|
Wow I'm blown away by this thread. I was about to go on a mindless rage about the decision, but reading the op, I might want to reconsider that.
I still disagree with the overall decision to give a win to a disconnecting player unless his opponent has like nothing but buildings left.
There is no way anyone can safely say what would have happened. The simulation is interesting, but what if boxer decided to move back and not kill the expansion after seeing a wave of warpgate units coming in? I'm not saying this is likely, but I feel like this is an option.
MorroW kinda adressed this possible scenario (the others did not), but he makes a lot of assumptions about what would've happened. The thing is: I agree with everyone's opinion, but even if Nightend's chances to still win this game were less than say 10%, I feel like he got ripped off that 10% and you guys opened doors to disconnect on purpose. Obviously I'm not saying boxer wanted to disconnect or anything and obviously reproducing a similar scenario is going to be tough, but still - if I'm way ahead of my opponent I might rather disconnect than maybe completely fuck up and lose the game.
We've seen all kind of weird comebacks and fuckups by even the best of the best (Jinro - Check comes to mind) and this might have happened here as well.
That said I'd like to repeat how amazing I feel like your decision making was. Even if I disagree with the result, I hold the process and the work you put into your decisions in high regard.
|
Edit: Messed up the quotes. I just wanted to say this to the people complaining about free speech.
It should be noted that freedom is speech is freedom from government censoring your speech. Team Liquid is a private website and if they say you can't say whatever you want, then you can't say whatever you want. You're rights aren't being violated because the governments not the one keeping you from saying it.
|
I think the referees should watch the game in 1st person view of one of the players first and make a decision, and then watch the full replay and make a decision. If the player does not know they have an advantage, then they can not exploit it. This is not a problem for this game, but may affect future games. It is not the be all and end all, but it should be acknowledged that a player doesn't have perfect information, so even if they are 3 base versus 1 base, but don't know it, they could lose. possibly this isn't as important at their level of play, but it seems like there are some advantages that would seem clear in observer mode but not in 1st person, and that could sway the outcome from outright win to unsure.
|
On March 21 2011 01:20 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 01:14 terrorist112358 wrote:On March 20 2011 23:35 zeru wrote:On March 20 2011 23:26 terrorist112358 wrote:On March 20 2011 23:07 Aflixion wrote:On March 20 2011 22:49 terrorist112358 wrote:On March 20 2011 21:58 nam nam wrote:
You accuse him for fallacies when your own first post is clearly wrong on multiple accounts. (Not allowed to disagree for one; did you even read the op?). Again a fallacy. You say I am wrong on multiple accounts while providing just one example? And even that example is incorrect. The start of this thread states that criticism of the process must not be stated without a different solution. That is wrong by default. However among the rightfully banned, people in this thread were flagged or banned even for polite disagreement with the result of the decision (I've read through it all). That is much worse. Wrong again. I just went through the first 25 pages of the thread and found the following: One warning and temp ban for a troll post Two warnings for misrepresenting facts presented in the OP None of these people were warned or banned for respectfully disagreeing with the result of the decision. Reading on, I found ONE person banned for being a blatant, obvious troll and explicitly asking to be banned (warrants an auto-ban). If you want to criticize the decision or the rules, that's your choice, but since you're asking us to present sound, logical arguments, please do so yourself as well. I don't have sound arguments? You're the one who accuses someone but fails to read the whole thing. What about these two:
Rule #3 states...
"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.""
Then Nazgul states the following...
"A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win. "
This just goes to show that you will NEVER know for sure if the player with the advantage would have won. There will always be a possibility of a come back no matter how small the chance, it's still possible.
The game should have been replayed following the rules in the TSL handbook. The game was not won by BoxeR beyond all reason of doubt. Nightend had the gateways to remake his army, chrono boost stocked up, and BoxeR could have made some mistake.
It's not fair to award a win to a player because you are just ASSUMING he wouldn't have made a mistake.
