|
On April 08 2012 15:32 DidYuhim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 15:23 storywriter wrote:
sorry guys, slight mistranslation
"If fans of Startale or the general public think that Parting deserved a win, I will resign as team Prime’s coach" should have been "If Startale or the fans think that Parting deserved a win, I will resign as team Prime’s coach". Main difference is that Gerrard also addresses the team Startale. Fixed in OP Check how it sounds. "If loser's team will complain I will resign". It just says "I will not resign, but if they will complain it will make them look bullies". Nice move, buddy. I hope you will resign.
Yeah, honestly, he won't resign, because there is no way ST will press the issue (it will make them look like sore tools, they are better off taking this defeat with an asterisk), and there's no way to prove that enough fans will complain anyways even if they do. ST doesn't have any super-popular players after all, nobody like MMA/DRG/MKP on their team, so not many fans.
|
On April 08 2012 15:30 Daogin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 15:29 storywriter wrote:On April 08 2012 15:25 ThaSlayer wrote:On April 08 2012 15:24 MaNaVoId wrote:
So the decision for a regame is due to prime insisting on it and not purely the referees' decision? Such a stark contrast between startale players and prime players. Keep in mind that during dreamhack, when bomber had an overwhelming advantage over MaNa when the game dc and a win was given to bomber when bomber had less advantage over mana than parting has over mkp, however bomber insisted on not taking it even though Mana himself admitted he had no chance of holding (also props to Mana for upholding his integrity by admitting defeat). But the attitude of prime players are just on a totally different level. Marinekingprime has great micro, but i am willing to pay thousands of dollars for someone to coach me how to defeat that protoss army with 3 marauders. Yea marineking still has another production facility, but so does parting. Wait..Prime had insisted the regame? There is nothing in the interview that definitely says that Prime insisted the regame. However, if a coach believes that his player stood a chance (and Gerrard certainly seems to), I wouldn't be surprised at all if he expressed this opinion to the decision makers and rightly so. it's not to say the other team wouldnt have done the same... He could be sharing his P.O.V. from what the referees saw, who knows..
a more experienced organization would definitely gave parting the win. look at what kespa did to flash vs jaedong, flash was in much less disadvantage but was still given the loss.
|
On April 08 2012 15:33 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 15:30 Daogin wrote:On April 08 2012 15:29 storywriter wrote:On April 08 2012 15:25 ThaSlayer wrote:On April 08 2012 15:24 MaNaVoId wrote:
So the decision for a regame is due to prime insisting on it and not purely the referees' decision? Such a stark contrast between startale players and prime players. Keep in mind that during dreamhack, when bomber had an overwhelming advantage over MaNa when the game dc and a win was given to bomber when bomber had less advantage over mana than parting has over mkp, however bomber insisted on not taking it even though Mana himself admitted he had no chance of holding (also props to Mana for upholding his integrity by admitting defeat). But the attitude of prime players are just on a totally different level. Marinekingprime has great micro, but i am willing to pay thousands of dollars for someone to coach me how to defeat that protoss army with 3 marauders. Yea marineking still has another production facility, but so does parting. Wait..Prime had insisted the regame? There is nothing in the interview that definitely says that Prime insisted the regame. However, if a coach believes that his player stood a chance (and Gerrard certainly seems to), I wouldn't be surprised at all if he expressed this opinion to the decision makers and rightly so. it's not to say the other team wouldnt have done the same... He could be sharing his P.O.V. from what the referees saw, who knows.. But ST nor any other team was put in this position. This was Prime. Come up with another straw man, please.
i was talking about insisting on a win... your telling me ST was like "yea lets re-game"? instead of "parting won"
On April 08 2012 15:36 MaNaVoId wrote:
a more experienced organization would definitely gave parting the win. look at what kespa did to flash vs jaedong, flash was in much less disadvantage but was still given the loss.
