|
On March 20 2011 08:29 Bulkers wrote:
I would not be surprise to see more dc's in this tournament after big fights that one player got almost win situation but doesn't want to take "little" but still a chance to make mistake and lost the game.
And then you can ask other players from the tournament. who should get a win and who should loss. Not bad, after abuse in TSL2 this rules about panel members should be crystal clear, and should involve people outside "circle of interest". Morrow lost to NightEnD in Black Dragon league lately, maybe he just doesnt want to face him in Ro8 of TSL3
I could say the same about losing players, the rules benefit both ends sweetie.
|
Braavos36370 Posts
On March 20 2011 08:28 integral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:15 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:10 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:08 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:06 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:05 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:03 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:58 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:55 mizU wrote:
[quote]
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world...
Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP?
Zergs: July?
Protoss: Hongun? Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament? Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions? oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now. Who would you have picked then? ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly. You didn't get what I mean't. Names. Wtf, why would I need to list all the viable candidates? ... I'm not running this tournament, it's not my responsibility to come up with a list of players that are neutral, respected, independent parties. That responsibility is TL's. Anyone in good standing not in the tournament is fine. You are the one the one saying they didn't handle it properly. I don'T ask you to make a 20 name lits, I say that you should say propose 5 other good players, that have credibility, deep understanding of the game that could have be chosen. It's not your responsability but the fact is that most of "neutral, respected, independent parties" are already in the tournament. They probably could have come up with some more people but time is also a factor. The issue needed to be adressed so they could move on. You also do not want information leaking out. For my part, MC opinion was enough. If the best protoss in the world and arguably the best player in the world says there was no way for the protoss to win this game, then the protoss was done. Protoss: Ace, Inca, Squirtle, SangHo, San, HongUn, Tester, Hero, Choya ... [...] Terran: TheSTC, MKP, TOP, ... fuck, I could go on and on. These are just koreans...
I'd just like to say that we agree with you that the players who are on the panel shouldn't be in the tournament. However, we have to balance this with availability. We have a Korean at 11:30 pm already waiting for a decision that was going for 90 minutes, and we have no way to really ask or access a large pool of top players who would be willing to comment on this.
Not every pro is willing to have their name out there and write a lot justifying his opinion when he can be subject to scrutiny. Add to that the time sensitive nature (they have to do it RIGHT NOW immediately) and it's not as easy as you think. Thankfully, some players stepped up to do it even though they really have nothing to gain from opening themselves up to criticism, so we really want to thank Morrow MC and Naz for doing this.
I just wanted to say that it is not as easy as you make it out to find a super top player at the exact time of the disconnect to drop everything and write something articulate in English and be willing to have his opinion scrutinized publicly and bear the responsibility of a decision like this. I think it's very hard to find people willing to do that. We don't have all these players on stand by. In a perfect world we'd have 5 top players just sitting around waiting for discs, but there are practical considerations.
|
On March 20 2011 08:29 SpiZe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:23 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:11 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 08:09 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:04 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 07:40 ftd.rain wrote:On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote:
I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all. So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap. It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished. How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost. + It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected. Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me. They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment. First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead. So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR? "Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch"
Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
|
On March 20 2011 08:28 integral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:15 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:10 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:08 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:06 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:05 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:03 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:58 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:55 mizU wrote:
[quote]
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world...
Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP?
Zergs: July?
Protoss: Hongun? Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament? Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions? oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now. Who would you have picked then? ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly. You didn't get what I mean't. Names. Wtf, why would I need to list all the viable candidates? ... I'm not running this tournament, it's not my responsibility to come up with a list of players that are neutral, respected, independent parties. That responsibility is TL's. Anyone in good standing not in the tournament is fine. You are the one the one saying they didn't handle it properly. I don'T ask you to make a 20 name lits, I say that you should say propose 5 other good players, that have credibility, deep understanding of the game that could have be chosen. It's not your responsability but the fact is that most of "neutral, respected, independent parties" are already in the tournament. They probably could have come up with some more people but time is also a factor. The issue needed to be adressed so they could move on. You also do not want information leaking out. For my part, MC opinion was enough. If the best protoss in the world and arguably the best player in the world says there was no way for the protoss to win this game, then the protoss was done. Protoss: Ace, Inca, Squirtle, SangHo, San, HongUn, Tester, Hero, Choya ... [...] Terran: TheSTC, MKP, TOP, ... fuck, I could go on and on. These are just koreans...
I would bet that Artosis, Day and Incontrol would all have been willing to help out, and I can't imagine that people would have had any complaints with that panel. That being said, I think Morrow turned out to be a terrific judge and clearly took his responsibility seriously. At this point, he should be included in any future situations like this.
