|
On May 09 2010 13:53 artanis2 wrote:
People are saying slush had over 100 supply at the end of the game, how can that possibly mean no chance of comeback? Way too much artosis fanboyism around here.
edit: I also think its sad that nony thinks it would be OK to take the win away from slush retroactively. Then you'd have two victims of poor decisions instead of one.
You're grossly oversimplifying the situation. He had no chance to comeback because his army was directly countered by his opponents and he had no means to produce a counter because he did not have enough hatcheries. The only way you could fool someone into believing 100 supply means he had a chance of comeback is if you actually believe 3-2 hydras can somehow be beaten by 1-0 mutas (hint: they can't, even if you go afk from your computer and your opponent attacks them while you aren't there, they'll still be decimated)
|
Most of this thread:
O HAI OMG TL MADE A MISTAKE RAGE RAGE RAGE
Shit happens guys, the nice thing about mistakes is you learn from them and when have you ever seen TL repeat a mistake? Why is everyone being so overly dramatic? It was a tight call either way the thing you have to keep in mind from an admin's perspective is you cannot account for decisions the player will make. It is possible that some mistake could have been make and Slush would get a chance to get back in the game given his mineral supply it's understandable why the decision that was made was made once you sit down and think about it.
It's the same concept as a jury, if you have any reasonable doubt in this situation that the player wasn't GOING to win then you can't award a win. Commentators myself included these days are partially at fault because the viewers want in depth analysis and want to know who is "winning" so sometimes commentators will stretch a situation where a player is way ahead to "oh well this game is just about over" when this is not true. Watch enough games and you'll see how often when you think "oh geeze this is over" that someone somehow manages to turn it around based on some great play. Micro and decision making are not things you can account for when making a decision on a disc case which makes it very tough to decide.
|
On May 09 2010 13:53 artanis2 wrote:
People are saying slush had over 100 supply at the end of the game, how can that possibly mean no chance of comeback? Way too much artosis fanboyism around here.
edit: I also think its sad that nony thinks it would be OK to take the win away from slush retroactively. Then you'd have two victims of poor decisions instead of one.
The win has already been "taken away" retroactively. It has been ever since this topic was written up by Nazgul. It's just a question of whether TL is content to simply award Slush a 1-2 victory, or if it's worth doing another regame with, by all accounts, the players who belonged there.
Maybe I was too harsh on some individuals in my earlier post, but my personal position stands. It would be an absolute mockery if TL comes out and says that Slush didn't win his Quarterfinal series, yet still has the championship. Either stick to your guns or regame the matches with the players who earned the spot. What TL seems to be trying to do is have it both ways.
Either stand by your call or don't, just don't say "the call was wrong but we're gonna say the guy who lost won anyway". It doesn't make any sense.
|
The reason he "had no chance" was because his 100 supply was tied up in 22 0/1 mutalisks, 9 roaches that were about to die, and a legion of drones that were also about to die because Artosis had his hydra army in Slush's last mining base.
Given Artosis's level of play, it is therefore believed that Slush could not have recovered and that it was the last battle of the game. Of course, if Artosis made some complete noob mistake like dancing his hydras around without attacking, Slush might've been able to recover, but many/most would feel that is beyond the realm of reasonable chance.
|
|
|
On Slush: Slush, in my opinion, behaved conservatively. He left the decision to the judges. Which is his right as a player. When Artosis was attacking him in chat, he didn't give in to the rage and attacked Artosis.
To some of the fans, the ideal situation would have been for Slush to concede defeat. That, I think, would have boosted his rep. But he didn't and I don't think there's anything wrong when players defer the ruling to the judges/umpires (just like in regular sports--even if sometimes bad calls are made).
Also, bear in mind that it's a different scenario when you're actually playing in a game and watching it as a detached observer (with a view of the entire match). There's also a lot of factors in the game. While I do think Artosis would have won if the game continued for 20 more seconds, the fact is, that didn't happen. Maybe Artosis would somehow mess up his army by splitting it (I don't think this would have happened BTW, but it is a possibility, even if it's as 1% chance). Maybe Artosis's tech problems would screw him more during the battle (which isn't Artosis fault but that's the conditions he's playing under, just like in an open field sports game, it might suddenly rain or the ground might be muddy). Hence the initial decision that Slush could have made a comeback.
