On April 13 2011 05:09 Spicy Pepper wrote: Some of the people bashing MC on Shakuras also cheered Dimaga against Nestea on Xelnaga. Both were calculated gambles by smart players, exploiting a weakness in their opponent.
This, foreigner goggles much? So now only foreigners are allowed to cheese? And when a korean cheeses its all "Aw he has no skill has to rely on cheese" Jeez, the amount of bias here is baffling.
On April 13 2011 05:17 Hot_Bid wrote: One of the most epic games ever in BW was the one in the OSL finals where Boxer SCV+Marine rushed yellow. Crazy stuff happens.
This DH finals game 5 could have been awesome had WR not scouted a position where MC could not have spawned. He might have defended and turned the game into a really fun situation.
to give a nba basketball analogy, complaining about mc's strategy would be like someone complaining blake griffin dunked in a fast break on a small guard instead of going for a fade away and trying to make the play "more competitive for both teams and thus better for the fans"
Really, people have a right to be upset if we are robbed of a great finish yeah? But MC won grats to him.
Well said Halvorg. No offence Naz, I just think that both sides of this argument are represented well by this. MC did what he chose to to win and it worked and thats great, but I understand how one could be disappointed by that
The video show something that is illegal tactics. What did mc do that was illegal against the rule of the game?
Holy fuck did you just show me an example of cheating to compare the situations?
My IQ just dropped to 50 trying to understand your point. These situations are NOTHING alike. Trying to win and trying to win by cheating are two different worlds buddy.
Actually, it's not illegal. You get a red card and a penalty and that's it. In football if there is an attacker running alone and the last defender can't catch up, it's usually advisable to foul him. You get a red card, but they will just get a penalty kick. What he meant is that it's anti-climax I think, it would be "cheating" only if the ref hadn't seen it and even that would have been considered something you just have to use (as it can go both ways).
If it's not illegal then there would be no punishment for doing such acts. You basically proved that it was illegal. Just because the scope is limited to within the game and not always outside of the game(Red cards can affect participation in other games) you cannot say it's legal.
Just no. It's part of the game, if a player can prevent his team from getting eliminated from the world cup do you think he'd care about getting a red card? Also, partecipation for other games is only for bad behaviour (punching, spitting, hurting someone). That was just a technical "illegal" move which is completely contemplated in the game, it does not differ from cheese in any way. If your cheese gets spotted, you lose the game. If their penalty kick scores, you are in the same situation as before but with a player less. The example is more than valid in my opinion.
I'm sorry but I am battling to understand what you are trying to say. You say it's not illegal because it's "part of the game". Yet there is punishment for it and a player cannot do it without receiving this punishment(Unless ref/outside ref doesn't see). Nothing else matters. You stated that it wasn't illegal because it could be done but that isn't a valid line of reasoning. It is illegal. I never said your point of it being like cheese didn't stand, merely you were wrong about it being legal.
That being said it differs completely from being cheese. You cannot take such an arbitrary comparison and then state you have solved the mystery. That is just complete nonsense. Cheese is a concept within a strategy game. Hand balling and other illegal activities are confined within football. A direct comparison is impossible, you can make some kind of philosophical comparison but I find those rather pointless.
I'm not supporting the example, I was cheering for both. It's just that the way you think of "illegal action" is wrong, as I wrote
Again, they don't ban you from soccer for doing that. Every trainer would tell you that fouling the last man to prevent a goal is the best thing to do and they would fire you if you don't do that because it's against the rules. You get a red card but you prevent a goal, you cheese but if you fail you lose the game. The example works in my opinion.
Now you are merely talking about semantics here. Just because the punishment doesn't extend past the confines of the game doesn't mean it is legal. Let me give you a ludicrous analogy:
Cheating in junior school is legal because they just give you some form of one time punishment and remove your mark. You aren't banned from education forever.
You see how ridiculous it sounds?
The reasons it's stupid to consider that cheating is that every soccer player has fouled many times in his life, so if you follow that line of reasoning every player cheats. Basketball is the same. There are intentional fouls to stop a player from scoring in the last minutes.
Is it contemplated in the rules? Yes. Is it punished? Yes. Is it cheating? No.
