What is your opinion on the Parting/MKP decision in the GS…
Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
Zerguru
31 Posts
| ||
RenSC2
United States976 Posts
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. | ||
dnld12
United States324 Posts
| ||
TBone-
United States2309 Posts
| ||
JuicyNutsack
United States34 Posts
| ||
-JoKeR-
Canada387 Posts
| ||
HorsemasterK
United States606 Posts
| ||
Amestir
Netherlands2126 Posts
| ||
PixelNite
France1008 Posts
| ||
Caltu
60 Posts
You cannot call a game right there, PartinG may have turned back and lost later, MKP held at ramp, PartinG stormed own units. There is no way you could call, we've seen people come back from worse. It may have been hard to call but it was the right one | ||
cTrFray
Sweden13 Posts
| ||
00Visor
4337 Posts
| ||
Arafel
United States10 Posts
| ||
Nuithari
Belgium737 Posts
Anyway, I believe the regame is justified. The fresh warp-in was at PartinG's main (so he didn't use the Warp prism). By the time those reinforcements got to the front, if he even decided to send them there, MKP's new cycle would've pushed back. And the game would've gone on for a bit longer. A lot of things can happen in 5 minutes. MKP was in a tough spot for sure, but a comeback, although difficult, was possible. If there's a chance however small it is, it's a regame imho. | ||
ZerphyR
Slovenia275 Posts
| ||
cTrFray
Sweden13 Posts
primes best player would have been out. Only player left to choose from was creator or ghostking those two players had the task to not only kill parting who would have anyways prob just all killed prime after the winn over mkp but let say creator took out parting then ST just whood had sniped with bomber or curius or squirtle all three of them big favoirts to kill both creator and ghostking any one dissagring with me is just a fucking prime mkp fanboy who is shit and dont know anything about how starcraft team leauges works!!"!!! | ||
cTrFray
Sweden13 Posts
User was banned for this post. | ||
ZerphyR
Slovenia275 Posts
So the regame was the right choise. | ||
Boxihobo
Hungary37 Posts
| ||
pPingu
Switzerland2892 Posts
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 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) | ||
cTrFray
Sweden13 Posts
| ||
ZerphyR
Slovenia275 Posts
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) He had 5 or 6 orbitals his 5th finishe imagine 10 mules in this situation | ||
ZerphyR
Slovenia275 Posts
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! 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 | ||
NOOBALOPSE
Canada802 Posts
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. I think what should have happened, was that it becomes a BO3 with partinG up 1 game... I really think PartinG had won at that point. Damn you GSTL!! EDIT: Damn you blizzard for no LAN | ||
pPingu
Switzerland2892 Posts
On April 11 2012 03:49 ZerphyR wrote: He had 5 or 6 orbitals his 5th finishe imagine 10 mules in this situation 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 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 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 | ||
cTrFray
Sweden13 Posts
| ||
Ravar
United States447 Posts
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!!!!!! You sound like a 12 year old talking about music. | ||
ZerphyR
Slovenia275 Posts
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 Yeah they are, and also they made the right choise :D It was still anyones game. | ||
ZerphyR
Slovenia275 Posts
On April 11 2012 04:01 Ravar wrote: You sound like a 12 year old talking about music. What if ur wrong and the 90% percent are right, cuz that seems logical to me. | ||
fezvez
France3021 Posts
Because, as unlikely as it seems, there are incredible comebacks in SC2 Look at White-Ra vs MMA game at 10:45 | ||
Leetley
1796 Posts
Damn you blizzard for no LAN Even if it was a hardware failure, it could've been Bnet 0.2 aswell. | ||
Fryioq
United States16 Posts
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. | ||
ProxyKnoxy
United Kingdom2576 Posts
Come on guys, lets be serious. Parting had that EASILY. | ||
Wampaibist
United States478 Posts
| ||
refmac_cys.cys
United States177 Posts
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 You could do something like that in an individual tournament, but in a Winner's League type Team League, that gives whoever wins the Bo3 a bit of a disadvantage. I, honestly, would like to see something like what TL did during TSL with the Nightend v. Boxer game. Have a panel of pros ready to look at the game for a bit, and then decide from there whether it would be a regame or a win for Parting. | ||
Akash1223
United States91 Posts
Imo, the game from TSL3 where Boxer was given the win over Nightend was a less clear situation than this. | ||
