|
Everyone knows the drill by now.
Keep it manner and have a good time.
We'll be watching along with you. |
|
|
It's a shame to see such a big event clouded by controversy, but let's not forget that ST kinda dropped the ball also. Even after MKP beat Parting it was still 2-2. Between Bomber, Curious and Squirtle one of them should have been able to take down MKP but failed to do so. Nonetheless I hope something positive comes from this and the disconnect serves as a catalyst for Blizzard to put in an auto-save feature. We've had disconnect problems before in major tournaments but never before did it have consequences of this scale. IF blizzard does something to ensure nothing like this ever happens again then SC2 will be better for it in the long run.
|
|
|
On April 09 2012 04:30 red4ce wrote:
It's a shame to see such a big event clouded by controversy, but let's not forget that ST kinda dropped the ball also. Even after MKP beat Parting it was still 2-2. Between Bomber, Curious and Squirtle one of them should have been able to take down MKP but failed to do so. Nonetheless I hope something positive comes from this and the disconnect serves as a catalyst for Blizzard to put in an auto-save feature. We've had disconnect problems before in major tournaments but never before did it have consequences of this scale. IF blizzard does something to ensure nothing like this ever happens again then SC2 will be better for it in the long run.
You forget how the regame decision was largely in Prime's favor and against Startales. The ST coach clearly wasn't happy with it, and thus, the team was likely demoralized by it as well. Don't forget that mindset is a huge deal in events like this - it may very well be the most important thing. People downplay the mental affects of the regame decision on Parting and his team too much. If I expected my team to be up 3-1 with the opponent team's Ace taken care of suddenly to have that taken away from me with purely bad luck, I'd be extremely frustrated. People are only human, after all.
|
On April 09 2012 04:48 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 04:30 red4ce wrote:
It's a shame to see such a big event clouded by controversy, but let's not forget that ST kinda dropped the ball also. Even after MKP beat Parting it was still 2-2. Between Bomber, Curious and Squirtle one of them should have been able to take down MKP but failed to do so. Nonetheless I hope something positive comes from this and the disconnect serves as a catalyst for Blizzard to put in an auto-save feature. We've had disconnect problems before in major tournaments but never before did it have consequences of this scale. IF blizzard does something to ensure nothing like this ever happens again then SC2 will be better for it in the long run. You forget how the regame decision was largely in Prime's favor and against Startales. The ST coach clearly wasn't happy with it, and thus, the team was likely demoralized by it as well. Don't forget that mindset is a huge deal in events like this - it may very well be the most important thing. People downplay the mental affects of the regame decision on Parting and his team too much. If I expected my team to be up 3-1 with the opponent team's Ace taken care of suddenly to have that taken away from me with purely bad luck, I'd be extremely frustrated. People are only human, after all.
Ok, now frame the same argument in an opposing or neutral view and you'll see how pointless it is to keep arguing about this. Obviously the Startale coach was not going to be happy. The Prime coach wouldn't have been happy if the game was called in Parting's favour. That's e-sports. From the angry Startale fan point of view, they had to win 2-0 to win the game. But the first game didn't end, and after the second one did, they had no answer for MKP. Four games and MKP took them all. It sucks for Startale but it's sort of obvious who the stronger player was so it's hard to complain.
|
On April 09 2012 04:54 lolmlg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 04:48 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 04:30 red4ce wrote:
It's a shame to see such a big event clouded by controversy, but let's not forget that ST kinda dropped the ball also. Even after MKP beat Parting it was still 2-2. Between Bomber, Curious and Squirtle one of them should have been able to take down MKP but failed to do so. Nonetheless I hope something positive comes from this and the disconnect serves as a catalyst for Blizzard to put in an auto-save feature. We've had disconnect problems before in major tournaments but never before did it have consequences of this scale. IF blizzard does something to ensure nothing like this ever happens again then SC2 will be better for it in the long run. You forget how the regame decision was largely in Prime's favor and against Startales. The ST coach clearly wasn't happy with it, and thus, the team was likely demoralized by it as well. Don't forget that mindset is a huge deal in events like this - it may very well be the most important thing. People downplay the mental affects of the regame decision on Parting and his team too much. If I expected my team to be up 3-1 with the opponent team's Ace taken care of suddenly to have that taken away from me with purely bad luck, I'd be extremely frustrated. People are only human, after all. Ok, now frame the same argument in an opposing or neutral view and you'll see how pointless it is to keep arguing about this. Obviously the Startale coach was not going to be happy. The Prime coach wouldn't have been happy if the game was called in Parting's favour. That's e-sports. From the angry Startale fan point of view, they had to win 2-0 to win the game. But the first game didn't end, and after the second one did, they had no answer for MKP. Four games and MKP took them all. It sucks for Startale but it's sort of obvious who the stronger player was so it's hard to complain.