User was warned for this post
absolutely wrong decision
User was warned for this post
They are just stating their disagreement. They're not being rude. Still, they were flagged. And you are really pulling dirty tricks for this discussion. If you had read the full OP it clearly states what not to do in this topic. They were warned because: Here are the things you shouldn't do in this topic:
* Criticize the rules and administration without a suggestion on how to do it differently or better
* Criticize the players for leaving this in the hands of the TSL administration
* Any offensive post towards the panel members will result in a ban. Disagreeing with them is fine nobody is saying everyone should see eye to eye. Just make sure you don't cross the line because these people stepped it up and should be thanked and praised to help us out in a touchy situation.
* Incorrectly presenting facts that could be found in the OP or showing other signs of not reading the topic carefully. LOL, instead of just posting the rules, pretending that they explain it, be more exact. You use fallacy in every post. Go ahead and tell us lower beings which rule did they exactly break and where? Or does it not fit into your little scheme?  Sure; is warned because of it criticizes the decisions of the administration and judges without any explanation he disagrees, or what could've been done differently. (rule #1 of the thread) And this one: Show nested quote +
Rule #3 states...
"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.""
Then Nazgul states the following...
"A huge advantage however is not enough for an "absolute" win. "
This just goes to show that you will NEVER know for sure if the player with the advantage would have won. There will always be a possibility of a come back no matter how small the chance, it's still possible.
The game should have been replayed following the rules in the TSL handbook. The game was not won by BoxeR beyond all reason of doubt. Nightend had the gateways to remake his army, chrono boost stocked up, and BoxeR could have made some mistake.
It's not fair to award a win to a player because you are just ASSUMING he wouldn't have made a mistake.
User was warned for this post
is warned because it quotes 1 sentence of nagzuls statement which in the same paragraph says: Show nested quote +
The defining factor of why Terran is going to roll over Nightends army and expansion is because out of the 11 phoenix 9 are at ~30 energy. They are basically 18 supply of units that will take out the vikings and then the medivacs but can't touch the Marauder/Marine/Ghost except for two liftoffs.
(rule #4 of the thread)
You are intentionally lying to support your cause. You say that poster #1 broke the first rule, but you yourself wrote the rule in one of your posts:
#1 Criticize the rules and administration without a suggestion on how to do it differently or better
But how does this
absolutely wrong decision
User was warned for this post
criticize rules and administration? The post only disagrees with the decision. You got it there in bold. And disagreeing was supposed to be fine, according to rule #3:
Any offensive post towards the panel members will result in a ban. Disagreeing with them is fine nobody is saying everyone should see eye to eye. Just make sure you don't cross the line because these people stepped it up and should be thanked and praised to help us out in a touchy situation.
Poster #2 is NOT presenting incorrect facts (which is forbidden in your rule #4). He is only drawing a conclusion that you disagree with. But many others here made the very same conclusion as he did, but never got flagged.
If you have to lie like this and use fallacy in every post, you obviously don't have many arguments.
Thus my points still stand. A player that did nothing wrong should never be awarded a loss. The panel should only consider two options: re-match or a loss to the disconnecting player. And the game between boxer and nightend should be rearranged today, so that we, viewers, are not robbed of the fun!
|
On March 21 2011 01:23 terrorist112358 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 01:10 zeru wrote:On March 21 2011 01:04 terrorist112358 wrote:On March 21 2011 00:54 zeru wrote:On March 21 2011 00:47 Blueblister wrote:On March 21 2011 00:43 zeru wrote:On March 21 2011 00:34 Blueblister wrote:Thats not true, identifying a underlying problem is valuable in itself. Even if you do not have the time or ability to find a solution yourself someone else might be able to. Furthermore just informing others of your opinion also has a value in itself. Therefore, I've created a topic for it here. If you can't even explain why you think the way you do, and can't provide a valid, thought through opinion, you aren't providing any kind of valuable stand point that anyone is going to take seriously. If a baby sits on something that is too hot it just cries without moving because it doesn't know what is hurting. This is still valuable as it alarms the child's father who can then come and solve the problem. If you don't even understand why you disagree yourself then don't post. You seem to be using fallacies in every single post you write. You will not succeed in your little attempt to implicate that if someone doesn't have a solution, then he doesn't understand a problem. He absolutely understands why he disagrees. Finding another solution to the problem is however a completely different issue from understanding a problem. The Japanese understand very well what's going on with their reactor, what the problem is. They did from the start. Finding a solution to it on the other hand, is a long and difficult process. Arguing with such shortsighted and underhanded opinions as yours only supports me that I am right. All I'm saying is if you disagree with the decisions and the reasons the judges had to give boxer the game, you should state why you disagree, not just state that you disagree. It's as simple as that. It's simply pathetic to see people disagree with the decisions the judges have made and all the miss quoting that has happened in the topic. It's like looking at a bronze league player saying the builds MC's uses are complete garbage. This is false analogy. Bronze league has nothing to do with this. I'm gonna make a list of fallacies you used. There is still plenty you didn't touch. But you're getting there. People in this thread are massively stating their agreement with the decision without any reasons why. Yet you would like to remove the ability for the disagreeing people to do so. Why? Because you fear that it would show something you wouldn't like. There would be no reason for you to try denying it if you didn't fear it.