naimina
20 Posts
| ||
Ollie
United States144 Posts
| ||
Devilldog
United States69 Posts
| ||
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
| ||
Zealot Orgy
United Kingdom537 Posts
Literally every single pro player comment on this gave the 100% win to Parting, yet the fanboyism is even stronger than that. | ||
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
edit: i dislike MKP and find it amusing that everyone is saying only MKP fanboys think it was fair. | ||
TheAmazombie
United States3714 Posts
| ||
slicknav
1409 Posts
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. because pro player are always right and make objective calls, especially when not viewing the replay... | ||
NuclearJudas
6546 Posts
IMO, Parting would have taken the game (hence be given the match, giving STQ a 3-1 lead), but I'm kind of fine with the regame decision. It's so hard to be put in that situation. No matter what you decide, you fuck someone. | ||
BearStorm
United States795 Posts
| ||
00Visor
4337 Posts
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. Its never 100% sure. You have to draw some line. I agree with the 95% and the win should probably be awarded if it was >90-95% sure. So its close. I can understand the standpoint of the referees. You can always see the disconnect as some lucky 'act of nature beyond control'. A regame is never wrong under this view, awarding a win is difficult. | ||
F1rstAssau1t
1341 Posts
| ||
docoa
United States14 Posts
anyway, seems like 100% parting game for me | ||
nakedsurfer
Canada500 Posts
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. I completely agree with this. I also believe that because MKP wasn't taken out afterwards that it makes this call feel even more controversial. | ||
docoa
United States14 Posts
| ||
Kevan
Sweden2303 Posts
| ||
Aradune
Germany1 Post
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. | ||
Shasta37
United States70 Posts
| ||
CursivE
Australia317 Posts
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. The problem here is that this was a team game. So it's a big call for him to make. Let the referees do their job. That's what they are there for. It's like the issue of 'walking' in Cricket if you're given not out. People admire your sportsmanship if you do walk but they don't begrudge you holding your ground if you're given not out. | ||
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
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. I would even say 8/10. Still a regame would be the right descision. | ||
Dyme
Germany523 Posts
MKP's run after that and Primes victory seemed so meaningless. | ||
B1nary
Canada1267 Posts
| ||
Melvin0000
United States32 Posts
| ||
Ruscour
5233 Posts
Things suck sometimes. This was one of those times. The decision was fair, but still sucky. | ||
jeeneeus
1168 Posts
However, a bo3 with PartinG up one game (in my opinion the best answer), puts it at 75% (roughly) chance of PartinG to win the series. In this scenario, PartinG only loses 5% equity (MKP gains 5%). Even if MKP were favored as much as 60% against PartinG (I think this is pretty generous), the decision between a regame and a win awarded to PartinG is a wash (20% equity). The bo3 would give PartinG a 64% chance of winning. Thus losing 16% equity (which is still less than 20%). | ||
tdt
United States3179 Posts
| ||
tdt
United States3179 Posts
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. I was one of the first MKP fans before it was cool and my sig has not changed in a year with respect to that and think it was bullcrap. | ||
bpat
United States157 Posts
| ||
Shinespark
Chile843 Posts
On April 11 2012 03:18 00Visor wrote: relevant: (I didnt do this) Oh. I did not know this. I voted for regame but now I want to change my vote. | ||
Serpest
United States603 Posts
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. I'm curious where the 5/6 orbitals with mules come into play, but don't mind me. I feel a regame was the correct decision in this instance, and am annoyed with how people have been harping on MKP. I understand many people have hard feelings and wanted the finals to go a certain way, but (un)fortunately, that didn't happen. I think this recent weekend in football (soccer to you americans) shows several fantastic examples. ManU vs. QPR had a phenomenally outrageous refereeing decision result in a penalty for the (mostly) fan-favourites - ManU ended up winning 2-0. Arsenal v ManCity had several horrible refereeing decisions go City's way (most notably a horrendous two-footed tackle by City's Balotelli with his studs up on Arsenal's Song. Every other referee would have shown a redcard for the City man, but the ref waved play on. Even the City manager (Mancini) remarked in a postgame interview Balotelli should have been sent off at 19minutes played instead of 90.) Controversial decisions happen; be happy so many people are emotionally invested in this community and game that heated debate is possible. | ||
