EPTWhat is your opinion on the Parting/MKP decision in the GS…
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
|
EpicSauce
United States9 Posts
| ||
|
DidYuhim
Ukraine1905 Posts
On April 15 2012 04:10 EpicSauce wrote: There was a thread by mlg somewhere that said that it literally had to be a done game, where one player would win 99% of the time to award the match, because otherwise you could just pull the plug anytime you're at an advantage. Just imagine an online tournament where someone gambles with something like dts, and gets 20 supply ahead of a korean pro, and then just pulls the plug. He didn't deserve the win obviously, and so it would be a regame. Instead, you unplug when you are behind. | ||
|
TBA
92 Posts
| ||
|
Lawliet
United States70 Posts
Also 5+ mules. And this is coming from a Prtoss player. Rename or bo3 would have been my call. | ||
|
Brilliance
United States28 Posts
Either way, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Parting wins that game. | ||
|
Dontkillme
Korea (South)806 Posts
| ||
|
BadgerBadger8264
Netherlands409 Posts
Why are Vikings "useless"? They eat up zealots, they are great harassing tools, etc, etc. MKP was dogging storms all game and sniping Templars with murders the whole game. Parting didn't reinforce his attack with his last warpin. A lot of his army supply was at his Base. Damaged 1/0 vikings don't "eat up" 3/3 chargelots, they barely have the DPS of a marine and were all damaged. The 6 vikings he had would've barely killed 2 zealots. And seriously, MKP's army, including his reinforcements, was about half the size of parting's army, and Parting had storms AND an economy, whereas MKP was mining from a single base that was running out of minerals. MKP wouldn't have won a long game, and Parting had cannons and a larger standing army to survive WAY past what MKP could possibly throw at him. It was beyond over. | ||
|
9incher
2 Posts
I think regame is necessary in order to avoid the WORST case scenorio where they would be giving Parting the win even though he could actually lose. | ||
|
ultimfier
Canada29 Posts
On April 15 2012 11:07 9incher wrote: Well, Parting lost in the second game...if he would have one the first game then why not in the second? I think regame is necessary in order to avoid the WORST case scenorio where they would be giving Parting the win even though he could actually lose. why play best of 7s, if someone wins the first game they will obviously win games 2, 3, 4 as well. | ||
|
Rorschach
United States623 Posts
Personal opinion says the refs should have given it to Parting although a regame was the politically correct decision. I claim no bias as I am neither a Startale nor Prime/MKP fanboy... | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
| ||
|
Caltrop
Sweden34 Posts
All other situations is a 70%, 85% "whatever"%. | ||
|
ButchHass
Canada2 Posts
Its the bottom off the 7th the home team is up by 6 ... whats this .. its a rain cloud .. Umpire calls the game home team win .. this is how a sport thats been around 100 years does it .. not saying it was a easy call. But you should be given some credit for being in a more then likely to win situation | ||
|
Maxtor
United Kingdom273 Posts
Unlikely and almost impossible comebacks do occur, the crappy situation was forced on the staff who I think made the right call out of the options available to them. More likely than not, 9/10 times, and similar probabilities are ,I feel just not good enough to award the game to one player over another. 1 up in a BO3 would be better out of those options though, as it carries over the winning player's advantage while not completely removing the losing player's chances. | ||
|
AxisXI
United States31 Posts
| ||
|
Sanguinarius
United States3427 Posts
| ||
|
Firkraag8
Sweden1006 Posts
On April 11 2012 03:43 pPingu wrote: Still waiting for a pro to say that parting wouldn't have won this 1.According to this screenshot http://i.imgur.com/IuHuA.jpg, mkp has 21 supply in reprod, and just enough money to make 5 more marauders, still not enough to reach parting supply. You assume that parting will suicide his whole army and not produce anything, so mkp will be able to defend 2. And no, mkp didn't have the better economy, in fact parting had it http://i.imgur.com/jugZC.jpg 3. Mkp had no advantage over parting, parting had the better economy, the better army, he still had hts alive while mkp had no more tech units, and they had about the same in upgrades (something like 3/3 and 3/1(2)/3 iirc) 1. That's not counting queued up units. Moments earlier MKP was banking a lot of resources which most likely was resting inside the barracks. 2. Fresh off a mule cycle? They had a similar worker count, slight favor to MKP with mules from 4-5 cc's. 3. See 1&2. Game wasn't clearly in anyones favor from where I was sitting so a re-game was the right call. | ||
|
Doomtrain2
Germany45 Posts
On April 11 2012 02:12 TBone- wrote: I think Partning should of won. But it was such a hard decision I'm not to angry about it. I'm more frustrated at blizzard for still not implementing one of the many solutions presented to them that would solve this. Like saving a multiplayer game... warcraft 3 had that, you could join with the exact same party members, but not in sc2... On April 15 2012 11:07 9incher wrote: Well, Parting lost in the second game...if he would have one the first game then why not in the second? Because it's starcraft 2. Thouh shall not always win. But you can see it like statistic-lessons, in the long run the better player will win more often. | ||
|
Neurosis
United States893 Posts
| ||
|
mastergriggy
United States1312 Posts
| ||
| ||
