What is your opinion on the Parting/MKP decision in the GS…

On April 11 2012 03:29 ZerphyR wrote:
MKP's production was about to pop in a matter of seconds, and he can beat the zealots w 8 marauders and 16 marines more. Als he had a better economy so it was still anyones game :D

On April 11 2012 03:43 pPingu wrote:
Still waiting for a pro to say that parting wouldn't have won this



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

And no, mkp didn't have the better economy, in fact parting had it http://i.imgur.com/jugZC.jpg

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)

On April 11 2012 03:44 cTrFray wrote:
Zerphyr i think marineking is the best player in the world and parting is not but marineking lost that is fact prime most feel awful and creator and byon was to easy to snipe this is what i mean when I say you guys dont under stand anything about team games!

On April 11 2012 02:01 RenSC2 wrote:
I'm generally okay with either decision. Without having the replay in front of me, it's tough to say exactly what the game state was. Parting clearly had an advantage and if he plays it right, he'll get the win. However, we've seen many players overextend in that sort of situation and lose the game. One round of well-microed MKP units could have potentially wiped an overextended army and turned the game back in MKP's favor.

It just stinks that MKP was almost eliminated, but then got the re-game and was able to sweep the rest so that decision to re-game ended up being so critical.

On April 11 2012 03:49 ZerphyR wrote:


He had 5 or 6 orbitals his 5th finishe imagine 10 mules in this situation

On April 11 2012 03:52 ZerphyR wrote:


lol, what ar u some kind of top level coach, cus im just a high masters terran.
Who wached GSTL for over a year now. ;P

On April 11 2012 03:58 cTrFray wrote:
yeha but because ur a MKP fanboy like the rest of this dumb comuntiy cant see the whole sitation again im just a platinum zerg who have played the game for 2 months but i still can read the situation better then 90 procent of the comuntiy because im not blinded by the fanboyism like the rest of you by the way every thing i said before is true and none of you can say anything that indicates that my statements are wrong!!!!!!

On April 11 2012 03:56 pPingu wrote:


Protoss are supposed to keep up with economy with terrans with same amount of bases, counting mules, you suppose that mkp had 2 mules ready in each of his orbitals while he could have already used all of them, what's important is the economy he had during the reproduction



I think they might be a bit higher that high master and don't agree with you, also might have a bit more experience in GSTL

http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/R1CH/IPL4/Day2/504_05011_t.jpg

On April 11 2012 04:01 Ravar wrote:


You sound like a 12 year old talking about music.

On April 11 2012 04:48 Wampaibist wrote:
I'm a bit torn. I think the correct option should have been a best of three with parting start a game up. But who am i to make calls

On April 11 2012 06:23 Zealot Orgy wrote:
426 MKP fanboys, no other explanation.


Literally every single pro player comment on this gave the 100% win to Parting, yet the fanboyism is even stronger than that.

On April 11 2012 06:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
parting had that about 95% won. but thats not 100%. so re-game was necessary. sucked for parting, but them's the breaks.

edit: i dislike MKP and find it amusing that everyone is saying only MKP fanboys think it was fair.

On April 11 2012 02:34 HorsemasterK wrote:
Parting wins that 7/10 times, but you can't say FOR SURE that we was going to win. Regame was correct, but sad situtation.

On April 11 2012 07:47 Aradune wrote:
i'd love to see players taking care of situations like that by themselves. imagine mkp saying "you were in the lead, your game".
okay, there is a lot of money on the line and regames might be the best practical solution but a gentlemen's agreement would be such a nice sign for manner and honor.

besides all the money, the moments in which opponents show sportsmanship and honor are the ones which will last and impress the most.

On April 11 2012 02:34 HorsemasterK wrote:
Parting wins that 7/10 times, but you can't say FOR SURE that we was going to win. Regame was correct, but sad situtation.

On April 11 2012 06:23 Zealot Orgy wrote:
426 MKP fanboys, no other explanation.


Literally every single pro player comment on this gave the 100% win to Parting, yet the fanboyism is even stronger than that.

