|
On February 22 2015 07:04 Circumstance wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 07:00 Jazzman88 wrote:On February 22 2015 06:58 Circumstance wrote:On February 22 2015 06:56 Jazzman88 wrote:On February 22 2015 06:53 BaneRiders wrote:On February 22 2015 06:32 SixStrings wrote:On February 22 2015 06:29 BaneRiders wrote:
I just completely lost the interest in the entire series and this whole group. Screw this. Seriously. Sorry Puck, it's not your fault, neither is it Sen's or FireCake's, so that kind of narrows it down, doesn't it? I'll be back tomorrow, hoping for some real Starcraft. In the meantime, if I don't see ForGG ever again, I won't write any lengthy lamentations about it... How is that ForGG's fault? Blame Blizzard for being stubborn enough going through with Swarmhosts, although the pro-gamer feedback has been overwhelmingly negative since day 1. SH had nothing to do with parking your inferior army with no resources behind a small ramp, trying nothing to win, obviously losing, wasting 30k viewers time for one hour. And we have to live with this jerk in the Ro16. I hope someone is able to file a valid complaint about this resulting in a disqualification, but I'm not holding my breath. As has already been pointed out, ForGG probably thought that Firecake was broke because ForGG had mined so much of the map before Firecake got to it. Are we really going to disqualify someone for acting on imperfect information in a game which prohibits having perfect information? You can make the case that he held out for some time after the realization that he can't trade away to a draw sets in, but then you're also making a case for disqualifying someone based on what you assume is going on in their head with no proof. That's an extremely bad precedent. A player of his caliber, with his experience, his results, and having used the ridiculous number of scans that he did, is absolutely incapable of a level of incompetence to believe that he could have won the game from that position. I don't believe he was playing for a win, but a draw. You're also making the judgement based on the viewer's perfect information plus the analysis of casters, players on twitter, etc. So, no, it's still bad policy to disqualify a player because you think he was stalling in a position where the logical goal of playing for a draw might be in his mind. Again, unless you think we should disqualify people who are trying to do everything to not lose, which is terrible. What was he doing not to lose? He already HAD lost. He had scanned the entire map. He was not leaving his base. He was not attempting to change any aspect of the situation. He wasn't tying to do anything to the Queens that keep making structures. He was even manually resetting the draw counter with Raven buildings (yes, they reset the draw counter). He was not playing to win. He was not playing to draw. He was playing to annoy.
Even if you are right (which you can't know because telepathy isn't a thing), should we then disqualify people who dance their units and don't immediately kill their opponent? If someone manner MULEs, do they get DQ'd? What about manner Hatcheries? Those are also clearly plays of annoyance/psychological warfare, just like drawing out a game to fatigue an opponent. I'm just saying if you posit ForGG deserves a DQ for his play, then you are effectively saying that the way the game has to be played is with additional rules that limit what the game engine/code permits. And that is not in the spirit of allowing players to use all of their abilities to their fullest.
I would rather see 10 of the type of game that ForGG/Firecake Game 1 was and get 1 massive comeback from a similar scenario than not see any of those at all, especially if that means I get players putting every single tactic and skill at their disposal into their performance rather than gg'ing out the first time they're at a big disadvantage.
|
United States97277 Posts
On February 22 2015 07:09 DJHelium wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 07:08 Shellshock wrote:
saltiest LR thread of all time is Naniwa's 2011 blizzard cup group. It's not even debatable. It had a game on TDA where Naniwa killed Polt's natural and still lost to a follow up 1-1-1 in the height of 1-1-1 butthurt era and then later the drone rush game. What about Idra vs Alive "showmatch"?
maybe #2. the fallout from the blizzard cup is unmatched
especially when Naniwa was "suspended" from GSL or whatever
|
On February 22 2015 07:04 hborrgg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 07:00 KingofdaHipHop wrote:
Veterans when was the last time we had a thread this salty? yesterday. It tampered out at the end though because the terran lost
we've had a couple of trying days, haven't we...
|
On February 22 2015 07:08 Boucot wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 07:07 BaneRiders wrote:On February 22 2015 07:02 Shellshock wrote:On February 22 2015 07:00 KingofdaHipHop wrote:
Veterans when was the last time we had a thread this salty? when was the last time naniwa played? Tomorrow. That is worth a lot in the futures salt market. Spot market is going to explode I believe, so I have already invested heavily. Not only is he playing tomorrow but he is playing AGAINST HAS. Oh god, I won't miss that.
I don't think there is as much room to play insane in PvP as in the other mu's, but here's hoping
|
honestly i won't even care if Naniwa gets through in the most bullshit way as long as suppy makes it to the round of 16. if he doesn't then i'll start caring.
|
By the way, do you on which game, it was a PvZ, the Zerg said : One unit to rule them all. The French cast did not find the answer :/
|
why are tod and kaelaris casting this series too
don't they deserve a break
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
I either want Naniwa to fucking shit on everyone or to completely implode and attack his own nexus with starting probes.
|
|
|
Why does nobody in WCS know how to end games. They are the reason we keep getting these drawn out clusterfucks
|
On February 22 2015 07:09 Shellshock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 07:09 DJHelium wrote:On February 22 2015 07:08 Shellshock wrote:
saltiest LR thread of all time is Naniwa's 2011 blizzard cup group. It's not even debatable. It had a game on TDA where Naniwa killed Polt's natural and still lost to a follow up 1-1-1 in the height of 1-1-1 butthurt era and then later the drone rush game. What about Idra vs Alive "showmatch"? maybe #2. the fallout from the blizzard cup is unmatched especially when Naniwa was "suspended" from GSL or whatever
Hm I guess there weren't as much discussion for Idra's sake, just the rage.