On Team Liquid: There are usually two ways to make a ruling. One is to take a clear-cut universal approach. For example, if a player disconnects, that's the equivalent of forfeiture. It doesn't take into account the unique circumstances of the situation but on the upside, it's easy to determine who is at fault or not (it's binary--either it's a yes or a no). If there was a power outage at Battle.net for example, then this would have resulted in both players (Artosis and Slush) to have forfeited. (Now whether this is a tie or warrants a rematch is left to the judge, unless there is another universal ruling taking this into account.) This type of ruling was more or less in place, since it's the easiest way to adjucate a match and to clamp down on abuse.
The other way is to have a panel or a judge arbitrate the decision. This probably would have satisfied Artosis, and would have been awarded the win had this been the route taken. However, the reason why this method isn't usually chosen is that it consumes a lot of time and requires a certain level of expertise (the high level players that were absent which Kennigit admitted). This is the way the legal system works (hence the presence of a jury, the presence of experts, and the long time involved in court proceedings) but can also be impractical in some games. The problem with arbitration is that the rulings aren't as clear-cut, and because that's so, no matter what the judge's decision is, some players will always be dissatisfied with the decision.
In other sports, there's usually a concession between the two. There are clear-cut rules and there's some leeway for the referees/umpires to make a judgment call, such as whether an action is a technical fowl for example in basketball. Arguing with the referee's decision (even if they're in the wrong) takes some time and it's honestly impractical to halt a basketball game for 1 hour just to check whether the past 15 seconds was legal or not, hence the enforcement of leaving it up to the decision of the referee. Starcraft II however isn't basketball, and it can be argued whether there was enough time to assess the replay and determine who should have won that match, but the tourney organizers felt that they didn't have the time (and felt the pressure to come up with a decision), and so they made the best decision they could at the time.
|
On May 09 2010 14:03 Azarkon wrote:
The reason he "had no chance" was because his 100 supply was tied up in 22 0/1 mutalisks, 9 roaches that were about to die, and a legion of drones that were also about to die because Artosis had his hydra army in Slush's last mining base.
Given Artosis's level of play, it is therefore believed that Slush could not have recovered and that it was the last battle of the game. Of course, if Artosis made some complete noob mistake like dancing his hydras around without attacking, Slush might've been able to recover, but many/most would feel that is beyond the realm of reasonable chance.
This is what I'm talking about when you are deciding a disconnect case you cannot take into account the players you have to be neutral and say that anything could have happened at this point because realistically anything could have. SO his last mining base goes down there is a chance that Slush could catch him out of position and use his mineral surplus to remake drones. Personal feelings don't come into a decision like this which is why they're so difficult to make.
|
On May 09 2010 12:47 XtrEEmMaShEEN3k2 wrote:
A LOT of this debate occurred over what the rules regarding situations like this actually were, and no one could really prove the other was wrong because I don't think these written rules exist. And as a result, people just gave their subjective opinions on what should occur in a situation like this because no objective procedure had been established.
Well the problem, as you can see from this thread is that its not so much a matter of what the rules are, but relying on human judgment about the condition for those rules.
No one disputes the essential rule that if the game is not won 100% then it's supposed to be a regame. But it then comes down to a matter of judgment to determine whether the game was actually won 100%. By the strictest definition, the game was NOT won 100% (Slush still technically had a chance to win, however small) and yet I don't think any one could watch that replay and think that Slush would ever have won that game. So it comes down to a judgment call of whether that is really a 100% won game.
Is it fair to Slush that he didn't get a chance to finish out the game because his opponent DC'd? Shouldn't he get a chance to try to win? Is it fair to Artosis to force a regame? After all, it's his computer that failed, yet he had clearly outplayed Slush and had a decisive advantage that he could only have lost through the most monumental series of blunders, which we have no reason to think a player of his caliber would ever make under those circumstances.
You could try to take the judgment out of the ref's hands and just say "if you DC you lose" and be done with it, but then you're still allowing people to lose a game they're very likely to win, simply because of factors that may not be under their control.
|
On May 09 2010 11:43 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
If I were betting man, Artosis will eventually want to play Slush heads up in a showmatch.
