EPTOrb vs Isai Cyberground Tournament ruling/issue - Page 2
| Blogs > LuckyFool |
|
EleanorRIgby
Canada3923 Posts
| ||
|
deth
Australia1757 Posts
But that aside, his behaviour alone is enough for me to not feel in the least bit sorry for him. | ||
Harem
United States11390 Posts
On September 26 2010 18:23 Sentenal wrote: I've never even seen the guy get mad before Ask to play him on HBR imo. I hear that he loves that map. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
Thanks, SpoR. | ||
|
Nokarot
United States1410 Posts
a) The simple fact that its even up for debate, by proxy, suggests that a regame was absolutely necessary. You can't award a win to someone unless you know that, without a shadow of a doubt, it was simply impossible for them to lose. b) You cant judge a game based off assumptions. A couple things orb had said about the game was that he could pull each and every probe off his expansion, lose it, and still be ahead. By worker count, sure (although terran mules would change that number a bit), but surely I'm not the only one who has gotten absolutely thrashed by a bio-ball and immediately pushed in to my main. Secondly, proper kiting (even if he kited so long that zealot legs finished) would change things drastically. The fact is that this disconnect happened BEFORE the major game-deciding engagement, and anything could have happened. Someone here says that they tested it in a build-order-tester and made these two armies fight one another with 0 micro and the terran came out on top- sure, maybe, but who is to say what would have been in the mind of either player in regards to a follow-up? The inside-the-game mindset works a lot differently than the post-analysis with fog of war off. Frankly, Isai could have completely botched it and gotten stomped in 3 seconds somehow. If one army stomped the other and 'then' it disconnected, then sure.. but you can't decide it mere moments before the engagement even occurred. I'm fine with orb being an internet-tough-guy, as that's what he's e-famous for and is, I have to say, expected of him. To do what he did in a LAN, though, is quite unacceptable to me. The few times I've met him at TL dinners and whatnot, he's seemed pretty chill. How one man can single-handedly tarnish what was otherwise a completely perfect LAN, though, is beyond me. Be upset at Battle.net and Blizzard- don't take it out on all your friends. | ||
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
| ||
|
HuK
Canada1591 Posts
Orb was wayyyyyyy ahead, but if the terran actually attacked immediately and charge wasn't finished in time it is very possible (depending on micro) that the terran could stream roll the protoss army and actually win the game. That being said orb was wayyyy ahead. and had charge finished terran had no chance in my eyes. | ||
|
GenoZStriker
United States2914 Posts
| ||
|
XinRan
United States530 Posts
| ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
Edit: to be clear, I'm not at all saying that this thread shouldn't have been made  By "unnecessary" I merely meant that the admins didn't have an obligation to explain themselves so well! LuckyFool has gone above and beyond in the interest of being fair and transparent. That's cool to see. | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
| ||
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
1: The admins didn't talk to me at all regarding the decision. They didn't come over to where I was showing the replay and ask for my opinion on the game. Instead, they spent 10+ minutes standing with IsAi while he showed through the replay This is terrible professionalism and isn't fair in the slightest. Obviously IsAi was telling them all about how he was about to push and how I wouldn't be able to defend and shit. Thus you miss the details I saw on my end, such as: A: If you pay attention to his pathing at the end of the game, IsAi was running after my probe mid and was getting delayed. He was going to chase down the probe until he killed it as you can see with his move actions at the very end of the game. Thus this would have delayed his push, I would have had more units, and charge would have been finished. B: Due to the fact that I had 51 probes and my opponent had 18, I could have pulled literally every probe at my expansion to help defend and would still have been ahead economically. If you think I would not have been able to defend against that with charge, more units, and ~24+ probes, you don't understand this game at all. C: Even if by some ridiculous miracle IsAi would have killed my whole army and all my nat's probes, I would have been able to be rebuilding my army the entire time the fight was going on due to my high income and GUARANTEED would have been able to follow up with a larger army due to my income being higher than IsAi's. 2: Look at the simple facts. I was at an advantage (this is thoroughly agreed upon by literally everyone who has seen this replay). Otherwise the series was even (1-1). Thus overall in the series due to this being the last game, I was at an advantage. What you did by calling a regame was completely removed that advantage (more so than you know). You evened the playing field and gave IsAi back even ground with which to play me on. Do you not see how ridiculously unfair that is? At the very least you should have given me map choice. Making me play a regame where my opponent gets to completely rethink he strategy on the most Terran favored map in the map pool is downright absurd. 