On December 22 2012 12:38 Champloo wrote: Well, can't blame the players for this situation, every other competitor of some kind of game would've acted just like Xlord
Besides 90% of players maybe. Shit, wasnt incontrol telling a story about how Idra regamed a 100% won game agaisnt Artosis in BW? And he was one BM sob.
2:38:00
If Idra could do this... why xlord couldnt?
Oh yeah because every player would act like xlord... lol priceless.
Have two good zerg players completely reanact this situation and and play it out.
What XLord did was completely right. He is not a financially loaded player and should take any opportunity to secure money. Everybody who says Xlord has lost fans in this process is bullshitting around. It's not like Xlord had a large fanbase to begin with. Look at professional football. Players do everything to get an advantage there from arguing to rough play and dives.
His argument in the discussion is completely flawed though and nobody noticed. ;-) He had NO IDEA AT ALL what was on the high ground of Stephanos main. It's completely possible at this point of the game to have like three infestors waiting there to fungal Xlords whole army. When he made his statement he did it with the knowledge of the replay not with the knowledge he had ingame.
Initially when reading about it, I was pretty much in the "xlord is an immature douchebag" corner. But after watching it live, it's not nearly as bad as I thought. xlord was a bit immature, but in the end he's a player who wanted to win in a game where he had an advantage. Who's to say what would've happened in that game? His behavior was a bit immature but I can understand where he's coming from and especially after the way the game ended. A regame wouldn't be "fair" (though it probably was the best option, it still wouldn't be fair. You would be taking away the advantage he had gained in that game)
However the way this was handled (or wasn't) by Take was really disappointing. Watching the VOD it didn't really seem like he took it as seriously as it needed to be taken, especially trying to get player/casters to make a decision in front of 25k people on live stream. That shit shouldn't happen.
there are a variety of ways it could've been handled. In a situation like this nobody is really going to be happy with the outcome 100%, but you gotta do what is most fair for both players. Snute's idea was neat but I think unnecessary, a simple regame was the best possible solution to a shitty situation, and you needed whoever was running the tournament that being some kind of admin, Take, or whoever to make that executive decision. It's not fair, but the best possible outcome.
I'd watch out for stephano now though, I think he might just take the whole thing now
On December 22 2012 10:32 KT(Rolster)HaunteR wrote: It should've 100% been a re-game.
Unless there's a 100% chance to win, which it wasn't. Whining about it didn't help. Should've taken the Bo5 and not acted like a child.
+1 crying like a child "it was a freewin, i was a freewin" when both were somewhere near supply and where everything depends on engagement and even best of players screw up in realy easy situations... Yes, Xlord was realy ahead and most likely to win that game but its not near 100%. Especialy on that map, especialy in ZvZ, especialy vs Stephano. That game was much closer than Parting vs MKP in GSTL Finals.
It should have been re-game.
The problem is that this can causes major rigging. Someone could cause a disconnect when they think they are going to lose.
As far as the TSL is concerned, we never award def wins to the player who disconnects as it is his responsibility to ensure that his internet is stable. But if someone is winning and the opponent disconnects, and it is a 100% def win then we give the game. Otherwise, regame. However at a LAN situation you would expect that obvious self-disconnects to be caught by other players and horrible repercussions going to the dc'er.
On December 22 2012 06:34 Hardigan wrote: the games had to be discussed for more than 10 sec. Hence: regame
Logic approved. Anything that has a SLIVER of doubt should be regamed. 50 supply lead is bad, a really bad disadvantage for any player but we've seen bigger come backs!
I don't get why if there is any sliver of doubt there needs to be a regame. It seems obvious to me that you should regame if the game was less than 75% (well, the fact that the number should be 75% isn't completely apparent, but the general idea persists...) won for one player (i.e. if they played it out a million times, they'd win 75% of the time).
If someone is in a 90% win situation it's unfair to take away their advantage, just like it would be unfair to award a win to a player with a 60% win situation.
An example where this happens in "real" sport is baseball, where, if a game is delayed, and ultimately cancelled in the middle because of inclement weather, the team in the lead is awarded the game if at least four and a half innings have been played and the losing side has had at least the same number of innings at bat as the winning side. (If those conditions are not met then the game is resumed at a later date -- baseball being a game where you can save and resume, of course) A team obviously has a good chance to come back from a 2-1 deficit in the sixth inning, but you award the game to the leading team anyway.
On December 22 2012 14:11 Kentredenite wrote: I don't get why if there is any sliver of doubt there needs to be a regame. It seems obvious to me that you should regame if the game was less than 75% (well, the fact that the number should be 75% isn't completely apparent, but the general idea persists...) won for one player (i.e. if they played it out a million times, they'd win 75% of the time).
If someone is in a 90% win situation it's unfair to take away their advantage, just like it would be unfair to award a win to a player with a 60% win situation.