Edit: I understand Hot Bid's post and wrote this while he was writing his. Practical constraints certainly should matter even if it isn't the perfect situation.
|
TL I really appreciate your rules on this subject. I think they are incredibly fair. One would expect this at the Pro level. At the amateur level, we do not get this kind of respect. The last tournament I played I accidentally disconnected at the end of my match after having clearly won the game (the lag screen appeared and I accidentally surrendered). The tournament admins refused to review the game, my opponent wanted the win, and I was kicked out of the tournament. Anyone reviewing the game could see that there was no way my opponent could have won. PLEASE keep up this precedent and continue to be open about it so that other tournaments will follow your example. <3 <3
|
On March 20 2011 08:18 faqqSen wrote:
absolutely wrong decision
If you had read the Panel's statements you would probably think differently.
I also thought first that the defwin in Boxer's favor was unfair.
But you can't judge the outcome of a game without a replay.
You just do not have the required intel to come to a equitable decision.
Moreover, you should consider that progamers do less mistakes than 'normal'/casual players
I would number you among. (That's why you dont have the experience to assess the situation)
So after reading the panel's justification you have no other choice than support their decision based on common sense and experience.
I really do appreciate that their opinion was shared with the community so that statements like faqqsen's shouldn't even come up...
|
I'll preface my post by saying that I believe the right decision was made. I was certain I knew of the result of the panel before djwheat even said that Boxer had been awarded the game (why would they spend 15 minutes casting a game that had no bearing on the result?), and I agree with their decision. I also understand the TSL administrators were in a difficult position and had to make a tough choice. For their courage in taking a position when they easily could have shied away from one and the transparency which they provided to the viewers, I applaud them.
To those quoting Nazgul's interpretation of rule #3, I say this: in Nazgul's opinion, the defining factor between a "huge advantage" and an "absolute advantage" lay in whether or not NightEnd could defend his third mining base from Boxer's imminent attack. This is a perfectly reasonable position, I think; without the income from that base, even with NightEnd's existing resource pool and income there was no way NightEnd could have overcome Boxer's superior economy, production, upgrades, and unit composition. Therefore, with the establishment of Boxer's superiority in these areas (something which all three panelists commented on, and Morrow did at great length), the only relevant analysis is whether or not NightEnd could have defended that base with the units he had to hand. Nazgul clearly shows that even removing the fact that Boxer had Ghosts with EMPs ready and simply a-moving into that expansion and not microing at all, which I might add is not even necessary for the correct interpretation of the rules, Boxer would clearly win the battle and destroy the Nexus handily.
I also appreciate the TSL admins admitting that their processes were not quite up to scratch, and agree with their remedies. However, I would like to add my own proposal that might help with the overall smoothness of this process, should it happen again.
How about instead of creating a panel on the fly, you approve a set number of people who will act as panelists and who cannot be vetoed. This pool of people would consists of twelve players approached and confirmed ahead of time and who are not competing in the tournament itself, four from each race so that if someone happens to not be online you have redundancy. For the five members of any particular panel, I would suggest two from each race and one from the non-represented race (so in a TvP decision, you'd have two Terrans, two Protoss, and one Zerg). Or, if it suits you (and probably makes more sense), one tournament administrator and two from each of the represented races. This sort of setup would be beneficial for four major reasons:
1) It is absolutely crystal clear who would be judging the replays ahead of time.
2) Issues of bias/conflicts of interest are resolved.
3) Lessens the burden on the administrators by having a set and complete process in place.
4) The complete removal of the players from the process once there is no consensus made between the players as to the outcome; this might act as an incentive for the players to reach an amicable decision because they know that if one cannot be reached, it then becomes completely outside their control as to the result of the game.
Incidentally, if such a system were to be introduced, I think the easiest way to implement it would be to send all possible members of the panel the replay and then create a random priority list before any opinions are received from possible panelists. Once the time limit expired, you would then simply open the relevant opinions and you have your result (ie. if you send a TvP replay to 4 Terrans to view, and then rank them randomly in order of 1-4, when the time limit expired if person 1 has not sent an opinion and person 2 had, their opinion would become part of the panel, etc.). This would set a time limit for proceedings, adding another level of assurance and stability to the procedure.
Maybe I went a little overboard with this, but I find such things interesting :D
|
On March 20 2011 08:34 VuFFeR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:29 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:23 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:11 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 08:09 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:04 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 07:40 ftd.rain wrote:On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote:
I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all. So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap. It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished. How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost. + It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected. Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me. They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment. First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead. So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR? "Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch" Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it.
Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
|
Great work on making this a fair and balanced (i know, i know) ruling TSL.
What bothers me the most about this whole thing is the statement from Prae. They said the "NO COMMENTS" in the first line, and end it with: "it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around."