Agreed, the time may come for episode 1 of TL's version of Revenge Match. Commentary by Chill, Day and DJWheat plz.
|
Originally I thought it was bad form on Slush's behalf for not conceding the game, but if he legitimately thought he still stood a chance - how can you fault that?
At the end of the day the tournament has been tainted but the results I think should stand, the results of a showmatch at this stage I think would be trivial anyway.
I think this just has to be a case of live and learn.
|
Honestly mistake or not, artosis was offered a regame its better than a loss. His comp screwed him over not his fault but his problem nonetheless. I dont think slush should have been stripped of the title he beat 2 other great players and won the title thats more than winning 1 match and he truly deserves the title. In order to fix things right now, offer artosis a showmatch with some money. If he doesnt take it, its his loss not TL's.
|
On May 09 2010 14:06 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 14:03 Azarkon wrote:
The reason he "had no chance" was because his 100 supply was tied up in 22 0/1 mutalisks, 9 roaches that were about to die, and a legion of drones that were also about to die because Artosis had his hydra army in Slush's last mining base.
Given Artosis's level of play, it is therefore believed that Slush could not have recovered and that it was the last battle of the game. Of course, if Artosis made some complete noob mistake like dancing his hydras around without attacking, Slush might've been able to recover, but many/most would feel that is beyond the realm of reasonable chance. This is what I'm talking about when you are deciding a disconnect case you cannot take into account the players you have to be neutral and say that anything could have happened at this point because realistically anything could have. SO his last mining base goes down there is a chance that Slush could catch him out of position and use his mineral surplus to remake drones. Personal feelings don't come into a decision like this which is why they're so difficult to make.
Problem is, the only scenarios that Artosis could have lost are not realistic at all. Scenarios where he intentionally moves his units instead of letting them attack, or where he intentionally throws the game.... are not realistic.
Even your most basic copper league player probably could have won the game at that point. So for a player at Artosis' level to make these "realistic" blunders is laughable.
|
On May 09 2010 14:10 Lazix wrote:
Originally I thought it was bad form on Slush's behalf for not conceding the game, but if he legitimately thought he still stood a chance - how can you fault that?
At the end of the day the tournament has been tainted but the results I think should stand, the results of a showmatch at this stage I think would be trivial anyway.
I think this just has to be a case of live and learn.
This is something I've covered before during casts, it's easy to trashtalk Slush for not giving in and saying that he lost but this is a high profile tournament for a pretty good prize amount. Many times players who have lost don't think they have yet and wind up playing it out longer because they DO think they have a chance. It's easy to sit from the outside perspective seeing both ends of the game and to say OH well obviously he lost. Yes he could watch the replay but the problem is that your preception of the game has already tainted your opinion. If the game ends and you thought OMG I was just getting back in the game, it won't matter if you watch the replay because that's the impression stuck in your head.
|
I can't understand why Artosis wouldn't want to play a show match to get his revenge, then again I would feel a lot of grief when I didn't advance in a big tournament because of some dumb sh@t. As far as he knows, Artosis could have one the whole darn thing, and now he will be left wondering forever...
|
Don't think you guys need to apologize for anything. Running a tournament is hard. I run a small weekly one and couldn't imagine doing what you guys pull off. Sometimes hard decisions need to be made and usually not everyone is perfectly happy. You guys ran a great tournament and have no reason to apologize even if a mistake happened. You guys handled the situation greatly and definitely don't deserve any of the crap some people have posted.
