games to Team B and both sides are aware of this which negatively affects Team C who happens to also be in the group. Who would get punished and on what grounds?

Only Team A since they lost deliberately or both Teams since Team C got negatively affected?

 

IF you punish both teams, then what would happen in the following case:

Team A deliberately loses to Team B without the latter having prior information of it, still Team C is affected negatively.

 

I am not trying to name or shame anyone here, I would simply like more information on the decisionmaking process here, especially since proof of Team B knowing or not knowing of the fixed games in advance would be extremely difficult if not impossible to come by.


Edited by Keyhand, 21 July 2019 - 10:49 PM.


Aubury #47 Posted 22 July 2019 - 12:01 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 28289 battles
  • 19
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    09-28-2014

View PostKeyhand, on 21 July 2019 - 10:48 PM, said:

 

Would it be possible for you to elaborate this further?

As there is the possibility in all tournaments for teams to deliberately lose to others, it is safe to say that at one point or another this might happen.

My question here is: Who of the two teams involved would get punished?

 

As an example: Team A deliberately gives up games to Team B and both sides are aware of this which negatively affects Team C who happens to also be in the group. Who would get punished and on what grounds?

Only Team A since they lost deliberately or both Teams since Team C got negatively affected?

 

IF you punish both teams, then what would happen in the following case:

Team A deliberately loses to Team B without the latter having prior information of it, still Team C is affected negatively.

 

I am not trying to name or shame anyone here, I would simply like more information on the decisionmaking process here, especially since proof of Team B knowing or not knowing of the fixed games in advance would be extremely difficult if not impossible to come by.

 

But what if Team B gained an advantage in a recent event by having Team X throw battles?

Would it be fair to assume they would do such a thing again when given the chance?

 

Not trying to name and shame, just food for thought.



Keyhand #48 Posted 22 July 2019 - 01:09 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 65870 battles
  • 6,707
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

View PostAubury, on 22 July 2019 - 12:01 AM, said:

 

But what if Team B gained an advantage in a recent event by having Team X throw battles?

Would it be fair to assume they would do such a thing again when given the chance?

 

Not trying to name and shame, just food for thought.

 

Exactly the point I am trying to make.

As long as there are teams within the field of contenders that are willing to give up rounds or even matches to influence the course of the event for other teams not even playing said battles, this will be an ongoing issue.

Hence, I enjoy the single elimination stage of every tournament much more than the group or qualification stage ;)



MaxVerstappen_ #49 Posted 22 July 2019 - 09:30 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 33034 battles
  • 1
  • [ZWACK] ZWACK
  • Member since:
    12-09-2012

Dear,

I want to protest about NOMI's invited team (Group Stage, Group 2). One of their members left(/get kicked outof) the clan yesterday, at 20.30. https://gyazo.com/8d93f4a6dddfa9f4cfb6d4a15e22f329
In my opinion, the rules (3.4) say, that you can't leave the clan till the tournament didn't finished - and it is still going on, ending on the next weekend. 
In this way, about rule 3.1, they should get disquaified from the tournament. https://gyazo.com/098d2b28e3835c28cfa25b3c1c7f11ee

 

Best regards,

MaxVerstappen_



Berbo #50 Posted 22 July 2019 - 09:40 AM

    eSports Manager Europe

  • WG Staff
  • 33523 battles
  • 5,156
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View PostKeyhand, on 22 July 2019 - 01:09 AM, said:

 

 

Hello Keyhand,

 

I'd like to stay out of plethora of possible hypothetical scenarios. 

 

The goal of my post was to prevent the further talk about "cheating, giving up, trading or w/e", as usually X player(s) claim that Y did something and they do it very vaguely and most of times with no proofs. 

 

Cheers



RickOShe_MerkelESPORTS #51 Posted 22 July 2019 - 12:06 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20320 battles
  • 257
  • [TRVST] TRVST
  • Member since:
    06-08-2013

View PostMaxVerstappen_, on 22 July 2019 - 08:30 AM, said:

Dear,

I want to protest about NOMI's invited team (Group Stage, Group 2). One of their members left(/get kicked outof) the clan yesterday, at 20.30. https://gyazo.com/8d93f4a6dddfa9f4cfb6d4a15e22f329
In my opinion, the rules (3.4) say, that you can't leave the clan till the tournament didn't finished - and it is still going on, ending on the next weekend. 
In this way, about rule 3.1, they should get disquaified from the tournament. https://gyazo.com/098d2b28e3835c28cfa25b3c1c7f11ee

 

Best regards,

MaxVerstappen_

 

Or you just take that you lost and were the inferior Team so wait for next tournament...