I can't help but notice that this is a huge comment on what they think of the DC and the subsequent ruling. They are acting as the underdog, trying to fight against a big biased organization that favors boxer. Clearly this statement can be read in two ways, the first thing I said and it could be them saying "We don't like the ruling, but we cant prove that he would have won either so we won't take on the TSL for making that call"
I dunno about you, but to me that last line just bugs the hell out of me after saying "NO COMMENTS"
|
For Boxer to have lost he would have needed to make mistakes far below what any pro-gamer would make. Thus he would have won without reasonable doubt, and thus the rule is fair.
It was the correct decision, in the end. Boxer would need to do something extremely stupid to be able to have lost the game. Something like a-move his units into Nightend's base, and then not remake any units as nightend walked into his base with 15 stalkers.
|
On March 20 2011 08:28 integral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:15 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:10 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:08 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:06 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:05 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:03 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 07:58 integral wrote:On March 20 2011 07:55 mizU wrote:
[quote]
The point of the TSL is to get the top players in the world...
Let's see... top players that aren't in the TSL...
Terran: MKP?
Zergs: July?
Protoss: Hongun? Wow, now you're being intentionally obtuse. Go to TLPD for SC2 Korea and international and sort by ELO for each race. See how many there are not in the tournament? Are most of them not already in the TSL? How would you go about contacting players NOT in the TSL for their opinions? oGs and teamliquid share a team house. How do you think they contacted minchul? I'm facepalming so hard right now. Who would you have picked then? ANYONE NOT IN THE TOURNAMENT THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL PLAYER. lol... srsly. You didn't get what I mean't. Names. Wtf, why would I need to list all the viable candidates? ... I'm not running this tournament, it's not my responsibility to come up with a list of players that are neutral, respected, independent parties. That responsibility is TL's. Anyone in good standing not in the tournament is fine. You are the one the one saying they didn't handle it properly. I don'T ask you to make a 20 name lits, I say that you should say propose 5 other good players, that have credibility, deep understanding of the game that could have be chosen. It's not your responsability but the fact is that most of "neutral, respected, independent parties" are already in the tournament. They probably could have come up with some more people but time is also a factor. The issue needed to be adressed so they could move on. You also do not want information leaking out. For my part, MC opinion was enough. If the best protoss in the world and arguably the best player in the world says there was no way for the protoss to win this game, then the protoss was done. Protoss: Ace, Inca, Squirtle, SangHo, San, HongUn, Tester, Hero, Choya ... [...] Terran: TheSTC, MKP, TOP, ... fuck, I could go on and on. These are just koreans...
Ace : His only accomplishement is IEM + there is no real way to contact him in such short notice.
InCa : He is a decent choice but I don't think it's the best.
Squirtle : Good choice, once again, short notice.
SangHo : I don't know him so I wont comment
San : Same here.
HongUn : Really? HongUn get result but I don't think he is that great of a player since most of his wins are super weird stuff
Tester : His play is very weak since he stopped playing for a some time
Hero/Choya : I don't know them
TeSTC : He kinda dissapeared for some time, they are much more qualified players.
MKP: Totally agree, but he will be hard to contact
TOP: Okay choice.
|
The only time it shouldn't be a regame if it's the player in a clearly losing position who disconnects.
All other times should be regame, that's the only true fair way. Also the debate went on for 90 mins? A regame would've been much quicker anyway and have less uncertainty for the players involved who had to sit around waiting for the decision.
TL has said numerous times in the past that players are the priority. I'm not really sure what's worse for them, that time sitting around which would effect both their mental and emotional states or just having a clear regame rule and get on with it.
|
I think having the Wind will be great, he is the head coach of OGS and will have good understanding. (of course only for non OGS matches)
|
On March 20 2011 08:36 JackDino wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:34 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:29 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:23 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:11 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 08:09 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:04 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 07:40 ftd.rain wrote:On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote:
I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all. So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap. It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished. How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost. + It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected. Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me. They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment. First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead. So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR? "Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch" Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it. Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order.
No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
|
Braavos36370 Posts
On March 20 2011 08:39 Full.tilt wrote:
The only time it shouldn't be a regame if it's the player in a clearly losing position who disconnects.
All other times should be regame, that's the only true fair way.
Player A has 200/200 in stalkers and Player B has no units and 1 pylon, Player A is attacking the pylon, and discs. You are saying the only fair way to handle this is a regame?
|
On March 20 2011 08:10 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:05 mizU wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 07:40 ftd.rain wrote:On March 20 2011 07:27 VuFFeR wrote:
I think there is something ethically wrong with giving the win to BoxeR. I realize that he had 99% chance to win, but taking that 1% chance of turning the game around away from Nightend, is like punishing him for something he didn't do. Imo. it should have been a rematch.