What's there to elaborate on agreeing with the panel? The panel already gave all the reasons for favouring giving the win to boxer. Should we post "I agree with the panel because *repeats whatever the panel said*". I don't see a point of posting more than that if there's nothing to add. Posts that agree with the panel are important because it gives an indication to the organisers that they are moving in the right direction. Of course you can agree with something but also provide suggestions to improve the rules, which some posters indicated.
Disagreeing is an entirely different thing, because there are no arguments for disagreement posted up in the first place as the panel all favoured the Boxer win. Posters who disagree should elaborate on the reasons why, like "I disagree with the panel's decision because NE had a huge chance of coming back. His phoenix will rhave enough energy to lift in about 10 seconds, and he will be able to warp-in sufficient reinforcements to block off the attack etc." (I didn't watch the game, this is all made up.)", basically identifying some points that the panel may have missed out. So posting one liners like "I disagree" are worthless: yes it shows disagreement but it does not identify what is wrong. Some of these posts may just be from posters who don't even put in any effort to think about what they're writing.
|
Norway28553 Posts
Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win..
|
I agree with the call, and I am a Protoss player. Coming back from that position as Protoss is almost impossible.
|
On March 21 2011 01:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win..
Even Boxer said it was 8:2 for him, thats a 20%.
|
On March 21 2011 01:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win..
Yeah I agree with this and what I was saying was: What if Boxer backed up and didn't engage at that point? Seeing 14 stalkers might have triggered him to play it safe and back up. Having complete vision of the map, this clearly would not be a wise decision, but boxer didn't have that. Maybe I'm doing too much what-ifs, but I just don't see how this was a 100% win in every possible scenario.
|
On March 21 2011 01:30 ptz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 01:08 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 00:59 ptz wrote:im really curious as to why Boxer vetoed Cloud and Nend vetoed Tyler. The rules clearly seem to state that: "Players will have the opportunity to veto any of the members of panel if they have good reason to do so (e.g. bias)". So for the sake of transparency, i want to know what the good reasons that Boxer and Nend gave to remove Cloud and Tyler from the process. This seems to be a huge point, since if Cloud was on the panel it would be a regame. So how did Boxer know to veto exactly the guy that denied him the win and what was the reasoning behind it? I smell fish in this Also i wont comment on the "having the game absolutely won" part. There is no way you can say this unless the terran army is in the protoss main killing buildings. The way things were, the terran had a big advantage but you cannot say it was a 100% win. Comebacks have happened, and i dont find it fair to reward the disconecting player. Luck. Since nobody had said anything before veto it could only be luck. Comeback without templar tech or chargelots or blink stalkers when NightEnd didn't even have the economy to get those cause he was so so so behind in army? I simply don't see any way NightEnd could have turned that around without AoE. In the next 30s Boxer would be on 40+ marauders to NightEnd's 20 stalkers and gazillion phoenix and oh, 1 colossus. This is not Romania mister, there's no reason to smell fish behind every decision. Veto doesn't require people to give reasons I suppose, or we would have had some. Best reason is prolly what even Boxer said, he considered he had 8:2 advantage, a terran being objective may have recognized that. Luck? That is your oppinion that it was luck? He still had to give a reason for his decision, i dont think he said "i feel lucky so im vetoing cloud, kthx." I still would like the official reason for the removal of cloud from the panel. Also the fact that you dont see how a game can be turned around, doesnt mean it cant happen, or that others cant see it happening. Hence cloud voted for a regame. Apparently he, and perhaps others can see it. This is why you have to have at least 5 persons on a panel and an unanymous decision. This is indeed not Romania, but i have my reasons to smell fish in the air. The rules state that you have to have a good reason to veto someone, so i doubt that you can just veto out of the blue. Or if you did, then you broke the rules. He happened to veto exactly the guy that would have said regame with no reason whatsoever. Damn, thats lucky. Also, some food for thought, my romanian unbiased friend. Try to think that it was nightend with a huge advantage, and nightend disconnecting. Try to imagine the legions of boxer fans yelling that omg the emperor could come back with clutch drops and micro and stuff, after all he is the emperor. Try to imagine that the panel would be determined and that they would give the victory to a disconecting nightend. Wow, sorry, but i just can't imagine that happening, the internet would implode
Cloud plays terran actively, Tyler plays protoss actively. If they'd be objective they'd recognize that either it wasn't 99% chance won by Boxer or that there would be no chance to come back for NightEnd (and I agree with both, no chance for nightend but boxer wasn't exactly destroying his main).
