At 1:39:12 Gomez talks about having a cam facing the players screen and it made me think about in online chess tournaments the players have to have 2 cams, one showing them and one from behind showing their screens so they can monitor for cheating. Its something that could be a very simple solution for that situation of cheating.
Good show guys. Gomez gels well with the feel of this show. Would love to see him on more on similar topics. 100% agree with the idea the current ecosystem should be able to do something like the RMR's right considering what's on the line. Like you said regressing from when you thought it should of been on the up 2016 onwards. Everything feels like it's been on the up superficially, on the surface almost. Just for all the punters to be conned from just watching the events and seeing nothing else. I.E this show.
As a Network Analyst with 8 years of experience, 5% packet loss is big for any real time application. Anything over it is considered an issue. At 20% most communications will go insane even over TCP to the point of controller smashing rage. I cannot believe 40% as a real figure over a sustained period. Some kid did a tcpdump, four out of ten packets got lost and he started yelling. Have never played CS but at 40% i bet the server straight kicks you. Hell, I'd imagine that happening at ~18
Thanks for the insight into this situation, the reporting on it was murky and you can't trust the social media of the teams involved so this was a much needed point of view.
What some people seem to pass up is that crazy goal from Maradona, which is named "FIFA World Cup Goal of the Century" was in the same match four minutes later. So let's put some context: - It's the RO8 - Against a country you just were at war with. - You score a goal with your hand. - Four minutes later you score the best goal ever in a World Cup. If you have never seen it google it. Now. Seriously What a fucking legend. Also in the next world cup he played infiltrated the whole tournament, they made a special prop to try and inmobilize his injured ankle, injections until he couldnt feel it and take the team to the FINALS (and lost, F). He was an addict and a dumbass but also total G
The conflict point is a little muddled. Monte's conflict exists, but by making it known and being up front about it (which should happen WAY MORE) it's ethical and reasonable to still participate in the discussion since everyone knows about it.
Favorite part of the show, the interaction with admins. Rarely discussed, but super important as well. P.S. Lesson of the day, always root for the underdog, fuck big orgs.
37:25 I'm sorry but Thorin your point here saying either team should have stuck to their guns is not rational, basic prisoners dilemma. Option 1 [NIP] : Refuse to comply with rules, get forfeited = 0% of winning the match Option 2 [NIP] : Comply and i) we have x% chance of winning with lag and x% chance of winning via an appeal Option 1 [Anony]: Refuse to comply with rules, get forfeited = 0% of winning the match Option 2 [Anony]: Comply and have x% of winning the rematch In a world where teams can drop players on a dime there isn't anything to gain from being "noble." Richard is simply correct that the players should never be put into this situation and the game should have delayed fullstop. Of course from there teams will take the short term choices that leave the possibility to them winning open at each juncture. What is the benefit of sticking to your guns and making a stance? In the CSGO community of all places. So reasonable conclusion is that Flashpoint must update its rules to be better accommodating to these scenarios. Opportunity to learn and improve.
In thorin's video where he covers the topic, his argument is that at least if NIP refuses to comply with the rules, there would be some y% chance of being able to reschedule the match or be able to play the game under better conditions. Anony might be fucked, but NIP should be big enough that they could swing that.
@@thatcherfreeman that’s a pretty damn big risk when the rules of the tournament say that would be a forfeit, unreasonable to expect them not to act in their own self interest
Surprised we didn't hear about whether the OCE RMR had any of the same problems as the CIS one other than seeding since they both had EPICENTER as a TO
Is there a reason this episode isn't on Spotify? Thought it was a new episode when I seen it recommended but I just hadn't seen it yet since it wasnt on there
I'm kinda confused about how Monte explains the situation around 41:00 -- he said during the tech timeout after map 2 that NiP used a VPN and then reported back that the issues had been resolved, so they continued playing and then only after the end of map 3 did they report that the issue hadn't been resolved. Few questions if anyone can enlighten me -- who is able to call the tech timeouts? If the org staff can't be in the room, surely the players can call for a tech timeout? And if they're still experiencing issues, can't they call for a tech timeout again? Secondly, if NiP report back that the issue has been resolved before they start playing map 3, isn't now the mistake the fault of NiP? Take a similar hypothetical scenario - they access the server before the match even begins and report they are having no issues. They've signed off on the server being fine so they can't use that as an excuse if they have issues, even if the issues can be proved to be legitimate presumably, because they wouldn't have done due diligence to check the server when they had the chance. If NiP confirmed that they were still having issues before the beginning of map 3 but agreed to play on and challenge the result retroactively, seems like their use of the rule makes sense. But if they report back that the issue has been resolved, and therefore the TO says to continue with the match, kinda feels a bit different to me. Which begs the question, why did NiP start playing on this server at all? They had issues with it from the get-go, albeit they didn't quite know the extent. Was that covered somewhere?