Luonteri #52 Posted 22 July 2019 - 01:32 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 22290 battles
  • 61
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    03-25-2017

View PostJostra_, on 21 July 2019 - 08:19 PM, said:

 

Yeah , its definitely made for us. That's why they made a rule after the campaign to block me and Insane who are the main FCs to play the tournament , so the ''good'' EU clans can have chance to finally win a tourney this decade. 

 

Unlucko, I'm sure someone would lend their account to you two if you ask politely. Lan battle would be a problem though.

ralesm1989 #53 Posted 22 July 2019 - 03:48 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32402 battles
  • 1,941
  • [DE-VI] DE-VI
  • Member since:
    10-19-2012

View PostJostra_, on 21 July 2019 - 08:19 PM, said:

 

That's why they made a rule after the campaign to block me and Insane who are the main FCs to play the tournament , so the ''good'' EU clans can have chance to finally win a tourney this decade. 

 

Well, I can't see problem there... Account sharing is perfectly allowed and encouraged by WG apparently, so you can always do it.  

 

 


Edited by ralesm1989, 28 July 2019 - 07:31 PM.


N0HIT_Thylane_Blondeau #54 Posted 27 July 2019 - 03:17 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1968 battles
  • 4
  • [BLIEV] BLIEV
  • Member since:
    10-09-2016

Hey CLRG,

 

I'm the captain of the BLIEV team that played in the first quarter-final yesterday and I would like to make an official complaint. Before the first battle started we were told by you / WG side that at ~10 seconds all tanks should be ready so that match could start with everyone ready. It was explicitely stated that if one player is not ready he will be excluded from the battle and the team would have to play with 14 players. So restarting the battle just because one team decided to not move AND doing it after our complete tactic was reveiled is not only unfair but simply wrong according to the rules (12.3 - advantages). PLUS the first NOMI tank was spotted at 08:26, more than 1 1/2 minutes to tell us to stop playing. How can you restart this battle after 3 minutes?

 

So it would have went 1-1 on Cliff, if not 2-0 as this decision and the advantage for the NOMI team in the first battle (being able to pick any tank with the 15th member and knowing our strat) made our players become very nervous and they lost the momentum.

 

Therefore, I hereby make a formal complaint.

Even WG employees themselves do not understand that.

 

Your rules have been set, NOMI cried because one of their members did not fight, which is their own problem.

So the first round that should actually be scored, but was not and this just can not be like this.

Thus, the motivation has disappeared with us as there was unfair behavior on the part of WG gifting a restart to NOMI. Although it was their own fault to compete with 14 men in first place.

 

Please clarify!!!!

 

2. Why did not you notice how many times NOMI said they have a BUG or something, even though all their tanks were visible.

 In the aftermath, they sometimes changed or changed tanks, which is prohibited by WOT according to the factory rule. A tank that has been chosen may not be changed !!!!

First NOMI line-up had 7x Chieftain + 3x 907, than they changed it to 6x Chieftain and 4x 907 + CGC arty.

 

On top of that, with every battle except the battle where NOMI had the attack on ENSK, you have not changed anything. 

But on all three Cliff Matches as well as on the last ENSK Battle.

Even the first match, a player of NOMI does not pick his tank and therefore does not ride. So NOMI starts with 14 people, they howl about BUG and so and get a rematch. 

It did not matter if it was disconnect or it had to be said in the 30 second counter and not after the match as NOMI did.

 

This was an unfair behavior which did not correspond to the WOT rule.

 

On the whole line were with us the rules of the tournament not met !!!!

Please contact us


 


CLRG #55 Posted 28 July 2019 - 03:44 PM

    eSports Content Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 864 battles
  • 224
  • Member since:
    03-02-2012

View PostWhats_Wrong_by_You, on 27 July 2019 - 02:17 PM, said:

Hey CLRG,

 

I'm the captain of the BLIEV team that played in the first quarter-final yesterday and I would like to make an official complaint.

 

 

This was an unfair behavior which did not correspond to the WOT rule.

 

On the whole line were with us the rules of the tournament not met !!!!

Please contact us

 

Hello,

 

Thank you for filing this complaint. I understand that you felt unfairly treated and I appreciate you taking the time to officially let us know.

 

I essentially agree with your message. It is indeed correct that when a player is unable to play after the countdown has ended and the battle has begun, the game should proceed normally. Thus, under normal circumstances, NOMI should have moved and played with 14 players. Not moving was a voluntary choice on their part, and that could have simply resulted in a 0-1 ruling.

