|
On May 10 2010 01:25 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 00:51 dacthehork wrote:
Okay guys
I tested out the final forces in UMS
Appreciate the effort but your test is incorrect he did not have regen upgrades, his 9 roaches were all in the yellow while 95% of the hydras were fully in the green, and they were fighting already without the mutas being there.
Yes of course, it was a rough test, he could have survived though. The chances are slim, but I do not think it was 100%, It was probably near that, but with poor mistakes by Artosis and amazing decisions/micro by slush it could have been in Slush's favor. The forces at Slush's base where not sufficient to kill him outright. It wasn't an army Slush had no chance of defeating.
99% likely for Artosis to win is decent, possibility of more memory errors, huge mismicro, picking the wrong units, possible amazing harass action by Slush. He could pull the roaches back, wait for muta, Artosis doesn't see the corrupters in bottom left of map, then Slush focuses down the Hydras with a really good flank and drone pull. He pulls any low hp Mutas back, sends roaches to harass Artosis after cleaning up hydra, breaks out into amazing harass micro and Artosis falters..
It could happen, likely? no. But sealed and shut? he would have GG by then.
Also I remember looking at his roach upgrades and he seemed to have all of them but the underground movement + upgraded regen while burrowed.
Even in my limited number of SC2 games, less than 400, I've been in cases where I felt dead and have come back. I remember one in particular where I had my entire base destroyed, lifted the CC moved to an island, and made a few hellions + lucky micro to somehow win the game against a strongly superior force.
|
On May 10 2010 00:18 lipebra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 00:13 Geval wrote:On May 10 2010 00:06 Cade)Flayer wrote:
It would be completely unacceptable to revise the results of a played out tournament where nobody cheated. Slush abided by the the ruling of the admin so he can't be blamed for anything. You can't punish a player because of admin mistakes, that would be incredibly unprofessional and against the spirit of fair play. This And remember that the staff didnt award Slush with a win! There was a rematch in which Artosis lost. GG!!!!
Of course replaying the end stage of the tournament would be silly, but the fourth game certainly didn't mean much. Artosis was tilting way too much.
|
On May 10 2010 01:00 Full.tilt wrote:
Thanks for posting the chatlog kwark. Shows that the main reason Artosis was so upset was because he thought it was an easy $300 from when he first got the invite. Hope he doesn't get invited again.
I really dont think it was all about the money dude.
First of all, he had to mess-up hes sleeping routine for this. And because he got eliminated the way like he did, it seriously pisses people off.
And second of all, comments like 'omg i hope he won't never be invited again' are seriously bs.
|
Artosis acted like a bitch, period. The fact anyone is willing to give him any special consideration certainly stems from his name and not his skill level or behavior. Compounded by the fact that he won't play a show match for money vs Slush - because what, he doesn't like him? - it just seems like Artosis is being a complete baby about this. And I'm the last person in the world anyone can accuse of bias here. I've been good friends with Artosis for 11 years. It's still pretty easy to see how clearly he fucked up this up, regardless of who would or would not have won the game.
It's simple: sometimes the wrong decision gets made. If you're not the person in charge, you need to have the maturity level to suck it up and accept it and move on.
I think everyone needs to just drop this and move on.
|
Def still had a chance of winning, esp because they're mutas. He could send the mutas to harass and buy time. If it were the other way around, 0/1 hydras for slush vs 3/2 mutas for artosis, then there is 100% no chance.
|
As upset as I am that Slush didn't concede the win, I agree with Nazgul that you can't fault him for it. He let the referee's make the decision for him.
Artosis had a chance to beat Slush again and then failed.
If Slush went on to lose the next match I think there'd be more room to fight for Artosis. But Artosis lost the rematch and Slush went on to beat everyone else.
I am a big Artosis fan and at first when it happened I was as livid as he was but with all that has happened, it's crazy for people to suggest Slush have his title removed.
I'd like to see Artosis swallow his pride and give the community a rematch.
|
On May 10 2010 01:56 Louder wrote:
Artosis acted like a bitch, period. The fact anyone is willing to give him any special consideration certainly stems from his name and not his skill level or behavior. Compounded by the fact that he won't play a show match for money vs Slush - because what, he doesn't like him? - it just seems like Artosis is being a complete baby about this. And I'm the last person in the world anyone can accuse of bias here. I've been good friends with Artosis for 11 years. It's still pretty easy to see how clearly he fucked up this up, regardless of who would or would not have won the game.
It's simple: sometimes the wrong decision gets made. If you're not the person in charge, you need to have the maturity level to suck it up and accept it and move on.
I think everyone needs to just drop this and move on.
well said
|
On May 10 2010 02:04 hacpee wrote:
Def still had a chance of winning, esp because they're mutas. He could send the mutas to harass and buy time. If it were the other way around, 0/1 hydras for slush vs 3/2 mutas for artosis, then there is 100% no chance.
