|
On May 15 2016 06:52 Kafka777 wrote:
I'll add my two cents to the Polt-Strange game.
In an offline tournament you have refferes/admins who can rule on a given situation. Using auto draw mechanics is stupid. In this case extremely unfair. Strange was robbed of his victory and all viewers saw it. Organizers took a very bad decision to respect the auto draw. I understand it was a hard decision to take but this mechanic is for mass games not for pro players.
They took the decision to respect their own rules. Dreamhack's rule regarding stalemates in SC2 has been the same since at least 2013, every Dreamhack has been played with that in place, and the players must have been aware of this as Polt was clearly playing to have the countdown run out. With that being the case they can't just change the rules on the fly because just this once it was actually a problem.
|
I mean it's still better than eliminatin someone with a coin toss.
|
102 pages for 1 day of dreamhack, are we back boys?
|
On May 15 2016 07:53 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 06:52 Kafka777 wrote:
I'll add my two cents to the Polt-Strange game.
In an offline tournament you have refferes/admins who can rule on a given situation. Using auto draw mechanics is stupid. In this case extremely unfair. Strange was robbed of his victory and all viewers saw it. Organizers took a very bad decision to respect the auto draw. I understand it was a hard decision to take but this mechanic is for mass games not for pro players. They took the decision to respect their own rules. Dreamhack's rule regarding stalemates in SC2 has been the same since at least 2013, every Dreamhack has been played with that in place, and the players must have been aware of this as Polt was clearly playing to have the countdown run out. With that being the case they can't just change the rules on the fly because just this once it was actually a problem.
But are these rules for actual stalemates or for what the system says are stalemates? The stalemate detection feature is just an algorithm, it will have false positives as nothing is perfect. Respecting your stalemate rules is one thing, blatantly ignoring that this situation isn't actually a stalemate is another.
Personally I'm torn. On the one hand, like you said, rules are rules. On the other this was a very obvious case where Polt had no capacity to win while Strange could.
|
Where is your...firegod now ?
|
On May 15 2016 08:12 Nerchio wrote:
102 pages for 1 day of dreamhack, are we back boys?
That was just caused by the stupid ending of game 5, when Polt was very strange, and hilarious game 5, when Has was quite happy.
|
On May 15 2016 08:17 chipmonklord17 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 07:53 Elentos wrote:On May 15 2016 06:52 Kafka777 wrote:
I'll add my two cents to the Polt-Strange game.
In an offline tournament you have refferes/admins who can rule on a given situation. Using auto draw mechanics is stupid. In this case extremely unfair. Strange was robbed of his victory and all viewers saw it. Organizers took a very bad decision to respect the auto draw. I understand it was a hard decision to take but this mechanic is for mass games not for pro players. They took the decision to respect their own rules. Dreamhack's rule regarding stalemates in SC2 has been the same since at least 2013, every Dreamhack has been played with that in place, and the players must have been aware of this as Polt was clearly playing to have the countdown run out. With that being the case they can't just change the rules on the fly because just this once it was actually a problem. But are these rules for actual stalemates or for what the system says are stalemates? The stalemate detection feature is just an algorithm, it will have false positives as nothing is perfect. Respecting your stalemate rules is one thing, blatantly ignoring that this situation isn't actually a stalemate is another. Personally I'm torn. On the one hand, like you said, rules are rules. On the other this was a very obvious case where Polt had no capacity to win while Strange could.
By this line of reasoning though, should we just award wins to players who just sit around and don't attack even if they can win? The game's mechanics are a specific way, that's a fact. The outcome of the game was determined by how the players used how the game works to reach that point. By that reasoning I think it isn't outrageous that the ruling of the map matches what the game has determined it should be based on how the game played out.
I can see why people would be upset with the outcome, but should we give wins to players who GG out of a game even if they were actually gonna win it. The choices of the players lead to the outcomes of the games, and I think it's reasonable to respect it.
|
On May 15 2016 08:12 Nerchio wrote:
102 pages for 1 day of dreamhack, are we back boys?
Useless controversy making the game alive
|
On May 15 2016 08:29 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 08:12 Nerchio wrote:
102 pages for 1 day of dreamhack, are we back boys? Useless controversy making the game alive
Making this thread alive, the viewer numbers weren't all that great iirc.
The game obviously isn't "dead", but we probably don't get more than 30-40k viewers either.
|
On May 15 2016 08:26 KingofdaHipHop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 08:17 chipmonklord17 wrote:On May 15 2016 07:53 Elentos wrote:On May 15 2016 06:52 Kafka777 wrote:
I'll add my two cents to the Polt-Strange game.
