Add as friend
France?! LOL! Bunch of fairies.
Article 6/15/12, 10:32 AM
Clearly it has been said already but.... what a shitty title....
Article 5/17/12, 8:14 AM
Another event for people with talent in the arts. Can I design a bridge for a key? Can I evaluate your financial status or do risk analysis for a key? Can I repair a circuit board to get a key? Sigh... always with the artwork shit. Oh well, guess this is what I get for not being able to draw anything more complex than a stick figure. Despite my disappointment, good luck to everyone competing!!
Article 2/29/12, 12:03 AM
Wow - what a series this turned out to be. All games very close, and extremely exciting! Awesome, awesome, awesome series to watch, and tobi and synderen really helped that excitement grow with some nice energetic casting. So glad I watched that!
Article 2/17/12, 10:33 PM
#185 I'm very sorry that, in your hypothetical, IceFrog feels sad and hurt that Blizzard did not offer him work. But the fact is, emotions playing no factor, that Blizzard holds the right to everything done on their servers. While they have no right to take control of the concept of dota as a whole, they are perfectly within their right to challenge things that are owned by them, such as some of the hero names and item names that have had to be changed when porting from Dota 1 to Dota 2. Blizzard is not complaining that IceFrog is making the game, nor are they complaining that IceFrog didn't stay loyal to the platform he started dota on. But they ARE entitled to protect their company's interests in the form of retaining possession of those things which their Terms of Service stated they would hold on to. When you use the map editors or sign up for the game, it explains that players have the freedom to create their own games through the editors, but that certain content and some ideas will belong to Blizzard if created on Blizzard's software. Thus, they feel that the name of dota, which was tied to Blizzard's name for 7 years, is important to retain. Because that is a form of advertising as well as a form of credit to Blizzard for hosting the game, whether or not they catered specifically to IceFrog's/Dota's interests. I am not heartless, nor an emotionless robot. So I very clearly understand that the creators of dota 1 would be a bit upset that they lost the rights to some of the ideas they had while using Blizzard's editors and servers. Unfortunately, that's how it works though. And thus I find it perfectly reasonable for Blizzard to contest the name, so long as they don't overstep their bounds by claiming ownership over more than mere names that were created and made famous on their servers and editors. All of this is not to say that I'm happy that Blizzard felt the need to do this, but I do understand their right to these claims and challenges. As I said, now it is up to those who make the ruling on this sort of thing to determine if the claim is legally fair or not.
Article 2/15/12, 8:54 PM
Wow, so much blizzard hate without a shred of logic applied to the whole picture. Blizzard has every right to protect their history as the game that first hosted dota, and for many years, at that. If they began suing for rights to the game as a whole, or something more large scale than wanting the name, which is tied to their company, changed, then I'd be upset with them. The outrage over this is ludicrous. It's the name they want to keep, and for good reason. The name is directly tied to their very own WC3, and they, according to their own EULA's, etc, have every right to claim ownership of material produced with wc3's engine. The fact that dota 2 was created by valve means that valve will legally be entitled to the rights for their game. but the dota name was created under the wc3 engine, and so their complaint makes sense. Blizzard has not gone and tried to cut off Valve's balls here. They simply contested the name which is very, very clearly tied to their own company. They hosted the first version of dota (as well as several precursors, like AoS on starcraft) and therefore want their share of the credit in history. If dota weren't such a gigantic name, especially for a mod, then I'd view blizzard's actions here as petty. However, the game is, in fact, quite popular, and Blizzard has very evident ties to its creation. It makes perfect, logical sense to me that they would be harmed by giving away the name "dota" to valve, and therefore their protest here is completely justifiable. The fact that so many people are prepared to forsake an entire company because this company wants to keep the rights to a name of a game created on their platform just blows my mind. The complaint is perfectly reasonable, as they did not overstep their bounds by claiming something horrible like: Valve had no right to make a game like dota. Instead, they merely contest that the name dota is tied to their company, and therefore they want to retain rights to that specific name. Whether you like or dislike Blizzard, you must, you absolutely MUST see how logical it is that a business would want to retain their share of credit for this game. Blizzard is not stealing anything from valve here. They're trying to keep the pieces of history for this game which are rooted in their WC3 platform, and that, to me, is more than fair. Now it is up to the patent office to make the finale decision.