 

So why didn’t it?

 

You may recall we had 10 minutes of delay at the beginning of the stream due to technical issues on our side. During the countdown, I did not notice a problem. However, when the battle started and NOMI did not move, there was a period of time – one minute, as you noted, during which I was uncertain whether the issue was on our side. As soon as I had the confirmation, I effectively had to decide the outcome, and I opted to restart. I was lenient essentially for two reasons: 1) It was the very first game of the day, and 2) for the benefit of the viewers (it is better to start at 0-0). To a lesser extent I also considered there was no malicious intent behind NOMI’s (in)action - it was a seemingly honest mistake.

 

Whether it was the right call is certainly debatable, but I assure you that it was not made to cause your team any prejudice.

Considering the final score (4-0) and the way the games went, I have doubts that the outcome of the match was drastically affected by this. However, I can acknowledge that your focus may have been initially affected. More importantly, I am very sensitive to the fact that your initial strategy may have been revealed as a result, and I sincerely apologize for it.

 

Regarding potential lineup changes during the match, that is an entirely different matter. I will discuss this with our team so we can come to a conclusion on whether, and to what extent, NOMI benefited from changes. If we establish that NOMI used this to actively gain an unfair advantage we reserve the right to take action.

 

But regarding BLIEV, the elimination in the quarter finals stands, with no adjustment of the score. The team displayed a solid performance and I am looking forward to seeing you perform again in the future.



Aubury #56 Posted 28 July 2019 - 10:15 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 28289 battles
  • 19
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    09-28-2014

This is by far the most disappointing Clan Scuffle ever and it should have gone way differently than it did.

 

Obviously no naming and shaming.

.

1. Rules

This is the most important piece of information you are giving the competitors and you are constantly bending, changing, hiding and ignoring them untill it's too late.

 

2. Why are team X, Y and Z even allowed to play?

Unless you have been living under a rock you will have noticed there were some serious allegations against multiple teams with evidence and I'm not 100% sure if that was even looked into before the tournament/after Fire Trail.

 

3. The rule that turned Clan Rivals on its head

Myself and a lot of spectators wanted DE-VI to win with their balkan team because they have always been very strong, but it's just bittersweet now...

 

From what I have gathered this is the first tournament where you had this specific set of requirements for tournament participation. Why now? Has the clan scene become too stale? Did you really think shadow-banning the two most important pieces to FAME's succes is going to add some kind of artificial excitement?

 

Blink twice if you are being held hostage

Aubury

 


Edited by Aubury, 28 July 2019 - 10:24 PM.


3W1T4NK_ll_KN4T1W3 #57 Posted 29 July 2019 - 02:59 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32075 battles
  • 1,247
  • [TRVST] TRVST
  • Member since:
    09-23-2012
yeah it was not fair that we didnt win. pls replay  this tournament.

Berbo #58 Posted 29 July 2019 - 04:01 PM

    eSports Manager Europe

  • WG Staff
  • 33523 battles
  • 5,156
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View PostAubury, on 28 July 2019 - 10:15 PM, said:

This is by far the most disappointing Clan Scuffle ever and it should have gone way differently than it did.

 

Obviously no naming and shaming.

.

1. Rules

This is the most important piece of information you are giving the competitors and you are constantly bending, changing, hiding and ignoring them untill it's too late.

 

2. Why are team X, Y and Z even allowed to play?

Unless you have been living under a rock you will have noticed there were some serious allegations against multiple teams with evidence and I'm not 100% sure if that was even looked into before the tournament/after Fire Trail.

 

3. The rule that turned Clan Rivals on its head

Myself and a lot of spectators wanted DE-VI to win with their balkan team because they have always been very strong, but it's just bittersweet now...

 

From what I have gathered this is the first tournament where you had this specific set of requirements for tournament participation. Why now? Has the clan scene become too stale? Did you really think shadow-banning the two most important pieces to FAME's succes is going to add some kind of artificial excitement?

 

Blink twice if you are being held hostage

Aubury

 

 

Hello Aubury,

 

Thank you for taking time to write to us. I'm surprised by your words as the all around feedback about the event has been quite positive but if you see it this way, I trust you and we'll try to improve as much as we can for future editions. I'll give my best to answer your questions. I heard a lot of stories spreading around with only one side being heard, so I guess I can try to give you some sort of explanation.