As for NightEnd dcing in a reversed situation we will never know. The legion of angry fans would have come whine after the decision would be taken, with no relevance or power to do anything.
And as for the last part, living in Romania turned you too paranoid. Not everyone tries to screw others over, unfortunately it's just a disease for us. Going to give TL the benefit of being innocent until someone will prove them guilty.
Talking about not being a clear win for Boxer, did you check his minerals/gas and production facilities? overall I think it's about 2x the resources NightEnd had stored or in production. On top of a 100% larger army food wise (phoenix/viking removed due to ghosts and vikings dying by default to that many phoenixes). Without any AoE attacks. There is no chance to break that many marauders with just gateways and I'd be willing to change my mind if you can find at least one game where that happened.
Maybe earlier in the game he could have made a comeback but not when NightEnd needed colossus and couldn't afford mass sentries or templar tech or charge or blink. The entire standing army of NE was from a recent warpin and the phoenix did nothing for him yet he continued to produce them. 2 bases aren't going to support 9 gates a robo and 2 stargates. Can probably barely go with 1 robo 5 gates and some upgrade against 2 base with gold mineral support and a 3rd 20 sec from being online, that apparently could run reactor starport, 6 rax and 2-3 upgrades (infantry and/or air weapons). It was unfortunately over when he lost the first batch of colossus. Unless Boxer would have actually allowed him to get back to 4+ colossus, gateway can't do much vs outnumbering marauders that are also +1 ahead in upgrades (2-1 vs 1-0).
The games were close but after game 3 it was pretty clear mass viking/marauder + ghost beats mass phoenix/colossus. Templars were needed for the 1st 200/200 battle and they just were never there, in either game.
|
TL did a very good job handling this in a very transparent manner. I wish MLG would be this open with the community about the rules decisions they make.
By the way, if this happened at an MLG, the game would be replayed, no matter how one sided it was. This happened in Halo at the national championships one year, where a team was literally a second away from winning a series, and they disconnected and ended up losing the series.
Here's their rule
"3. In the case of a Computer/Monitor/Internet/Battle.net malfunction, the Game will be restarted from the beginning."