Nevosis
France27 Posts
| ||
Opeasy
107 Posts
| ||
AysiktiriX
358 Posts
| ||
Keytar
Canada156 Posts
That said, people would be less bitter if MKP hadn't gone on to 4-0 and win the rest of the finals single-handedly. Shoulda done a third game, same map, and bo3'd his game with Parting. Totally unconventional though. | ||
Surgical_Strike
United States72 Posts
| ||
lifegiver
Australia3 Posts
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. This. | ||
Corsica
Ukraine1854 Posts
On April 11 2012 03:18 00Visor wrote: relevant: (I didnt do this) This... also even MKP's micro wouldnt save him from defeat... | ||
Hall0wed
United States8486 Posts
| ||
jnkw
Canada347 Posts
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. Methinks you misread the thread title... | ||
NovemberstOrm
Canada16217 Posts
| ||
Hall0wed
United States8486 Posts
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. 1. It is mostly the fanboys saying the regame was ok 2. TL made this thread... | ||
xUnSeEnx
United States183 Posts
| ||
peekn
United States1152 Posts
Changed my mind after I saw that image on the first page. Parting was overwhelmingly ahead. | ||
Surgical_Strike
United States72 Posts
On April 11 2012 11:46 Corsica wrote: This... also even MKP's micro wouldnt save him from defeat... 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. | ||
Rudolph
United States161 Posts
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. 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. | ||
melquiades
New Zealand12 Posts
And getting angry at MKP for not defaulting is equally stupid. First, he was there to win, not just himself but for his team and his fans, and a professional player in that situation will do anything short of cheating to come out victorious. Saying "fuck it, I give up" is not an option. Second, MKP has shown countless times that he is not the type of player to give the GG until every last drop of blood has been squeezed out of his units - if the remotest possibilty of victory exists he'll keep fighting, and it's only because of Blizzard, who have burdened the scene with a deficient game, that he wasn't given the chance to play that match out. | ||
zumpy
United States122 Posts
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... | ||
LF9
United States537 Posts
| ||
Surgical_Strike
United States72 Posts
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... Yet MKP was winning 90% of the game, so he should lose because the game cut out at a point where he was down for a minute? that makes no sense. | ||
Surgical_Strike
United States72 Posts
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. Actually MKP was winning like the entire first game untill right before it cut out... when he was at a small disadvantage. So where exactly did he not make the same mistakes? When i watch it, I actaully see Parting changing his build more so to avoid the mistakes that HE made and better counter mkp's build in the first game. MKP did the same thing.... save for putting the starport in his natural the second game. Parting knew the exact same thing was coming... got a perfect scout with observers... got an extra archon i beleive, and still got rolled over. MKP knows he didn't deserve the 2nd game, you could tell by his face. Really, so you could read that exact thing from his face? you are quite talented. The better player that day clearly won and both players had a chance to fight till the death...ill take that any day over an awarded win because of disconnect | ||
Surgical_Strike
United States72 Posts
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? Can you link something to this because this does not sound correct? I would be interested to know if this is gsl rules. It doesn't seem likely because who is to judge that one player is going to win 6/10 times? Why do we even play the games in the first place if we know exactly how good players are and who will win. | ||
Ace1123
Philippines1187 Posts
| ||
Hamdemon
United States348 Posts
| ||
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On April 11 2012 13:47 Surgical_Strike wrote: Yet MKP was winning 90% of the game, so he should lose because the game cut out at a point where he was down for a minute? that makes no sense. 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. | ||
Naphal
Germany2099 Posts
| ||
beatitudes
United States167 Posts