Im not saying the decision was proper, nor am I saying it was wrong... It isn't my call, it was the ref's. Everyone will be bias in some way about who deserved what, end of story. It's just sad it's causing so much shit.
|
Sure he can talk the talk, but can he walk the walk?
|
On April 08 2012 15:34 slicknav wrote:
People don't understand that an unfavorable position is not the same as an overwhelming victory. Parting was at an advantage, but that advantage wasn't enough to assume an automatic win.
Just a different mindset, but you're just punishing different players.
If two players are equal (50/50 to win before the match begins), and one player gained a 25% advantage and is now 75% to win at that point in the game, and it crashes and a regame is announced, it just robbed him of his 25% equity advantage because he is now 50% again.
If you don't regame and award it to the guy with the 75% advantage, then the other guy is robbed of his 25% equity to win. It's not really fair either way, just takes equity from different people.
It's hard to judge it, which is why experts are the ones deciding, but it should always try to reduce the least amount of unfair equity. I.e. if two players are 50-50, and one guy has a 80% chance to win at that point, and the other guy had 20%, then the 80% chance guy should be awarded a win even if it isn't 100% sure because doing so only robs the other player of 20% of "game equity" while regaming would rob the leading player by 30% "game equity".
|
On April 08 2012 15:43 duracell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 15:34 slicknav wrote:
People don't understand that an unfavorable position is not the same as an overwhelming victory. Parting was at an advantage, but that advantage wasn't enough to assume an automatic win. Just a different mindset, but you're just punishing different players. If two players are equal (50/50 to win before the match begins), and one player gained a 25% advantage and is now 75% to win at that point in the game, and it crashes and a regame is announced, it just robbed him of his 25% equity advantage because he is now 50% again. If you don't regame and award it to the guy with the 75% advantage, then the other guy is robbed of his 25% equity to win. It's not really fair either way, just takes equity from different people. It's hard to judge it, which is why experts are the ones deciding, but it should always try to reduce the least amount of unfair equity. I.e. if two players are 50-50, and one guy has a 80% chance to win at that point, and the other guy had 20%, then the 80% chance guy should be awarded a win even if it isn't 100% sure because doing so only robs the other player of 20% of "game equity" while regaming would rob the leading player by 30% "game equity".
Exactly, there is almost no situation in sc2 in which a player cannot win 100%, even if i have 1 marine and you have 10 zealots, you can suddenly make a huge blunder to choose to not attack and play defensively and i can slowly engineer a comeback. Possible? Yes, but what are the chances? 0.0000001%
|
On April 08 2012 15:43 duracell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 15:34 slicknav wrote:
People don't understand that an unfavorable position is not the same as an overwhelming victory. Parting was at an advantage, but that advantage wasn't enough to assume an automatic win. Just a different mindset, but you're just punishing different players. If two players are equal (50/50 to win before the match begins), and one player gained a 25% advantage and is now 75% to win at that point in the game, and it crashes and a regame is announced, it just robbed him of his 25% equity advantage because he is now 50% again. If you don't regame and award it to the guy with the 75% advantage, then the other guy is robbed of his 25% equity to win. It's not really fair either way, just takes equity from different people. It's hard to judge it, which is why experts are the ones deciding, but it should always try to reduce the least amount of unfair equity. I.e. if two players are 50-50, and one guy has a 80% chance to win at that point, and the other guy had 20%, then the 80% chance guy should be awarded a win even if it isn't 100% sure because doing so only robs the other player of 20% of "game equity" while regaming would rob the leading player by 30% "game equity".
Cute wall of text.
It is especially easy for experts to judge if they are trying to "make fans happy" and not "make a fair call", right?
|
On April 08 2012 15:35 ch33psh33p wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 15:23 HolyArrow wrote:On April 08 2012 15:19 ch33psh33p wrote:On April 08 2012 15:13 Daogin wrote:
I ask GomTV to release the replay so that there is no misunderstanding. If fans of Startale or the general public think that Parting deserved a win, I will resign as team Prime’s coach.
Wow... Thats all i have to say to that. Kind of sad if people force this. Just shows the toxicity of a community driven by rage and the desire to bring people down in the name of vain justice. Amazing how people like you can turn outrage over an extremely controversial and highly disputed, questionable decision into "vain justice". Taking down Gerrard is totally the right thing to do right now, right? Not an example of vain justice at all is it? My post was in part directed to the outrage being displayed in the LR thread, as well. Try to take things in context.