|
On March 21 2011 01:30 ptz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 01:08 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 00:59 ptz wrote:im really curious as to why Boxer vetoed Cloud and Nend vetoed Tyler. The rules clearly seem to state that: "Players will have the opportunity to veto any of the members of panel if they have good reason to do so (e.g. bias)". So for the sake of transparency, i want to know what the good reasons that Boxer and Nend gave to remove Cloud and Tyler from the process. This seems to be a huge point, since if Cloud was on the panel it would be a regame. So how did Boxer know to veto exactly the guy that denied him the win and what was the reasoning behind it? I smell fish in this Also i wont comment on the "having the game absolutely won" part. There is no way you can say this unless the terran army is in the protoss main killing buildings. The way things were, the terran had a big advantage but you cannot say it was a 100% win. Comebacks have happened, and i dont find it fair to reward the disconecting player. Luck. Since nobody had said anything before veto it could only be luck. Comeback without templar tech or chargelots or blink stalkers when NightEnd didn't even have the economy to get those cause he was so so so behind in army? I simply don't see any way NightEnd could have turned that around without AoE. In the next 30s Boxer would be on 40+ marauders to NightEnd's 20 stalkers and gazillion phoenix and oh, 1 colossus. This is not Romania mister, there's no reason to smell fish behind every decision. Veto doesn't require people to give reasons I suppose, or we would have had some. Best reason is prolly what even Boxer said, he considered he had 8:2 advantage, a terran being objective may have recognized that. Luck? That is your oppinion that it was luck? He still had to give a reason for his decision, i dont think he said "i feel lucky so im vetoing cloud, kthx." I still would like the official reason for the removal of cloud from the panel. Also the fact that you dont see how a game can be turned around, doesnt mean it cant happen, or that others cant see it happening. Hence cloud voted for a regame. Apparently he, and perhaps others can see it. This is why you have to have at least 5 persons on a panel and an unanymous decision. This is indeed not Romania, but i have my reasons to smell fish in the air. The rules state that you have to have a good reason to veto someone, so i doubt that you can just veto out of the blue. Or if you did, then you broke the rules. He happened to veto exactly the guy that would have said regame with no reason whatsoever. Damn, thats lucky. Also, some food for thought, my romanian unbiased friend. Try to think that it was nightend with a huge advantage, and nightend disconnecting. Try to imagine the legions of boxer fans yelling that omg the emperor could come back with clutch drops and micro and stuff, after all he is the emperor. Try to imagine that the panel would be determined and that they would give the victory to a disconecting nightend. Wow, sorry, but i just can't imagine that happening, the internet would implode
Unlikely to be luck.
Boxer obviously knows who MC, Morrow, and Tyler are. He may even know Nazgul since Naz has been in Korea for a while and at events with Huk/Jinro/oGs-TL
But he probably isn't familiar with Cloud so why not veto the person you are unfamiliar with?
I don't think its fishy at all. If you know someone is a good player or associated with a good team then you are more likely to trust their analysis to be good.
Boxer probably unfamiliar with Cloud the most so he's gonna veto Cloud. It's what I would do in his position, and what I think most people would do as well -- veto the person you know the least about
|
No offense, but I think a lot of complainers are barking up the wrong tree.
The point isn't to punish DCers, but to deter anyone from intentionally DCing to gain an advantage. There's nothing morally wrong with DCing, and it's not in anyone's control (except when they cheat). By having this panel, and requiring unanimous support for the DCer to be granted a win, there is NO point in trying to cheat by DCing. If you are at such a huge advantage, it's easier to just win. Also, how do you know if your opponent just made some DTs, got some sneaky upgrades, can hit a gosu EMP/storm, etc? You can't, except through maphacking lol.
Also, it'd be great to have MKP and others on speed dial to ask as refs...but they're busy. Sure, it'd be great to pay top players to not play in TSL and act as refs...but TL made the best out of this situation.
The real question is why nightend vetoed.
Maybe boxer's gf told him about cloud's comments against koreans in NASL lulz (if memory serves me correctly)
|
Hey I just watched game 1 of boxer vs nightend.
That was a good decision in my opinion. I believe that Boxer would have won this game hands down. His stim-marauder-medivac army would have destroyed the third base and Nightend's remaining army.
Very nice OP by the way, very professional.