Okay, first of all, what I'm about to say assumes you agree that Parting was at a huge advantage at the time of the disconnect. If you disagree that Parting was at a huge advantage then I'm not interested in continuing this discussion because we'll probably argue about the specifics of the game itself which has already been done to death.
With that said...
It's hardly pointless. Sure, you can try framing the same argument in an opposing view, but the fact is that Parting was the one who was in a big lead. Giving both views equivalency doesn't make sense when Parting was at a huge advantage, because that incorrectly implies that Prime would have been just as "screwed over" by a decision to award Parting the win as ST was screwed over by the decision to regame. If you accept that Parting had a huge lead, then awarding Parting the win would have clearly been not as big an injustice for Prime - some might even consider that fair. On the other hand, if you accept that Parting had a big lead and a regame was called, then clearly, ST got screwed over bigtime.
It's difficult to talk about this because inevitably we go back into talking and fruitlessly theorycrafting about the specifics of the game itself (assuming you disagree that Parting was at a huge lead), but this way, at least I can express my point of view.
I'd also like to add that the argument that MKP is a strong player and beat 4 ST players in a row is completely irrelevant to the discussion because it would never have happened had the decision to regame instead been a decision to hand Parting the win. That argument is predicated upon the assumption that the regame decision was just, when the justness of the regame decision is exactly what is being disputed. You can't make an argument to support a disputed conclusion when the argument depends on that disputed conclusion being true. That's circular logic.
|
On April 09 2012 05:13 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 04:54 lolmlg wrote:On April 09 2012 04:48 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 04:30 red4ce wrote:
It's a shame to see such a big event clouded by controversy, but let's not forget that ST kinda dropped the ball also. Even after MKP beat Parting it was still 2-2. Between Bomber, Curious and Squirtle one of them should have been able to take down MKP but failed to do so. Nonetheless I hope something positive comes from this and the disconnect serves as a catalyst for Blizzard to put in an auto-save feature. We've had disconnect problems before in major tournaments but never before did it have consequences of this scale. IF blizzard does something to ensure nothing like this ever happens again then SC2 will be better for it in the long run. You forget how the regame decision was largely in Prime's favor and against Startales. The ST coach clearly wasn't happy with it, and thus, the team was likely demoralized by it as well. Don't forget that mindset is a huge deal in events like this - it may very well be the most important thing. People downplay the mental affects of the regame decision on Parting and his team too much. If I expected my team to be up 3-1 with the opponent team's Ace taken care of suddenly to have that taken away from me with purely bad luck, I'd be extremely frustrated. People are only human, after all. Ok, now frame the same argument in an opposing or neutral view and you'll see how pointless it is to keep arguing about this. Obviously the Startale coach was not going to be happy. The Prime coach wouldn't have been happy if the game was called in Parting's favour. That's e-sports. From the angry Startale fan point of view, they had to win 2-0 to win the game. But the first game didn't end, and after the second one did, they had no answer for MKP. Four games and MKP took them all. It sucks for Startale but it's sort of obvious who the stronger player was so it's hard to complain. Okay, first of all, what I'm about to say assumes you agree that Parting was at a huge advantage at the time of the disconnect. If you disagree that Parting was at a huge advantage then I'm not interested in continuing this discussion because we'll probably argue about the specifics of the game itself which has already been done to death. With that said... It's hardly pointless. Sure, you can try framing the same argument in an opposing view, but the fact is that Parting was the one who was in a big lead. Giving both views equivalency doesn't make sense when Parting was at a huge advantage, because that incorrectly implies that Prime would have been just as "screwed over" by a decision to award Parting the win as ST was screwed over by the decision to regame. If you accept that Parting had a huge lead, then awarding Parting the win would have clearly been not as big an injustice for Prime - some might even consider that fair. On the other hand, if you accept that Parting had a big lead and a regame was called, then clearly, ST got screwed over bigtime. It's difficult to talk about this because inevitably we go back into talking and fruitlessly theorycrafting about the specifics of the game itself (assuming you disagree that Parting was at a huge lead), but this way, at least I can express my point of view. I'd also like to add that the argument that MKP is a strong player and beat 4 ST players in a row is completely irrelevant to the discussion because it would never have happened had the decision to regame instead been a decision to hand Parting the win. That argument is predicated upon the assumption that the regame decision was just, when the justness of the regame decision is exactly what is being disputed. You can't make an argument to support a disputed conclusion when the argument depends on that disputed conclusion being true. That's circular logic.
The thing is re-game is the go to option, like being not guilty until proven guilty in the U.S. The ref has to see irrevocable evidence that the game would have indeed gone to one player to make that call instead of the re-game. It is because of this that a decision for PartinG and Startale would have been at least as bad as the one that was made.