In an offline tournament you have refferes/admins who can rule on a given situation. Using auto draw mechanics is stupid. In this case extremely unfair. Strange was robbed of his victory and all viewers saw it. Organizers took a very bad decision to respect the auto draw. I understand it was a hard decision to take but this mechanic is for mass games not for pro players. They took the decision to respect their own rules. Dreamhack's rule regarding stalemates in SC2 has been the same since at least 2013, every Dreamhack has been played with that in place, and the players must have been aware of this as Polt was clearly playing to have the countdown run out. With that being the case they can't just change the rules on the fly because just this once it was actually a problem. But are these rules for actual stalemates or for what the system says are stalemates? The stalemate detection feature is just an algorithm, it will have false positives as nothing is perfect. Respecting your stalemate rules is one thing, blatantly ignoring that this situation isn't actually a stalemate is another. Personally I'm torn. On the one hand, like you said, rules are rules. On the other this was a very obvious case where Polt had no capacity to win while Strange could. By this line of reasoning though, should we just award wins to players who just sit around and don't attack even if they can win? The game's mechanics are a specific way, that's a fact. The outcome of the game was determined by how the players used how the game works to reach that point. By that reasoning I think it isn't outrageous that the ruling of the map matches what the game has determined it should be based on how the game played out. I can see why people would be upset with the outcome, but should we give wins to players who GG out of a game even if they were actually gonna win it. The choices of the players lead to the outcomes of the games, and I think it's reasonable to respect it.
I think this entire topic is a very slippery slope for the reasons that you mentioned but I do think there's a difference between humans and machines. A person 'gg'ing early isn't the same as an algorithm detecting a false positive. Maybe someday when things like AlphaGo are the norm I'd argue they're virtually the same but the technology just isn't there yet.
I think the refs made the right decision to go by their rules, but the game certainly was not the draw the software claimed. If the software didn't exist strange wins that game from that position every time. Although there is definitely an argument to be made that Polt would have played differently had stalemate detection not existed.
|
On May 15 2016 08:44 chipmonklord17 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 08:26 KingofdaHipHop wrote:On May 15 2016 08:17 chipmonklord17 wrote:On May 15 2016 07:53 Elentos wrote:On May 15 2016 06:52 Kafka777 wrote:
I'll add my two cents to the Polt-Strange game.
In an offline tournament you have refferes/admins who can rule on a given situation. Using auto draw mechanics is stupid. In this case extremely unfair. Strange was robbed of his victory and all viewers saw it. Organizers took a very bad decision to respect the auto draw. I understand it was a hard decision to take but this mechanic is for mass games not for pro players. They took the decision to respect their own rules. Dreamhack's rule regarding stalemates in SC2 has been the same since at least 2013, every Dreamhack has been played with that in place, and the players must have been aware of this as Polt was clearly playing to have the countdown run out. With that being the case they can't just change the rules on the fly because just this once it was actually a problem. But are these rules for actual stalemates or for what the system says are stalemates? The stalemate detection feature is just an algorithm, it will have false positives as nothing is perfect. Respecting your stalemate rules is one thing, blatantly ignoring that this situation isn't actually a stalemate is another. Personally I'm torn. On the one hand, like you said, rules are rules. On the other this was a very obvious case where Polt had no capacity to win while Strange could. By this line of reasoning though, should we just award wins to players who just sit around and don't attack even if they can win? The game's mechanics are a specific way, that's a fact. The outcome of the game was determined by how the players used how the game works to reach that point. By that reasoning I think it isn't outrageous that the ruling of the map matches what the game has determined it should be based on how the game played out. I can see why people would be upset with the outcome, but should we give wins to players who GG out of a game even if they were actually gonna win it. The choices of the players lead to the outcomes of the games, and I think it's reasonable to respect it. I think this entire topic is a very slippery slope for the reasons that you mentioned but I do think there's a difference between humans and machines. A person 'gg'ing early isn't the same as an algorithm detecting a false positive. Maybe someday when things like AlphaGo are the norm I'd argue they're virtually the same but the technology just isn't there yet. I think the refs made the right decision to go by their rules, but the game certainly was not the draw the software claimed. If the software didn't exist strange wins that game from that position every time. Although there is definitely an argument to be made that Polt would have played differently had stalemate detection not existed.
what I dont get is why Strange waited so long to kill him, if he knew he was on a timer. That's why I think going by the "algorithm's judgement" is fine because Strange had the information to change the outcome of the game and his decision making led to a tie.
|
On May 15 2016 08:58 KingofdaHipHop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 08:44 chipmonklord17 wrote:On May 15 2016 08:26 KingofdaHipHop wrote:On May 15 2016 08:17 chipmonklord17 wrote:On May 15 2016 07:53 Elentos wrote:On May 15 2016 06:52 Kafka777 wrote:
I'll add my two cents to the Polt-Strange game.
