|
On March 21 2011 02:34 terrorist112358 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 02:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: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.
yes, that may be true if army sizes and everything were the same and boxer was sitting in his base. boxer was in his face. he sensed a huge advantage. why in the world would he just turn around? there was also really nowhere left for him to expand that boxer would not find out about quickly, IIRC.
sensing 8:2 advantage is NOT 2:8 odds that you'd just turn around. more like .1%, imo
|
To be honest I can't support this decision... IMO if YOU get disconnected it's YOUR responsibility and I'm sure Boxer couldn't control the DC at all still... tough shit.
My biggest criticism of this game is that because it's so hard to make a comeback the game is full of quitters and nobody even tries to come back if they are behind. If you even stay in the game and try to make a comeback half the people just talk trash about how bm you are for not leaving... the people that play this game don't believe in the "never give up" attitude and I guarantee you a LOT of pros have quit out of incredibly important games that they could have won because the general attitude of this game is that if you are behind you should just quit instead of "wasting everyone time" trying to come back. Imagine if a basketball team was down 20 and they just walked off the court at half time and went home... we would never see any amazing comebacks.
Would nightend have won? Probably not. Probably not. I don't think it's fair to deny him that chance because the other guy got disconnected..
All that being said if the panel can sleep at night after denying nightend a chance at making an epic comeback then I guess it's fine. Hopefully I won't get bashed for my comments but sometimes it feels like this community (sc2 in general, not necessarily TL) is a dictatorship and if you say anything the people in authority don't like they cut your head off... but I have to give you guys props for actually coming out and letting us know exactly what happened instead of saying "this is our decision deal with it".
Just out of curiosity, what happens if a boxer (no pun intended...a fighting boxer not a slaying one) is incredibly far ahead after the 11th round of a 12 round fight and he breaks his leg walking back to his corner after the round? Does he get an auto-win because he was far ahead? (I doubt it)
|
On March 21 2011 02:34 terrorist112358 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 02:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: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. Show nested quote +
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.
But there is no critical time. Boxer has about double the useful army value, more money, better economy. NightEnd needs at least 4 minutes to get to 5 colossus and can get to ~40 stalkers while not attempting to ever expand or tech switch.
In 4 minutes Boxer has map control, gets to 15 vikings, can get as many marauders as he likes, as many new raxes as he likes or just pushes in within 1-2 minutes and destroys everything NightEnd has due to being maxed while NightEnd is not (if you check supply when he DCed he also has a few less harvesters than NightEnd, the army difference is high and he can maintain and possibly increase it.
|
I don't know why there are some people whining about this decision. This is not a random decision based on Boxer's reputation.
It was based on tourney rules and a decision by the panels with absolutely top players in the world right now. What I love the most is the player was given a veto on panel members. Don't know why NightEnd didn't veto out MC though.
Always admire TeamLiquid for their by the book decisions.
TSL go go go !!!
|
On March 21 2011 02:47 Neo.NEt wrote:
To be honest I can't support this decision... IMO if YOU get disconnected it's YOUR responsibility and I'm sure Boxer couldn't control the DC at all still... tough shit.
My biggest criticism of this game is that because it's so hard to make a comeback the game is full of quitters and nobody even tries to come back if they are behind. If you even stay in the game and try to make a comeback half the people just talk trash about how bm you are for not leaving... the people that play this game don't believe in the "never give up" attitude and I guarantee you a LOT of pros have quit out of incredibly important games that they could have won because the general attitude of this game is that if you are behind you should just quit instead of "wasting everyone time" trying to come back. Imagine if a basketball team was down 20 and they just walked off the court at half time and went home... we would never see any amazing comebacks.
Would nightend have won? Probably not. Probably not. I don't think it's fair to deny him that chance because the other guy got disconnected..
All that being said if the panel can sleep at night after denying nightend a chance at making an epic comeback then I guess it's fine.
How can it be his responsibility, he does not control the entire chain of ISPs from Korea to the US where the game was played. Epic comebacks happen if you have the tools or are normally a very creative player (let's say a WhiteRa that likes to be aggressive and sometimes sneaky, Boxer that never ever gives up even when everyone on TL whines that he should GG cause it's lost).
