|
On December 13 2011 23:17 Slider954 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 23:14 nekoconeco wrote:On December 13 2011 23:10 MayorITC wrote:On December 13 2011 22:38 aderum wrote:On December 13 2011 22:37 leo23 wrote:On December 13 2011 22:34 Crashburn wrote:On December 13 2011 22:33 aderum wrote:On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote:
So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here. So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense... Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes? what is the win percentage for a worker rush as opposed to a 6 pool or bunker / cannon rushes? disrespectful tactic is not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to losing the game on purpose How do you know he "wanted" to lose that game? He obviously didnt want to play a long game, but that doesnt make him want to lose. Polt and MMA clearly didnt want to play long games either, but people arent freaking out about that. Hey Swede. I know this might sound crazy, but I don't think any single high-level player would agree with you that a Probe rush (a-move and then taking hands off keyboard) has any remote chance of winning against Nestea. You cannot prove it has a absolutely no chance of succeeding therefore it is simply a bad strategy. If Naniwa had instantly left the game or had attacked his own nexus, or had not touched his keyboard at all, or had never entered the booth then you would have an argument. Um he didn't touch his keyboard....he A-moved the drones and then took his hands off the keyboard and let them die so yeah......
That is touching the keyboard...
|
On December 13 2011 22:28 Crais wrote:
In soccer last year Wolves fielded a weakened team on purpose vs Manchester United so that they could rest their players for a later game. Caused a shit storm, ticket refunds, fines.
They did that so they could potentially win the crucial game that was played that weekend. They took the gamble and it paid off because they won that important game by resting their players for the Manchester United game. It got a shit storm, but so many teams do it in the Carling cup (the league cup). Often teams make 9-10 changes to their teams to play in the Carling cup so really the same could be said of those teams too.
|
On December 13 2011 23:21 DFDream wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 22:58 mireath wrote:On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:
[...]
Secondly, the ire directed at Naniwa assumes a worker rush is not a valid strategy. No, a worker rush is not a high-percentage strategy, but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless. If we are to harangue Naniwa for probe-rushing, then what is to stop us from doing the same with other similarly-fateful strategies?
[...]
Well, that's the problem. This wasn't a worker rush. He took his probes crossmap, and on arrival didn't micro them the slightest. That "strategy" had exactly 0% chance of succeeding. Had Nestea 6pooled that would have been all Naniwa had to do to win, but Nestea didn't so therefore he lost. Sure its like a 1% chance that Nestea 6 pools but if he does Naniwa wins, he probably decided not to micro when he saw that Nestea didn't 6 pool because he knew it was pointless.
No he didn't even wait to see if Nestea had 6 pooled. he sent the workers and took his hands off the keyboard w/o seeing what Nestea had done. He had no intention of doing anything once the workers had reached his base, regardless of what build Nestea had used. He wanted to lose.
|
If strategy_winrate =< 0
then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate > 0
then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
|
Although I know almost nothing of baseball, I'm pretty sure you can't compare it to Starcraft.
What Naniwa did is not like fielding a B-Team (that would probably be him not playing at his best level, as korean pros have been known to do), but just not playing at all. It's as if the player went on the field and just sat down to let the others score.
Secondly, the ire directed at Naniwa assumes a worker rush is not a valid strategy. No, a worker rush is not a high-percentage strategy, but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless. If we are to harangue Naniwa for probe-rushing, then what is to stop us from doing the same with other similarly-fateful strategies?
A probe rush against zerg is as close to 0% percent you can possibly get without killing your own stuff at the beginning.
This will never win against anyone who is not completely bad or stupid and certainly not against a professional player.
Anyway the argument it being not 0% is stupid, since there is theoretically no strategy that has a 0% percent chance of working,
What he did is like Nazgul said completely disrespectful to fans, viewers, GOMTV, his team and basically everyone.
I really hope he gets punished for this (like getting disqualified from Code S).
|
I think that a more apt baseball analogy would be if all the batters went into the box and refused to swing. I'm not foolish enough to ask you to give 100% in a meaningless game. I just would hope that you would go through the fucking motions. 6pool, proxy rax or gate, something, anything that actually has a chance of victory rather than doing something that is simply beaten by having a pulse.
|
|
|
It's not about hard set rules. It never was. There's also no rule stating that GOM isn't allowed to kick out naniwa because they don't want someone who doesn't give a rats ass about the viewers.
|
On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote:
If strategy_winrate =< 0
then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0
then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'?
|
On December 13 2011 23:29 Slider954 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote:
If strategy_winrate =< 0
then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0
then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that. You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'?
It's not about what I think; it's about what you can prove.
|
On December 13 2011 23:29 Crashburn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 23:29 Slider954 wrote:On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote:
If strategy_winrate =< 0
then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0
then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that. You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'? It's not about what I think; it's about what you can prove.
