EPT2. Implement some hibernation mode which will save the game state every 10 seconds or so
......
If you cant, no matter how you decide, you are always fucked. So do whatever you like, you are gonne be hated anyways
What is your opinion on the Parting/MKP decision in the GS…
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
|
Djin)ftw(
Germany3357 Posts
2. Implement some hibernation mode which will save the game state every 10 seconds or so ...... If you cant, no matter how you decide, you are always fucked. So do whatever you like, you are gonne be hated anyways | ||
|
Starstork
Norway2 Posts
| ||
|
Evergrowth
Norway21 Posts
| ||
|
Starstork
Norway2 Posts
| ||
|
Djin)ftw(
Germany3357 Posts
On April 12 2012 21:23 Starstork wrote: Would rather see they give 1 to many re games then 1 to many wins that was not deserved (im not saying if this should be re game or not..) but if there is the slightest chance mkp could come back.. doesnt he deserve a chance? That statement doesnt make any sense. Given game state s(g): if you could calculate the game from here via an infinite number of AI's playing the game against each other in an infinite number of ways from this point on, you would get the chance for each player to win. Lets say it's 50:50. A regame makes perfectly sense. However, the chances will probably be more like 60:40 or 70:30 for one player. Now there are two possible solutions for this scenario (disc), given the the premise that one player had a (major) lead: 1. regame YES -> unfair because you take away his advantage 2. regame NO -> unfair because other player still has chances tertium non datur. It is not possible to say "Okay, you had a chance of 63:54% to win that game. We will therfore start a new custom game with you having a 63.54% chance from the start." In fact, it's not even possbile to determine the exact chances. What you COULD try is to say "We want to minimize the damage. So if it is obvious that one player has a massive lead (>75%), he will get the win." That is what people intuitively do. However, since noone is able to determine whether or not the 75% barrier was crossed, it will always end in a fruitless discussion | ||
|
furo
Germany449 Posts
MKP did really good in this game as long as he was ahead in eco. onces they where even on bases (parting was ahead in eco since MKP's mule mined out more of his bases) and parting had a 40 supply lead with the better tech this game was over at this level of play. also he was in MKP's production and everyone knows that this means for terran. maybe MKP still has like 10% because he is fucking MKP, it's still a win for parting. | ||
|
SilverWolfe
Canada173 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/R5CkH.jpg) i'm a huge mkp fan and even I think parting should have easily gotten the win. It would have been a really different gstl finals | ||
|
AnnoyingNoob
Norway18 Posts
| ||
|
DrGreen
Poland708 Posts
I've never seen terran win a game after losing his whole army. There were 16 zealots at his production, no amount of micro can save in that situation. You could actually put a rockshock (silver player) to play instead of parting and he would still win. You could even put the simpliest AI which would only make chargelots and amove them and it would still win. I would have to see a replay of someone defending 16 zealots and 8 hts with freshly spawned 8 marines and 2 marauders without medivac support. I didnt even take into consideration partings economic advantage. Even if he didnt camp MKPs production he could simply send 2 zealots to each of MKPs expos and DESTROY his economy completely. I'm glad that MKP lost to Squirtle in the champ bracket, but that won't give Startale a GSTL trophy :< | ||
|
SoniC_eu
Denmark1008 Posts
On April 12 2012 23:22 DrGreen wrote: I was rooting for MKP at the beginning of game 1, but for me there's no doubt that Parting should've be given this game. I've never seen terran win a game after losing his whole army. There were 16 zealots at his production, no amount of micro can save in that situation. You could actually put a rockshock (silver player) to play instead of parting and he would still win. You could even put the simpliest AI which would only make chargelots and amove them and it would still win. I would have to see a replay of someone defending 16 zealots and 8 hts with freshly spawned 8 marines and 2 marauders without medivac support. I didnt even take into consideration partings economic advantage. Even if he didnt camp MKPs production he could simply send 2 zealots to each of MKPs expos and DESTROY his economy completely. I'm glad that MKP lost to Squirtle in the champ bracket, but that won't give Startale a GSTL trophy :< rockshock is slang for silver player or is it polish?  | ||
|
squanzo
68 Posts
I also think it was a victory for Parting, because, well, let's face it.... Protoss would have to try to lose from that point out. | ||
|
sjperera
Canada349 Posts
On April 12 2012 21:44 Starstork wrote: favoured yes, but a comeback was not out of the question.. it was not an easy decision to make, any other terran i would say he was dead.. but mkp's control is just so insane he can do so much with so little The world ending due to a Russian nuclear strike was also not out of the question... I don't think we could just say "anything could happen" and move on... decisions must be made in games such as these. It's late game, large supply discrepancies... if you can't make a decision on something like this then the policy should be regame every instance... at the end of the day, Parting was robbed of an opportunity to bounce off Prime' ace player and that had a tremendous impact on the rest of the finals... | ||
|
Xenogears
France87 Posts
Parting had won this game, the GSTL finals were a fraud. | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
| ||
|
BombaySensei
United States282 Posts
Also, people are saying it was not a clear win for parting, so regame was the obvious choice. Well... regame is essentially calling the game even (because you start all over again), which it obviously was not even, most people admit parting was well ahead. So, regame was not a fair choice. If anything, it should have been turned into BO3 with Parting up 1-0. Actually, given the disparity, he probably should have been given 2-0 in a BO5. | ||
|
HeeroFX
United States2704 Posts
| ||
|
King[Neikos]
Costa Rica506 Posts
| ||
|
Doof
United States204 Posts
Of course it was not definitive, but I think refs should always err on the side of deciding the game, rather than erring on the side of a re-game. It's more fair that way. Parting earned a big lead in that game, and the re-game stole that lead from him and put MKP even with him again. In my opinion, this specific instance isn't as important as the values that the decision shows. The decision to re-game was unfair to Parting, as he had a substantial lead and the refs just took it away from him. Even if there was a chance that MKP could come back, a re-game is more unfair to Parting than a decision is unfair to MKP. Put on top of that all the pressure of the game, the fact that it was MKP, Prime's star player, and I feel like the decision ruined the entire finals. Just straight up unfair. Parting earned that lead. | ||
|
HowellTime
United States32 Posts
| ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
That being said given the disconnect I think a re-game was the only reasonable call. It's not the ref's faults... it's blizzard's fault. | ||
| ||