On April 11 2012 03:18 00Visor wrote:
relevant: (I didnt do this)

On April 11 2012 09:40 Shinespark wrote:


Oh. I did not know this. I voted for regame but now I want to change my vote.

On April 11 2012 02:38 Amestir wrote:
Not voting, I think the best option would be to make it a Bo3 with Parting starting 1 - 0.

On April 11 2012 03:18 00Visor wrote:
relevant: (I didnt do this)

On April 11 2012 08:46 B1nary wrote:
At the time the game was paused, I think Parting would almost certainly win. With so many stalkers out, the mutas probably wouldn't be able to do much. But Nestea was calling for a pause for quite a while before that, when the game wasn't so overwhelmingly in Parting's favour. The admins were at fault for not noticing Nestea's signals. It was an unfortunate situation for both players, but it wouldn't have been fair to take the possibility of a win from Nestea for something he had no control over. I think they made the right call.

On April 11 2012 11:56 NovemberstOrm wrote:
Even though parting was ahead MKP had a lot of production and even if there is a chance that MKP would have won they had to re-game for it , it's impossible to 100% say Parting would have won.Judges made the correct call and all the mad fanboys stop riding dick and let it go. TL shouldn't even allow this topic to be put up idk why it was causes drama when gomtv won't change the decision as the finals are over.

On April 11 2012 11:46 Corsica wrote:


This... also even MKP's micro wouldnt save him from defeat...

On April 11 2012 12:12 xUnSeEnx wrote:
Quit crying about a protoss losing, I am sorry it was evident that Parting was not the better player when he lost the second game to the same build (that he "beat" in the first game). Get over yourselves and stop whining and praise MKP for doing an excellent job in retaking the game (during the regame) and wiping the floor of the rest of Startale. Boo-hoo there was a regame, but honestly it was fair and just instead of saying one player could win over the other, especially with Partings recent performance it is hard to just flat out call someone a victor because of what you can see. MKP is really, really good and probably would have shocked everyone.

On April 11 2012 13:05 zumpy wrote:
Whether or not the win should have been given or not depending on the game. The after game graphs and post game analysis show Parting in the lead. Whether or not that was win worthy or not doesn't matter but a decision should be made in Parting's favor because he was in the lead. A regame isn't fair because it puts the players back on 'equal' footing when Parting was at an advantage.

I think that it either should of been turned into a bo3 with 1-0 in favor of Parting or a regame with Parting getting map choice. Or something else that is favorable to Parting...

On April 11 2012 12:47 Rudolph wrote:


Well in the 2nd game MKP made sure not to make the same mistakes in the first game. Parting must have been pretty frustrated after they called a regame because he thought he deserved the win. People keep forgetting the impact that it had psychologically on the players. MKP was relieved and alert, Parting was frustrated. Also, remember Parting having to pause in the 2nd game? Thats yet another factor to add on to his frustration. MKP knows he didn't deserve the 2nd game, you could tell by his face. This was a huge call, and I for one think it was the wrong one.

MKP knows he didn't deserve the 2nd game, you could tell by his face.

On April 11 2012 13:31 LF9 wrote:
The thing almost everyone fails to understand is that in any tournament, according to the rules, the decision for.a regame is given when "no player has a clear advantage", and in cases where a player has a "clear advantage, in case of a disconnect, upon review of the game by judges, the player who is determined to have an advantageous position and/or is in a better position to win the game will be awarded the win". People keep saying things like "you can't say MKP 100% loses the game, so regame is the correct decision". You don't need to. No player is ever 100% certain to win any game. A player does not need to be in an un-losable situation to be awarded the win. He merely needs to be determined to have the advantage over the other player. Nowhere does it say anything about 100%. In fact, if you can say that a player will probably win the game in question 60% of the time, he is supposed to be given the win in such situations. Re-game is only called for if the game is completely even and no player has any advantage over the other, or it is less than 2 minutes into the game and no decisive engagement has taken place. People need to understand the rules first before commenting on whether the decision was correct or not. Read the above, and now make your decision. Was any player in a position of advantage to win the game 6 times out of 10?