3: What 99% of you don't realize is that Games 1-3 IsAi literally did the exact same build every single game. He went for an all in infantry push with SCVs every single game. The first game I was caught off guard and won. The second game I adapted and beat it. The third game I had already learned how to beat it and beat it quite easily. Then, you went and gave him a regame after having me play him 3 games in a row with the same build. What he went and did was abuse this opportunity and fast expand the next game after having all-in'd all three of the legitimate games. This kind of opportunity to change his strategy was already gone and lost by the time it failed in the actual 3rd game. To allow him to do this in an unexpected and unallowed-by-the-rules 4th game is ridiculously unfair and goes against the bo3 rules the tournament laid out. You effectively broke the rules of the tournament (you didn't even write anything in the rules about disconnects despite disconnects and problems with B.net happening in literally every single LAN we've ever done...) and by breaking those rules prevented me illegally from getting potentially up to $300 though more realistically getting at the very least $75. Quite honestly, I don't even care about the money as much as the fact that you think this is just when by hearing you in the video you clearly don't see half the stuff going on in this series or game. players opinion was considered Wow, you're going to blatantly lie to people on teamliquid too? You didn't even talk to me after the disconnect happened. I was told by Zlasher that the decision was a regame. You knew what you were doing was unfair and not right so you didn't even have the guts to come tell me your decision? This is let alone actually coming and "considering my opinion" on the game. although orb had a very large economic advantage, at the point of disconnect the game was not decided. Army composition/cost were fairly even Right, so what you're saying is that: 1: Our armies were even 2: My economy was at a "very large ... advantage" So overall I was at a "very large advantage." So with a very large advantage I couldn't be awarded the game? Instead, you have to neutralize that advantage and even the playing field? With that logic, any time anyone is starting to get a disadvantage in a tournament (or has a very large disadvantage), they should apparently pull the plug and get a regame called since apparently advantages don't mean anything in this game. In this situation a 15 probe advantage would have been enough to call it, let alone a 33 probe advantage. I also found it amusing how literally every single player that watched the game at the tournament said I had it won guaranteed, yet the tournament admins decided to disagree with everyone else there, most likely since they were over hanging out with IsAi instead of getting the full picture. On the flip side anyone who knows me knows I strive to always provide as fair a solution as possible in any situation, define rules beforehand, Well then you either failed miserably or weren't trying. Let's break this down: strive to ... provide as fair a solution as possible But oh wait, you took a huge advantage and leveled it into an even playing field (worse than even for me due to the strategy or playing 3 games getting turned into playing 4) define rules beforehand Except that in the rules document you wrote literally nothing about disconnects. I checked it multiple times. Orb was warned by TL in a post initially after the ruling (before he lost the re game) (source) and basically lost it in the thread after that Now you're literally just trying to make me look bad so that people will not believe my word. I was warned well after my last post that day was made, I didn't "lose it" after getting warned. I'm honestly disgusted with your actions. | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
On September 26 2010 17:14 mOnion wrote: oh i dont think so either, its just that he's acted like this time and time again, and to still react this way at a LAN of all things is like incomprehensible to me. i've seen players like machine, silver, lz, etc go through more disconnects for BIGGER tournaments that were only online with no personal guilt to feel for taking a win and they STILL regame while retaining good manners. i'm tired of giving orb the benefit of the doubt when he doesn't deserve it. Lay off the personal attacks. I have never done this before in my entire SC2 career as this kind of ridiculous "you have a huge advantage, now let's turn that into an advantage for your opponent instead" situation has never occurred for me before. I don't know why you have some kind of personal grudge against me, but you weren't even there at the tournament, so don't judge me when you don't even understand what happened | ||
|
Nokarot
United States1410 Posts
Everyone huddling around Isai and Luckyfools' computer watching the replay decided that it wasn't over. Maybe the admins didn't come over and talk to you, but you also didn't come over and talk to them, so you have very little idea of what was considered on the other side of the room. You cant base games on what you think would have happened. For example, you suggest that because he's chasing a probe for half a second, that 40 seconds of zealot charge (minus some if you chrono'd) would finish before he got there. As little respect as you obviously have for Isai, there's no evidence to suggest that he might not re-think chasing that probe and just attack. Concurrently, there is no evidence to suggest that he'd just attack and wouldn't just chase the probe for 3 years, but the fact of the matter is, we don't know. You also claim that you would have floated your observer over the factory and nullified it, but it's easier to say that when you're watching a replay without fog of war than it is to magically do it with no information of a factory at all (granted, i don't think the factory really mattered in that game by any means.) In the end, your entire argument for that game is based off assumptions of how the entire game would play out. You had "an" advantage (economy, not army) and thus you feel entitled to the win. "Advantage" is far from "having won the game already and just needing to go through the motions"- the word advantage suggests that someone is ahead, not that someone is going to win. At that stage in the game, if he'd attacked, you'd lost ever probe in your expo, he'd have closed the gap by a decent amount. Even if you had 37-38 workers (after theoretically losing your natural), only 30 of them are giving you max 1base income. Yes, he had shit on workers, but mules