Some of this stuff we just don't know. For example, we don't know why NIP started playing on this server. In the video, richard and thoorin restate the idea that teams should not play the match if they're being given unfair conditions since they're legitimizing the result of that match by being okay with any result that can occur (you wouldn't play the match if you weren't fine with any of the potential results). Secondly, although NIP is at fault because they reported that the issue was resolved before map 3, it's more complicated than that because we later found out that the issue was caused by Faceit. It is still NIP"s fault for playing at all, but the error was partly caused by Faceit as well. There's almost always nuance to things, it's hardly ever possible to pin the blame specifically on one side and it's the same here (although I think most people would agree that NIP take the most blame due to their decisions). That's what I got from that part of the video at least.
This is weird. DDoS protection shouldn't have triggered unless there was suspicious activity from the associated IP at the time (ie too many requests in an extremely short amount of time, or similar activity). It feels extremely off, especially since NiP had only one ISP. Edit: that crack about university is true. Nothin but debt so far.
Do we really need a guest for these episodes? Most of the time they barely talk and let’s be honest, I’m here for the other three. It’s their show they can do wtf they want, BUT. I think a lot of us would enjoy the show a lot more with just the three main hosts. What do y’all think?
Gomez had good points. As a coach and a player, he has a perspective that the other 3 don't have (or at least they would have less of an in-depth idea on how it feels to be the player/coach dealing with some of the topics) and that's the reason for the guest. It adds another perspective and another layer to the discussion. It's not like he was terrible, he just didn't chime in as much, which is fine since we're here for the main 3 anyways. When he does talk, he has sound ideas. All the guests had good ideas and points, I think they're pretty integral to this series or that's what I think at least.
Devise only apologized after the world shit on him when the discord came out. You guys always want to give some guys way more credit then they deserve.
In the name of all plebs thanks for saving the friday
At 1:39:12 Gomez talks about having a cam facing the players screen and it made me think about in online chess tournaments the players have to have 2 cams, one showing them and one from behind showing their screens so they can monitor for cheating. Its something that could be a very simple solution for that situation of cheating.
U just need one good camera behind the room, get the coach in there as well, you know.
Good show guys. Gomez gels well with the feel of this show. Would love to see him on more on similar topics. 100% agree with the idea the current ecosystem should be able to do something like the RMR's right considering what's on the line. Like you said regressing from when you thought it should of been on the up 2016 onwards. Everything feels like it's been on the up superficially, on the surface almost. Just for all the punters to be conned from just watching the events and seeing nothing else. I.E this show.
I wish someone looked at me the way Thorin looks at Richard cracking jokes. Fire episode
Love this show, always nice to see another episode! Some of the best content there is!!!
As a Network Analyst with 8 years of experience, 5% packet loss is big for any real time application. Anything over it is considered an issue. At 20% most communications will go insane even over TCP to the point of controller smashing rage.
I cannot believe 40% as a real figure over a sustained period. Some kid did a tcpdump, four out of ten packets got lost and he started yelling. Have never played CS but at 40% i bet the server straight kicks you. Hell, I'd imagine that happening at ~18
The others: that would literally be the end of the world
Monte: that's fine 😄
Thanks for the insight into this situation, the reporting on it was murky and you can't trust the social media of the teams involved so this was a much needed point of view.
What some people seem to pass up is that crazy goal from Maradona, which is named "FIFA World Cup Goal of the Century" was in the same match four minutes later.
So let's put some context:
- It's the RO8
- Against a country you just were at war with.
- You score a goal with your hand.
- Four minutes later you score the best goal ever in a World Cup. If you have never seen it google it. Now. Seriously
What a fucking legend. Also in the next world cup he played infiltrated the whole tournament, they made a special prop to try and inmobilize his injured ankle, injections until he couldnt feel it and take the team to the FINALS (and lost, F). He was an addict and a dumbass but also total G
I don’t know anything about cs go but I just love listening to these guy shooting the shit about the something.
The conflict point is a little muddled. Monte's conflict exists, but by making it known and being up front about it (which should happen WAY MORE) it's ethical and reasonable to still participate in the discussion since everyone knows about it.
Favorite part of the show, the interaction with admins. Rarely discussed, but super important as well.
P.S. Lesson of the day, always root for the underdog, fuck big orgs.
Monte tanking aggro! What a legend!
Great episode thanks guys
37:25 I'm sorry but Thorin your point here saying either team should have stuck to their guns is not rational, basic prisoners dilemma.
Option 1 [NIP] : Refuse to comply with rules, get forfeited = 0% of winning the match
Option 2 [NIP] : Comply and i) we have x% chance of winning with lag and x% chance of winning via an appeal
Option 1 [Anony]: Refuse to comply with rules, get forfeited = 0% of winning the match
Option 2 [Anony]: Comply and have x% of winning the rematch
In a world where teams can drop players on a dime there isn't anything to gain from being "noble." Richard is simply correct that the players should never be put into this situation and the game should have delayed fullstop. Of course from there teams will take the short term choices that leave the possibility to them winning open at each juncture.