Well, first of all, check out my post above. I don't think Gerard should be "crucified" over this at all, and in that sense we have a misunderstanding.
However, consider this, although it may be an uncomfortable consideration for any Prime fan:
Why was the regame decision made? Ideally, the most fair decision relies solely on the state of the game: Was Parting in an insurmountable lead? I don't know the answer to that question, though evidence that I've seen makes me inclined to say yes (though this has been discussed to death, and that's not the point I'm trying to make right now).
However, the decision might have been influenced by other factors, such as audience pressure, GOM's inclination to have more games, and coach input. I have no idea what really happened with the decision-making process, but I do know that Startale's coach was not okay with it, as evidenced by Tyler's post a while ago. The main point I'm trying to make here is that if a combination of other factors unrelated to the actual state of the game caused the re-game decision to be made, and Prime's coach encouraged or simply went along with that decision out of convenience, it will reflect extremely badly on him because it shows that he simply took advantage of the situation to get a regame. I'm not saying that this actually happened; I don't know. But it's well within the realm of possibility, and I'm eager to see the story unfold as people begin speaking out. I'd love to see the Startale coach's perspective on this, along with the perspectives of Korean netizens.
|
I feel like what the Prime coach said is actually a good move to distance the controversy from MKP as well as the rest of the team. It's a good move and I like that.
I've much respect for what he has just done, putting himself in his position. As long as he keeps to his words.
|
It is especially easy for experts to judge if they are trying to "make fans happy" and not "make a fair call", right?
Didn't know a couple lines qualified as a wall of text now.
And I don't even know what you're getting at. I didn't even mention if I thought the call was fair or not, just disagreed with regaming everytime a game is not 100% won.
|
On April 08 2012 15:45 DidYuhim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 15:43 duracell wrote:On April 08 2012 15:34 slicknav wrote:
People don't understand that an unfavorable position is not the same as an overwhelming victory. Parting was at an advantage, but that advantage wasn't enough to assume an automatic win. Just a different mindset, but you're just punishing different players. If two players are equal (50/50 to win before the match begins), and one player gained a 25% advantage and is now 75% to win at that point in the game, and it crashes and a regame is announced, it just robbed him of his 25% equity advantage because he is now 50% again. If you don't regame and award it to the guy with the 75% advantage, then the other guy is robbed of his 25% equity to win. It's not really fair either way, just takes equity from different people. It's hard to judge it, which is why experts are the ones deciding, but it should always try to reduce the least amount of unfair equity. I.e. if two players are 50-50, and one guy has a 80% chance to win at that point, and the other guy had 20%, then the 80% chance guy should be awarded a win even if it isn't 100% sure because doing so only robs the other player of 20% of "game equity" while regaming would rob the leading player by 30% "game equity". Cute wall of text. It is especially easy for experts to judge if they are trying to "make fans happy" and not "make a fair call", right?
I feel that his post communicated an idea well. He didn't really take a side on the matter, but he made a good point. As a viewer, I feel that Parting had at least a 90% chance to win, but I'm not certain. Hopefully GomTV releases the replay for this so us viewers can see what exactly the situation was, but I don't think they will.
|
|
|
As if a replay release would change anyone's mind.
Everyone on either side already has their minds made up. No objective analysis would ever be done.
|
Australia528 Posts
People please... Nobody expects Gerrard to give up his position because of this. Not ST, not ST's coach, not ST's players, not ST's fans, not even Gerrard himself. The reason Gerrard said this is to shut people up who can't let Prime enjoy something they worked so extremely hard for (when it's already half ruined because of things that's outside of their control). I don't know about you but it seems like MKP prepared very specific builds for this GSTL which would have been hard with MLG, IPL, and GSL all happening so close together. There is no point to dragging this unfortunate event out any longer. ST must feel the same way and I doubt they feel offended by Gerrard's statement.