 

Firstly, I have to start with the name. It's Clan Rivals. The only edition which was called "Clan Scuffle" was in August last year and since then we were going with different names usually inspired by the event name, for example Soldiers of Fortune event had SoF finals etc. Finally, we found a name which will be (hopefully) used for future editions of clan tournaments.

 

1. Rules are always changing. - It's never easy to create them, nor to implement them. Rules should cover all possible situations that could happen and provide fair and equal treatment of all while at the same time they need to make sense and create a healthy competitive environment. The rules from last year evolved a lot, they are going through constant changes and some are liked by players, some aren't. We used plenty of feedback from our top clans and adjusted the rules based on their feedback countless times. Are we going to change them again? Most certainly. 

- Bending? Could you clarify? If you have an example, please let me know. Some teams complained how rules were bent for certain teams this time (while some teams think quite the opposite),

- Hiding? Example please, all rules must be public. Hiding them is going against the core point of the rules. It does happen that timing of announcement of the rules is not ideal but that was fixed, if we're talking about this event. (in the text below I'll clarify this point)

- Ignoring? Ignoring rules? Please elaborate. What rule was ignored?

 

2. I'm really not involved into CW environment at all, thus I can't give you the answer on this. My involvement into CW matters starts and ends with this tournament. I can only encourage you to keep sending proofs/reports to our customer support. Again, apologies for not giving you the answer you may want/need but I don't want to speak about the things which are out of my field. On a side note, I may be part of a clan which competes but I'm simply AFKing in there.

 

3. Here you can see one article and here it says "The top 10 clans in the event will get an invitation to take part in the upcoming clan tournament. Participation in the tournament requires a spot among the top 100 Clans of the Fire Trial event."

As you have noticed, these tournaments happen after GM seasons or campaigns and they mark their ending. I.e. Global Maps Season 10 had GM S10 finals and so on. To make these events more relevant for clans who actually play them, we announced we'll be limiting them to clans who play them. The main goal is to reward clans who invested significant amount of time in the campaign/season.

Now onto second part and that is (I suppose you think of this) is the player swap, here is where we wanted to limit player movement as this was supposed to protect majority of teams vs strong teams. I.e. poaching, late second transfers etc. Being in the clan and helping its cause wouldn't be a week long thing but something which should help clans grow its community and player base. 

As this rule wasn't communicated on time, it was "frozen" (suspended) not to affect players and after this change we witnessed a lot of movements in a few days. We even removed clan joining cooldown to help these players.
The issue was identified, we changed rules to correct our mistake and we will make sure that rules are not just in the rulebook for next time but also in the announcement to make sure clans are aware.

 

Now, you have to give me a better explanation of "shadow banning", "blocking", "artificial rules" as it seems, from the whole EU realm, somehow, magically, we managed to "block" ONLY 2 players.

 

It seems there's an artificial drama which is for some folks diverting attention from our champions. We had an absolutely mind blowing finals and the battles were amazing. 

I can only congratulate DE-VI and say gg to everyone involved. Last year FAME made us all proud by their superb performance in Moscow and we hope DE-VI will give their best and show a good fight.

 

I tried to cover as much as I could, but if anything is unclear, please let me know.

 

Cheers!

 

 



Insane_BTW #59 Posted 29 July 2019 - 09:25 PM

    Sergeant

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 44920 battles
  • 283
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    07-16-2013

View PostBerbo, on 29 July 2019 - 04:01 PM, said:

 

Now onto second part and that is (I suppose you think of this) is the player swap, here is where we wanted to limit player movement as this was supposed to protect majority of teams vs strong teams. I.e. poaching, late second transfers etc. Being in the clan and helping its cause wouldn't be a week long thing but something which should help clans grow its community and player base.

 

I think the mindset is wrong, players are free to do whatever they want, free to compete in any team of their choice, and on top of that, they are playing in the team/with the players they want to.

 

Now why your model doesnt work imo, if you announce that in the next event you cant just leave the clan anymore at the campaign's end to compete for the tourney, well what will happen, the teams that were meant to be formed for tournaments (what you want to prevent ?) will be formed before the campaign.

 

What does it change at the end of the day ? Nothing.

 

 

View PostBerbo, on 29 July 2019 - 04:01 PM, said:

As this rule wasn't communicated on time, it was "frozen" (suspended) not to affect players and after this change we witnessed a lot of movements in a few days. We even removed clan joining cooldown to help these players.

The issue was identified, we changed rules to correct our mistake and we will make sure that rules are not just in the rulebook for next time but also in the announcement to make sure clans are aware.