would cover that gap even more, and he may eventually build some more. That being said, everything I just said is as much theorycrafting as what you've given. As I said in an earlier post, the simple fact that its up for debate means that it absolutely has to be a re-game. "Advantage" or no, if the game wasn't essentially already over, its unfair to give a loss to someone without even giving them the chance. I don't think you can really justify feeling entitled to an advantage in the regame, either. It's bad luck that you had to regame on Lost Temple vs Terran, but no self respecting league or tournament has every changed maps for a disconnect/power outage/whatever regame. I'm honestly disgusted with your actions. It's also hard to hear something like that when you start game 3 (not the re-game even) by bitching out your opponent for picking "the most imba race on the most imba map" yada yada yada "heres a medal", followed by how you single handedly managed to tarnish an otherwise perfect LAN with all of your poor manners and disrespect. It's fine to be upset, but you're upset at the wrong people. Blame Battle.net. | ||
|
Lejving
Sweden82 Posts
| ||
|
mOnion
United States5651 Posts
On September 27 2010 03:52 -orb- wrote: Lay off the personal attacks. I have never done this before in my entire SC2 career as this kind of ridiculous "you have a huge advantage, now let's turn that into an advantage for your opponent instead" situation has never occurred for me before. I don't know why you have some kind of personal grudge against me, but you weren't even there at the tournament, so don't judge me when you don't even understand what happened you seem to think that the more ahead you are gives you the right to rage more which isnt the case. it doesn't matter what happened. it couldve been a 150k tourney on the line, doesn't matter. your reaction is completely disgraceful, add to the fact that there are/were a lot of nooby nerds who look up to you since beta and from watching your stream, you'd think you'd have the presence of mind to carry yourself in a way that doesn't make you look like a child. | ||
|
jenzebubble
United States183 Posts
| ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
On September 27 2010 03:59 mOnion wrote: you seem to think that the more ahead you are gives you the right to rage more which isnt the case. it doesn't matter what happened. it couldve been a 150k tourney on the line, doesn't matter. your reaction is completely disgraceful, add to the fact that there are/were a lot of nooby nerds who look up to you since beta and from watching your stream, you'd think you'd have the presence of mind to carry yourself in a way that doesn't make you look like a child. Here you go again assuming you know everything about the situation when you really, REALLY don't. I'll bet you didn't know IsAi started offensively GGing and trash talking me, did you? Doesn't that change the situation a little bit? Makes it a little easier to get mad at someone when they start trash talking you and offensively GGing. Please stop assuming you know everything that happened that day and that you therefore have every right to judge me from your high horse where you only have 1 small biased perspective of the events that unfolded that day. | ||
|
Nokarot
United States1410 Posts
On September 27 2010 04:04 jennicide wrote: Every respectable league/tournament has clearly defined rules that govern what do to in the event of a disconnect. That this LAN did not is as much a problem as you claim orb's reaction was. That they spent 10 minutes at one of the competitors computers discussing how to move forward tells me that they were not prepared for this situation. That they were not prepared for a disconnect tells me that they were not prepared to host a tournament. So when you argue it was orb, and solely orb, who tarnished this event you are wrong. Prior planning and preparation prevents poor performance. Perhaps I can see your point in that. I wouldn't go as far to say as that not having a disconnect rule means they weren't fit to run a tournament, however. Most everyone who was there seemed outstandingly pleased with the way things were running. While such rules are certainly the responsibility of the organizers to prepare in advance, an on-the-fly ruling for a regame after 20 minutes of analysis seemed, to me anyway, to be a worthy substitute. Maybe I'm flawed in thinking that, but the organizers/admins showed (in my opinion) professionalism in handling the issue given the fact that there were no pre-determined rules. Not having such rules is inexcusable, but I feel they made the best of the situation given them not having a rule for it. In a situation where no rule is defined, an on-the-fly judgment call was necessary. That judgment leaded to a regame, and while everyone wished such a hard call wasn't necessary, it was the best they could accomplish at that very moment. | ||
|
GenoZStriker
United States2914 Posts
On September 27 2010 04:04 jennicide wrote: Every respectable league/tournament has clearly defined rules that govern what do to in the event of a disconnect. That this LAN did not is as much a problem as you claim orb's reaction was. That they spent 10 minutes at one of the competitors computers discussing how to move forward tells me that they were not prepared for this situation. That they were not prepared for a disconnect tells me that they were not prepared to host a tournament. So when you argue it was orb, and solely orb, who tarnished this event you are wrong. Prior planning and preparation prevents poor performance. Hmmmmm and when you don't have rules for something particular and that something happens what do you do then? You come up with a possible solution to fix. What would major tournaments do? ESL + MLG = Instant regame. Other online cup = disconnect 2-3 minutes in-game = instant regame. Disconnect after 2-3 minutes in-game = player who disconnects get default win unless other player regame. Online service goes down = instant regame while other analyze replays. | ||
| ||