Watch game 3, it's a perfect example and NightEnd was in a better position on his way to recovery. After the first engagements Boxer kept poking and slowing down NightEnd's development until his army was big enough to just stomp - also reason why I believe Boxer could have also pulled back from NightEnd's 3rd, maybe just taking positions on NightEnd's gold for a while.
|
On March 21 2011 02:56 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 02:47 Neo.NEt wrote:
To be honest I can't support this decision... IMO if YOU get disconnected it's YOUR responsibility and I'm sure Boxer couldn't control the DC at all still... tough shit.
My biggest criticism of this game is that because it's so hard to make a comeback the game is full of quitters and nobody even tries to come back if they are behind. If you even stay in the game and try to make a comeback half the people just talk trash about how bm you are for not leaving... the people that play this game don't believe in the "never give up" attitude and I guarantee you a LOT of pros have quit out of incredibly important games that they could have won because the general attitude of this game is that if you are behind you should just quit instead of "wasting everyone time" trying to come back. Imagine if a basketball team was down 20 and they just walked off the court at half time and went home... we would never see any amazing comebacks.
Would nightend have won? Probably not. Probably not. I don't think it's fair to deny him that chance because the other guy got disconnected..
All that being said if the panel can sleep at night after denying nightend a chance at making an epic comeback then I guess it's fine. How can it be his responsibility, he does not control the entire chain of ISPs from Korea to the US where the game was played. Epic comebacks happen if you have the tools or are normally a very creative player (let's say a WhiteRa that likes to be aggressive and sometimes sneaky, Boxer that never ever gives up even when everyone on TL whines that he should GG cause it's lost). Watch game 3, it's a perfect example and NightEnd was in a better position on his way to recovery. After the first engagements Boxer kept poking and slowing down NightEnd's development until his army was big enough to just stomp - also reason why I believe Boxer could have also pulled back from NightEnd's 3rd, maybe just taking positions on NightEnd's gold for a while.
I probably added the boxing example after you posted that but it's the same thing. Is it his fault he had a freak accident and broke his leg? Is it your fault that somebody hit you on the way to work so you were late and got fired? Or that your house got robbed and you can't afford to pay your bills? You can't necessarily control any of those things but you are the only person who should have to take responsibility for that.
I'm 99% sure that Boxer was going to win that game but I don't think it's fair to deny Nightend that chance because the other guy had a freak accident.
|
On March 21 2011 02:56 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 02:47 Neo.NEt wrote:
To be honest I can't support this decision... IMO if YOU get disconnected it's YOUR responsibility and I'm sure Boxer couldn't control the DC at all still... tough shit.
My biggest criticism of this game is that because it's so hard to make a comeback the game is full of quitters and nobody even tries to come back if they are behind. If you even stay in the game and try to make a comeback half the people just talk trash about how bm you are for not leaving... the people that play this game don't believe in the "never give up" attitude and I guarantee you a LOT of pros have quit out of incredibly important games that they could have won because the general attitude of this game is that if you are behind you should just quit instead of "wasting everyone time" trying to come back. Imagine if a basketball team was down 20 and they just walked off the court at half time and went home... we would never see any amazing comebacks.
Would nightend have won? Probably not. Probably not. I don't think it's fair to deny him that chance because the other guy got disconnected..
All that being said if the panel can sleep at night after denying nightend a chance at making an epic comeback then I guess it's fine. How can it be his responsibility, he does not control the entire chain of ISPs from Korea to the US where the game was played. Epic comebacks happen if you have the tools or are normally a very creative player (let's say a WhiteRa that likes to be aggressive and sometimes sneaky, Boxer that never ever gives up even when everyone on TL whines that he should GG cause it's lost). Watch game 3, it's a perfect example and NightEnd was in a better position on his way to recovery. After the first engagements Boxer kept poking and slowing down NightEnd's development until his army was big enough to just stomp - also reason why I believe Boxer could have also pulled back from NightEnd's 3rd, maybe just taking positions on NightEnd's gold for a while.
Yeah, how can one says that the disconnect was Boxer's fail.
And people don't seem to realize the this is not about the situation in the game. Its about the decision.
This decision was made by a panels that BOTH players agreed upon and according to the RULES that EVERY players in the TSL accepted before entering the tourney.
Whining against this decision will just make one looks silly.
|
On March 21 2011 03:03 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 02:56 dakalro wrote:On March 21 2011 02:47 Neo.NEt wrote:
To be honest I can't support this decision... IMO if YOU get disconnected it's YOUR responsibility and I'm sure Boxer couldn't control the DC at all still... tough shit.