PartinG was clearly in a huge lead but that game had been decidedly back and forth, neither player had held on to their leads for long. I would argue that the re-game was a necessity because there was nothing which pushed PartinG over the edge as a clear victor. He was doing well but had not yet won. MKP could, with some effort have made it back and taken the game.
|
|
|
On April 09 2012 05:46 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 05:13 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 04:54 lolmlg wrote:On April 09 2012 04:48 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 04:30 red4ce wrote:
It's a shame to see such a big event clouded by controversy, but let's not forget that ST kinda dropped the ball also. Even after MKP beat Parting it was still 2-2. Between Bomber, Curious and Squirtle one of them should have been able to take down MKP but failed to do so. Nonetheless I hope something positive comes from this and the disconnect serves as a catalyst for Blizzard to put in an auto-save feature. We've had disconnect problems before in major tournaments but never before did it have consequences of this scale. IF blizzard does something to ensure nothing like this ever happens again then SC2 will be better for it in the long run. You forget how the regame decision was largely in Prime's favor and against Startales. The ST coach clearly wasn't happy with it, and thus, the team was likely demoralized by it as well. Don't forget that mindset is a huge deal in events like this - it may very well be the most important thing. People downplay the mental affects of the regame decision on Parting and his team too much. If I expected my team to be up 3-1 with the opponent team's Ace taken care of suddenly to have that taken away from me with purely bad luck, I'd be extremely frustrated. People are only human, after all. Ok, now frame the same argument in an opposing or neutral view and you'll see how pointless it is to keep arguing about this. Obviously the Startale coach was not going to be happy. The Prime coach wouldn't have been happy if the game was called in Parting's favour. That's e-sports. From the angry Startale fan point of view, they had to win 2-0 to win the game. But the first game didn't end, and after the second one did, they had no answer for MKP. Four games and MKP took them all. It sucks for Startale but it's sort of obvious who the stronger player was so it's hard to complain. Okay, first of all, what I'm about to say assumes you agree that Parting was at a huge advantage at the time of the disconnect. If you disagree that Parting was at a huge advantage then I'm not interested in continuing this discussion because we'll probably argue about the specifics of the game itself which has already been done to death. With that said... It's hardly pointless. Sure, you can try framing the same argument in an opposing view, but the fact is that Parting was the one who was in a big lead. Giving both views equivalency doesn't make sense when Parting was at a huge advantage, because that incorrectly implies that Prime would have been just as "screwed over" by a decision to award Parting the win as ST was screwed over by the decision to regame. If you accept that Parting had a huge lead, then awarding Parting the win would have clearly been not as big an injustice for Prime - some might even consider that fair. On the other hand, if you accept that Parting had a big lead and a regame was called, then clearly, ST got screwed over bigtime. It's difficult to talk about this because inevitably we go back into talking and fruitlessly theorycrafting about the specifics of the game itself (assuming you disagree that Parting was at a huge lead), but this way, at least I can express my point of view. I'd also like to add that the argument that MKP is a strong player and beat 4 ST players in a row is completely irrelevant to the discussion because it would never have happened had the decision to regame instead been a decision to hand Parting the win. That argument is predicated upon the assumption that the regame decision was just, when the justness of the regame decision is exactly what is being disputed. You can't make an argument to support a disputed conclusion when the argument depends on that disputed conclusion being true. That's circular logic. The thing is re-game is the go to option, like being not guilty until proven guilty in the U.S. The ref has to see irrevocable evidence that the game would have indeed gone to one player to make that call instead of the re-game. It is because of this that a decision for PartinG and Startale would have been at least as bad as the one that was made. PartinG was clearly in a huge lead but that game had been decidedly back and forth, neither player had held on to their leads for long. I would argue that the re-game was a necessity because there was nothing which pushed PartinG over the edge as a clear victor. He was doing well but had not yet won. MKP could, with some effort have made it back and taken the game.
^^^This guy GETS it :D (No but seriously, put aside the nerdrage and realize the simple truth that regaming is always the default, and fairest, choice. If Parting was the better player he'd have just as good a chance of winning the second game).