On April 11 2012 12:37 Surgical_Strike wrote:




Those numbers are just flat out incorrect. parting did not have that much.... and even less than what he had was on MKP's side of the map. most of it was at home. The supply that was about to pop out of his rax and starport was stronger than the force Parting had outside of MKP's base. It would have gotten thrown back and game would have gone on 5 base vs 5 base.... so regame made perfect sense.

On April 11 2012 15:09 Scarecrow wrote:

Being ahead for 90% of the game is very different to having the game 99.5% won when it disconnects. There was just no way MKP was coming back in that game vs a Protoss who can warp in 15 units at a time, has 8 templar already on the field vs a couple of marauders plus useless vikings with units already on top of the barracks. MKP was drastically behind in army supply and composition with 9 useable barracks vs a 15 gate 5 base protoss that's sitting outside his production. Parting would've had to have a seizure to lose the game. It blows my mind how even the poll is, MKP bias is really strong apparently. I also don't get how the IPL ref's can analyse that replay and see any reason not to award Parting the win.

On April 11 2012 16:30 Surgical_Strike wrote:



none of what you just said remotely resembles how the game was at D/C you are blowing his lead wayyy out of proportion and misleading people... and you call others biased?

On April 11 2012 16:21 zumpy wrote:
http://www.twitch.tv/ignproleague/b/314284087?t=2h11m
match is at about 2 hours and 11 minutes.
disconnect happens at about 2h 29m
If you watch the match you can clearly, CLEARLY see that parting was ahead
he had just come as a winner of a battle and had zealots and stalkers attacking production with almost no units from marineking to stop

yes MAYBE marineking's new cycle of units would have cleaned up but parting was also macroing still giving him an edge + with the warp prism you have no idea what would have happened but what is very clear is that parting was ahead and i think would have mostly won.

they should have gave parting the win.

you have no idea what would have happened

On April 11 2012 16:56 Blacktion wrote:
Parting had hardly any money, he couldnt keep up the warp ins he needed to finish the game there. If it didnt DC, MKP pulls scvs when his next round of rax units is out and holds that attack.
Was parting ahead? Yes. Was the game over? No.
Regame.
EDIT: The new korean starcraft organisation should get together with IPL, MLG and IEM and possibly kespa if this switching business is actually happening and get on blizzards case about LAN. So much money/prestige on the line and games are being fucked up by easily avoidable netwrok issues? Come on Blizzard. Seriously.

On April 11 2012 17:00 berndniph wrote:
the poll says it all.

regame was the right decision.

On April 11 2012 17:55 epicdemic wrote:


The majority of the people in the poll thinks regame was not the right decision. And also, since there are more MKP fanboys than Squirtle fanboys, probably it was not the right decision

On April 11 2012 18:05 ghosthunter wrote:



42% is not a majority, adding a smiley face does not make your point any more valid or less insulting

On April 11 2012 03:18 00Visor wrote:
relevant: (I didnt do this)

On April 11 2012 18:35 epicdemic wrote:


1248 think that it was the wrong decision.
1070 think it was the right decision.

>> majority. Sometimes math is very hard. This is not one of those times.

On April 11 2012 20:54 Lazzi wrote:
I think there was no good thing to do : regame is not fair for the one who's ahead, say Parting win is unfair for MKP because he could do a comeback. The only good answer to that is auto-save game which doesn't exist yet...

On April 12 2012 05:39 snively wrote:
he still could have won.
i mean, look at the infamous idra vs. mma game, where mma destroyed his own command center, and idra promtly surrendered

the game isnt over until a player actually surrenders, or the game declares a winner (or a draw is forced)

the regame was the correct decision.

On April 12 2012 03:56 SmuZ wrote:
Marinekings micro is amazing, when I saw that game I was like lol ... My opinion is that Parting could win that game but actually Marineking deserved that one

On April 11 2012 12:53 melquiades wrote:
It doesn't really matter whether the "correct" call was made or not. The call was made by the people who had been designated to make it, and who are more qualified to do it than any of the people whining about it post factum..