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that a player with 7 supply, all workers, has won a game with their hands off of the keyboard.
|
On December 13 2011 23:31 jenzebubble wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 23:29 Crashburn wrote:On December 13 2011 23:29 Slider954 wrote:On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote:
If strategy_winrate =< 0
then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0
then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that. You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'? It's not about what I think; it's about what you can prove. I think the burden of proof is on you to show that a player with 7 supply, all workers, has won a game with their hands off of the keyboard.
No, I'm not the party trying to legislate what strategies are and are not allowed.
|
On December 13 2011 23:15 ShatterZer0 wrote:
Though, that arbitrary line has never been needed to be established in Professional BW... Pro's took too much pride in their games... and when it was found that they were being insincere, they were permanently banned (See Match Fixing Scandal)
This is not even remotely close to the match-fixing scandal. Gomtv staff don't even care about what happened.
On December 13 2011 23:15 ShatterZer0 wrote:
Though, it does bring up a good question: What is "required" of a Pro player in a serious game with tens of THOUSANDS of dollars on the line and tens of THOUSANDS of fans' hearts praying for a good game?
They don't owe the fans anything also drama like this is what a lot of fans clearly like (hence this thread).
On December 13 2011 23:15 ShatterZer0 wrote:
I mean... If Naniwa had done some insane 2 gate warp gate all in while floating 3k mins (Basically played horribly on purpose instead of simply 6 probe rushing) would we have been more or less angry?
Many would be less angry but that is hypocrisy for you. They would also be less angry if it was a different player (like Sheth for example).
On December 13 2011 23:15 ShatterZer0 wrote:
I guess player have the right to play as badly as they want... but doing so has the obvious consequence of alienating them from their fanbase... or getting them blacklisted from tournaments.
Every sport needs a bad boy. As long as Naniwa says true to his character he will have plenty of fans.
On December 13 2011 23:15 ShatterZer0 wrote:
I wonder when Tournaments are going to have the monetary stability and presence of mind to begin blacklisting players because they're simply BAD for their events?
How can you say a player is arbitrarily bad for your event it is discrimination.
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that a player with 7 supply, all workers, has won a game with their hands off of the keyboard.
Not possible since it would require an infinite number of matches to be played to determine.
|
On December 13 2011 23:31 Crashburn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 23:31 jenzebubble wrote:On December 13 2011 23:29 Crashburn wrote:On December 13 2011 23:29 Slider954 wrote:On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote:
If strategy_winrate =< 0
then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0
then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that. You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'? It's not about what I think; it's about what you can prove. I think the burden of proof is on you to show that a player with 7 supply, all workers, has won a game with their hands off of the keyboard. No, I'm not the party trying to legislate what strategies are and are not allowed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
|
On December 13 2011 23:11 MinistryofPain wrote:
If we're talking in baseball analogies, what Naniwa was doing was putting 9 pitchers in the lineup and then having his batboy as the pitcher. I don't think many people would mind if he tried some wonky all in build, but to do something that lame is just beyond stupid. Again in professional sports, they take that opportunity of a failed season to get their younger players some action. You are playing against one of the best zergs in the game, why wouldn't you take that opportunity to better yourself?
I hear Naniwa say he just wants to be the best and is dedicated on doing everything it takes to do that. That one match shows that he either is full of it, or doesn't believe that every time he sits down to play a game of starcraft he can learn something or work on something from that game...and I don't think he'll ever become the best he can with that sort of attitude.
I agree that the baseball analogy was a poor one for reasons others have already mentioned, most notably playing those younger players gets them valuable experience/exposure from ACTUALLY COMPETING so the team can evaluate them for the following season.
At best, the analogy would be if the manager instructed all his batters to swing at every pitch, regardless of where the pitch was thrown, and every pitcher to throw strikes every single pitch. Is it a non-zero chance of winning? Sure, but there is no intent of actually competing, even if it is staying within the rules. If this had ever happened in a Class A baseball game let alone an MLB one, it would have caused a huge ruckus on ESPN, and ticket buyers would rightfully be upset.
Naniwa didn't just probe rush. He A-moved and took his hands off the keyboard. Even killing his own nexus would have almost taken longer to lose. I acknowledge the game didn't need to be played, but at least do SOMETHING.
The OP also brought up the "Suck for Luck" issue that was potentially going in in the NFL. Although I think the play of the teams has shown that with the possible exception of the Colts, all the other teams are actually competing every week to the best of their abilities and this isn't actually happening, even IF it were, there is at LEAST an actual incentive to not competing, similar to how NBA teams have done in the past in attempts to draft LeBron, etc.
The OP said that Naniwa was somehow looking out for his best interests. I don't see how? What could he have gained from not playing the game? An extra 20 minutes of his life? No one was asking him to use the strat he had originally planned to use against NesTea, but at least compete.