|
On April 09 2012 05:46 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 05:13 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 04:54 lolmlg wrote:On April 09 2012 04:48 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 04:30 red4ce wrote:
It's a shame to see such a big event clouded by controversy, but let's not forget that ST kinda dropped the ball also. Even after MKP beat Parting it was still 2-2. Between Bomber, Curious and Squirtle one of them should have been able to take down MKP but failed to do so. Nonetheless I hope something positive comes from this and the disconnect serves as a catalyst for Blizzard to put in an auto-save feature. We've had disconnect problems before in major tournaments but never before did it have consequences of this scale. IF blizzard does something to ensure nothing like this ever happens again then SC2 will be better for it in the long run. You forget how the regame decision was largely in Prime's favor and against Startales. The ST coach clearly wasn't happy with it, and thus, the team was likely demoralized by it as well. Don't forget that mindset is a huge deal in events like this - it may very well be the most important thing. People downplay the mental affects of the regame decision on Parting and his team too much. If I expected my team to be up 3-1 with the opponent team's Ace taken care of suddenly to have that taken away from me with purely bad luck, I'd be extremely frustrated. People are only human, after all. Ok, now frame the same argument in an opposing or neutral view and you'll see how pointless it is to keep arguing about this. Obviously the Startale coach was not going to be happy. The Prime coach wouldn't have been happy if the game was called in Parting's favour. That's e-sports. From the angry Startale fan point of view, they had to win 2-0 to win the game. But the first game didn't end, and after the second one did, they had no answer for MKP. Four games and MKP took them all. It sucks for Startale but it's sort of obvious who the stronger player was so it's hard to complain. Okay, first of all, what I'm about to say assumes you agree that Parting was at a huge advantage at the time of the disconnect. If you disagree that Parting was at a huge advantage then I'm not interested in continuing this discussion because we'll probably argue about the specifics of the game itself which has already been done to death. With that said... It's hardly pointless. Sure, you can try framing the same argument in an opposing view, but the fact is that Parting was the one who was in a big lead. Giving both views equivalency doesn't make sense when Parting was at a huge advantage, because that incorrectly implies that Prime would have been just as "screwed over" by a decision to award Parting the win as ST was screwed over by the decision to regame. If you accept that Parting had a huge lead, then awarding Parting the win would have clearly been not as big an injustice for Prime - some might even consider that fair. On the other hand, if you accept that Parting had a big lead and a regame was called, then clearly, ST got screwed over bigtime. It's difficult to talk about this because inevitably we go back into talking and fruitlessly theorycrafting about the specifics of the game itself (assuming you disagree that Parting was at a huge lead), but this way, at least I can express my point of view. I'd also like to add that the argument that MKP is a strong player and beat 4 ST players in a row is completely irrelevant to the discussion because it would never have happened had the decision to regame instead been a decision to hand Parting the win. That argument is predicated upon the assumption that the regame decision was just, when the justness of the regame decision is exactly what is being disputed. You can't make an argument to support a disputed conclusion when the argument depends on that disputed conclusion being true. That's circular logic. The thing is re-game is the go to option, like being not guilty until proven guilty in the U.S. The ref has to see irrevocable evidence that the game would have indeed gone to one player to make that call instead of the re-game. It is because of this that a decision for PartinG and Startale would have been at least as bad as the one that was made. PartinG was clearly in a huge lead but that game had been decidedly back and forth, neither player had held on to their leads for long. I would argue that the re-game was a necessity because there was nothing which pushed PartinG over the edge as a clear victor. He was doing well but had not yet won. MKP could, with some effort have made it back and taken the game.
I can get behind the guilty/not-guilty analogy. But that doesn't change the fact, then, that MKP got really lucky, and that ST was understandably extremely frustrated. A random disconnect, by the idea that the re-game is the go to option, is always extremely beneficial to the person losing, because it's difficult to prove that someone was in a position of assured victory. It's just very unfortunate, and I'm simply tired of seeing MKP fans justify the situation with the ridiculous circular logic that I mentioned in my previous post. MKP and Prime got very lucky, ST got screwed, the regame may have been the right decision, but in the end, the victory was tainted. End of story.
Also:
^^^This guy GETS it :D (No but seriously, put aside the nerdrage and realize the simple truth that regaming is always the default, and fairest, choice. If Parting was the better player he'd have just as good a chance of winning the second game).
Stop making the "better player" argument. Upsets are, at this point, regularities in tournaments, and just because someone is generally a "better player" doesn't make it at all fair that they got a second chance out of pure luck. Sometimes, the better player chokes. Sometimes they just don't play up to standard. And in a tournament setting, that's what causes you to taste defeat. And when that defeat ends up not occurring by pure luck, that's all it is - pure luck. It doesn't somehow make a person's win as legitimate as it would have been had the disconnect not occurred. People need to wrap their heads around the fact that no matter how good you are, if you lose, you lose, and simply being better than your opponent in general doesn't suddenly legitimize a win caused by a lucky second chance.
For example, consider when MC lost to Monster in Code A a while back. I'm sure everyone agrees that that was a big upset. If MC had instead lagged out when Monster was at a huge advantage, we had a re-game issued, and MC proceeded to win, it would definitely have been a really tainted, unfair win, regardless of MC's skill and regardless of the fact that MC is regarded as a far better player than Monster.