The most important part of it was that parting had 8 HT. Most people defending MKP's chance to come back in the game shrug this factor off because the HT were at partings base. The consensus is while mkp only had 3 marauders at the time about 30 supply was going to pop from his racks in a bit, and he could turtle up his main choke point with scv repairs/ marauder slows against partings mostly zlot army that was at his naturals ramp. I can understand this point of view if parting didnt have the HT, and would definitely agree with you that MKP had a good chance at coming back and the regame was the correct decision. However given the fact that parting could just walk 8HT across a map that is relatively not that large, how do you propose marineking turtle on his ramp against 8 storms when he has no 1)medivacs, 2) against an army vastly superior in supply 3) lots of that supply is in vikings. The point is MKP can get 2 cycles off his racks in the time it takes parting to send his 8 HT to join his army at MKP's ramp. so he had 30 supply incoming in his cycle started already, 500 minerals left to start another cycle, with NO Medivacs. Im sorry but you just cant defend your ramp with scv repair/micro and that army supply compaired to partings FAR SUPERIOR army supply and 8 (or more depending on energy) storms. it just doesn't happen. | ||
Corsica
Ukraine1854 Posts
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. prooflink? | ||
zumpy
United States122 Posts
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. | ||
Surgical_Strike
United States72 Posts
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. 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? | ||
pPingu
Switzerland2892 Posts
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? If it wasn't like that, how was it then? | ||
Surgical_Strike
United States72 Posts
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 that's the point... and why re-game was the right call. Terran with 5 bases and 5-6 orbitals vs protoss 5 base... each 2 of the best players in the world... even with an advantage for either player its anyone's game.... ok ive spent enough time arguing my point... | ||
Go1den
England116 Posts
Sigh. All of this controversy over networking. | ||
Blacktion
United Kingdom1148 Posts
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. | ||
berndniph
95 Posts
regame was the right decision. | ||
ghosthunter
United States414 Posts
I remember when Jaedong was awarded the win over Flash and trashed the finals of MSL a long time ago. I believe a regame is almost always the right option unless there is no chance of coming back. To not do so is to discredit micro etc. etc. | ||
epicdemic
Netherlands137 Posts
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. Pulling SCV's against HT.. Yeah right. You sir are very smart. | ||
epicdemic
Netherlands137 Posts
On April 11 2012 17:00 berndniph wrote: the poll says it all. regame was the right decision. 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 | ||
ghosthunter
United States414 Posts
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 42% is not a majority, adding a smiley face does not make your point any more valid or less insulting | ||
epicdemic
Netherlands137 Posts
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 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. | ||
ConRa
Sweden42 Posts
| ||
InfusedTT.DaZe
Romania693 Posts
On April 11 2012 03:18 00Visor wrote: relevant: (I didnt do this) its so clear, also alot of people voted with heart(for mkp and prime) so... | ||
Mirrikh
Romania105 Posts
| ||
Terranicle
5 Posts
The entertaining parts of this thread are the random percentages people are pulling out of thin air: "Parting had it won 99.5%". Really? 99.5% won? How are you quantifying that? He was ahead, admittedly, but thrashing your hand on your numpad to produce an arbitrary percentage detracts from any impact a statement might have. Things I think should start to be discussed are how to avoid this situation in the future. How do people feel about certain conditions leading to an auto-win? What should those conditions be? X amount of army supply ahead? X amount of total supply ahead? Production structures being camped? Gametime elapsed? A combination of these or more, or less? Conversely what conditions should result in a re-game? Army supply within X amount of eachother? Total supply within X amount of eachother? Gametime elapsed? Who can set these standards? Should they be set? Or do you enjoy the drama caused afterwards too much? | ||
Gastronucci
Denmark11 Posts
EDIT - FML | ||
Lazzi
Switzerland1920 Posts
| ||
Skaminator
112 Posts
| ||
noddy
United Kingdom927 Posts
| ||
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
| ||
AethariA
Canada22 Posts
| ||
Crazyglue
United States17 Posts
That simple | ||
DidYuhim
Ukraine1905 Posts
| ||
SmuZ
Romania45 Posts
| ||
leperphilliac
United States399 Posts
| ||
JMDj
United States454 Posts