In an offline tournament you have refferes/admins who can rule on a given situation. Using auto draw mechanics is stupid. In this case extremely unfair. Strange was robbed of his victory and all viewers saw it. Organizers took a very bad decision to respect the auto draw. I understand it was a hard decision to take but this mechanic is for mass games not for pro players. They took the decision to respect their own rules. Dreamhack's rule regarding stalemates in SC2 has been the same since at least 2013, every Dreamhack has been played with that in place, and the players must have been aware of this as Polt was clearly playing to have the countdown run out. With that being the case they can't just change the rules on the fly because just this once it was actually a problem. But are these rules for actual stalemates or for what the system says are stalemates? The stalemate detection feature is just an algorithm, it will have false positives as nothing is perfect. Respecting your stalemate rules is one thing, blatantly ignoring that this situation isn't actually a stalemate is another. Personally I'm torn. On the one hand, like you said, rules are rules. On the other this was a very obvious case where Polt had no capacity to win while Strange could. By this line of reasoning though, should we just award wins to players who just sit around and don't attack even if they can win? The game's mechanics are a specific way, that's a fact. The outcome of the game was determined by how the players used how the game works to reach that point. By that reasoning I think it isn't outrageous that the ruling of the map matches what the game has determined it should be based on how the game played out. I can see why people would be upset with the outcome, but should we give wins to players who GG out of a game even if they were actually gonna win it. The choices of the players lead to the outcomes of the games, and I think it's reasonable to respect it. I think this entire topic is a very slippery slope for the reasons that you mentioned but I do think there's a difference between humans and machines. A person 'gg'ing early isn't the same as an algorithm detecting a false positive. Maybe someday when things like AlphaGo are the norm I'd argue they're virtually the same but the technology just isn't there yet. I think the refs made the right decision to go by their rules, but the game certainly was not the draw the software claimed. If the software didn't exist strange wins that game from that position every time. Although there is definitely an argument to be made that Polt would have played differently had stalemate detection not existed. what I dont get is why Strange waited so long to kill him, if he knew he was on a timer. That's why I think going by the "algorithm's judgement" is fine because Strange had the information to change the outcome of the game and his decision making led to a tie.
If I'm not mistaken he "destroyed" Polt's Barracks; Maybe he expected this would reset the timer, but I think it did not because it burned down and was not actively damaged anymore; Also he had no way to be 100% sure that there is no full medivac prepared to kill his assimilators once he moved away from them
|
Yeah if he thought he could have won he would have gone for it. Since he didn't it's probably safe to say the game would have gone nowhere from there anyway.
|
On May 15 2016 09:02 Phredxor wrote:
Yeah if he thought he could have won he would have gone for it. Since he didn't it's probably safe to say the game would have gone nowhere from there anyway.
But he was going up the ramp to kill Polt when the draw went through wasn't he?
|
On May 15 2016 09:05 chipmonklord17 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 09:02 Phredxor wrote:
Yeah if he thought he could have won he would have gone for it. Since he didn't it's probably safe to say the game would have gone nowhere from there anyway. But he was going up the ramp to kill Polt when the draw went through wasn't he?
Yeah but by then he would have known there was only seconds left so knew nothing would come of it. If he actually thought he could get the fact without losing his assimilators he would have tried with more than 3 seconds remaining 
|
On May 15 2016 08:25 Diabolique wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 08:12 Nerchio wrote:
102 pages for 1 day of dreamhack, are we back boys? That was just caused by the stupid ending of game 5, when Polt was very strange, and hilarious game 5, when Has was quite happy.
Has v happy was game 4
|
On May 15 2016 09:16 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 08:25 Diabolique wrote:On May 15 2016 08:12 Nerchio wrote:
102 pages for 1 day of dreamhack, are we back boys? That was just caused by the stupid ending of game 5, when Polt was very strange, and hilarious game 5, when Has was quite happy. Has v happy was game 4
That game has double the amount of bases so I believe it is legit to count it as two.
|
On May 15 2016 08:58 KingofdaHipHop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 08:44 chipmonklord17 wrote:On May 15 2016 08:26 KingofdaHipHop wrote:On May 15 2016 08:17 chipmonklord17 wrote:On May 15 2016 07:53 Elentos wrote:On May 15 2016 06:52 Kafka777 wrote:
I'll add my two cents to the Polt-Strange game.