As far as I'm concerned, the regame was extremely unfair, but by the guilty/not-guilty analogy Promethelax mentioned earlier, the regame was simply the lesser of the two evils. Doesn't mean it was good or just at all, but, simply, the "less bad" choice.
|
On April 09 2012 06:08 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 05:46 Promethelax wrote:On April 09 2012 05:13 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 04:54 lolmlg wrote:On April 09 2012 04:48 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 04:30 red4ce wrote:
It's a shame to see such a big event clouded by controversy, but let's not forget that ST kinda dropped the ball also. Even after MKP beat Parting it was still 2-2. Between Bomber, Curious and Squirtle one of them should have been able to take down MKP but failed to do so. Nonetheless I hope something positive comes from this and the disconnect serves as a catalyst for Blizzard to put in an auto-save feature. We've had disconnect problems before in major tournaments but never before did it have consequences of this scale. IF blizzard does something to ensure nothing like this ever happens again then SC2 will be better for it in the long run. You forget how the regame decision was largely in Prime's favor and against Startales. The ST coach clearly wasn't happy with it, and thus, the team was likely demoralized by it as well. Don't forget that mindset is a huge deal in events like this - it may very well be the most important thing. People downplay the mental affects of the regame decision on Parting and his team too much. If I expected my team to be up 3-1 with the opponent team's Ace taken care of suddenly to have that taken away from me with purely bad luck, I'd be extremely frustrated. People are only human, after all. Ok, now frame the same argument in an opposing or neutral view and you'll see how pointless it is to keep arguing about this. Obviously the Startale coach was not going to be happy. The Prime coach wouldn't have been happy if the game was called in Parting's favour. That's e-sports. From the angry Startale fan point of view, they had to win 2-0 to win the game. But the first game didn't end, and after the second one did, they had no answer for MKP. Four games and MKP took them all. It sucks for Startale but it's sort of obvious who the stronger player was so it's hard to complain. Okay, first of all, what I'm about to say assumes you agree that Parting was at a huge advantage at the time of the disconnect. If you disagree that Parting was at a huge advantage then I'm not interested in continuing this discussion because we'll probably argue about the specifics of the game itself which has already been done to death. With that said... It's hardly pointless. Sure, you can try framing the same argument in an opposing view, but the fact is that Parting was the one who was in a big lead. Giving both views equivalency doesn't make sense when Parting was at a huge advantage, because that incorrectly implies that Prime would have been just as "screwed over" by a decision to award Parting the win as ST was screwed over by the decision to regame. If you accept that Parting had a huge lead, then awarding Parting the win would have clearly been not as big an injustice for Prime - some might even consider that fair. On the other hand, if you accept that Parting had a big lead and a regame was called, then clearly, ST got screwed over bigtime. It's difficult to talk about this because inevitably we go back into talking and fruitlessly theorycrafting about the specifics of the game itself (assuming you disagree that Parting was at a huge lead), but this way, at least I can express my point of view. I'd also like to add that the argument that MKP is a strong player and beat 4 ST players in a row is completely irrelevant to the discussion because it would never have happened had the decision to regame instead been a decision to hand Parting the win. That argument is predicated upon the assumption that the regame decision was just, when the justness of the regame decision is exactly what is being disputed. You can't make an argument to support a disputed conclusion when the argument depends on that disputed conclusion being true. That's circular logic. The thing is re-game is the go to option, like being not guilty until proven guilty in the U.S. The ref has to see irrevocable evidence that the game would have indeed gone to one player to make that call instead of the re-game. It is because of this that a decision for PartinG and Startale would have been at least as bad as the one that was made. PartinG was clearly in a huge lead but that game had been decidedly back and forth, neither player had held on to their leads for long. I would argue that the re-game was a necessity because there was nothing which pushed PartinG over the edge as a clear victor. He was doing well but had not yet won. MKP could, with some effort have made it back and taken the game. I can get behind the guilty/not-guilty analogy. But that doesn't change the fact, then, that MKP got really lucky, and that ST was understandably extremely frustrated. A random disconnect, by the idea that the re-game is the go to option, is always extremely beneficial to the person losing, because it's difficult to prove that someone was in a position of assured victory. It's just very unfortunate, and I'm simply tired of seeing MKP fans justify the situation with the ridiculous circular logic that I mentioned in my previous post. MKP and Prime got very lucky, ST got screwed, the regame may have been the right decision, but in the end, the victory was tainted. End of story.
Yeah, you are totally right that the re-game will always be good for the player who is behind. I would however disagree with the idea of the win being tainted. The game went the way it went, I would have liked to see PartinG win the re-game so that we didn't have to have this whole ordeal. The finals were the finals though and the four games with MKP were played out.
The rules were followed and both teams played well. There is no taint in the victory.