On April 13 2011 05:15 Acrofales wrote: In MC's case especially: he is the GOD Protoss. Yet, so mortally afraid of White-Ra that he resorts to a "cheap" tactics to win. I don't blame him for 4-gating, blink stalkers or anything: that is and has been the name of the game wrt PvP for months now. The people saying that White-Ra was being greedy and could've stopped the proxy gate if he had scouted, chrono boosted out a zealot, etc. are obviously correct: with 20-20 hindsight anybody can stop a proxy. However, the fact of the matter is that if you take all the precautions all the time you will lose in a straight up 4gate battle. Therefore, White-RA didn't check and lost to the proxy. It is a cheap tactic. Players of top quality should have confidence enough to duke out the final match "like men". It's not a Nash equilibrium, but it is the gentlemanly thing to do. Neither Suàrez, nor MC are gentlemen.
We don't know if he was afraid. He just decided that was the best way to win. It could simply be because he thought it would work well given Ra's openers, and the unexpected nature at 2-2.
As for being a gentleman. Gentlemanly conduct died in sport long, long ago. It is an archaic, unworkable concept.
MMA is a sport and there's plenty of fighters there who fight to win. As such a match that is exciting is actually exciting because you don't get to see it every single time.
MMA is a great comparison. Sometimes you get all this hype for a fight and the guy wins in 30 seconds and people are like that was a terrible fight. But what was the guy suppose to do? Not knock him out? Let the fight go 5 rounds?
And sometimes the best fights go the distance, but sometimes we get long fights that go 5 rounds and it is super boring with the fighters just circling each other.
Point is, variety, taking chances, strategy, surprise, etc. can all be fun and exciting. Simply thinking macro games are always the best, or long games are always the best is not the case. People are stuck in that mentality and I think it keeps them from appreciating the exciting factor of a quick game or a risk.
On April 13 2011 05:16 fishjie wrote: so many whiners about cheese its a legit way to play the game.
MC is arguably the best sc2 player in the world right now, deal with it.
great series! i'm happy white-ra managed to take 2 games off MC, so epic
he may win the most, but that doesnt make him more skilled than others, he is good at making precise builds and timing attacks other than that, i cant name a thing he is THAT good at.
On April 13 2011 04:43 FinBenton wrote: MC won the money but whitera won the hearts.
Agreed. MC played like a pro with very calculated risks. A pro does whatever it takes to win, and that's what he did today. But White-Ra played an excellent series with some brilliant tactics, and the games he took against the favorite, he took in style.
I mean, game 1 is really the best example. Walking your 4gate into a choke with sentries and an immortal just waiting for you to get split up, most players would've either attacked head-on and hoped they could brute-force it with micro, or given up and gone home to a distinct economic disadvantage. But through some combination of being wise, crazy, and lucky, White-Ra found the hole in MC's defense.
I don't know how he got the probe through safely, nor how he managed to have the minerals to drop 2 pylons, warp in zealots, and still hold MC's army at the front, but that move impressed me to no end.
Game 2 showed awesome play from both players (blinking up to snipe the robo bay was an excellent calculation by MC) and had some very close observer wars going on... but White-Ra, with the balls to drop an expansion and the micro to hold it in a close fight, again came out on top.
By comparison, MC's wins -- a well-executed 4gate vs. 4gate, an really solid blink build, and a well-placed proxy -- were not as exciting, nor as impressive.
Overall, pretty exciting tournament and a great series of games. PvP continues to my favorite matchup to watch (and the one I'm most relieved not to play).
Really, people have a right to be upset if we are robbed of a great finish yeah? But MC won grats to him.
Well said Halvorg. No offence Naz, I just think that both sides of this argument are represented well by this. MC did what he chose to to win and it worked and thats great, but I understand how one could be disappointed by that
The video show something that is illegal tactics. What did mc do that was illegal against the rule of the game?
Holy fuck did you just show me an example of cheating to compare the situations?
My IQ just dropped to 50 trying to understand your point. These situations are NOTHING alike. Trying to win and trying to win by cheating are two different worlds buddy.
Actually, it's not illegal. You get a red card and a penalty and that's it. In football if there is an attacker running alone and the last defender can't catch up, it's usually advisable to foul him. You get a red card, but they will just get a penalty kick. What he meant is that it's anti-climax I think, it would be "cheating" only if the ref hadn't seen it and even that would have been considered something you just have to use (as it can go both ways).
If it's not illegal then there would be no punishment for doing such acts. You basically proved that it was illegal. Just because the scope is limited to within the game and not always outside of the game(Red cards can affect participation in other games) you cannot say it's legal.
Just no. It's part of the game, if a player can prevent his team from getting eliminated from the world cup do you think he'd care about getting a red card? Also, partecipation for other games is only for bad behaviour (punching, spitting, hurting someone). That was just a technical "illegal" move which is completely contemplated in the game, it does not differ from cheese in any way. If your cheese gets spotted, you lose the game. If their penalty kick scores, you are in the same situation as before but with a player less. The example is more than valid in my opinion.