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. You're thinking of a plurality, not a majority. Majority is 50% or more. I think parting should have been given the win. Obviously Startale was banking heavily on Parting taking out MKP as he is definitely the most capable Terran sniper on the team. Anyone who knows Starcraft would understand that a player of Parting's caliber was not going to lose from that position. | ||
shsaint
United States30 Posts
| ||
shsaint
United States30 Posts
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... I have thought about this also. Simple solution and yet.. | ||
Garoodah
United States56 Posts
| ||
buldermar
Denmark102 Posts
Also, the statements about it having to be a clear win for it not to be a rematch is obv retarded. If Parting has more than 66% to win, and the options are rematch or his win, then his win is the most fair decision (i.e. leads to the least expected difference in outcome on avg). If, for instance, Parting had 75% of winning the game, the game should be called in his favor. I don't see how an argument could be made that he has less than 66% of winning the game, making the current decision unfair. On a sidenote: Why does drops and lag happen so frequently outside of korea and so rarely in korea? I don't recall having seen it in GSL/GSTL in korea more than once and I recall it happening at least 10 times in MLG, IPL, Dreamhack etc, despite having seen more tournamentgames from korea in total. | ||
snively
United States1159 Posts
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. | ||
Turquoise
Turkey145 Posts
C'est la vie! | ||
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
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. Yeah, like one game should be a consistent example. -_- | ||
Superfluous
United States70 Posts
| ||
docoa
United States14 Posts
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 So... if you show some amazing micros, you deserve the win regardless..? | ||
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
| ||
Leragie
United States8 Posts
We can argue all we want, but it's pointless without full knowledge(replay) of what was going on. There has also been a lot of misinformation about the game from both sides of the argument which is only making a bad situation worse. Unless a replay is released we will be nowhere near a justified answer. The sad thing is that most of the arguments about this are going to be fueled by love/hate for a certain player/race instead of wanting to find out the full details of what was going on in the match at the time of the drop. I also think the trash talk on MKP is sad as well. A lot of the posts on here might not be saying anything negative about any player, but other forums and the IPL chat was full of people trashing MKP like it was his fault. I think actions like this and trash talk on "fanboys" shows that us spectators are probably best left out of such important decisions. | ||
klogg
Sweden800 Posts
| ||
Grackula
133 Posts
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.. 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 | ||
zyce
United States649 Posts
| ||
zefreak
United States2731 Posts
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 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. | ||
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
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. I don't like this line of thinking. The referee HAS become an integral part of the game's result at this point, no matter what - his hand has been forced by the disconnect. Whether the part he plays is by forcing a regame or by outright declaring a winner is another question, but there's no way to avoid integral involvement (since we cannot travel back in time and prevent the DC). Then, no matter what the decision is, it will be unfair towards at least one player. - if he forces a regame, the decision is unfair towards the player who is winning, because it erases any advantage he had above and beyond his pre-game chance of winning. (This effect is amplified if the player who is winning happens to be the underdog, but IMO that should not factor into the decision) - if he declares an outright winner, the decision is unfair towards to player who is losing, because it erases any chance he may have had to come back Now if all things are equal, the referee should definitely err towards the conservative option - to allow a regame, since this always has the potential to provide the "right" outcome (whatever that may be), whereas an outright winner is an irreversible decision. However in this case, all things are not equal. The unfairness to Parting for giving a regame far, far outweights the unfairness to MKP for giving an outright win, and I think the lesser of two evils would have been to award the win to Parting. | ||
alee103
17 Posts