In an offline tournament you have refferes/admins who can rule on a given situation. Using auto draw mechanics is stupid. In this case extremely unfair. Strange was robbed of his victory and all viewers saw it. Organizers took a very bad decision to respect the auto draw. I understand it was a hard decision to take but this mechanic is for mass games not for pro players. They took the decision to respect their own rules. Dreamhack's rule regarding stalemates in SC2 has been the same since at least 2013, every Dreamhack has been played with that in place, and the players must have been aware of this as Polt was clearly playing to have the countdown run out. With that being the case they can't just change the rules on the fly because just this once it was actually a problem. But are these rules for actual stalemates or for what the system says are stalemates? The stalemate detection feature is just an algorithm, it will have false positives as nothing is perfect. Respecting your stalemate rules is one thing, blatantly ignoring that this situation isn't actually a stalemate is another. Personally I'm torn. On the one hand, like you said, rules are rules. On the other this was a very obvious case where Polt had no capacity to win while Strange could. By this line of reasoning though, should we just award wins to players who just sit around and don't attack even if they can win? The game's mechanics are a specific way, that's a fact. The outcome of the game was determined by how the players used how the game works to reach that point. By that reasoning I think it isn't outrageous that the ruling of the map matches what the game has determined it should be based on how the game played out. I can see why people would be upset with the outcome, but should we give wins to players who GG out of a game even if they were actually gonna win it. The choices of the players lead to the outcomes of the games, and I think it's reasonable to respect it. I think this entire topic is a very slippery slope for the reasons that you mentioned but I do think there's a difference between humans and machines. A person 'gg'ing early isn't the same as an algorithm detecting a false positive. Maybe someday when things like AlphaGo are the norm I'd argue they're virtually the same but the technology just isn't there yet. I think the refs made the right decision to go by their rules, but the game certainly was not the draw the software claimed. If the software didn't exist strange wins that game from that position every time. Although there is definitely an argument to be made that Polt would have played differently had stalemate detection not existed. what I dont get is why Strange waited so long to kill him, if he knew he was on a timer. That's why I think going by the "algorithm's judgement" is fine because Strange had the information to change the outcome of the game and his decision making led to a tie.
it's easy to say "he could have just killed him" when you watch the game as a spectator and have perfect information of everything that is happening but strange didn't see everything and had to play with the possibility that polt had a drop out on the map ready to counterattack once he moves out.
I don't blame him for misjudging the situation.
|
On May 15 2016 10:10 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 08:58 KingofdaHipHop wrote:On May 15 2016 08:44 chipmonklord17 wrote:On May 15 2016 08:26 KingofdaHipHop wrote:On May 15 2016 08:17 chipmonklord17 wrote:On May 15 2016 07:53 Elentos wrote:On May 15 2016 06:52 Kafka777 wrote:
I'll add my two cents to the Polt-Strange game.
In an offline tournament you have refferes/admins who can rule on a given situation. Using auto draw mechanics is stupid. In this case extremely unfair. Strange was robbed of his victory and all viewers saw it. Organizers took a very bad decision to respect the auto draw. I understand it was a hard decision to take but this mechanic is for mass games not for pro players. They took the decision to respect their own rules. Dreamhack's rule regarding stalemates in SC2 has been the same since at least 2013, every Dreamhack has been played with that in place, and the players must have been aware of this as Polt was clearly playing to have the countdown run out. With that being the case they can't just change the rules on the fly because just this once it was actually a problem. But are these rules for actual stalemates or for what the system says are stalemates? The stalemate detection feature is just an algorithm, it will have false positives as nothing is perfect. Respecting your stalemate rules is one thing, blatantly ignoring that this situation isn't actually a stalemate is another. Personally I'm torn. On the one hand, like you said, rules are rules. On the other this was a very obvious case where Polt had no capacity to win while Strange could. By this line of reasoning though, should we just award wins to players who just sit around and don't attack even if they can win? The game's mechanics are a specific way, that's a fact. The outcome of the game was determined by how the players used how the game works to reach that point. By that reasoning I think it isn't outrageous that the ruling of the map matches what the game has determined it should be based on how the game played out. I can see why people would be upset with the outcome, but should we give wins to players who GG out of a game even if they were actually gonna win it. The choices of the players lead to the outcomes of the games, and I think it's reasonable to respect it. I think this entire topic is a very slippery slope for the reasons that you mentioned but I do think there's a difference between humans and machines. A person 'gg'ing early isn't the same as an algorithm detecting a false positive. Maybe someday when things like AlphaGo are the norm I'd argue they're virtually the same but the technology just isn't there yet. I think the refs made the right decision to go by their rules, but the game certainly was not the draw the software claimed. If the software didn't exist strange wins that game from that position every time. Although there is definitely an argument to be made that Polt would have played differently had stalemate detection not existed. what I dont get is why Strange waited so long to kill him, if he knew he was on a timer. That's why I think going by the "algorithm's judgement" is fine because Strange had the information to change the outcome of the game and his decision making led to a tie. it's easy to say "he could have just killed him" when you watch the game as a spectator and have perfect information of everything that is happening but strange didn't see everything and had to play with the possibility that polt had a drop out on the map ready to counterattack once he moves out. I don't blame him for misjudging the situation.