Article 2/10/12, 8:44 PM
Your points seem to agree with mine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you suggesting that the issue should have been mentioned right away by N9? And do you also think it is fair to say that the refs should have, at that moment, made the same ruling they did at the very end of the match, by saying it was a bug and to avoid utilizing it? If so, I think we're on the same page here. I believe it should have been brought up as soon as it was discovered. Here's a good reason why: In a beta version, there are bugs that have not been encountered before. If a player, by random, accidental chance, happens to tango a specific tree, and it caused all heroes on the opposing side to suddenly die... can you blame the person for committing the act of tangoing the tree? Most certainly not! However, because the referees did not interfere, or from what I can tell, even pay attention!, they opened Pandora's box and created the opportunity for Fire to continue using a bug without the understanding that it would be punished. Whether or not we find Fire's actions as a team to be in the wrong by using the bug, it remains true that it would have been a very simple thing to explain to Fire that Puck appears to have some sort of bug, and that the player needs to do his/her best not to use it. I say "do their best" because some players actually do use autocast, and I think it is unfair to ask puck not to use a function that should work properly. (And thus, as has been said by many people, the only fair options are to be lenient and ask that Fire simply tries to avoid using the bug [which the refs eventually did, and which would have been adhered to by Fire at risk of DQ], or force a rematch in which no bugged heroes are allowed.) Of course, repeating the offense multiple times shows that Fire either was blissfully ignorant, or, dare I say it, willing to utilize the advantage it provided, and thus we have a bit of an issue. But that problem only occurred because there was no intervention by the staff and/or referees.
Article 1/19/12, 3:06 AM
#83: Thanks for showing that the Fiji Islands wouldn't stoop so low as us NA cesspitters, by providing your on-topic opinion of whether this site is good or not. (And for the love of god, please don't miss the sarcasm here...) To N9 supporters: So far, the most fair argument I've seen is to simply stick to the word of the rulebook. In that case, if you'd like to focus on that point specifically, then I find the rulebook to be the primary issue. If rules are as general and unspecific as "don't cheat", then the tournament staff has created an opening for problems due entirely to a lack of effort at creating what SHOULD be very clear, concise rules. Creating such broad generalizations is just begging for problems to occur like this one. With this in mind, I think it becomes even more important to offer flexible, and by-case judgement on each occurrence of broken rules. If the game is broken (even though the creator explicitly posted that puck no longer had this problem), then it is the job of the admins to step in, say "No, that is not something we consider fair, please do not use phase in that manner from this point on" and the game could have continued without any unfair advantage to either team. Let me reiterate and reword my primary concern here. Whether musica responded with an appropriate public statement/interview or not, his point is fair. A rule was broken, and thus something should be done. I don't see anyone on either side disagreeing with this. But to ignore the issue in the middle of the game is simply outrageous. Someone earlier in this thread posted that many tournaments ask players to play out the game, and THEN point out cheating/bug abuse. I ask you this: what are referees for, if not to make these calls during the game? They could just watch a replay or something. (Of course, there are other things referees have to do, but my point stands - the referees are there to make rulings, and it would have been the most fair, the most swift, the most appropriate response to tell Fire they considered the phase shift issue to be an illegal action, and to discontinue.) If we decide as a community that, since the rules said it, it should be followed... then perhaps we ought to turn all this outrage towards those who caused it: those running the tournament and overseeing the match. I don't blame N9 for wanting the win. They're competitors, and that's to be expected. Whether you agree with N9 or Fire's actions in this case, I beg of you to turn the focus on those who had the power to prevent and to solve this issue, but instead let it slide and caused this massive, community-wide drama. To me, this is the most ludicrous part of this whole fiasco: "Their opponents, Natural 9 realized this in the first thirty minutes and called it out. However, the referees didn't do anything about it whatsoever at the time, and the game went on." "N9 decided to pause the game and talk to the match referees of about the Phase Shift bug. After a few moments, the call on all chat was that Puck was no longer to use autocast (which was causing the bug to occur, allowing the hero to Phase Shift while disabled) on the skill, or the team would be disqualified." These two quotes about how the referees handled the situation show explicitly that they at first did not do their jobs, which would have been to react to the bug abuse and offer a ruling. Second, a decision WAS made later on, after yet another complaint, and this time, the referees suddenly decide it's worth their time, even though the game has hit a critical turning point? No no no no no. That's not acceptable. Either make the ruling or don't, but please, for all that is holy, do not do this wishy washy, yes for now, but maybe no later, b.s. Edit: Sorry for the wall'o'text, but there's a lot of things to say on this issue, and leaving some points out just creates a less useful argument and leads to a less beneficial discussion.
Article 1/19/12, 2:36 AM
You're on page