| Forum Index > PokerStrategy.com TSL3 Forum |
|
quirinus
Croatia2489 Posts
Otherwise very professional. edit: Now that I think of it, I assume they can veto the players in that are in the tournament and opponents team mates, so you'll have to get other players opinion. edit2: For sake of discussion and transparency we will say that Tyler thought it was over and Cloud thought it was a re-game. I think you should re-word this, it isn't clear enough that those are NOT Tyler's and Cloud's opinions. (if I understand correctly) | ||
|
how2TL
1197 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:29 vebis wrote: They counted every number, but one of the key valus of a good player is the decision making and i think this wasn't taken into account. both players have no doubt great dm, but you cant get this number quantified, so the ruling cant be 100% sure as stated in the tournament rule. 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). I think it's pretty clear that what the ruling means by "absolutely won" is that decision-making is no longer a relevant factor in the outcome. | ||
|
MattyClutch
United States711 Posts
| ||
|
Geolich
Australia375 Posts
A tough decision either way, well done to TL for at least trying to explain it... can't please everyone. | ||
|
VuFFeR
Denmark38 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:27 JackDino wrote: 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. I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things. That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules. Good night. | ||
|
Hellspawnl
Sweden103 Posts
First of all I just want to say that I feel sorry for TeamLiquid as it's very unfortunate when these kind of things happens. You have put on such a great show already and it's just pity that this, I guess, takes most of the attention for today. I think the TSL-organization handle it in a very good way, no one can think that you took it lightly and you have for sure put in a lot of effort into this decision. I would like to give some comments from my perspective. If this event would have been played live then I doubt that the outcome of the decision would have been the same, a replay would have been an easier decision. It's just very fortunate that the TSL-crew could prepare this much and really look into it. Some of my criticism is also mentioned in the statement is that it was very very unfortunate that the vetoes of the panel members weren't done before hand. If Cloud hadn't been vetoed away then I assume a replay would have occurred as the panel wouldn't have been unanimous. The panel will view the replay and decide whether one player had the game absolutely won. The decision by the approved panel members must be unanimous. This means if the panel does not award the disconnecting player a win, then 1, 2, 3, 4, or all 5 did not believe the disconnecting player had an "absolute advantage." I also want to highlight what has been mention before that there is no question that SlayerS_BoxeR was in a big lead, but was it a 100% guaranteed win? Even in Nazguls and Morrows statement it seem to lean more towards that it was more of a huge lead in opposite to an guaranteed win, while MC was sure that the game was over. Also I must mention that I do understand Praetoriani and I couldn't find a better description then trying to fight Goliath. It's just very unfortunate as mention before. We, Praetoriani and NightEnD wish to NOT COMMENT on the issues concerning the match between BoxeR and NightEnD, it's like fighting Goliath with no stones lying around. Even if I might sound very negative towards the TSL-crew, I'm not. The only thing that I do worry a little about is how it will be handle if god forbids this kind of disconnect happens again. Let say that someone has a big lead and DC:s. Then of course this decision will be the praxis and then you will have some kind of discussion about how much more or less of an advantage did this player have compared to SlayerS_BoxeR. Of course the same problem would have occurred if it was called a replay. So I guess my only conclusion is that please make it possible to reconnect to a game, it should be a must in every E-sport game. It's doable in Counter-Strike but not in Quake Live for example. It is just a shame. An a further note and more of a troll one so take it lightly. Would TeamLiquid have had the juice to make the decision if the situation would have been reversed? Saying that NightEnd got the win would of course have been a harder decision. I'm not questioning TeamLiquid in any way just a though that came to my mind. Off topic: I'm so excited for tomorrows games and so happy for ThorZaINs success! | ||
|
BaronFel
United States155 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:28 Qaatar wrote: 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. Oh yea, no I'm fine with it. Just saying that I think that in the judges explanations for future occurrences, they should make it a point to highlight what level of play they expect when they "simulate" the game to decide on a decision. This could help clear things up for people who feel that the decision was wrong (whether it was biased or not looked at closely enough by the judges etc). | ||
|
JackDino