Blizzard was tainted by the final though. I hope we get something from this either LAN re-game from save point or both.
|
On April 09 2012 06:21 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:08 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 05:46 Promethelax wrote:On April 09 2012 05:13 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 04:54 lolmlg wrote:On April 09 2012 04:48 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 04:30 red4ce wrote:
It's a shame to see such a big event clouded by controversy, but let's not forget that ST kinda dropped the ball also. Even after MKP beat Parting it was still 2-2. Between Bomber, Curious and Squirtle one of them should have been able to take down MKP but failed to do so. Nonetheless I hope something positive comes from this and the disconnect serves as a catalyst for Blizzard to put in an auto-save feature. We've had disconnect problems before in major tournaments but never before did it have consequences of this scale. IF blizzard does something to ensure nothing like this ever happens again then SC2 will be better for it in the long run. You forget how the regame decision was largely in Prime's favor and against Startales. The ST coach clearly wasn't happy with it, and thus, the team was likely demoralized by it as well. Don't forget that mindset is a huge deal in events like this - it may very well be the most important thing. People downplay the mental affects of the regame decision on Parting and his team too much. If I expected my team to be up 3-1 with the opponent team's Ace taken care of suddenly to have that taken away from me with purely bad luck, I'd be extremely frustrated. People are only human, after all. Ok, now frame the same argument in an opposing or neutral view and you'll see how pointless it is to keep arguing about this. Obviously the Startale coach was not going to be happy. The Prime coach wouldn't have been happy if the game was called in Parting's favour. That's e-sports. From the angry Startale fan point of view, they had to win 2-0 to win the game. But the first game didn't end, and after the second one did, they had no answer for MKP. Four games and MKP took them all. It sucks for Startale but it's sort of obvious who the stronger player was so it's hard to complain. Okay, first of all, what I'm about to say assumes you agree that Parting was at a huge advantage at the time of the disconnect. If you disagree that Parting was at a huge advantage then I'm not interested in continuing this discussion because we'll probably argue about the specifics of the game itself which has already been done to death. With that said... It's hardly pointless. Sure, you can try framing the same argument in an opposing view, but the fact is that Parting was the one who was in a big lead. Giving both views equivalency doesn't make sense when Parting was at a huge advantage, because that incorrectly implies that Prime would have been just as "screwed over" by a decision to award Parting the win as ST was screwed over by the decision to regame. If you accept that Parting had a huge lead, then awarding Parting the win would have clearly been not as big an injustice for Prime - some might even consider that fair. On the other hand, if you accept that Parting had a big lead and a regame was called, then clearly, ST got screwed over bigtime. It's difficult to talk about this because inevitably we go back into talking and fruitlessly theorycrafting about the specifics of the game itself (assuming you disagree that Parting was at a huge lead), but this way, at least I can express my point of view. I'd also like to add that the argument that MKP is a strong player and beat 4 ST players in a row is completely irrelevant to the discussion because it would never have happened had the decision to regame instead been a decision to hand Parting the win. That argument is predicated upon the assumption that the regame decision was just, when the justness of the regame decision is exactly what is being disputed. You can't make an argument to support a disputed conclusion when the argument depends on that disputed conclusion being true. That's circular logic. The thing is re-game is the go to option, like being not guilty until proven guilty in the U.S. The ref has to see irrevocable evidence that the game would have indeed gone to one player to make that call instead of the re-game. It is because of this that a decision for PartinG and Startale would have been at least as bad as the one that was made. PartinG was clearly in a huge lead but that game had been decidedly back and forth, neither player had held on to their leads for long. I would argue that the re-game was a necessity because there was nothing which pushed PartinG over the edge as a clear victor. He was doing well but had not yet won. MKP could, with some effort have made it back and taken the game. I can get behind the guilty/not-guilty analogy. But that doesn't change the fact, then, that MKP got really lucky, and that ST was understandably extremely frustrated. A random disconnect, by the idea that the re-game is the go to option, is always extremely beneficial to the person losing, because it's difficult to prove that someone was in a position of assured victory. It's just very unfortunate, and I'm simply tired of seeing MKP fans justify the situation with the ridiculous circular logic that I mentioned in my previous post. MKP and Prime got very lucky, ST got screwed, the regame may have been the right decision, but in the end, the victory was tainted. End of story. Yeah, you are totally right that the re-game will always be good for the player who is behind. I would however disagree with the idea of the win being tainted. The game went the way it went, I would have liked to see PartinG win the re-game so that we didn't have to have this whole ordeal. The finals were the finals though and the four games with MKP were played out. The rules were followed and both teams played well. There is no taint in the victory. Blizzard was tainted by the final though. I hope we get something from this either LAN re-game from save point or both.