| ||
Grackula
133 Posts
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. These games aren't comparable at all. (In the MKP Parting game we're talking about a situation in which Parting has already stomped MKP's army and starts sitting on top of his production. In MKP-Bomber, MKP had a bigger/stronger army the whole time, which is clearly another situation. Don't even need to go into the details for the blizzcon game) Games shouldn't be awarded on probable outcome assuming people play perfectly. But Parting didn't have to play perfectly, not even nearly. You'd have to assume MKP plays perfectly to even have a chance and that's a problem. Parting clearly had a huge earned advantage which was nullified by a regame, which is very unfair. BO3 with Parting up 1-0 would definitely have been a better option than a regame. | ||
Brutaxilos
United States2572 Posts
| ||
beatitudes
United States167 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + i find it funny, after just watching the game 1 Polt vs parting on entombed, listening to Artosis reactions.The game was very similar with polt leading most of the game in supply and pressing partings base. Artosis even says he thought Polt played a better game than MKP and still got owned in the end. i have yet to see anyone with a remotely high standing in the community say that MKP had a chance in the game. | ||
Sinensis
United States2513 Posts
It seems shitty to me that Blizzard is willing to take money out of tournament's prizepools as IP fees yet they still won't release the technology needed to run a real competitive tournament. It seems like they only pay attention when it's time to collect. | ||
Cyanocyst
2222 Posts
| ||
Ferr3t
21 Posts
1) PartinG had his army split up. If PartinG would have lost the Zealots to MKP's remaining forces and those about to pop, the food supply would be very different. 2) PartinG didn't have a forward pylon. MKP had 6 Vikings to snipe the Warp Prism. 3) MKP's units that were about to pop were already paid for. PartinG on the other hand had only a bit more than 300 minerals at the time of the drop, which is less than MKP still had available for another round of units. 4) Ironically, in the very next game (MKP vs. Bomber) we saw that games that look like a sealed deal are easy to throw away. Don't understand me wrong, PartinG had a good advantage going for him, but he wasn't in a position to win the game without at least one more major engagement at MKP's base after his units popped. Since that engagement didn't happen, anyone could guess the outcome. | ||
my0s
United States193 Posts
I don't think giving the win to parting was a decision the judges could have actually made in that decision and situation, there was just so much on the line with it being vs mkp. But on the other hand, I also feel Parting deserved a win more than a regame. Just a tough spot. (Though I am probably most in favor of making it a bo3 with parting up 1-0) | ||
Kira__
Sweden2672 Posts
| ||
INTOtheVOID
United States225 Posts
| ||
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
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. It's not a robotic judgement call. It requires some judgement and some balls to make a call. I think the refs just thought there was a slight chance for a miracle and called a regame. | ||
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
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. Re-games shouldn't be awarded on improbable outcome assuming one plays while having a seizure. | ||
masakenji
Australia415 Posts
the decision was forced upon by the crowds, and lack of experience. very bad call, hopefully gomtv can learn from it. always take the long term, never the short. this gstl will be forever tainted. | ||
raga4ka
Bulgaria5676 Posts
| ||
Dwayn
Germany949 Posts
| ||
berndniph
95 Posts
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 i just want to point out that the poll is very close. so how could the referees decide this, there was no "right" decision to make. impossible. an because of this, if a game is not 100% decided the rule says regame (correct me if im wrong). | ||
berndniph
95 Posts
On April 12 2012 16:58 Dwayn wrote: Regame was the dumbest decision possible. give parting the win or sth. like a Bo3 with parting 1 game ahead (and even that is a very good result for MKP). changing the rules druing the tournament is pretty impossible. maybe for the future, but for this game it was no option. | ||
iEatWoofers
Switzerland108 Posts
The crowd yelling for LAN was funny though :D must've been quite fun for mr. morhaime | ||
Fizzy
Sweden388 Posts
Im not as hightech and handy as most of you other TL'ers, so i dont really know how to make or where to send an petition or something like it. But imo we should not argue over the rematch but instead join hands and try to make sure such a decision does not have to be made again. Make love not warcraft | ||