|
On March 21 2011 01:44 Resolve wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 01:23 terrorist112358 wrote:On March 21 2011 01:10 zeru wrote:On March 21 2011 01:04 terrorist112358 wrote:On March 21 2011 00:54 zeru wrote:On March 21 2011 00:47 Blueblister wrote:On March 21 2011 00:43 zeru wrote:On March 21 2011 00:34 Blueblister wrote:Thats not true, identifying a underlying problem is valuable in itself. Even if you do not have the time or ability to find a solution yourself someone else might be able to. Furthermore just informing others of your opinion also has a value in itself. Therefore, I've created a topic for it here. If you can't even explain why you think the way you do, and can't provide a valid, thought through opinion, you aren't providing any kind of valuable stand point that anyone is going to take seriously. If a baby sits on something that is too hot it just cries without moving because it doesn't know what is hurting. This is still valuable as it alarms the child's father who can then come and solve the problem. If you don't even understand why you disagree yourself then don't post. You seem to be using fallacies in every single post you write. You will not succeed in your little attempt to implicate that if someone doesn't have a solution, then he doesn't understand a problem. He absolutely understands why he disagrees. Finding another solution to the problem is however a completely different issue from understanding a problem. The Japanese understand very well what's going on with their reactor, what the problem is. They did from the start. Finding a solution to it on the other hand, is a long and difficult process. Arguing with such shortsighted and underhanded opinions as yours only supports me that I am right. All I'm saying is if you disagree with the decisions and the reasons the judges had to give boxer the game, you should state why you disagree, not just state that you disagree. It's as simple as that. It's simply pathetic to see people disagree with the decisions the judges have made and all the miss quoting that has happened in the topic. It's like looking at a bronze league player saying the builds MC's uses are complete garbage. This is false analogy. Bronze league has nothing to do with this. I'm gonna make a list of fallacies you used. There is still plenty you didn't touch. But you're getting there. People in this thread are massively stating their agreement with the decision without any reasons why. Yet you would like to remove the ability for the disagreeing people to do so. Why? Because you fear that it would show something you wouldn't like. There would be no reason for you to try denying it if you didn't fear it. What's there to elaborate on agreeing with the panel? The panel already gave all the reasons for favouring giving the win to boxer. Should we post "I agree with the panel because *repeats whatever the panel said*". I don't see a point of posting more than that if there's nothing to add. Posts that agree with the panel are important because it gives an indication to the organisers that they are moving in the right direction. Of course you can agree with something but also provide suggestions to improve the rules, which some posters indicated. Disagreeing is an entirely different thing, because there are no arguments for disagreement posted up in the first place as the panel all favoured the Boxer win. Posters who disagree should elaborate on the reasons why, like "I disagree with the panel's decision because NE had a huge chance of coming back. His phoenix will rhave enough energy to lift in about 10 seconds, and he will be able to warp-in sufficient reinforcements to block off the attack etc." (I didn't watch the game, this is all made up.)", basically identifying some points that the panel may have missed out. So posting one liners like "I disagree" are worthless: yes it shows disagreement but it does not identify what is wrong. Some of these posts may just be from posters who don't even put in any effort to think about what they're writing.
Some of the agreeing posts "may just be from posters who don't even put in any effort to think about what they're writing" as well. They may be terran, they may be boxer's fans. There is plenty of reasons why. The point is that only criticizing the rules or administration without any alternative provided is not allowed. Disagreeing is entirely allowed by the rules and it is specifically written there. No one said that you can't disagree without stating the reasons. Yet there are posts obviously flagged for it. Agreeing and disagreeing is so simple that you are a lot of times provided with just two buttons in a poll and nobody really cares about the reasons. You on the other hand want to prevent the disagreeing from posting and if not possible, at least make it as difficult as it can be for them. (having them write some kind of analysis). I really wonder why you're so scared of a different opinion.
I disagree with the decision, I disagree with the rules and have provided an alternative. All following the rules. Can you live with that?
|
I don't see anyway for Nightend to come back in that game. Boxer is about to get his fourth base running with nightend unable to get a fourth. Boxer has almost complete vision of his side of the map along with all possible expansions for nightend, a superior army, better upgrades, and all of his bases are as safe as you can get. Let's say he survives the engagement at the third how is Nightend going to go on the offensive with the unit composition he has and is unable to transition out of? I mean he could attack a planetary fortress with inferior numbers, attack the main without being able to reinforce, or harass with phoenixs once they have energy and have no lifts for any battles.
I don't see any problem with giving boxer the win for a game he had practically won. I think some people just think that since its Boxer he is being favored for some reason. If this was a different player i don't see it being that controversial.
|
On March 21 2011 01:52 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 01:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win.. Yeah I agree with this and what I was saying was: What if Boxer backed up and didn't engage at that point? Seeing 14 stalkers might have triggered him to play it safe and back up. Having complete vision of the map, this clearly would not be a wise decision, but boxer didn't have that. Maybe I'm doing too much what-ifs, but I just don't see how this was a 100% win in every possible scenario.