 

Talking from my pov, the only way to "correct" your mistake was to remove the player rule, cause it was your fault (WG, not you as a person lol) that it was not published in time.

 

It was the 1st time ever we saw such a rule, and guess what, It was also published late :hiding:, when you cant anymore do anything if you are not afk in top100 clan :trollface:

 

I mean, this rule affected your best EU squad, it benefited to some other main teams in return obviously.

 

Lets be real, if this rule was announced before the campaign, FAME would 100% play the campaign, (get forced to recruit 50 players to have a chance to win it even if thats not rly the clan mindset), indeed, FAME players are competitors and like tournaments especialy, the last real sort of "competitive" we feel having in this game.

 

Im really sorry for all the clans that we still cared about playing those cause apparently the squad was just too good to be beaten, even playing the same tactic on some map for 1 year, and thats not a taunt but actual reality.

 

 

View PostBerbo, on 29 July 2019 - 04:01 PM, said:

We had an absolutely mind blowing finals and the battles were amazing.

 

At the end of the day, DE-VI managed to beat a FAME team without their FC's and all their main players, well gj to them, I have to admit they did overally better.

 

But the plays were far from being amazing and both teams played very poorly on a lot of rounds I think, it was just about creating some hype that BG_WP (The 50% FAME team, if not even less) can finally be beaten I guess lol.

 

 

View PostBerbo, on 29 July 2019 - 04:01 PM, said:

Last year FAME made us all proud by their superb performance in Moscow and we hope DE-VI will give their best and show a good fight.

 

I trully hope that DE-VI will represent well EU, no sarcasm there, but I think there will be a huge difference of lvl in all aspects against russian top team, hopefully they can get me wrong.


Edited by Insane_BTW, 29 July 2019 - 09:26 PM.


Berbo #60 Posted 29 July 2019 - 09:57 PM

    eSports Manager Europe

  • WG Staff
  • 33523 battles
  • 5,156
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View PostInsane_BTW, on 29 July 2019 - 09:25 PM, said:

 

I think the mindset is wrong, players are free to do whatever they want, free to compete in any team of their choice, and on top of that, they are playing in the team/with the players they want to.

 

Now why your model doesnt work imo, if you announce that in the next event you cant just leave the clan anymore at the campaign's end to compete for the tourney, well what will happen, the teams that were meant to be formed for tournaments (what you want to prevent ?) will be formed before the campaign.

 

What does it change at the end of the day ? Nothing.

 

Obviously they can play anywhere they want. They can enter any clan, no one preventing them.

I don't think we can qualify it as "it doesn't work" since it was never put in place.

 

View PostInsane_BTW, on 29 July 2019 - 09:25 PM, said:

Talking from my pov, the only way to "correct" your mistake was to remove the player rule, cause it was your fault (WG, not you as a person lol) that it was not published in time.

 

It was the 1st time ever we saw such a rule, and guess what, It was also published late :hiding:, when you cant anymore do anything if you are not afk in top100 clan :trollface:

 

I mean, this rule affected your best EU squad, it benefited to some other main teams in return obviously.

 

Lets be real, if this rule was announced before the campaign, FAME would 100% play the campaign, (get forced to recruit 50 players to have a chance to win it even if thats not rly the clan mindset), indeed, FAME players are competitors and like tournaments especialy, the last real sort of "competitive" we feel having in this game.

 

Im really sorry for all the clans that we still cared about playing those cause apparently the squad was just too good to be beaten, even playing the same tactic on some map for 1 year, and thats not a taunt but actual reality.

 

Well, the player rule got removed. :) Top 100 clans rule was published on time when the campaign was announced. So technically nothing prevented FAME from participating in the campaign.

In any case, I think we learned our lesson and should definitely do a better job next time.

 

View PostInsane_BTW, on 29 July 2019 - 09:25 PM, said:

At the end of the day, DE-VI managed to beat a FAME team without their FC's and all their main players, well gj to them, I have to admit they did overally better.

 

But the plays were far from being amazing and both teams played very poorly on a lot of rounds I think, it was just about creating some hype that BG_WP (The 50% FAME team, if not even less) can finally be beaten I guess lol.

 

I trully hope that DE-VI will represent well EU, no sarcasm there, but I think there will be a huge difference of lvl in all aspects against russian top team, hopefully they can get me wrong.

 

I had an impression only two players were missing, not half or even less. In any case, I don't think anyone doubts your quality for a second and I honestly hope next edition we'll see you coming back in style.

 

Thanks for your input!






4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users