As for Gerrard possibly having insisted on a regame, well, what do you expect a coach who cares deeply for his players to do? Even if MKP had a single SCV left against a 200/200 Protoss army, I would still expect a coach to argue in favour of his player. If ST's coach didn't, that's his fault. All this talk of honour and nobility seems really silly to me when all Gerrard did was put his players first.
|
every big event at some points has its controversy. I mean regular sports always blame the referee for big controversies. Parting was robbed but its just how it works sometimes.
|
On April 08 2012 15:52 GraFx wrote:reminderedited photo to just link
You couldn't see the production tab, the only buildings that were camped were the 3 raxes not in his main.
|
On April 08 2012 15:43 duracell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 15:34 slicknav wrote:
People don't understand that an unfavorable position is not the same as an overwhelming victory. Parting was at an advantage, but that advantage wasn't enough to assume an automatic win. Just a different mindset, but you're just punishing different players. If two players are equal (50/50 to win before the match begins), and one player gained a 25% advantage and is now 75% to win at that point in the game, and it crashes and a regame is announced, it just robbed him of his 25% equity advantage because he is now 50% again. If you don't regame and award it to the guy with the 75% advantage, then the other guy is robbed of his 25% equity to win. It's not really fair either way, just takes equity from different people. It's hard to judge it, which is why experts are the ones deciding, but it should always try to reduce the least amount of unfair equity. I.e. if two players are 50-50, and one guy has a 80% chance to win at that point, and the other guy had 20%, then the 80% chance guy should be awarded a win even if it isn't 100% sure because doing so only robs the other player of 20% of "game equity" while regaming would rob the leading player by 30% "game equity".
the problem is how do you reduce game moments to numbers and equity? There are so many factors involved that you can't just use the graphs people have been posting around.
|
On April 08 2012 15:36 MaNaVoId wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 15:30 Daogin wrote:On April 08 2012 15:29 storywriter wrote:On April 08 2012 15:25 ThaSlayer wrote:On April 08 2012 15:24 MaNaVoId wrote:
So the decision for a regame is due to prime insisting on it and not purely the referees' decision? Such a stark contrast between startale players and prime players. Keep in mind that during dreamhack, when bomber had an overwhelming advantage over MaNa when the game dc and a win was given to bomber when bomber had less advantage over mana than parting has over mkp, however bomber insisted on not taking it even though Mana himself admitted he had no chance of holding (also props to Mana for upholding his integrity by admitting defeat). But the attitude of prime players are just on a totally different level. Marinekingprime has great micro, but i am willing to pay thousands of dollars for someone to coach me how to defeat that protoss army with 3 marauders. Yea marineking still has another production facility, but so does parting. Wait..Prime had insisted the regame? There is nothing in the interview that definitely says that Prime insisted the regame. However, if a coach believes that his player stood a chance (and Gerrard certainly seems to), I wouldn't be surprised at all if he expressed this opinion to the decision makers and rightly so. it's not to say the other team wouldnt have done the same... He could be sharing his P.O.V. from what the referees saw, who knows.. a more experienced organization would definitely gave parting the win. look at what kespa did to flash vs jaedong, flash was in much less disadvantage but was still given the loss.
Kespa also disqualified people for typing ppp.
|
On April 08 2012 15:52 GraFx wrote:reminderedited photo to just link
This is true, but you have to look at the WHOLE situation. Where are the HTs? At partings base. They are not getting up there anytime soon. Vikings were after Warp prism so i doubt that would be effective. Plus he barely had any money to make units. In addition, you cannot underestimate MKP's micro. There is a video of him somewhere holding off a 4 gate rush after he expanded with minimal units. With all the production facilities he had, even though he may lose the first engagement, he could probably eliminate a good number of the stalkers and zealots that parting sent. If there was a colossi or HT, I would call gg, but we cannot say for certain what would have happened.
|
On April 08 2012 15:52 GraFx wrote:reminderedited photo to just link
this doesn't prove anything. All it shows is that Parting was ahead, not that the game was won. That 20 supply in production pops out + pulled SCV's=chance for MKP to hold attack and recover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