Well, we're entering more philosophical territory here. I personally reject the argument that "the finals were the finals, we followed the rules", as justification for why the victory wasn't tainted, because, the bottom line is that MKP and Prime highly benefited from MKP lagging out, and MKP lagging out has nothing to do with Prime being a better team than ST or MKP being a better player than Parting (which are the only factors that should have been relevant to Prime's victory). Just because the rules are followed doesn't mean that injustices can't happen. As I said before (check out my edit), the re-game is simply the lesser of two evils; or rather, the lesser of two injustices. If you accept that, then you must acknowledge that there was indeed "injustice" in Prime's win, and if we define an untainted win as one free of "injustice", then Prime's win can't be considered untainted.
|
On April 09 2012 06:26 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:21 Promethelax wrote:On April 09 2012 06:08 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 05:46 Promethelax wrote:On April 09 2012 05:13 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 04:54 lolmlg wrote:On April 09 2012 04:48 HolyArrow wrote:On April 09 2012 04:30 red4ce wrote:
It's a shame to see such a big event clouded by controversy, but let's not forget that ST kinda dropped the ball also. Even after MKP beat Parting it was still 2-2. Between Bomber, Curious and Squirtle one of them should have been able to take down MKP but failed to do so. Nonetheless I hope something positive comes from this and the disconnect serves as a catalyst for Blizzard to put in an auto-save feature. We've had disconnect problems before in major tournaments but never before did it have consequences of this scale. IF blizzard does something to ensure nothing like this ever happens again then SC2 will be better for it in the long run. You forget how the regame decision was largely in Prime's favor and against Startales. The ST coach clearly wasn't happy with it, and thus, the team was likely demoralized by it as well. Don't forget that mindset is a huge deal in events like this - it may very well be the most important thing. People downplay the mental affects of the regame decision on Parting and his team too much. If I expected my team to be up 3-1 with the opponent team's Ace taken care of suddenly to have that taken away from me with purely bad luck, I'd be extremely frustrated. People are only human, after all. Ok, now frame the same argument in an opposing or neutral view and you'll see how pointless it is to keep arguing about this. Obviously the Startale coach was not going to be happy. The Prime coach wouldn't have been happy if the game was called in Parting's favour. That's e-sports. From the angry Startale fan point of view, they had to win 2-0 to win the game. But the first game didn't end, and after the second one did, they had no answer for MKP. Four games and MKP took them all. It sucks for Startale but it's sort of obvious who the stronger player was so it's hard to complain. Okay, first of all, what I'm about to say assumes you agree that Parting was at a huge advantage at the time of the disconnect. If you disagree that Parting was at a huge advantage then I'm not interested in continuing this discussion because we'll probably argue about the specifics of the game itself which has already been done to death. With that said... It's hardly pointless. Sure, you can try framing the same argument in an opposing view, but the fact is that Parting was the one who was in a big lead. Giving both views equivalency doesn't make sense when Parting was at a huge advantage, because that incorrectly implies that Prime would have been just as "screwed over" by a decision to award Parting the win as ST was screwed over by the decision to regame. If you accept that Parting had a huge lead, then awarding Parting the win would have clearly been not as big an injustice for Prime - some might even consider that fair. On the other hand, if you accept that Parting had a big lead and a regame was called, then clearly, ST got screwed over bigtime. It's difficult to talk about this because inevitably we go back into talking and fruitlessly theorycrafting about the specifics of the game itself (assuming you disagree that Parting was at a huge lead), but this way, at least I can express my point of view. I'd also like to add that the argument that MKP is a strong player and beat 4 ST players in a row is completely irrelevant to the discussion because it would never have happened had the decision to regame instead been a decision to hand Parting the win. That argument is predicated upon the assumption that the regame decision was just, when the justness of the regame decision is exactly what is being disputed. You can't make an argument to support a disputed conclusion when the argument depends on that disputed conclusion being true. That's circular logic. The thing is re-game is the go to option, like being not guilty until proven guilty in the U.S. The ref has to see irrevocable evidence that the game would have indeed gone to one player to make that call instead of the re-game. It is because of this that a decision for PartinG and Startale would have been at least as bad as the one that was made. PartinG was clearly in a huge lead but that game had been decidedly back and forth, neither player had held on to their leads for long. I would argue that the re-game was a necessity because there was nothing which pushed PartinG over the edge as a clear victor. He was doing well but had not yet won. MKP could, with some effort have made it back and taken the game. I can get behind the guilty/not-guilty analogy. But that doesn't change the fact, then, that MKP got really lucky, and that ST was understandably extremely frustrated. A random disconnect, by the idea that the re-game is the go to option, is always extremely beneficial to the person losing, because it's difficult to prove that someone was in a position of assured victory. It's just very unfortunate, and I'm simply tired of seeing MKP fans justify the situation with the ridiculous circular logic that I mentioned in my previous post. MKP and Prime got very lucky, ST got screwed, the regame may have been the right decision, but in the end, the victory was tainted. End of story. Yeah, you are totally right that the re-game will always be good for the player who is behind. I would however disagree with the idea of the win being tainted. The game went the way it went, I would have liked to see PartinG win the re-game so that we didn't have to have this whole ordeal. The finals were the finals though and the four games with MKP were played out. The rules were followed and both teams played well. There is no taint in the victory. Blizzard was tainted by the final though. I hope we get something from this either LAN re-game from save point or both. Well, we're entering more philosophical territory here. I personally reject the argument that "the finals were the finals, we followed the rules", as justification for why the victory wasn't tainted, because, the bottom line is that MKP and Prime highly benefited from MKP lagging out, and MKP lagging out has nothing to do with Prime being a better team than ST or MKP being a better player than Parting (which are the only factors that should have been relevant to Prime's victory). Just because the rules are followed doesn't mean that injustices can't happen. As I said before (check out my edit), the re-game is simply the lesser of two evils; or rather, the lesser of two injustices. If you accept that, then you must acknowledge that there was indeed "injustice" in Prime's win, and if we define an untainted win as one free of "injustice", then Prime's win can't be considered untainted.