|
On May 09 2010 13:49 EvilTeletubby wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 09 2010 13:29 dew wrote:
Slush's POV should be disregarded. He lost, and then manipulated a self-proclaimed newbie (who inexplicably got himself into a position to referee the game) into awarding him the regame, cheesing his way to the championship. If his title was stripped, I would fully support it, but I don't know if that's realistic or reasonable in any way. As the "self-proclaimed" newbie here, I want to clarify where you are mistaken. Slush did not manipulate a damn thing. Immediately after Artosis dropped, I talked to Slush. I simply needed to find out if he wished to concede (ie, feeling like he didn't have a chance), or wanted to put it in our hands. He felt at the time (obviously biased and without perfect information) that he still had a shot. He had units, and he had some minerals. At that point, it was in our hands. That's the second part where you're incorrect - I did not award a regame by myself. In fact, seeking to be as objective as possible, we quickly uploaded the replay and had several veteran/staff members review the replay (all the while, Slush is waiting quietly, not 'manipulating us' into giving him a regame). We came to a group consensus that a regame was the best option. Finally - It's not like allowing a regame completely discredits what Slush could do. Obviously, he beat two other very formidable opponents after the Artosis decision, so to say "cheesing his way to the championship" is doing him a severe disservice. Did Slush genuinely feel like he had a chance? Or did he know he had lost but was simply trying to see if he could get a second chance? Only one person truly knows. But either way, there are some ridiculous attempts to demonize and discredit the guy that I find are completely unfounded.[/
I feel bad that ET has to deal with posts like this -. -
1. People are being too hard on Slush (for the wrong reason). From what I'm hearing, Slush just expressed that he felt like he had a chance. If he said "decent" chance, he was either fooling himself or didn't know the situation at all. If he said there was a nonzero chance, there is nothing wrong with that since even objectively no one can say something will happen 100% of the time.
2. And people are being too hard on ET. If I did not know how weak 1-0 mutas are to 3-2 hydras in SC2, I would have said that Slush may have some chance since he had ~20 mutas. As for his being ref, he was offering his time for the community. I'm sure he could've done a better job, but no one was bent on screwing someone else over
3. It was weird that Slush did not want to discuss the situation with Artosis. If you had a stance, and you really believed in that stance, you shouldn't be shying away from expressing that stance to someone else. The fact that Slush told refs that he felt like he had a chance but avoided expressing this and his reasons to Artosis shows that Slush did have questionable motives. If he had really build that he had a chance, fine. If he really wanted refs to decide b/c of this, then fine. But he shouldn't have told Artosis it's not my decision, pretty much "I don't want to talk about this with you, let the refs handle it." This was unsportmanlike if anything
4. I don't think it's right to take away Slush's title and have the entire process redone. Even if everyone feels that it's wrong, it wouldn't make it any more right to make waste of the time that Slush put it, Cauthonluck, and other players have put in. Even though it puts most players in favorable position, imo that would make joke of this competition. Just have it as it is. And as many others suggested, have alternate matches to right the wrong done to Artosis.
5. NO ONE IS BENT TO SCREW SOMEONE. If anyone seriously thinks that someone wanted to "dick" a player, he's just being immature and irrational. Everyone involved in this tournament only wanted the best for the invitation. Some things are subjective, and under the stress and pressure, it's difficult to make the right decision (which might not even exist in many cases). Enough bad-mouthing has been done already, more than enough to shake off emotions. Now people should cool down and try to cooperate with the victims to make things right again to make as many people as possible satisfied.
|
On May 09 2010 14:06 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
This is what I'm talking about when you are deciding a disconnect case you cannot take into account the players you have to be neutral and say that anything could have happened at this point because realistically anything could have. SO his last mining base goes down there is a chance that Slush could catch him out of position and use his mineral surplus to remake drones. Personal feelings don't come into a decision like this which is why they're so difficult to make.
Having seen the replay, I can say that even a silver league player would have a hard time losing if they were in the position that Artosis had created for himself.
Also, it's not a matter of "Artosis is so good, so you should assume he'd win" it's more like he was playing so well in that game that you could not possibly expect him to have a sudden meltdown of the magnitude required to lose that game. It was still technically possible for him to lose in the same way that it's technically possible that I'll win the lottery this week. It happens some times, but there's no reasonable expectation that it would happen in this instance. Slush simply hadn't positioned himself to win the game, as he had no hatcheries, and by the time he could make enough hatches to matter, he'd have been cut off from any further resources.
|
On May 09 2010 14:01 dew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 13:53 artanis2 wrote:
People are saying slush had over 100 supply at the end of the game, how can that possibly mean no chance of comeback? Way too much artosis fanboyism around here.
edit: I also think its sad that nony thinks it would be OK to take the win away from slush retroactively. Then you'd have two victims of poor decisions instead of one. The win has already been "taken away" retroactively. It has been ever since this topic was written up by Nazgul. It's just a question of whether TL is content to simply award Slush a 1-2 victory, or if it's worth doing another regame with, by all accounts, the players who belonged there. Maybe I was too harsh on some individuals in my earlier post, but my personal position stands. It would be an absolute mockery if TL comes out and says that Slush didn't win his Quarterfinal series, yet still has the championship. Either stick to your guns or regame the matches with the players who earned the spot. What TL seems to be trying to do is have it both ways. Either stand by your call or don't, just don't say "the call was wrong but we're gonna say the guy who lost won anyway". It doesn't make any sense.