That being said I suppose i'm just more of a theorist than a practician. I don't like to have subjectivity influence the tournament if it can be avoided in any way.
Another point, i want to make, is, that I'm not sure wether you can be absolutely sure that this is the proper way to do it, even if the majority of people in here agrees with the decision. Since there is no doubt about BoxeR having the biggest amount of fans among those two.
As a sidenote: If you are going to keep this rule, your way of doing it is absolutely brilliant. You've done an excellent job - no doubt about that - I just dont agree with the rule, that's all. So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap. It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished. It's not Nightend's fault he disconnects, no. But he isn't awarded the win, becuase he was LOSING. The chance that the Koreans face a disconnect is pretty high. The latency is pretty bad. You can't ask a player to replay the match, mostly when you have a precise gameplan. You can't ask a replay when there was one clear winner. Night end cannot even fathom the possibility of crying about it, he didn't manage his money well, his opening was horrendous, he didn't harrass....the list is long. This proves you truly not get it. Giving Nightend the win was never the question. If Nightend has 1% of winning the game and Boxer D/C you can't punish Nightend for it by taking away that 1% so a regame would be the only option.
|
Already thought it was a good decision before I read the OP, now I think its an even better call.
Maybe a bit offtopic but I think TheWind would be an awesome panel member.
|
It is absolutely ridiculous for people to think that all players are available and willing to participate in the panel at ANY TIME of the day. That's an absolutely ludicrous (and frankly dim) expectation. As if all TL had to do was press a button and they'd have all the elite players in the world ready to analyze replays and make a potentially unpopular and difficult decision on the spot. Clearly they had to make due with what they had, there were players waiting on a decision and a deadline looming overhead. If they had infinite time, resources, and control over all players in the world then they could have come up with something better. As that is not the case, this will have to do, and frankly it is better than anything we're used to as a community.
|
If BossToss says so, then he's almost right.
no storm, no big AOE, only one robo, no way toss can hold out after.
nice job TSL for having a nice line of judges to make it more fair than KeSPa rules =)
and GJ to boxer =)
|
On March 20 2011 08:40 VuFFeR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 08:36 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 08:34 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:29 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:23 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:11 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 08:09 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:04 SpiZe wrote:On March 20 2011 08:01 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 07:40 ftd.rain wrote:
[quote]
So, by your logic, taking the win away from BoxeR with his 99% chance to win would be ethically fair?Okay chap. It would yeah. It's not Nightend's fault that BoxeR disconnects. Yet he's the one who gets punished. How does NightEnd is being punished? He had lost. + It's not BoxeR fault either if he gets disconnected. Isn't it pretty obvious... they remove his 1% chance of winning. As little as that may seem it's still a chance. That combined with the whole issue of blending subjectivity into a rule is a bad cocktail if you ask me. They're removing his 1% chance of winning as opposed to boxer's 99% chance of winning. Which is false as boxer had already won, maybe you should read the first post in the thread before you start to comment. First of all i have read the OP - multiple times - Secondly, lets say it was 0.25% chance of winning... it wouldn't change a thing. You've got to admit that there was a chance of winning, even if it was small or close to not existing. It is false to say he had already won. You havn't won a game of sc2 before the other player quits or you've destroyed all his buildings. It is as simple as that. Besides i don't like the idea about have other people deciding wether a game was lost or not... it will always be based on subjectivity. Lastly... insinuating that i haven't read the OP is a bad habbit. You should really stop doing low blows and have a normal debate instead. So a rematch is fair in your opinion? What are we gonna tell BoxeR? "Listen man, you had this game, everyone agree that you were going to win in 99% of the cases but you see, NighEnd had 1% chance of winning this game so we think that doing a rematch is fair for NightEnd and... dude just play the rematch" Yes, basicly. NightEnd can't be held responsible for how stable a connection BoxeR has. That's my point. Tough luck. It's harshe perhaps... but if it can keep us from having judges deciding the way a game turns out... well then it's worth it. Boxer can't be held responsible for blizzard's poor design in this area. And as said before, people could just dc whenever they want because according to you, no matter how small the chance, there is a chance to win so a rematch would be in order. No i havn't said that all. If Nightend had dc'ed the story would be completely different. Since BoxeR had a huge lead and you shouldn't be able to force a rematch with dcs. But in every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo.
So, if the player is 99.99% losing it should be a regame because he shouldn't be punished for a dc, but if a player is losing 98% and he dcs it's his fault and he should get the loss? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
"In every scenario where we can avoid using judges, we should ... imo." Who are you to decide in what scenario you can or can not avoid using judges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