If Boxer backed up he was 10s away from 34 marauders, 5 vikings, 10+ marines, 3 medivacs, 2 ghosts (and already paid for 5 more marauders, 2 more vikings, few more marines). Plus a decent line of turrets in sensitive spots, and a PF to camp everything on and a 4th CC on the way to being saturated. Versus what, 15 stalkers, 1 zealot, 1 colossus? 5 more stalkers and a few more zealots soon after that? Can you actually say the protoss has any chance in an engagement? Just build turrets and camp the protoss gold and it should be enough. He was so solid in prduction that he could have kept the food advantage easilly until he would have reached 200/200 again.
Imo NightEnd just engaged too early after he got 200/200, didn't plan on a tech upgrade/switch in the event he lost the first time, he had no money stockpiled and he gave what he had away to get that stalker defense force. All he needed was to stall for 1 min to get templar archives going and the gold base up and defended and a few k of minerals and gas.
|
Norway28553 Posts
On March 21 2011 01:10 GeorgeForeman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 23:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 20 2011 14:24 MechaCthulhu wrote:
First of all, I agree completely with the judges' ruling. It's clear Boxer was far, far ahead in the game at the point he dropped.
However, I disagree with the policy. I really don't like how by disconnect while way ahead, a player can remove their chance of making a mistake that costs them the game. To be sure, the current policy doesn't allow a player to get just barely ahead and then disconnect, but in my eyes, any situation other than "the disconnecting player about to destroy the other player's last few buildings, while the other player doesn't have any army or workers" should be a re-game. It just does not seem fair to take away a player's chance to win, no matter how slim that chance is.
Additionally, while I don't question the analysis of MC and Morrow, it does seem extremely odd to allow other participants of the tournament to make such a decision. It could easily open the process up to accusations of corruption, when there's no reason that players in the TSL need to be involved. this policy fully takes into consideration that a player can make mistakes that can cost him the game. wins are only awareded to the disconnecting player if the disconnecting player would win the game even while constantly making mistakes. e.g. ; the simulation of the battle featured the marauder army simply stimming and attack moving, no micro, no emps, no nothing. It does make the assumption that the disconnecting player is not magically going to stop playing for 3 minutes, but boxers macro could severly slip, his micro could be nearly nonexistant, and his decisionmaking wrong - he'd still win the game. intentionally disconnecting in a scenario like this would be far, far more likely to result in a regame and possibly a loss than not disconnecting would.. basically, by continuing to play, you are continuing to play at the best of your ability. by disconnecting, the outcome of the game is determined evaluated by how you are estimated to play if you were playing at the worst of your ability. Could you address the second point the poster made? I was very surprised to learn that players participating in the tournament were going to be asked to help decide who the winer of the game was. I understand that you want to get intelligent SC people to make these decisions and that usually means top players, but why not folks who simply know the game inside and out like, say, Artosis. Otherwise, it seems possible that players might (consciously or unconsciously) be biased because they know they might have to face one of these guys later.
I have not personally been involved in selecting the panel members - but I also do not really perceive this as a big problem, or at least not a significant problem, especially not when you take into account that all players can veto one panel member. (The issue of the non-disconnector essentially never wanting to veto a player is a different issue though - my honest opinion on this is that we probably didn't think about it. But we learn as we experience stuff and get good feedback!)
Let me however write something about selecting panel members.
1: the panel members must not just be knowledgeable about starcraft 2. they must be very recognizeable as people who are knowledgeable about starcraft 2. for the panel members' opinions to hold validity, people must assume that whoever wrote it knows what he is talking about, it being a highly recognizeable name is beneficial. As this is the team liquid forums and the TSL is the brainchild of this community, a name being familiar to this community thus becomes even more important. hardly any names are more recognizeable than a) participants in the TSL, and b) moderators/admins/teamliquid members/long time community contributors. All the 5 mentioned panel members involved in this decision fit very nicely with this group.