|
Canada11355 Posts
On February 22 2015 07:09 Shellshock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 07:09 DJHelium wrote:On February 22 2015 07:08 Shellshock wrote:
saltiest LR thread of all time is Naniwa's 2011 blizzard cup group. It's not even debatable. It had a game on TDA where Naniwa killed Polt's natural and still lost to a follow up 1-1-1 in the height of 1-1-1 butthurt era and then later the drone rush game. What about Idra vs Alive "showmatch"? maybe #2. the fallout from the blizzard cup is unmatched especially when Naniwa was "suspended" from GSL or whatever
Is this the thread from when naniwa sent his starting probes? I wish I posted more in that era
|
On February 22 2015 07:11 Yorkie wrote:
Why does nobody in WCS know how to end games. They are the reason we keep getting these drawn out clusterfucks
ForGG did, in game 2/3 at least.
|
actually really fun and cool play by puck
|
On February 22 2015 07:11 c0ldfusion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 07:11 Yorkie wrote:
Why does nobody in WCS know how to end games. They are the reason we keep getting these drawn out clusterfucks ForGG did, in game 2/3 at least.
and sen
|
It doesn't matter how much money you mine if you trade that horribly.
|
United States97277 Posts
On February 22 2015 07:11 Fecalfeast wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 07:09 Shellshock wrote:On February 22 2015 07:09 DJHelium wrote:On February 22 2015 07:08 Shellshock wrote:
saltiest LR thread of all time is Naniwa's 2011 blizzard cup group. It's not even debatable. It had a game on TDA where Naniwa killed Polt's natural and still lost to a follow up 1-1-1 in the height of 1-1-1 butthurt era and then later the drone rush game. What about Idra vs Alive "showmatch"? maybe #2. the fallout from the blizzard cup is unmatched especially when Naniwa was "suspended" from GSL or whatever Is this the thread from when naniwa sent his starting probes? I wish I posted more in that era
yes. people were already raging though from the Polt vs Naniwa game and this was like dumping the world's supply of fuel onto the fire
|
I'm sorry, but I refuse to watch this. Knowing that this shit will be fixed soon it just seems pointless. See you tomorrow guys.
|
On February 22 2015 07:09 Jazzman88 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2015 07:04 Circumstance wrote:On February 22 2015 07:00 Jazzman88 wrote:On February 22 2015 06:58 Circumstance wrote:On February 22 2015 06:56 Jazzman88 wrote:On February 22 2015 06:53 BaneRiders wrote:On February 22 2015 06:32 SixStrings wrote:On February 22 2015 06:29 BaneRiders wrote:
I just completely lost the interest in the entire series and this whole group. Screw this. Seriously. Sorry Puck, it's not your fault, neither is it Sen's or FireCake's, so that kind of narrows it down, doesn't it? I'll be back tomorrow, hoping for some real Starcraft. In the meantime, if I don't see ForGG ever again, I won't write any lengthy lamentations about it... How is that ForGG's fault? Blame Blizzard for being stubborn enough going through with Swarmhosts, although the pro-gamer feedback has been overwhelmingly negative since day 1. SH had nothing to do with parking your inferior army with no resources behind a small ramp, trying nothing to win, obviously losing, wasting 30k viewers time for one hour. And we have to live with this jerk in the Ro16. I hope someone is able to file a valid complaint about this resulting in a disqualification, but I'm not holding my breath. As has already been pointed out, ForGG probably thought that Firecake was broke because ForGG had mined so much of the map before Firecake got to it. Are we really going to disqualify someone for acting on imperfect information in a game which prohibits having perfect information? You can make the case that he held out for some time after the realization that he can't trade away to a draw sets in, but then you're also making a case for disqualifying someone based on what you assume is going on in their head with no proof. That's an extremely bad precedent. A player of his caliber, with his experience, his results, and having used the ridiculous number of scans that he did, is absolutely incapable of a level of incompetence to believe that he could have won the game from that position. I don't believe he was playing for a win, but a draw. You're also making the judgement based on the viewer's perfect information plus the analysis of casters, players on twitter, etc. So, no, it's still bad policy to disqualify a player because you think he was stalling in a position where the logical goal of playing for a draw might be in his mind. Again, unless you think we should disqualify people who are trying to do everything to not lose, which is terrible. What was he doing not to lose? He already HAD lost. He had scanned the entire map. He was not leaving his base. He was not attempting to change any aspect of the situation. He wasn't tying to do anything to the Queens that keep making structures. He was even manually resetting the draw counter with Raven buildings (yes, they reset the draw counter). He was not playing to win. He was not playing to draw. He was playing to annoy. Even if you are right (which you can't know because telepathy isn't a thing), should we then disqualify people who dance their units and don't immediately kill their opponent? If someone manner MULEs, do they get DQ'd? What about manner Hatcheries? Those are also clearly plays of annoyance/psychological warfare, just like drawing out a game to fatigue an opponent. I'm just saying if you posit ForGG deserves a DQ for his play, then you are effectively saying that the way the game has to be played is with additional rules that limit what the game engine/code permits. And that is not in the spirit of allowing players to use all of their abilities to their fullest. I would rather see 10 of the type of game that ForGG/Firecake Game 1 was and get 1 massive comeback from a similar scenario than not see any of those at all, especially if that means I get players putting every single tactic and skill at their disposal into their performance rather than gg'ing out the first time they're at a big disadvantage.
Dancing, manner muling, manner hatching etc is not prolonging a lost game forever, and that is really the difference. Personally I don't mind dancing. It takes 2.3 seconds.
|
This swarmhost play is far more interesting than the ForGG game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