im not necessarily blaming him for misjudging the situation, he obviously doesn't have supply counts or a perfect read, but its my argument to say that the admins shouldn't give him a win.
|
On May 15 2016 10:18 KingofdaHipHop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 10:10 Charoisaur wrote:On May 15 2016 08:58 KingofdaHipHop wrote:On May 15 2016 08:44 chipmonklord17 wrote:On May 15 2016 08:26 KingofdaHipHop wrote:On May 15 2016 08:17 chipmonklord17 wrote:On May 15 2016 07:53 Elentos wrote:On May 15 2016 06:52 Kafka777 wrote:
I'll add my two cents to the Polt-Strange game.
In an offline tournament you have refferes/admins who can rule on a given situation. Using auto draw mechanics is stupid. In this case extremely unfair. Strange was robbed of his victory and all viewers saw it. Organizers took a very bad decision to respect the auto draw. I understand it was a hard decision to take but this mechanic is for mass games not for pro players. They took the decision to respect their own rules. Dreamhack's rule regarding stalemates in SC2 has been the same since at least 2013, every Dreamhack has been played with that in place, and the players must have been aware of this as Polt was clearly playing to have the countdown run out. With that being the case they can't just change the rules on the fly because just this once it was actually a problem. But are these rules for actual stalemates or for what the system says are stalemates? The stalemate detection feature is just an algorithm, it will have false positives as nothing is perfect. Respecting your stalemate rules is one thing, blatantly ignoring that this situation isn't actually a stalemate is another. Personally I'm torn. On the one hand, like you said, rules are rules. On the other this was a very obvious case where Polt had no capacity to win while Strange could. By this line of reasoning though, should we just award wins to players who just sit around and don't attack even if they can win? The game's mechanics are a specific way, that's a fact. The outcome of the game was determined by how the players used how the game works to reach that point. By that reasoning I think it isn't outrageous that the ruling of the map matches what the game has determined it should be based on how the game played out. I can see why people would be upset with the outcome, but should we give wins to players who GG out of a game even if they were actually gonna win it. The choices of the players lead to the outcomes of the games, and I think it's reasonable to respect it. I think this entire topic is a very slippery slope for the reasons that you mentioned but I do think there's a difference between humans and machines. A person 'gg'ing early isn't the same as an algorithm detecting a false positive. Maybe someday when things like AlphaGo are the norm I'd argue they're virtually the same but the technology just isn't there yet. I think the refs made the right decision to go by their rules, but the game certainly was not the draw the software claimed. If the software didn't exist strange wins that game from that position every time. Although there is definitely an argument to be made that Polt would have played differently had stalemate detection not existed. what I dont get is why Strange waited so long to kill him, if he knew he was on a timer. That's why I think going by the "algorithm's judgement" is fine because Strange had the information to change the outcome of the game and his decision making led to a tie. it's easy to say "he could have just killed him" when you watch the game as a spectator and have perfect information of everything that is happening but strange didn't see everything and had to play with the possibility that polt had a drop out on the map ready to counterattack once he moves out. I don't blame him for misjudging the situation. im not necessarily blaming him for misjudging the situation, he obviously doesn't have supply counts or a perfect read, but its my argument to say that the admins shouldn't give him a win.
I agree but in future tournaments the ingame stalemate detector should be disabled. It's made for ladder when there's no ref to declare a draw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
