EPTLike if Boxer was in the finals, they would get a lot of audience from BW and SC2 fans. But, if Nightend was in the final, they would get less.
So teamliquid was never going to do the correct thing and redo the match.
Mod edit: obvious troll -_-
[TSL] Day 1 Disconnect Situation - Page 31
| Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum |
|
simples
United Kingdom54 Posts
Like if Boxer was in the finals, they would get a lot of audience from BW and SC2 fans. But, if Nightend was in the final, they would get less. So teamliquid was never going to do the correct thing and redo the match. Mod edit: obvious troll -_- | ||
|
Kvothe
201 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:08 simples wrote: To be fair, even if Nightend was 90% of winning it. They probably have given it to Boxer. As Boxer is where you get the big audience and big money from poker strategy. Like if Boxer was in the finals, they would get a lot of audience from BW and SC2 fans. But, if Nightend was in the final, they would get less. So teamliquid was never going to do the correct thing and redo the match. You are being wayyy too obvious in your trolling. | ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:08 simples wrote: To be fair, even if Nightend was 90% of winning it. They probably have given it to Boxer. As Boxer is where you get the big audience and big money from poker strategy. Like if Boxer was in the finals, they would get a lot of audience from BW and SC2 fans. But, if Nightend was in the final, they would get less. So teamliquid was never going to do the correct thing and redo the match. That post if full of ignorance. Give the TL staff credit, they handled this in a very good way and with complete transparency. | ||
|
IPS.ZeRo
Germany1142 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:07 thragar wrote: Since Tyler and Cloud formed opinions, is there any chance we can see them? In particular, I would like to see why Cloud thought it would be a regame. Cloud didn't think it was regame. That was just an illustrative example. They didn't say what tyler and cloud actually thought. | ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:10 jmbthirteen wrote: That post if full of ignorance. Give the TL staff credit, they handled this in a very good way and with complete transparency. And to further give the TL staff credit it took them only 5 minutes to find this retard and ban him. | ||
|
JackDino
Gabon6219 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:06 VuFFeR wrote: You cant have 100% certainty to win in sc2 only in "very few" scenarios (im sure there would be a way to work around that) besides i doubt any pro gamer with a sponsor would ever do that, it wouldn't exactly be good publicity. That he had won the game (100%) certain was an opinion, not a fact. If you refuse to comprehend that, then there is no point in discussing this. Ps. Why should i get banned for giving my opinion? That's what the forum is here for now isn't it? EDIT: @JackDino: there is no point in argueing about what would happen in an offline tournament. Simply because this isn't. Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong. | ||
pigscanfly
Singapore147 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:08 simples wrote: To be fair, even if Nightend was 90% of winning it. They probably have given it to Boxer. As Boxer is where you get the big audience and big money from poker strategy. Like if Boxer was in the finals, they would get a lot of audience from BW and SC2 fans. But, if Nightend was in the final, they would get less. So teamliquid was never going to do the correct thing and redo the match. It really annoys me that even though TL tried really hard to make their decision making process transparent and came to what in my opinion was the right decision, there are so many annoying people like you who repeatedly question their integrity for no good reason. The fact that they got Boxer to accept their invitation is already a big coup, and yes maybe having him in more games would secure them more audience and thus sponsorship money but I really doubt they would compromise on their integrity just for that. There are far more comprehensive ways to rig the system e.t.c if all they were after is sponsorship money. Furthermore, you blindly criticise them without making any clear suggestions about what they should've done a why your solution is so much better. I assume you want a regame? If so explain why that system is so much better than the comprehensive and fairly impartial system they've come up with? edit: ah nevermind I noticed you get banned and can't reply. :D | ||
|
Jacobs Ladder
United States1705 Posts
| ||
|
pilsken
Germany441 Posts
| ||
|
BaronFel
United States155 Posts