My biggest criticism of this game is that because it's so hard to make a comeback the game is full of quitters and nobody even tries to come back if they are behind. If you even stay in the game and try to make a comeback half the people just talk trash about how bm you are for not leaving... the people that play this game don't believe in the "never give up" attitude and I guarantee you a LOT of pros have quit out of incredibly important games that they could have won because the general attitude of this game is that if you are behind you should just quit instead of "wasting everyone time" trying to come back. Imagine if a basketball team was down 20 and they just walked off the court at half time and went home... we would never see any amazing comebacks.
Would nightend have won? Probably not. Probably not. I don't think it's fair to deny him that chance because the other guy got disconnected..
All that being said if the panel can sleep at night after denying nightend a chance at making an epic comeback then I guess it's fine. How can it be his responsibility, he does not control the entire chain of ISPs from Korea to the US where the game was played. Epic comebacks happen if you have the tools or are normally a very creative player (let's say a WhiteRa that likes to be aggressive and sometimes sneaky, Boxer that never ever gives up even when everyone on TL whines that he should GG cause it's lost). Watch game 3, it's a perfect example and NightEnd was in a better position on his way to recovery. After the first engagements Boxer kept poking and slowing down NightEnd's development until his army was big enough to just stomp - also reason why I believe Boxer could have also pulled back from NightEnd's 3rd, maybe just taking positions on NightEnd's gold for a while. Yeah, how can one says that the disconnect was Boxer's fail. And people don't seem to realize the this is not about the situation in the game. Its about the decision. This decision was made by a panels that BOTH players agreed upon and according to the RULES that EVERY players in the TSL accepted before entering the tourney. Whining against this decision will just make one looks silly.
Just because the players agreed to the rules doesn't make them fair... what are they going to do not play in the tournament because the other guy might disconnect? I don't want to take anything away from this tournament because it's going to be insane and I don't have a HUGE problem with this decision in particular but I think it sets a scary precedent... let's just hope this doesn't happen as we get further down the road.
|
TSL is so good with its decision making. xD
Getting top panel players to agree on the decision? That's really smart. Their expertise really gives this decision credibility, and I think the process itself is fair as well. It's unfortunate disconnects happen, but this one was very well handled. Bravo.
|
On March 21 2011 03:12 ghrur wrote:
TSL is so good with its decision making. xD
Getting top panel players to agree on the decision? That's really smart. Their expertise really gives this decision credibility, and I think the process itself is fair as well. It's unfortunate disconnects happen, but this one was very well handled. Bravo.
Yeah it's nice to have top players on the panel but do you really think it's a good idea to have top players who are still in the tournament on the panel?
|
On March 21 2011 03:12 ghrur wrote:
TSL is so good with its decision making. xD
Getting top panel players to agree on the decision? That's really smart. Their expertise really gives this decision credibility, and I think the process itself is fair as well. It's unfortunate disconnects happen, but this one was very well handled. Bravo.
I agree. The methodology is extremely proffessional. This is pretty much the best approach of any tournament. And even better is the complete transparency that is being implemented.
|
On March 21 2011 02:47 Neo.NEt wrote:
To be honest I can't support this decision... IMO if YOU get disconnected it's YOUR responsibility and I'm sure Boxer couldn't control the DC at all still... tough shit.
I don't get how it is Boxer's responsibility. He is playing from Korea servers and TSL invited him.
My biggest criticism of this game is that because it's so hard to make a comeback the game is full of quitters and nobody even tries to come back if they are behind. If you even stay in the game and try to make a comeback half the people just talk trash about how bm you are for not leaving... the people that play this game don't believe in the "never give up" attitude and I guarantee you a LOT of pros have quit out of incredibly important games that they could have won because the general attitude of this game is that if you are behind you should just quit instead of "wasting everyone time" trying to come back. Imagine if a basketball team was down 20 and they just walked off the court at half time and went home... we would never see any amazing comebacks.
Comebacks are hard because Blizzard maps are too small. You win a battle then you're in the base after 10 seconds. If this were a GSL map, a regame would've probably been called imo.