On April 12 2012 09:34 Grackula wrote:


I heard that several progamers confirmed that Parting couldn't possibly lose that game.

I believe it was SaSe and NonY I heard of. Pretty sure these guys are qualified. I might have heard wrong

On April 12 2012 09:59 zyce wrote:
This is a re-game, absolutely. Neither player should be awarded a win if the game had a disconnect unless they forfeit. It's better not to resort to a judgment call in these situations, because the referee becomes an integral part of the game's result.

On April 12 2012 10:16 zefreak wrote:


They also said that about the final game of Nestea vs Mvp at Blizzcon, when Nestea was ahead in every way and just threw away his army and econ lead in poor engagements and poor decisions.

Games shouldn't be awarded on probable outcome assuming people play perfectly. Look at Bomber vs MKP that very same night. If Bomber had just sat back and defended instead of sacrificing his 3rd and going for a delayed base-trade he would have won almost 100% of the time. People make poor decisions, Parting included. Judges should always err on the side of regame unless the game was literally over at time of disconnect.

Games shouldn't be awarded on probable outcome assuming people play perfectly.

On April 11 2012 04:23 Fryioq wrote:
I think the problem with NOT doing a re-game is that you need a clear definition for what someone is clearly winning to be. Since no such thing exists (maybe it should, and should be discussed as to what would constitute that) regame is really the only fair option I feel. While I do agree that Parting was quite far ahead, and in an excellent position to win, it wasn't a 100% clearcut, no one can say otherwise win situation. Because of that regame is the fair choice.

I've heard that maybe in such a case where someone is ahead and not 100% going to win, they change it to a Bo3 with the better looking person one game up? Im not sure, but a new rule has to be put in place to deal with these situations.

Either some definition of what "100% going to win" is
or
Some alternate set up where perhaps a Bo3 or something similar is held where the person with the advantage has a game already?

Otherwise re-game seems the correct position, given the rules.

On April 12 2012 10:16 zefreak wrote:


They also said that about the final game of Nestea vs Mvp at Blizzcon, when Nestea was ahead in every way and just threw away his army and econ lead in poor engagements and poor decisions.

Games shouldn't be awarded on probable outcome assuming people play perfectly. Look at Bomber vs MKP that very same night. If Bomber had just sat back and defended instead of sacrificing his 3rd and going for a delayed base-trade he would have won almost 100% of the time. People make poor decisions, Parting included. Judges should always err on the side of regame unless the game was literally over at time of disconnect.

On April 11 2012 02:38 Amestir wrote:
Not voting, I think the best option would be to make it a Bo3 with Parting starting 1 - 0.

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?

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

On April 11 2012 13:31 LF9 wrote:
The thing almost everyone fails to understand is that in any tournament, according to the rules, the decision for.a regame is given when "no player has a clear advantage", and in cases where a player has a "clear advantage, in case of a disconnect, upon review of the game by judges, the player who is determined to have an advantageous position and/or is in a better position to win the game will be awarded the win". People keep saying things like "you can't say MKP 100% loses the game, so regame is the correct decision". You don't need to. No player is ever 100% certain to win any game. A player does not need to be in an un-losable situation to be awarded the win. He merely needs to be determined to have the advantage over the other player. Nowhere does it say anything about 100%. In fact, if you can say that a player will probably win the game in question 60% of the time, he is supposed to be given the win in such situations. Re-game is only called for if the game is completely even and no player has any advantage over the other, or it is less than 2 minutes into the game and no decisive engagement has taken place. People need to understand the rules first before commenting on whether the decision was correct or not. Read the above, and now make your decision. Was any player in a position of advantage to win the game 6 times out of 10?

On April 13 2012 03:11 figq wrote:
A win at that level cannot and should not be awarded administratively, unless there was a clear definition in the official rules about that. It sucks, but it's part of the game and progamers should be mentally prepared for such situations.

