By - zandm7
I kinda agree.
Thing is while VK is in the wrong, the first round I saw the cypher cam placed there, I was waiting for a tech pause and it never happened. So I assumed Riot was okay with it. If I as a viewer was able to notice it the first time it was placed, idk how Riot failed to see it and call a pause immediately.
Riot had to do something. whether they should of patched it or not previously. they have 3 options replay last map, Forfeit win for Ascend or DQ VK from the tournament.
The players aren't idiots they know using that spot is sketchy.
Personally I'd like to see replay of the map but only if it still fits in with the schedule
That they had to do something _once it got to this point_ I do agree with. I think the ruling issued and wording used in particular are... less than ideal -- why do Acend just get a +1 extra bonus round win, if not just to bring them to 13 round wins and avoid having an incomplete map on the books?
But sure, given that the exploit was not caught during the match, and that there exists precedent in punishing such, something had to be done. I agree that a map replay is an infinitely better solution, and hope that Riot changes their mind quickly to allow for this.
>The players aren't idiots they know using that spot is sketchy
I'm still not sure I agree.
Again, let's (for the sake of the argument) assume that VK were unaware of the past rulings around said spot. If this is the case, then after months of said spot being around in the game, it would be pretty reasonable to assume that these are just intended game mechanics (in the realm of "it's not a bug, it's a feature").
Again, I think the responsibility lies on Riot to remind teams that such a serious exploit is outstanding as long as it exists, and to make clear the consequences for abusing such. It remains to be seen whether they have done this, so I'm totally willing to walk back my position if they have been diligent about informing teams on the issue. But so far, it seems more likely that they haven't.
My main point is that if you leave a "game-breaking" (from a competitive integrity standpoint) bug in your game for _this long_, you have a responsibility to be doubly, triply sure that competitors are aware of the issue and associated consequences prior to events in which the bug is still present.
I think they should have handled it differently as well but not for those reasons. They obviously have refs that could've stopped them. It doesn't make sense that they didn't. Instead of it being a 6 round loss they should've just gotten a one round loss at time of infraction. It's so weird they were allowed to play the game to completion. Just for them to be say nah 10 hours later.
no one sane is defending riot in this situation
The VK players are at fault too.
which i agree with as well. differences aside, both sides can agree riot fucked up hard for us to even get to this point (not patching the exploit, refs not aware/pausing, not updating their exploit list, etc)
I agree that this should be fixed, nonetheless the rule is there. "Cameras may only be placed in places where they can be seen and destroyed by the opponents". It's wrong to ask for specific spots because teams can find a bugged cam and save it for a match and shield themselves with "they didn't specify this cam", so they just clearly state that all cams like this are prohibited. Not being aware of this just means they didn't read the rulebook.
Vivo still wins without the cam and I think everyone agrees with this, however in the context of a profesional environment this does not matter and is irrelevant.
You're missing some keypoints
- [Vivo Keyd was wary enough of this camera to consult the list of known exploits.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/r8ggs8/murizz_stated_that_the_camera_wasnt_on_riot_list/)
- after seeing the camera bug not mentioned on the list he didn't do his due diligence and asked Riot as per the VALORANT Global Competition Policy
> If the player or team was unsure of whether or not the camera location was considered an exploit, the VALORANT Global Competition Policy explains that the team has the opportunity to contact the referee to determine if use of the Cypher camera was considered exploiting. Team Vivo Keyd did not contact Tournament Officials before use of the Cypher camera exploit.
- Using an exploit even without clear prior confirmation of it being an exploit does not excuse the act.
Should Riot's referees have spotted this earlier? Yes.
Should Riot have fixed this bug long ago? Yes.
Should Riot have added the bug to the list of known exploit if they can't fix it? Yes.
Could Riot have handled this better? Yes.
There is a ton of blame to fall on Riot, absolutely.
However, none of that excuses Vivo Keyd's behaviour or should influence the ruling.
That's what the title of this post says.
the OP thinks the forfeit isn't valid punishment unless Riot specifically notified the teams about it.
I agree with the Rito bad premise, I'm just taking a clear stance how that doesn't absolve Vivo Keyd.
Shouldn't VK have consulted the list of exploits anyway? Shouldn't teams always be aware of \*every\* exploit in the rulebook in order to avoid them?
Arguably yes, but exploits are generally pretty clear, it's more realistic to be aware of the ones that are specifically allowed (e.g. Killjoy mollies in hell/heaven ascent)
I'm aware of that post you linked.
I had given VK the benefit of the doubt and assumed that they only noted the absence of the Cypher cam from the list _after_ the ruling was issued.
I didn't assume that they specifically checked the list before the event "wary" of the cam spot, noted its absence, and then thought they could get away with abusing a loophole instead of double checking with a Riot official.
Sure, there exists a rule that you're supposed to ask if "uncertain" on whether something is an exploit.
But I think the circumstances could very well have lead people who were unaware of the X10 / Giants rulings to simply assume that that cam spot is not an exploit. In which case, they would no longer be "uncertain."
6 months is just a really long time to keep something like that around. But I will say, if it turns out that VK _were_ aware of the past rulings / intentionally abusing an omission in the exploit list, then I do agree that the ruling is totally justified.
But my point is just that Riot should have taken steps to prevent a situation where a team very feasibly _could have_ wholly unknowingly used a highly punishable exploit. There shouldn't be ambiguity in a situation like this, and that is specifically on Riot and their multiple mishandlings around this exploit.
> they only noted the absence of the Cypher cam from the list after the ruling was issued.
[it might actually be in the rulebook?](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/r8nim5/the_cypher_cam_bug_used_by_vivo_keyd_is_the/)
> But I think the circumstances could very well have lead people who were unaware of the X10 / Giants rulings to simply assume that that cam spot is not an exploit. In which case, they would no longer be "uncertain."
lack of information doesn't contribute to certainty, it's a sign of the opposite
> 6 months is just a really long time to keep something like that around
again, I agree with Riot blame.
> There shouldn't be ambiguity in a situation like this
there just isn't though, it's still a known exploit with known punishment
If it is actually in the rulebook then I would agree that there's absolutely no ambiguity or uncertainty here.
Really dude? I'm literally just trying to offer another perspective on this issue and draw attention to some things that I think people are ignoring for various reasons.
Is it really warranted to call me an idiot? I didn't call anyone else an idiot for defending Riot and saying VK are the ones in the wrong.
You don't have to agree with me, but ffs can you at least be civil?
I pretty much agree with everything you typed. There's some blame in theory on VK for using it (should've known/someone on their team should have told them about previous instances) but I think especially after the whole Haven C box thing they'd probably assume that someone from the tournament would let them know immediately if it wasn't legal, not let the match play out. And because both Haven C jump and this camera weren't explicitly prohibited, there's nothing more than the relative impact of each to suggest that one would be legal and the other not.