I'm sorry but I am battling to understand what you are trying to say. You say it's not illegal because it's "part of the game". Yet there is punishment for it and a player cannot do it without receiving this punishment(Unless ref/outside ref doesn't see). Nothing else matters. You stated that it wasn't illegal because it could be done but that isn't a valid line of reasoning. It is illegal. I never said your point of it being like cheese didn't stand, merely you were wrong about it being legal.
That being said it differs completely from being cheese. You cannot take such an arbitrary comparison and then state you have solved the mystery. That is just complete nonsense. Cheese is a concept within a strategy game. Hand balling and other illegal activities are confined within football. A direct comparison is impossible, you can make some kind of philosophical comparison but I find those rather pointless.
I'm not supporting the example, I was cheering for both. It's just that the way you think of "illegal action" is wrong, as I wrote
Again, they don't ban you from soccer for doing that. Every trainer would tell you that fouling the last man to prevent a goal is the best thing to do and they would fire you if you don't do that because it's against the rules. You get a red card but you prevent a goal, you cheese but if you fail you lose the game. The example works in my opinion.
Now you are merely talking about semantics here. Just because the punishment doesn't extend past the confines of the game doesn't mean it is legal. Let me give you a ludicrous analogy:
Cheating in junior school is legal because they just give you some form of one time punishment and remove your mark. You aren't banned from education forever.
On April 13 2011 05:14 Yaotzin wrote: re: Uruguay, Suarez commited a foul, he did not cheat. They are very different things. Cheating is stuff like doping and calciopoli. Fouling OTOH is within the rules of the game (at a price, of course).
I think I should give up. Seems people have limited understanding of what rules are and what they are not. If there is punishment for an action it is against the rules of the game. There is no rule that states "you my hand ball as much as you like but there will be punishment!". The rule is "you may not hand ball. Different situations require different punishment"(Paraphrasing). I don't understand how people can say otherwise.
Anyway this point is going beyond Starcraft2 and the lovely dreamhack. Enough of this on my part
No. Cheating at school does 2 things, not 1:
If you, in plain sight of your teacher take the risk of looking at your neighbour's answers and blatantly copy them, then your analogy would be correct. However, generally cheaters do not merely cheat, they also hide this fact from the teacher. If you do that, you are attempting to subvert the rules: this is more similar to using doping.
The whole "Starcraft 2 has to be entertaining or it will die as an e-sport."
Shut up.
You obviously are new to the scene and do not know what you are talking about.
Back when Starcraft 1 began to flourish in South Korea, there was a demigod named SlayerS_Boxer. His arch-nemesis, Yellow, was in the starleague finals against him in a bo5. What ensued was 3 games of Boxer bunker rushing Yellow. Every game ended in under 7 minutes.
Did Starcraft 1 die? Hell no. That series became the stuff of legends and Starcraft 1 became bigger than ever.
Your favorite player may have lost and you may hate MC with a passion. But don't make stupid conjectures when history argues otherwise.
On April 13 2011 05:14 Kreb wrote: I really respect Whitera seemingly not ever offensive 4gate, he do seem to think thats not how PvP is supposed to be played. But sometimes i cant stop growling a bit at his inability to switch up his style with a few cheeses or just go straight up offensive 4gates, even or clear 4gate maps such as crevasse.
But the bigger problem is that he often seems to expect the same behaviour from his opponent, and thusly he doesnt prepare enough for the other guy 4gating. We saw it against San in GSLWC and MC in TSL.
Really respect his style but i cant help feeling its a bit..... stubborn. Would really have loved to see him win. Even by cannon rushing or proxy gating.
What are you on about, one of his wins tonight was offensive 4gate.
Waaaaay into the game it turned into that. It was a defensive 4gate where he lined up all his stalkers in his base waiting for the attack which never came. Then he turned on the offensive beacuse he was behind in tech,
The standard offensive 4gate come much much earlier and is done by making a zealot -> stalker -> move out to place pylon while you make 3 more gates -> get all 4 gates ready -> warp in stuff -> attack. I cant remember ever seeing him do that.
On April 13 2011 04:58 Teacher74 wrote: How did MC know that whitera was in that position without scouting the bottom position?