Whether or not he deserves any fines or suspensions, I don't think it can be argued that he deserves the bad press. He had to know nothing good could have come from what he did, and that there was a better than zero chance that something bad would come from it.
|
On December 13 2011 23:17 sondrizzle wrote:I think you're flat out wrong and fall on your own arguments. First off, you can't really compare team sports on the complete same level given that, well, one of them consists of a lot of players and the other just you and your opponent. Furthermore; in your example the teams still plays. And that is the main gripe. They played! Naniwa could've forfeited the game, and it would be okay, but to just straight up send your workers on attack move and take your hands off the keyboard is just downright dumb. Furthermore, GOM probably just show the rules on the website given that those websites are purely for entertainment purposes and not for the players playing it to stay up do date. They have rules, they are written, but they are most likely not on their streaming websites. And lastly; Show nested quote +Likewise, fans who showed up to that Astros-Reds game on September 21 were not owed their money back. The sponsors were not refunded ad revenue, either (as some have suggested be done with GOM). That is the risk you take as a fan when you purchase tickets, and that is the risk you take as a business when you choose to advertise. Because they fucking got to see a real game, regardless of the skills of the players, they still had a game shown to them. I don't care if you send in your b-team or c-team as long as you play the game. Why would you refund something that was played? Because the involved parties were horrible? If so I'd try to get tons of money back because of games with players I found to be horrible. No, no and no. Naniwa didn't even play a game, he rallied his workers, took his hands of his keyboard and was done with it. Quite frankly, this post just shows lack of understanding the differences between certain things that should be obvious. I don't care if you're from ESPN, it doesn't give you any credibility whatsoever about a topic you don't understand. Even your comparison is flawed on the basic level; the game was played.
Fake games giving off the illusion of competition is what you want to see? That's weird. I also feel like you have no right to say he lacks the understanding of the two scenes.
If you knew anything about MLB you would know that nobody watches or even cares about these meaningless games. It is understood that the tail end of seasons end up being meaningless for most teams. People do not complain about it. They just choose not to watch. The reason people still showed up is because they bought the tickets in advance. What you probably did not know either was that these games have record lows for attendance, with most of the seats that were sold still being empty. Every single person who plays/commentates/analyses/watches MLB understands these games are meaningless. Without a perfect format for the season it just happens. There is no fake honor or prestige to be had, professional sports communities aren't that naive I guess.
|
On December 13 2011 23:22 Slider954 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 23:19 Insurrectionist wrote:
Why would Naniwa play a real game anyway? There's no way either him or Nestea would use a build they'd practiced (unless Naniwa just used the one he played against Leenock with) and give future GSL opponents another match to go through and pick apart. Wrong, Nestea was actually up all night getting ready for the match cause he wanted to play and win. He even didn't celebrate his birthday because beating Naniwa and winning the match that yes, was pointless, was still nonetheless that important to him.
Unless you're implying Nestea is psychic and knew beforehand that they were going to play a meaningless game, I don't see how that argument has any merit. While he would almost certainly put on a show like most pros would in that situation, there is absolutely no way he'd use any ZvP build he ever plans to use in a serious GSL match in the future.
|
On December 13 2011 23:33 jenzebubble wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 23:31 Crashburn wrote:On December 13 2011 23:31 jenzebubble wrote:On December 13 2011 23:29 Crashburn wrote:On December 13 2011 23:29 Slider954 wrote:On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote:
If strategy_winrate =< 0
then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0
then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that. You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'? It's not about what I think; it's about what you can prove. I think the burden of proof is on you to show that a player with 7 supply, all workers, has won a game with their hands off of the keyboard. No, I'm not the party trying to legislate what strategies are and are not allowed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Your Wikipedia skills are appreciated, but that article is wrongfully cited, my friend.
|
Sorry, but this is not a valid analogy.
The Astros put out their B-team in order to give them more experience playing in a MLB setting. The more experience players have playing in that setting, the better they will perform in the future (same is true for Starcraft and stage experience). This is 1000 times more true when talking about pitchers. They put their B-team out when it doesn't matter so that they can screw it up without any consequences and gain the experience to not screw it up next time.
As far as validity of strategy is concerned, the only way to have lower chances of winning than that is to either walk away from the computer or destroy all of your own units. I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
Losing to get draft picks is also not a good analogy, though I can't say I endorse that practice. Those teams are at least losing in order to gain a reward from it. Naniwa lost on purpose in the most boring way possible just because he didn't feel like playing. What does he have to gain from losing on purpose? He doesn't even have to take it seriously, just make phoenixes or carriers or something and lol your way to a loss. Nobody would have hated him for that.
Just because it is not against any specific rules does not mean it wasn't wrong.
I agree people are overreacting. It's not like it's the end of the world, it's really not that big of a deal. Still, I did lose some respect for Naniwa today. As other people have said, what would WhiteRa have done?
|
On December 13 2011 23:29 Crashburn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 23:29 Slider954 wrote:On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote:
If strategy_winrate =< 0
then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0
then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that. You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'? It's not about what I think; it's about what you can prove.
Um you can prove that he took his hands of the keyboard and let them die cause people saw it. You can prove that he made no effort to win at all cause people saw it. Since you like to relate to pro sports, this is really no different than what DeSean Jackson did in the game against the Seahawks where he just quit on his team, regardless of how Andy Reid tried to spin it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