There is no 'both ways' about it. The regame was a terrible error. You wanna know how terrible? The decision we made erased Artosis' win. It's gone. Vanished. Never happened. Make no mistake, Slush won his series against Artosis. It's important to recognize this. The game where Artosis disconnected did not count. That's the ramification of our error. That's what regame means.
There is no having your cake and eating it too going on here. This is owning up and being responsible for what we did. If you've got a time-machine handy, lemme borrow it and we can fix the problem. Barring that possibility we'll just have to make amends some other way because we're not going to correct one mistake by making an even bigger one.
|
kudos to the tl staff for posting what is basically a news paper retraction. it doesn't change what happened, but it's still the right thing to do <3 tl.net
3. It was weird that Slush did not want to discuss the situation with Artosis. If you had a stance, and you really believed in that stance, you shouldn't be shying away from expressing that stance to someone else. The fact that Slush told refs that he felt like he had a chance but avoided expressing this and his reasons to Artosis shows that Slush did have questionable motives. If he had really build that he had a chance, fine. If he really wanted refs to decide b/c of this, then fine. But he shouldn't have told Artosis it's not my decision, pretty much "I don't want to talk about this with you, let the refs handle it." This was unsportmanlike if anything
uhh... so because he doesn't say anything that could be interpreted as flaming by Artosis he's bm? you're assuming way too much in this whole section. the whole paragraph is baseless assumptions.
he has questionable motives because they weren't questioned? or he didn't feel the need to justify them because they were (maybe, in his opinion) unquestionable? Anyone with league experience or tourney experience where decision trends tend to be in their favor, or similar situations that might be used as a basis for decision are assumed in your favor should understand that there's nothing to argue.
do you really think people would think more favorably on slush if he had argued his side? there's no way him arguing would have helped his situation or where things are now.
in my experience at tournaments if you know that generally what happened would default in a win for you or your team, there is no need for you to add fuel to flames. whenever admins are required to make decisions there are going to be people who are unsatisfied. that's why the admins are there in the first place. yes this time it was a mistake, but what you've said here in section 3 of your post... is directly contradicting what you say in section 5.
5. NO ONE IS BENT TO SCREW SOMEONE. If anyone seriously thinks that someone wanted to "dick" a player, he's just being immature and irrational. Everyone involved in this tournament only wanted the best for the invitation. Some things are subjective, and under the stress and pressure, it's difficult to make the right decision (which might not even exist in many cases). Enough bad-mouthing has been done already, more than enough to shake off emotions. Now people should cool down and try to cooperate with the victims to make things right again to make as many people as possible satisfied.
|
Slush did not do "what he thought was the right thing" IMO. He did what gave him the best possible chance of advancing. If he just took the loss like a gentelman (instead of saying "i could have won" like an ass) then he would have 0% chance of winning. By allowing the referee to decide he gained the extra advantage of having someone with a little less knowledge of the situation, and with fairness (in terms of Artosis disconnecting) in mind. He did the sleazy thing and looks like an ass to most, if not all, of the TL community. And he did not deserve the win and the $300 but that was not the fault of the admins.
Slush, as i have said many times in this and my last post, is an ass. The honorable thing to do now in his position is to offer 1/2 or all the money to Artosis OR maybe play a Bo3 for it, IDK.
Artosis, did nothing wrong in my opinion. He got the shitty end of the deal and e has a right to be mad. He lost out on an opportunity to get $300 because Slush is a douche bag and lied about thinking he could win.
I, already said i think Artosis deserves prize money as well and i believe if 300 people donated a dollar he could get it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