Seems kinda strange to me as well. Guess it was cross positions only, yet white-ra scouted the top left first. I feel so bad for him. Coming so close to 15000$, and losing like that. He def. got his community support though
Yeah, it's kinda wierd, cause earlier in the day MC scouted in the "non-spawning location" of the map when he played against MorroW, I think it was. I guess someone must have told him that it wasn't the spawn-locked map or he figured it out sometime during the day. Dissapointing. It could have turned out to be very exciting if White-Ra also knew it was the spawn-locked map.
Really, people have a right to be upset if we are robbed of a great finish yeah? But MC won grats to him.
Well said Halvorg. No offence Naz, I just think that both sides of this argument are represented well by this. MC did what he chose to to win and it worked and thats great, but I understand how one could be disappointed by that
The video show something that is illegal tactics. What did mc do that was illegal against the rule of the game?
It's not illegal, per se. Or, to be more precise, the advantages outweighed the penalty.
wat? the penalty was losing out on 15k... so how do the advantages outweigh that?
TL's mentality: every game must be a 5-base, 40:00 macro game. /facepalm
Err... he was talking about the football match. The point he was making is countering the previous quote: it's not ILLEGAL to make a handsball on the goal line. However, the punishment is a red card and a penalty shot against your team.
If it's not illegal, then why is there a punishment? Am I just nip-ticking the semantics here?
EDIT: This is just like Mixed Martial Arts, indeed. Some matches are hyped up like mad, then they proceed to last less than a minute. Crowds boo. That's just being human, I guess, even if the premise if flawed.
My IQ just dropped to 50 trying to understand your point. These situations are NOTHING alike. Trying to win and trying to win by cheating are two different worlds buddy.
That wasn't cheating. The rule set for soccer says that a player who deliberately bats the ball down with his hands is ejected from the game and the opposing team gets a penalty kick. The player on Uruguay used that to his advantage. If people have a problem with the rule, change it. You can't bely human nature when someone takes advantage of the rule set. It was a smart play.
"The rule set for soccer says that a player who deliberately bats the ball down with his hands is ejected from the game and the opposing team gets a penalty kick."
Do you know why there's such a penalty? It's because the action is considered cheating.
If you break a rule in a sport, it's cheating, just because the cheating worked out well for them doesn't mean it wasn't cheating.
I really don't think this is true
If there is 10 seconds left in a basketball game and team A is on a fast break and a player on team B fouls hard to prevent a lay up... That is the correct play.. its not at all cheating
It would actually be STUPID to not foul in that situation since...
On April 13 2011 05:00 Hot_Bid wrote:If we're ever at a point where players are just playing to entertain fans and not to win, then SC2 as an ESPORT will definitely fail.
A failure like WWE?
If the WWE was a sport then I would say it has failed. It is not a sport however it is entertainment and acting. And thus it does a good job. Saying WWE is an example of why you would rather see long macro games all the time is pretty much exactly the point people are trying to make. We want a sport not an act. As a sport we must succeed and not as an act.
MMA is a sport and there's plenty of fighters there who fight to win. As such a match that is exciting is actually exciting because you don't get to see it every single time.
Yes, it may no longer fall under your definition of a sport. What's more important, providing the most entertainment or being able to say that it is a sport? The two options aren't mutually exclusive, but surely you must acknowledge that it is possible that more entertainment could be gleaned from a scene that isn't truly competitive.
On April 13 2011 05:00 Hot_Bid wrote:If we're ever at a point where players are just playing to entertain fans and not to win, then SC2 as an ESPORT will definitely fail.
A failure like WWE?
E-Sports is not choreographed professional wrestling. If it ever becomes as such, it will no longer be E-Sports. It will no longer be competitive. One person will win because it is written that he will win. Thus it will fail.
WWE hasn't failed. It provides entertainment to many people..
On April 13 2011 05:00 Hot_Bid wrote:If we're ever at a point where players are just playing to entertain fans and not to win, then SC2 as an ESPORT will definitely fail.
A failure like WWE?
Are you serious? Do you really want to watch SC2 with scripted games for the sake of entertainment? Why are you even here?
I never said I would prefer scripted games. I was pointing out that it is possible that scripted games could be enjoyed by the masses. WWE is a good example of this, and it has not failed in the entertainment aspect.
On April 13 2011 05:00 Hot_Bid wrote:If we're ever at a point where players are just playing to entertain fans and not to win, then SC2 as an ESPORT will definitely fail.
A failure like WWE?
You realize that WWE isn't a sport or other form of competition and the outcomes are rigged right?
For those saying that white-ra doesn't cheese and it was lame of MC to cheese blablablabla, White-ra probs cheesed more than anyone else out there in sc2.
EPT