If the disconnecting player had the game absolutely won then we will rule it a win for the disconnecting player. "Absolutely won" means that the player had the game won beyond all reasonable doubt and had an "absolute advantage." This operates from the mindset that a player will make all the mistakes in the world that can be expected from a professional level player. So missing EMPs and other micro mistakes can definitely happen but right clicking units and not touching them for five minutes can't. It is important to keep in mind that our standard is NOT that the game must be mathematically over 100%. This brings in a gray area, in which the judges must clearly define why at a "professional" level, the lead would be insurmountable (What level of micro/macro can you expect, how they react to possibly coming oout on the losing side of a 200 vs 200 fight and rebuilding before too much damage has occured, etc). I thought Nazgul and Morrow (Nazgul especially with the simulation really showed that the 3rd had no way of surviving) did a rather good job at that (Morrow had a lot to say, but most of it was "I would pull back as terran..." which then leads into having to explain more steps on how the base advantage, army comps, upgrades etc would be too much, but there have been several instances of Toss death balls and pros taking bad positions with MMM that it can get somewhat complicated). MCs answer I felt was slightly lacking but considering he is the best Toss in the world, you kind of have to take his word for it  Either way, I think it was good of TSL to be completely open about this, and my only complaints were already addressed (Players as judges, only 3 not 5). | ||
|
DiaBoLuS
Germany1638 Posts
| ||
|
how2TL
1197 Posts
Now you're just being silly. | ||
|
VuFFeR
Denmark38 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:12 JackDino wrote: Yes there is, because it could just as well happen in an offline tournament, you saying this isn't an offline tourney is simply admitting you are wrong. No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that. | ||
|
Kuri
Canada88 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:03 simples wrote: Everything. I'm probably gonna get banned soon from teamliquid. As yeah, the truth hurts. But, everything. I'm writing it up now. Sadly, I doubt they will release the replay for this. User was banned for this post. Just to let you know... saying something that clearly deserves a ban and then predicting you'll get banned doesn't add to your argument... TL's decision is correct. Nightend's situation was not salvageable. My only complaint has been repeated many times in this topic: the choices for panel. Ideally, the panel should not be players in the tournament. In fact, they should not be associated with either the two players at all, but that's not a feasible demand. In any case, even if I didn't watch the game I would still support the decision since the people on the panel have shown integrity throughout the years. | ||
|
Vaeila
Netherlands336 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:10 IPS.ZeRo wrote: Cloud didn't think it was regame. That was just an illustrative example. They didn't say what tyler and cloud actually thought. Then why do they post it for the sake of transparancy?  I am quite curious why ClouD thought it was a regame because the game was clearly over (see Nazgul's sim). | ||
|
JackDino
Gabon6219 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:21 VuFFeR wrote: No there isn't. He would dc under completely different circumstances. I tell you there is no point in discussing it. Then we'd have to build up a whole new scenario... it would fx. be cruzial wether there were cameras on him so you could see if he deliberately left the game and so on.... Trying to merge all sorts of scenarios into the discussion isn't benefiting unless it has some kind of relevance to the topic. And i personally don't think that an offline tournament has that. Exactly the same thing could've happened at an offline tournament. The only problem here is you thinking people dc on purpose, which is why there is a panel. If you would actually read the OP properly(You really haven't done that), you would know that dcing when you're winning wouldn't give you a win. You want as little people as possible to judge yet you want to judge when to and when not to judge. The people in the panel are professionals, if a single 1 of them would've said nightend could've won they would've rematched, a single one. If you would understand when people can and can't win you might make it up there. Life isn't fair, better get used to it. On another note, according to you winner dcs=rematch, loser dcs=loss. Who would decide it's an actual loss? | ||
|
Qaatar
1409 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:19 BaronFel wrote: I think where a lot of problems come from is the This brings in a gray area, in which the judges must clearly define why at a "professional" level, the lead would be insurmountable (What level of micro/macro can you expect, how they react to possibly coming oout on the losing side of a 200 vs 200 fight and rebuilding before too much damage has occured, etc). I thought Nazgul and Morrow (Nazgul especially with the simulation really showed that the 3rd had no way of surviving) did a rather good job at that (Morrow had a lot to say, but most of it was "I would pull back as terran..." which then leads into having to explain more steps on how the base advantage, army comps, upgrades etc would be too much, but there have been several instances of Toss