Gabon6219 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:39 VuFFeR wrote: I have read the OP. Cheap shots aren't gonna get you anywhere. God i hate arguing with people who aren't interested in understanding eachother. There is no "winning" in this arguement if that's what you are looking for. We just have two way of seeing things. That being said. BoxeR could (if he had known about this rule) have dc'ed deliberately to avoid that 1% chance of losing - even with the panel. You gotta take these things into account. Even if they are only hypothetical. Being a pro sc2 gamers doesn't neccesarily make you good at taking these kinds of decisions. They "can" be biased. I'd much rather watch BoxeR than NightEnd myself - if i were given the choice to let BoxeR go through... hell i would do it. Mainly because i'm such an irrational bastard. ^_^ - anyways ... only wasting time on this debate. I've made my point clear and so have you. I just hope that TL reevaluate the rules. Good night. The reason it's impossible to understand you is because you keep contradicting yourself, using different standarts that are fine according to YOU yet saying OTHERS aren't allowed to decide those exact things. | ||
|
Ludwigvan
Germany2371 Posts
| ||
|
Hellspawnl
Sweden103 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:50 Ludwigvan wrote: I love that nobody told the commentators that this would happen. "Hi, i am DJ Wheat ... I am only the messenger!" (please don't blame me). Not as awesome as the MSL power outage, but with the DJWheat guest appearance definitely entertaining. For me it was obvious that it was staged and that Day[9] and Chill knew about it. I could of course be wrong but that was very clear to me. =D | ||
|
VuFFeR
Denmark38 Posts
On March 20 2011 09:46 JackDino wrote: The reason it's impossible to understand you is because you keep contradicting yourself, using different standarts that are fine according to YOU yet saying OTHERS aren't allowed to decide those exact things. I see, my point is simply too advanced for you  Jokes aside. Tbh. the only thing there is to understand is that i want to minimize the use of judges to the absolute minimum. To be VERY specific. And in this situation i didn't see the need for one, because there still was a chance of NightEnd winning. I think this game still was to uncertain to judge on. I think it should be even more obvious who is gonna win, before you go away from a rematch. I'm talking like 20 marauders vs 1 probe and a nexus. To me that would be okay to judge in BoxeR's favor. This game was still too open. Eventho' a panel said otherwise. - I know my opinion isn't "mainstream", but that's really how I feel. I'm not trying to piss anybody off, but this would just make so much more sense in "my" head. - In and ideal world we wouldn't need judges, but we do. The least we can do is to try to minimize the use of them.EDIT: Typo | ||
|
Crebstar
United States151 Posts
| ||
|
AdahnSC
United States376 Posts
1) two turrets in the middle of the map to stop any sort of phoenix harassment after the upcoming battle 2) forge at 3rd base probably about to go down means no more upgrades for nightend who is already way behind in upgrades 3) nightend is gas starved. Almost every single comeback strategy requires a ton of gas he just wont have. 4) Boxer was scanning and looking at nightends army right before he disconnected. In all likelihood about to position his units appropriately, catch Nightend out of position and throw down 3 good EMPs. I think the main thing is nightend being gas starved. A comeback requires options and with the low gas he has very few of them. | ||
|
ReachTheSky
United States3294 Posts
| ||
|
mowglie
United States74 Posts
On March 20 2011 10:10 ReachTheSky wrote: I'm curious as to why one person automatically gets the win and why its not a re-game if there is a possibility of one player winning 1. Go back to page one. 2. Read original post 3. Watch replay | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On March 20 2011 10:10 ReachTheSky wrote: I'm curious as to why one person automatically gets the win and why its not a re-game if there is a possibility of one player winning I thought they already stated that in the OP. It's supposedly in order to prevent players from disconnecting with the intent of forcing a regame. | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
| ||
|
Seam
United States1093 Posts
There has to be no reasonable chance for nightend to come back, and there wasn't. Yes, if Boxer a-moved into Nightend's army, then accidentally targeted his own units, while making all his workers stop mining, he could have lost. But these aren't reasonable mistakes to make. There was a CHANCE. There will always be a CHANCE. If Nightend only had a pylon there is always the CHANCE that boxer will kill all his own buildings, but it's not reasonable to believe it. | ||
pigscanfly
Singapore147 Posts
On March 20 2011 10:00 VuFFeR wrote: I see, my point is simply too advanced for you Jokes aside. Tbh. the only thing there is to understand is that i want to minimize the use of judges to the absolute minimum. To be VERY specific. And in this situation i didn't see the need for one, because there still was a chance of NightEnd winning. I think this game still was to uncertain to judge on. I think it should be even more obvious who is gonna win, before you go away from a rematch. I'm talking like 20 marauders vs 1 probe and a nexus. To me that would be okay to judge in BoxeR's favor. This game was still too open. Eventho' a panel said otherwise. - I know my opinion isn't "mainstream", but that's really how I feel. I'm not trying to piss anybody off, but this would just make so much more sense in "my" head. - In and ideal world we wouldn't need judges, but we do. The least we can do is to try to minimize the use of them.EDIT: Typo I understand your point, but then who judges when we don't need judges? what if it's 20 marauders vs 1 probe, a nexus and a zealot? what if it's 5 zealots? you say it needs to be VERY SPECIFIC. who defines what very specific is? | ||
|
zerat00l
United States100 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
StarCraft2.fi
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
WardiTV 2025
StarCraft2.fi
PiGosaur Monday
StarCraft2.fi
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
WardiTV 2025
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