Yeah, and Artosis might choke on his tongue and die. Slush would probably win then. The game was Artosis'. I hadn't seen the game yesterday, and I took people's word for it that Slush had a decent chance. But he really didn't. I have to say it's a pretty baller move from TL to actually admit a mistake. How many times do you see that happening?
|
Great PR by Nazgul. It's good to see TL events ran by people willing to admit mistakes when they do happen. Accidents like this happen pretty often in any competition but it's important to have a fair review afterwards.
|
On May 10 2010 01:56 Louder wrote:
Artosis acted like a bitch, period. The fact anyone is willing to give him any special consideration certainly stems from his name and not his skill level or behavior. Compounded by the fact that he won't play a show match for money vs Slush - because what, he doesn't like him? - it just seems like Artosis is being a complete baby about this. And I'm the last person in the world anyone can accuse of bias here. I've been good friends with Artosis for 11 years. It's still pretty easy to see how clearly he fucked up this up, regardless of who would or would not have won the game.
It's simple: sometimes the wrong decision gets made. If you're not the person in charge, you need to have the maturity level to suck it up and accept it and move on.
I think everyone needs to just drop this and move on.
That's exactly what I think about it...except you know..me not being friends with Artosis 
|
On May 09 2010 19:19 BroOd wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 19:09 dogabutila wrote:On May 09 2010 18:25 BroOd wrote:
You wouldn't blacklist a soccer player who didn't report his own handball, would you? Or a football player who didn't report his own facemask penalty? Entirely different situation my friend. If I stand to gain something by not speaking up then why would I ever speak up? However in this situation not only do I stand to gain, but another stands to lose by my inaction. Is it fair that because of my selfishness, greed, and lack of morals that I would cause another who should rightfully gain something to lose it? I just cannot understand the people who feel as if slush did nothing wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue How is that different exactly? In Ireland vs France World Cup qualifiers, Thierry Henry handballed a goal that put France in the World Cup and left Ireland out. Should he have reported himself to the referee?
And everybody knows france did not advance because they were better, but rather because one of their captains cheated. However this case is entirely different because he proactively reached out to control the ball, therefore he would never have chose to cheat, and then reported himself. What comes out of this is that the world also knows of Henry's non-existent morals.
This situation is different because slush did not cheat per se, just chose to take undue advantage of the situation rather than doing the right thing. He did not proactively cheat. He just allowed it to happen.
Did you read the links? This is exactly what duty to act is. You can commit a crime by NOT doing something as well as doing something.
|
I haven't actually seen the replay in question, but it's great to see the TL can admit any mistakes they have made in the past and learn from it and move to hopefully not repeat it again. Apart from that mistake in judgement I think the rest of the tournament was shown flawlessly, though hopefully no drama like this happens again. I read the chat logs posted and its a shame how Artosis acted, though given the circumstances it is slightly understandable, but still a shame.
I look forward to the future tournaments TL hosts and hopefully with any luck, we wont see a repeat of this episode.
|
I don't feel like someone who knowingly have a problem on his computer that make the game crash should play in a tournament.
It's common sense, if your graphic card would overheat everytime you play for over 20 minutes in a game, and it crashed 20% of the time, it wouldn't be a wise idea to sign up to a tournament.
Not only will you most likely slow things down, but you'll also fuel some drama like in this current case. The normal thing to do would be wait until you have a new computer or your computer fixed.
|
On May 10 2010 02:34 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 19:19 BroOd wrote:On May 09 2010 19:09 dogabutila wrote:On May 09 2010 18:25 BroOd wrote:
You wouldn't blacklist a soccer player who didn't report his own handball, would you? Or a football player who didn't report his own facemask penalty? Entirely different situation my friend. If I stand to gain something by not speaking up then why would I ever speak up? However in this situation not only do I stand to gain, but another stands to lose by my inaction. Is it fair that because of my selfishness, greed, and lack of morals that I would cause another who should rightfully gain something to lose it? I just cannot understand the people who feel as if slush did nothing wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue How is that different exactly? In Ireland vs France World Cup qualifiers, Thierry Henry handballed a goal that put France in the World Cup and left Ireland out. Should he have reported himself to the referee? And everybody knows france did not advance because they were better, but rather because one of their captains cheated. However this case is entirely different because he proactively reached out to control the ball, therefore he would never have chose to cheat, and then reported himself. What comes out of this is that the world also knows of Henry's non-existent morals. This situation is different because slush did not cheat per se, just chose to take undue advantage of the situation rather than doing the right thing. He did not proactively cheat. He just allowed it to happen. Did you read the links? This is exactly what duty to act is. You can commit a crime by NOT doing something as well as doing something.