sc_hell
Germany20 Posts
| ||
Blaec
Australia4289 Posts
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. This! I hope they implement this solution at tournaments in similar situations in the future | ||
FrodoFraggin
Italy32 Posts
| ||
Herry
England681 Posts
This is a great example of why Blizzard really needs to give the big finals closed enviornments so shit like this doesn't happen. when you concider the facts, and unless you're biased toward Prime you cannot see any other fair result of that game other than Parting winning. | ||
FlukyS
Ireland485 Posts
| ||
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
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. | ||
blacksheepwall
China1530 Posts
| ||
TracedInAir
United States10 Posts
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. ROFL. That looks like a pretty clear definition of the rules to me. | ||
Ouga
Finland645 Posts
| ||
TheBengalTigger
United States8 Posts
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. | ||
NovemberstOrm
Canada16217 Posts
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. 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. | ||
Penke
Sweden346 Posts
| ||
m0ck
4194 Posts
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. I'm not sure if you ignoring his arguments are based on the fact that 1) You can't argue his points 2) You don't understand what he's writing but in any case, keep on truckin' brother! Only a weak man bases his beliefs on reason! | ||
RaelSan
Belgium223 Posts
(1st post here ! ) | ||
meadbert
United States681 Posts
EDIT: Never as a Protoss player. I have lost after being up that much with Zerg. | ||
torm3ntin
Brazil2534 Posts
| ||
m0ck
4194 Posts
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. I'm not sure that even counts as ahead as Z ^^ | ||
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
| ||
SillyPrincess
Canada115 Posts
| ||
Get_ouT
Ukraine9 Posts
| ||
Jongl0
631 Posts
| ||
jmols
New Zealand41 Posts
Regame the only option in my opinion in a back a forth game like that. | ||
kyllinghest
Norway1607 Posts
| ||
Hiea
Denmark1538 Posts
Having a player drop is a very bad thing, but the only fair thing to do is regame. | ||
Phays
Sweden162 Posts
| ||
Fjodorov
5007 Posts
| ||
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
Canada10558 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
| ||
Antimatterz
United States1010 Posts
| ||
AquaFox
United States2 Posts
| ||
AquaFox
United States2 Posts
| ||
9incher
2 Posts
MKP's comebacks are insane... | ||
NGeX
Canada72 Posts
| ||
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
| ||
blackbrrd
Norway477 Posts
The best solution would have been to restart the game from the replay which is a feature I hope Blizzard will implement into Starcraft 2. | ||
WeavingHarp9
Sweden23 Posts
I still think MKP had a chance of winning this game, there have been bigger turnarounds in games but I still think the win should have gone to Parting because of the length of the game. | ||
Klaent
Sweden374 Posts
| ||
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
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 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. | ||
DidYuhim
Ukraine1905 Posts
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. Wow, nice joke. It's sort of funny how fanbois make more and more ridiculous assumptions every time they add another post. | ||
Lumi
United States1612 Posts
The correct decision would have been made, if it were made by players who know what's going on, instead of, for god only knows what reason, people that clearly did not. Just like this poll | ||
hillman
United States162 Posts
The real loser here are the fans and esports in general because of blizzards reluctance to allow LAN. Of course, they are worried about pirates being able to play this on LAN or something and thus pirates bring the whole community down. What other reason could there be for Blizzard's actions? | ||
KookyMonster
United States311 Posts
| ||
DoubleDare
Canada48 Posts
Objectively I think pPingu's post pretty much sums up that parting clearly was ahead, and while it was possible for MKP to have taken it, that was highly unlikely. I also feel like Parting played better in that game than MKP, but I am personally biased as a P player. | ||
Teodice
Sweden641 Posts
| ||
Xenocryst
United States521 Posts
| ||
GefsTee
Germany1 Post
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. signed | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
lifecanwait
96 Posts
Anyone knows where to find it now? As far as I know, its not uploaded on GOMTV bec. of cancellation. IPL stream maybe? | ||
| ||