death balls and pros taking bad positions with MMM that it can get somewhat complicated). MCs answer I felt was slightly lacking but considering he is the best Toss in the world, you kind of have to take his word for it Either way, I think it was good of TSL to be completely open about this, and my only complaints were already addressed (Players as judges, only 3 not 5). Look at this from another perspective: what other standard can TSL use to judge "professional level?" If they use mathematical probability, we have already demonstrated the impossibility that such a standard would be fair throughout this thread (various scenarios have been explained in depth). So without that, what other standard is there? I feel like the assumption that BoxeR wouldn't suddenly go afk for no reason or play like a bronze-league noob is perfectly fine. In other words, whatever % chance BoxeR had for losing this game = impossibility. | ||
|
centar
United States2 Posts
1.) Is it fair to make Boxer play another match and possibly lose, when it was clear he had a large advantage at the point of disconnect? 2.) Is it fair to NightEnd to not have the opportunity to make an amazing comeback and win? It is difficult to determine whether or not there was actually any chance of NightEnd winning the game. The panel members may have felt that there was no way for him to win using their knowledge of current professional play skill and game mechanics. This is to say they were unaware of how NightEnd could have recovered from his position. This does not prove that there was absolutely no way a comeback could have happened. The other important thing to consider is the impact which the decision has on the players. Does the knowledge of the winning player's strategy affect the results of the next game? Does the possibility of cheating enter NightEnd's mind? How would Boxer have reacted if he was forced to re-game, then narrowly lost the series 2-1, after having expended his strategy and energy on a game which ultimately did not count? If a player prepares only three strategies, one for each match against each opponent, how might he be affected? I respect the fact that both players deferred judgement to the panel, this shows their respect for the administrative process and faith in the community to make a fair decision. Ultimately, I would have liked Boxer to graciously offer to play another game, partly out of respect for his opponent, and partly out of confidence in his ability to win. Overall, I feel that the entire incident was handled in an extremely professional and transparent manner, and for that the TSL staff deserves a lot of credit. Please continue to provide the quality entertainment which we have all come to expect.  | ||
|
vebis
Germany33 Posts
from a player perspective, i would neither lose or win by dc, i will win/lose by a gaming ending decision of either me or the opponent (read: type "gg" and F10+n). anyway the decision is final, but pls TL admin consider in this situation a regame next time and not a tournament player judgment (they cant make there free unbiased decision on this case imho, although they've written great essays). | ||
|
Jayson X
Switzerland2431 Posts
No templars. No blink. No charge. No upgrades. No phoenix energy. No colossus (95%). 15 stalkers - 1 zealot. That was the situation Protoss was in a few seconds before Terran dropped. Put any of the first 4 points into a yes, and then the ruling would probably be a lot harder. The two ghosts had 3 emps in total, rendering the phoenixes useless. Toss would naturally spend gas on one more colossus and phoenix and use everything else on zealots. Making it to a potential total of ~14 phoenixes ~2colossus ~9 zealots ~15 stalkers. Any gas spend on anything else, be it +1 armor, sentries, a templar archive or twilight council upgrades would have reduced everything but the zealot count. Now let's take into factor that Terran attacks and then runs away, he could potentially loose all his air units, he can't be chased by the stalkers because of no blink and every attack with the phoenixes on Boxers air units would result in another emp. So still lets say Terran looses 4 marauders and all his air units. Then he would be at the time the 2 colossus comes out at ~33 Maurauders, ~13 marines, ~4vikings, ~2 ghosts with upgrades at 2-1 and a new expansion. And note that boxer already spend that money by queing up units before he dropped out, that means all the money that flows in can be spend on something else. But we can of course say let's look at what happens when Terran attacks? We see in Nazgul's simulation that the fight lasts ~20 seconds. After 10 seconds plus the 5 seconds to finish the warp in protoss would have been able to warp in 9 zealots. At that time the stalkers are already reduced to about 3 and 27 probes died. And that would be the worst situation for protoss. Every protoss knows that loosing your colossus army without anything else going for you means you cant stop terran from doing what he wants. I agree with the decision but again would have strongly routed in favour of a rematch if toss had any upgrades, templars or 3+ colossus. | ||
| ||