An example where this happens in "real" sport is baseball, where, if a game is delayed, and ultimately cancelled in the middle because of inclement weather, the team in the lead is awarded the game if at least four and a half innings have been played and the losing side has had at least the same number of innings at bat as the winning side. (If those conditions are not met then the game is resumed at a later date -- baseball being a game where you can save and resume, of course) A team obviously has a good chance to come back from a 2-1 deficit in the sixth inning, but you award the game to the leading team anyway.
starcraft is not baseball, in baseball if its the final inning and one team has a 50 point lead the other team cant just win it all right there
in starcraft, ESPECIALLY in ZvZ no matter how grim things look its entirely possible for you to come back, hell being behind in the early/mid game could even wind up helping you in the late game if it means you have fresher bases then your opponent
On December 22 2012 14:11 Kentredenite wrote: I don't get why if there is any sliver of doubt there needs to be a regame. It seems obvious to me that you should regame if the game was less than 75% (well, the fact that the number should be 75% isn't completely apparent, but the general idea persists...) won for one player (i.e. if they played it out a million times, they'd win 75% of the time).
If someone is in a 90% win situation it's unfair to take away their advantage, just like it would be unfair to award a win to a player with a 60% win situation.
An example where this happens in "real" sport is baseball, where, if a game is delayed, and ultimately cancelled in the middle because of inclement weather, the team in the lead is awarded the game if at least four and a half innings have been played and the losing side has had at least the same number of innings at bat as the winning side. (If those conditions are not met then the game is resumed at a later date -- baseball being a game where you can save and resume, of course) A team obviously has a good chance to come back from a 2-1 deficit in the sixth inning, but you award the game to the leading team anyway.
starcraft is not baseball, in baseball if its the final inning and one team has a 50 point lead the other team cant just win it all right there
in starcraft, ESPECIALLY in ZvZ no matter how grim things look its entirely possible for you to come back, hell being behind in the early/mid game could even wind up helping you in the late game if it means you have fresher bases then your opponent
Kind of a bad analogy, because in baseball, there is no timer. A team can literally ALWAYS technically make a comeback as long as they have outs left to give.
I went to bed after that disc, so I don't know what happend afterwards. But in my mind there was no doubt that this would be a regame, very surprised they just gave that to xlord. Worst possible decision. Xlord had a lead but it wasn't over. Of course a regame would have been kind of unfair too, but that's just the way it is. A Bo5 would have been the best decision imo.
On December 22 2012 12:38 Champloo wrote: Well, can't blame the players for this situation, every other competitor of some kind of game would've acted just like Xlord
Besides 90% of players maybe. Shit, wasnt incontrol telling a story about how Idra regamed a 100% won game agaisnt Artosis in BW? And he was one BM sob.
On December 22 2012 06:35 Kenny_oro wrote: You're not seen as bad mannered for playing a good game. The disconnect wasn't your fault.
But what's the pont of arguing with the casters which already were forced in the uncomfortable situation to make a decission.
You should've just leaned back to wait for the decission instead of arguing with TLO on stream like a madman.
If you're that confident in your skill - why not just take the 20 and extend it to the BO5?
Nobody argued about your lead in that game - But a lead doesn't mean freewin. You should know that.
TL;DR version - "I say that you aren't bad mannered but arguing like a gypsy at a market for a free win, means that you are indeed a bad mannered player relying on free wins" Yep, I totally support that thinking too, Kenny_oro
why are people writing this.... of course he wants to argue for his, rightly deserved win. I would do that too... hell everyone would do that in that situation.
I feel bad for Xlord in this situation, because he was put in a lose lose situation: either his work to get an advantage over stephano is nullified, or he loses face by accepting a win that was by no means guaranteed. I think it is fair for the players' decision to determine the outcome, if they agree. But the way Stephano presented it (when on camera) the win was not offered because the game was won, it was offered because Stephano was fed up with the b.s. This, while understandable, unfortunately put Xlord in a situation of having to appear to accept a win that he didn't earn. I think that is why he got very excited on stream in defending his position. I would have like to see Xlord defer to Take's judgment in response to Stephano's resignation offer. That would've been the classiest move. While there is nothing wrong with accepting an opponent's resignation in the right circumstances, there are circumstances in which it is right to decline.
On December 22 2012 14:55 Dwayn wrote: I went to bed after that disc, so I don't know what happend afterwards. But in my mind there was no doubt that this would be a regame, very surprised they just gave that to xlord. Worst possible decision. Xlord had a lead but it wasn't over. Of course a regame would have been kind of unfair too, but that's just the way it is. A Bo5 would have been the best decision imo.
It was over.. unless xlord basically lost all his skills and knowledge as a progamer or he suddenly got very drunk out of nothing, he would close that game.
No matter what decision is made in cases like this there will always be some people upset. Obviously Stephano has a lot more fans so most will be taking his side but think if the roles were reversed and Stephano had the lead- wouldn't you be disappointed if he had to regame? I'm not saying this was definitely the best decision but you have to see it from both sides and how difficult these kind of decisions are for admins. Also if you make regaming standard practice no matter what kind of lead there is then there's more chance that players will deliberately DC when they're losing.
On December 22 2012 14:55 Dwayn wrote: I went to bed after that disc, so I don't know what happend afterwards. But in my mind there was no doubt that this would be a regame, very surprised they just gave that to xlord. Worst possible decision. Xlord had a lead but it wasn't over. Of course a regame would have been kind of unfair too, but that's just the way it is. A Bo5 would have been the best decision imo.
It was over.. unless xlord basically lost all his skills and knowledge as a progamer or he suddenly got very drunk out of nothing, he would close that game.
aparently progamers getting very drunk out of nothing or losing all there skills and knowledge happens pretty often becuase ive seen tons of comebacks from worse position then Stephanos
EPT