Fair enough. I can accept that logic and that argument. The only point remaining being that the lag out was random and therefore not in and of itself unjust.
Lesser of two evils seems right though.
|
I had startale picked to win on my liquibet. If they had I think I would've been in the top 30 if not top 15. Damn you disconnect!
|
Wow, a lot of you guys are getting facts wrong. It was 6 vikings 3 marauders and 1 marine with 14 about to pop out, while Parting had 14 zeals 6 stalkers (just warped in) and 4 ht at his bases and the lone wp that would have done nothing because of the vikings. In the regame Parting played more offensively with his ht's and they got sniped and once he didn't have those it was gg for him. If Parting played the same way he did in the game before he would have had a lot better chance of winning instead of losing at 13 minutes.
|
Anyone know the name of the "Naaa na na na" song ?
|
On April 09 2012 09:08 Mech0z wrote:
Anyone know the name of the "Naaa na na na" song ?
Halestorm - Daughters of Darkness
|
On April 09 2012 09:15 Kelwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 09:08 Mech0z wrote:
Anyone know the name of the "Naaa na na na" song ? Halestorm - Daughters of Darkness
Thanks
|
On April 08 2012 18:08 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 17:54 baubo wrote:On April 08 2012 17:30 aksfjh wrote:
As for the first game, it wasn't decisively PartinG's yet. If you have never seen MKP play and his control with minimal units, sure, you could claim that PartinG had that game in the bag. However, there was a lot that could still go wrong for Part and right for MKP that would have put him back in the game. If you go by the final unit counter at disconnect. MKP had 110 supply, 71 scvs. That means 39 supply of attack units, of which probably half are still in production. Let's be generous and give him 30 supply actually on the field. Given that Parting had already hit some of MKP's production facilities, part of that army that pop up would immediately get destroyed. Parting had 148/149 supply(my vod wasn't clear enough to see exactly), 79 probes. That means ~70 supply of units and most of which are on the field except perhaps 1 or 2 colossi. At worst, Parting had twice the army supply of MKP and about to destroy part of potential reinforcements from those barracks. I can't imagine anyone who has ever played the game think MKP had any legit chance. Seriously, how can you believe that? PartinG still had a long way to go before victory. He still had ramps to climb and army to kill when the disconnect happened. Sure, if you're idra, a GG was looming right around the corner (probably would have happened a minute earlier), but in competitive SC2, the game wasn't over yet. Yes, PartinG had a clear advantage, but that doesn't entitle him to a win. Regame was the best option.
Seriously if you can explain a situation in which MKP could come back, please do. Did he have walls? No. Did he have ghosts? No. Did he have Medivacs? No. Did he have vikings? 6 of them, that don't do anything to chargelots and parting might not have been even making colossi.
MKP didn't have the correct counter. Parting brought the fight right in front of MKP's bases. He already cut off 3 barracks which is 6 supply from MKP.
Whatever units MKP would come out with, Parting would come out with more, faster. He's protoss, he can reinforce faster.
I know that MKP has amazing micro. But you can't micro 3 marauders 6 vikings vs 18 chargelots, 6 stalkers, 6 HT. Yes, some of the zealots were still in the middle of the map, but they move FAST. MKP can't even afford to stim his units, he has 0 medivacs to heal up. Parting had a WP to warp right into MKP's base, in his main, where most of his barracks were. Even if you say he had 6 vikings (we don't know where 4 of them were, i saw 2 of them floating around) and dealt with the WP, there's basically nothing MKP could have done to stop Parting's forces.
You can micro 20 marines 5 marauders 10 medivacs vs 20, maybe even 25 chargelots, 10 stalkers, a couple colossi and a couple HTs, by killing the chargelots and then rehealing, and getting more reinforcements to clean up. But we're talking about THREE marauders with ZERO medivacs. He can't heal, he can't afford to stim. He has no where to run, no where to kite, no wall to hide behind. Put 1-2 zealots at MKP's 4th and 5th base and he can't mine there anymore or he will lose 20 SCVs total if you send 2 zealots to each base.
Doesn't matter if he lands 10 MULEs at his 5th base, he doesn't have the production to make use of it.
|
are there Vods? pls link  thx in adavance
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