Just out of curiosity, what happens if a boxer (no pun intended...a fighting boxer not a slaying one) is incredibly far ahead after the 11th round of a 12 round fight and he breaks his leg walking back to his corner after the round? Does he get an auto-win because he was far ahead? (I doubt it)
Starcraft is not boxing. No point in comparing.
|
TL did a good job with this game and I'm happy that the community is seeing this as such. Very through explination from tyler and morrow. Good decision. With the explination I feel a little bit better about the outcome.
|
On March 21 2011 00:41 Blueblister wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 00:34 psychopat wrote:
If it required the whole panel to be unanimous in order to award a win, why would Nightend veto anyone? Bigger panel = bigger chance for a regame... He knew he was somewhere between a little and a whole boatload behind, so I personally wouldn't have vetoed anyone just to put more odds on my side.
Clutch veto by Boxer though!
I really got to give it to TL for the transparency. It's never easy in this type of situation and this is pretty much the best way to handle it, regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision itself. My only criticism is how some of the refs were players. I don't doubt that they acted objectively but with these types of ethics, it's best to avoid even the appearance of possible wrongdoing. Yes this is another problem. Players wasn't informed of the detailed rules. The administration should have objected when NightEnd wanted a veto and explained to him that his action could confusingly only be to his opponents benefit. I applaud the transparency of the decision-making process though. I get the impression that the administration is very professional =D
What you forgetting is that according to the rules the vetoed judges would be replaced by others judges so the panel could remain with 5 judges. Was a logistic problem that TL was not able to find the replacement fast enough.
"While we were looking for more panel members, both players agreed to a 3 man panel instead of 5. We want to thank everyone for stepping up and helping us out. "
Nightend was right on vetoing , the only problem is since he was nice enough to let the panel be small for the sake of convenience for the tournament organizers he lost his chance of getting a another 2 judges.
|
Interesting analysis of the decision, glad to see that you like to clarify such and not keep it hidden. I don't know how I feel about the decision, but I'll trust that a panel of pros at least know a little bit more than me  Good work guys, keeps it up.
|
Thank you very much TL for taking the time to study this DC very in depth. The thought process put into this issue is a lot and it is very nice to see the deep consideration and immense care put it this process. This shows the immense amount of professionalism put into what you guys do and its awesome to see.
|
Thank you TL for making sure a clear and well-thought out explanation post. This process seems extremely fair and the decision reached was reasonable. Keep up the great work ^^
|
I think a system that could work is that, in this situation, Boxer gets the 1-0 as he clearly had a large advantage but the game turns into a best-of-5, to slightly punish Boxer and give Nightend more of a chance of a comeback. Thoughts ?
|
On March 20 2011 10:00 VuFFeR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2011 09:46 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 09:39 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 09:27 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 09:21 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 09:12 JackDino wrote:On March 20 2011 09:06 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:55 Vorenius wrote:On March 20 2011 08:46 VuFFeR wrote:On March 20 2011 08:43 JackDino wrote:
[quote]
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.
Please be so kind as to tell me why that doesn't make sense. In the first case it should be a regame so he won't get punished Now the other way around he loses so we don't encourage deliberate dcs. You are still missing the point. The judges ruled that boxer was gonna win the game with 100% certainty. If they had been in doubt at all it would have gone to regame. Consider a game where a terran player refuses to leave after losing to a 4gate. He floats his CC away and AFKs. Then the toss puts down a stargate makes a voidray flies it towards the last remaining building and then DCes on teh way there. Would you have that game be replayed aswell? In both games the judges would have ruled that the guy had won with 100% certainty and awarded him the game, so it is in fact the same situation. Just because you fail to realise boxer had the game won doesn't mean it wasn't true. And if you would have a game like the one I outlined above re-played then you are either trolling or clueless. Either way there is no points arguing with you :s EDIT: I only just realised you have 12 posts total >_< Nvm, then. Enjoy you ban. 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. 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. 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. 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
You don't want as little judges as possible yet you see yourself fit to judge about this specific situation afterall, deciding it should be a rematch requires judges aswell. You're doing it right now, saying 3 judges on the panel are wrong in this situation while you are right.
You need to realize that dcs can happen for whatever reason instead of assuming people dc purposely or people have a bad connection.
|
I am very impressed by the depth of consideration given towards the situation. I don't follow SC2 at all (just came to peak at results since I'm rooting for my favorite ex-BWprogamers) but it looked very thoroughly thought out and the simulation was... well, wow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