On April 13 2012 17:44 TheBengalTigger wrote:
I'm sorry, but there's clearly a misconception here.

If you have a "clear advantage" you are given the win. This is especially true if the losing side is the one that disconnects (as was the case, in fact).

People who are saying "MarineKing still had 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% chance to come back and win" - it doesn't matter. The rules do not, nor should they, allow for re-game in such situations. You think it's unfair for MarineKing to miss out on that 5-10% chance? Far more unfair for Parting and StarTale to be forced into a re-game.

Let's say that Parting, as the better player in PvT, has a 60% chance to win the re-game. Or say it's 50-50. Whatever. Observe:

Case 1-9: Parting would have won the first game.
Case 10: MKP would have won the first game.

Awarding Parting the decision gets it right 9 out of 10 times.

Forcing a re-game, however:

Case 1-6: Parting wins the re-game. The re-game is the correct decision.
Case 7-10: MKP wins the re-game. In case 10, MKP would have actually won the first game. In cases 7-9, the re-game unfairly awards MKP the game in a case that Parting would have won.

This means that the re-game is only correct 7 out of 10 times.

Of course, these numbers are totally made-up, but in point of fact Parting had the army advantage, the upgrade advantage, the tech advantage, the economic advantage, and the positional advantage. The game was 100% over. I'm not going to accuse Prime of pulling the plug - I don't believe MKP would do that - but it's ridiculous that their disconnect earns them a total re-game. That decision was no doubt made for the fans, or done in an attempt to avoid controversy, but in point of fact it went against the stated rules and against principles of fairness.

Those in favor of the re-game: Would you also suggest a re-game if MKP was down to his last 1 supply, on the grounds that he could theoretically come back? Probably not. This game wasn't quite THAT decided, but it was pretty well decided, and it shouldn't have to be anywhere near 100% for the game to be awarded to Parting. He had a decisive lead. You wouldn't call for a re-game in chess if the board got irreparably messed up with one player down a queen.

I'm sorry to StarTale about this decision, and sorrier still that so much of the community seems to think it was the right call. I know a lot of people feel that administratively awarding a player a game is unacceptable or unfair, but remember that Prime disconnected and StarTale had a decisive lead. Everyone agrees Parting had the lead. The only question I've even seen is whether it was 70%, 80%, 90%, 99.9%, or, as I genuinely believe, 100% absent a physical injury or act of god. Award him the game and tell MarineKing that if he doesn't want to get penalized for a disconnect then he shouldn't be down 50 supply with colossi in his production facilities when it occurs.

On April 14 2012 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote:


Say what you will the re-game is the correct choice. Unless he's in the main base of MKP it's not over yes he was killing three barracks outside his base.Giving a game to somebody unless it's 100% for sure win then it's not the right decision.There's nothing to feel sorry about even if PartinG lost it's there fault for letting mkp go on a rampage like that. Mkp wouldn't disconnect his ethernet cord lol I find it funny you would even suggest him of that. Ipl4's fault for having shitty computers, Games in the gsl hardly ever disconnected at their real studio.

On April 14 2012 05:03 meadbert wrote:
I have personally never lost a game once up 149-110 supply. Parting had this in the bad. MKP's chances were less than 1%.

EDIT: Never as a Protoss player. I have lost after being up that much with Zerg.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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?

On April 11 2012 03:29 ZerphyR wrote:
MKP's production was about to pop in a matter of seconds, and he can beat the zealots w 8 marauders and 16 marines more. Als he had a better economy so it was still anyones game :D

On April 17 2012 06:17 NotSorry wrote:


MKP's main productions were fine, Parting was attacking the 3 extra raxs MKP made towards the middle of the map, the rest of his production was safe, and Parting whole remaining army were red/orange hp and would have been cleaned up quickly with Partings reinforcements on the other side of the map and not enough income to even do a full wave.

On April 16 2012 18:08 Monsen wrote:
Poll needs a "Fu Blizzard giev LAN" option. There was no just call to be made there and Blizzard is responsible for creating the situation.