2: accountability is also important. This further solidifies the point made in 1:; we need to know that panel members will spend time and effort into doing as good of a job as they can do. Participants in the TSL are to a very high degree interested in this tournament looking as good as it can look, and they are to a very high degree interested in maintaining as good relations as possible with the tournament organizers. Now, this point is of enormous importance because: the panel knows the result before the result goes live. What happens if someone spoils the result? The tournament is seriously hurt - this is the biggest fear we can possibly have when hosting from replays. Will someone who is still in the tournament spoil these results, knowing that it could lead to serious consequences for their own participation? Obviously we can never know, but the likelihood is much, much smaller than someone who has no real affiliation with the site/tournament..
3: players must not only be skilled, but also very knowledgeable and capable of articulating their knowledge.
Now, I will admit that say, sen, would have been a bad choice for helping decide the winner of this match, as it would possibly enable him to choose his own opponent. Morrow might not have been ideal, as he only has to win two games before he possibly meets boxer. But there aren't THAT many players who fit all these three criteria to the necessary degree.. They also must be willing to participate - and being a panel member does require quite some time spent on analyzing and writing responses to just one game.
|
Norway28553 Posts
On March 21 2011 01:50 TheConquereer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 01:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win.. Even Boxer said it was 8:2 for him, thats a 20%.
I think that's just some "lost in translation" thing or whatever. there's no way boxer would lose this game 20% of the time, boxer knows that, nightend knows that, everyone who watched the replay and stopped it after 18:49 rather than 19:00 knows that.
The issue is rather whether nightend had even 1% chance of winning, because being robbed of even 1% chance of winning is something you can argue should not happen. personally, I think if they played out the game after boxer disconnected 100 times, boxer would win 100 times. I think if I took over boxer's control right after he disconnected, I myself would win 100 times. if you watched the replay and examined the situation after 19:00, I understand that it looks differently, because nightend had 11 seconds to damage boxers units, form a proper arc, gain more mana on his phoenixes and be closer to finishing his round of warpins, but when you look at it from the 18:49 mark there's just no way boxer can lose. he wins the fight if they fight right away, and his reinforcements are both closer and more numerous than nightends, his tech is superior, his income is superior..
|
On March 21 2011 02:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 01:50 TheConquereer wrote:On March 21 2011 01:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Mandalor, if the panel felt that nightend had anywhere close to a 10% chance of winning, a regame would absolutely have happened. a win was given to boxer because the panel members felt that he had the game virtually 100% won - even if boxer started playing much worse than before, if he didn't launch another emp, only made marauders and marines and did nothing but attack move, basically played the rest of the game at the level of a reasonably high diamond player, he would still win.. Even Boxer said it was 8:2 for him, thats a 20%. I think that's just some "lost in translation" thing or whatever. there's no way boxer would lose this game 20% of the time, boxer knows that, nightend knows that, everyone who watched the replay and stopped it after 18:49 rather than 19:00 knows that. The issue is rather whether nightend had even 1% chance of winning, because being robbed of even 1% chance of winning is something you can argue should not happen. personally, I think if they played out the game after boxer disconnected 100 times, boxer would win 100 times. I think if I took over boxer's control right after he disconnected, I myself would win 100 times. if you watched the replay and examined the situation after 19:00, I understand that it looks differently, because nightend had 11 seconds to damage boxers units, form a proper arc, gain more mana on his phoenixes and be closer to finishing his round of warpins, but when you look at it from the 18:49 mark there's just no way boxer can lose. he wins the fight if they fight right away, and his reinforcements are both closer and more numerous than nightends, his tech is superior, his income is superior..
But boxer did NOT have all that info you have now when he was still playing. That's the point. And it was because of this that he said 8:2 as I understand. He might have pulled back and give Nightend some critical time.
his reinforcements are both closer and more numerous than nightends, his tech is superior, his income is superior..
I've seen so many situations where the leading player screwed this advantage. Strong advantage is not guaranteed win. Such a sentence you said sets a pretty dangerous precedence and grounds to dc exploitations. They might just think "Hey, I would win 99% sure, let's not risk it and DC". The panel should have only two options: rematch of loss for the DCed player. And only if the non-dced player was abusing the rules or game mechanics to prolong the game unreasonably, should such a player be awarded a loss (and disqualified afterwards). That's my solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