Actually the two situations are very comparable. SLush = Henry and Artosis = Trappatonni, Ireland's manager. SLush did exactly what Henry did, except he did not admit/think that he lost while Henry did admit to the handball. They both let the decision go to the refs. The only problem with that is that the ref staff for this event was not properly assembled, but they have said that will be corrected in future events. Maybe this will add more drama for the future and a rivalry can be started.
|
On May 10 2010 00:58 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Slush
A few points I want to address in a single post without replying to anyone in specific there's a lot of things being repeatedly said here. I feel that in all kinds of sports that are much bigger, more widely accepted, it is proven time and time again that players will do anything within the rules to win. A soccer player will dive to get a freekick and his teammates will applaud him. This is infact not even allowed by rules and it is simply meant to trick the referee. His fans will applaud him. His opponents cry outrage, commentators will call it out. It's not noble but it's not immoral or unacceptable. What Slush did; not trying to be a judge himself does not deserve respect, but it also does not deserve to be called out on. He did not even try to trick the referees but simply looked at them for the right decision. From my experience in both poker and SC leaving it up to the referees if it benefits you is a totally standard thing to do. Giving away the win in his situation deserves respect. Not doing so does not deserve to be flamed. Hell, even Flash vs Jaedong who was in just as bad of a position as Slush, and his more mature coaches with him, did not agree with the decision to be awarded a loss. This is one of the most respected progamers out there, one of the players with the best grasp of a situation being hopeless. Doesn't this tell you enough? Stop judging Slush. Most of you have never been in a situation like this before and it's easy to talk when you've never proven yourself to do the opposite. I have done the opposite. I have given away wins when my opponents disconnected even recently, yet I don't judge Slush for not doing so because I know how rare it is that people actually follow through with that sort of thing. Lots of people talk, but very few actually do. He listened to the refs, pulled himself mentally together, and beat Artosis, Louder and Cauthonluck afterward and deserves respect for this accomplishment. The fault is with TL not Slush and we take full blame for this.
Wrong, wrong, absolutely wrong. Yes players in higher levels would do anything to win. Does that mean because more people act in a certain way it should be acceptable? Diving for a free kick is immoral. Knowingly cheating and purposefully acting in a manner against the rules can't be anything but that. Saying it is not is like saying hacking in starcraft is not immoral or unacceptable. That is just plain wrong on all accounts.
Actions like this may not be unacceptable, but only because we choose to let it be acceptable. Yet, clearly wrong actions such as this should NOT be acceptable. Not being honest and admitting you lost is quite clearly wrong, it SHOULD be unacceptable.
TL made a mistake, yes. It only happened because SLUSH did not do the right thing. Does the sense of fair play not exist anymore?
Those saying that it was not a GG situation clearly have no idea. Progamers do not always GG even after it becomes apparent they will lose. Some zerg vs flash, in which he had the advantage but decided to keep running ultras headon into mines and drop them on top of mines was later in the situation where he had lost all his bases except for 1. Flash had taken the entire map and was sieged outside. This player then attempts to attack with drones, as if he somehow still has a chance. Yet anybody could realize that the game was over and he had no chance left.
The game can be over, and outcome decided without GG being called. Am I saying slush should have called GG without trying? No. But he should have recognized after DC that the game was over, done the right thing, and admitted loss.
If starcraft is a game in which manners are important, TL ought to hold players to a higher standard then they currently do.
|
I think the winning at all costs thing as Nazgul suggests is wrong.
Just because it benefits you in that moment such as winning the PK or a game or a few bucks, and even if some people applaud you for it doesn't make it not cheating, dishonest or deceitful. Would slush have forfeited the game if he had playing a close friend?
|
I wonder how most of the people flaming Artosis would have reacted had they been in his shoes. Do remember that his reaction came prior to the official statement, which was in fact too delayed.
"yeah np, I'm fine with getting screwed."
Yeah, people make mistakes. They can apologize for them, and that's great and all, but that won't ever fully rectify the situation. Teamliquid screwed up and Artosis has every right to be mad.
With that said, TL is handling this situation appropriately and I hope they can resolve their differences. Although I would never play Slush again if I were Artosis.
|
tournament for money.
Incorrect Ruling
Public Apology
Artosis reserves his right to refuse showmatch.
Done.
|
Meh, lost a lot of respect to Artosis.
Both the spitting in the face of the refs/not accepting rematch of a "obvious easy oppentent", and telling Day9 hes so bad he cant win without oppenent getting "Page Pool Error".
Highlevel BM from a "Respected Member" of the SC community.
|
Why does it matter who disconnected? It's a buggy beta. That should have no influence on the judgement. Artosis should have been given the win.
Regardless, Slush played his ass off the rest of the tournament. Props to him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