What is the benefit of sticking to your guns and making a stance? In the CSGO community of all places.
So reasonable conclusion is that Flashpoint must update its rules to be better accommodating to these scenarios. Opportunity to learn and improve.
In thorin's video where he covers the topic, his argument is that at least if NIP refuses to comply with the rules, there would be some y% chance of being able to reschedule the match or be able to play the game under better conditions. Anony might be fucked, but NIP should be big enough that they could swing that.
I mean, we saw a strike happen at Blast because the voice comms were recorded. So why not have a strike here?
@@thatcherfreeman that’s a pretty damn big risk when the rules of the tournament say that would be a forfeit, unreasonable to expect them not to act in their own self interest
Surprised we didn't hear about whether the OCE RMR had any of the same problems as the CIS one other than seeding since they both had EPICENTER as a TO
Is there a reason this episode isn't on Spotify? Thought it was a new episode when I seen it recommended but I just hadn't seen it yet since it wasnt on there
amazing series
Only took 14 minutes before Gomez could talk.
I'm kinda confused about how Monte explains the situation around 41:00 -- he said during the tech timeout after map 2 that NiP used a VPN and then reported back that the issues had been resolved, so they continued playing and then only after the end of map 3 did they report that the issue hadn't been resolved. Few questions if anyone can enlighten me -- who is able to call the tech timeouts? If the org staff can't be in the room, surely the players can call for a tech timeout? And if they're still experiencing issues, can't they call for a tech timeout again? Secondly, if NiP report back that the issue has been resolved before they start playing map 3, isn't now the mistake the fault of NiP? Take a similar hypothetical scenario - they access the server before the match even begins and report they are having no issues. They've signed off on the server being fine so they can't use that as an excuse if they have issues, even if the issues can be proved to be legitimate presumably, because they wouldn't have done due diligence to check the server when they had the chance. If NiP confirmed that they were still having issues before the beginning of map 3 but agreed to play on and challenge the result retroactively, seems like their use of the rule makes sense. But if they report back that the issue has been resolved, and therefore the TO says to continue with the match, kinda feels a bit different to me.
Which begs the question, why did NiP start playing on this server at all? They had issues with it from the get-go, albeit they didn't quite know the extent. Was that covered somewhere?
Some of this stuff we just don't know. For example, we don't know why NIP started playing on this server. In the video, richard and thoorin restate the idea that teams should not play the match if they're being given unfair conditions since they're legitimizing the result of that match by being okay with any result that can occur (you wouldn't play the match if you weren't fine with any of the potential results). Secondly, although NIP is at fault because they reported that the issue was resolved before map 3, it's more complicated than that because we later found out that the issue was caused by Faceit. It is still NIP"s fault for playing at all, but the error was partly caused by Faceit as well. There's almost always nuance to things, it's hardly ever possible to pin the blame specifically on one side and it's the same here (although I think most people would agree that NIP take the most blame due to their decisions). That's what I got from that part of the video at least.
I love costreams, I don't think I'd still be watching LCS all that much without them with most of the iconic players gone
This is weird. DDoS protection shouldn't have triggered unless there was suspicious activity from the associated IP at the time (ie too many requests in an extremely short amount of time, or similar activity). It feels extremely off, especially since NiP had only one ISP.
Edit: that crack about university is true. Nothin but debt so far.
Parimatch ate also sponsoring Leicester City in the football Premier league so they have risen quite a lot if they are new.
NiP should do like me. I order from Amazon and have never had any packets getting lost.
The stream is great guys, I really think that Russian fans are hating thorin and Richard only becouse of a bad out of context translations
Ty
I think renaming admins to referees would go a long way to get players to understand they are in charge.
LMAO riot should watch this before hosting MSI 2022
I know the mana cost of q on my best champ and all the combos lol Richard lewis is right most people don't know. but I'm just a low diamond shitter.
NIP is sponsored by Telia, hence why they only have one ISP
Even then, can't you have multiple lines? If anything, this just makes Telia look worse then.
@@nightfire_CSGO but it wasn't the ISPs problem it was a faceit problem, did you even listen XD
Do we really need a guest for these episodes? Most of the time they barely talk and let’s be honest, I’m here for the other three. It’s their show they can do wtf they want, BUT. I think a lot of us would enjoy the show a lot more with just the three main hosts. What do y’all think?
Gomez had good points. As a coach and a player, he has a perspective that the other 3 don't have (or at least they would have less of an in-depth idea on how it feels to be the player/coach dealing with some of the topics) and that's the reason for the guest. It adds another perspective and another layer to the discussion. It's not like he was terrible, he just didn't chime in as much, which is fine since we're here for the main 3 anyways. When he does talk, he has sound ideas. All the guests had good ideas and points, I think they're pretty integral to this series or that's what I think at least.
Devise only apologized after the world shit on him when the discord came out. You guys always want to give some guys way more credit then they deserve.
Monte the clueless cristo
Gomez talks for the first time during the podcast at 14:05