This sort of thing used to happen with Xboxes at MLG. You have to put in the rules a blanket statement that any technical failure causes the game to be completely restarted. There's not really another fair way to handle it.
This sort of thing used to happen with Xboxes at MLG. You have to put in the rules a blanket statement that any technical failure causes the game to be completely restarted. There's not really another fair way to handle it.
I don't think this is right. Clear example:
Army is dead, main base is dead, all that is left is some economy spread across the map while the other player is nearly maxed. We would consider this a late gg, but if somebody's computer crashes, we want to be able to give it to the person who has clearly won.
And if you agree with me there, then we're just negotiating about what constitutes 'clearly won'.
Invictus on
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
This sort of thing used to happen with Xboxes at MLG. You have to put in the rules a blanket statement that any technical failure causes the game to be completely restarted. There's not really another fair way to handle it.
I don't think this is right. Clear example:
Army is dead, main base is dead, all that is left is some economy spread across the map while the other player is nearly maxed. We would consider this a late gg, but if somebody's computer crashes, we want to be able to give it to the person who has clearly won.
And if you agree with me there, then we're just negotiating about what constitutes 'clearly won'.
The point is to avoid the grey area entirely. There would be cases where the losing team would agree to let the other team have the win if it was clear cut. Problem is there's always situations where some people consider it a "clearly over" match and others don't. See some of Idra's ggs from a couple weeks ago. People were upset that he left, but others thought he was in a clearly unrecoverable situation.
Without clear rules you inevitably run into some pitchfork-inducing grey areas.
Let the players make the exception if it's clearly over. I don't think it's the role of the tournament organizers to play the jury.
marty_0001I am a fileand you put documents in meRegistered Userregular
Maybe they should bring in umpires like in real sports?
A penalty shootout would be nice also but is there such a thing in SC2?
0
Euphemonitsudemo sagashiteiruyodokka ni kimi no sugata woRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
Kas is about to flip the fucking table. He had game 2. It was 100% over, 4 storms or not.
In a lot of tournaments, there is functionally an "jury". The tourney admins generally judge whether a game is over or not. Sometimes they ask other players. But games are almost never awarded to a player, which makes sense because it's rare that games have reached a point where the victor is certain, yet the losing player hasn't yet forfeited. On the other hand, I think tourney admins are a little bit too far on the safe side.
This sort of thing used to happen with Xboxes at MLG. You have to put in the rules a blanket statement that any technical failure causes the game to be completely restarted. There's not really another fair way to handle it.
I don't think this is right. Clear example:
Army is dead, main base is dead, all that is left is some economy spread across the map while the other player is nearly maxed. We would consider this a late gg, but if somebody's computer crashes, we want to be able to give it to the person who has clearly won.
And if you agree with me there, then we're just negotiating about what constitutes 'clearly won'.
The point is to avoid the grey area entirely. There would be cases where the losing team would agree to let the other team have the win if it was clear cut. Problem is there's always situations where some people consider it a "clearly over" match and others don't. See some of Idra's ggs from a couple weeks ago. People were upset that he left, but others thought he was in a clearly unrecoverable situation.
Without clear rules you inevitably run into some pitchfork-inducing grey areas.
Let the players make the exception if it's clearly over. I don't think it's the role of the tournament organizers to play the jury.
My point is that you run into some pitchfork-inducing areas if you have a hard line, too. If the case happens as I described it, and the guy with no army or infrastructure down by 120 supply takes the regame as you are suggesting that he ought to be entitled to, there would be a huge outcry. Without clear lines you run into the possibility that the judgment of the decision-makers will turn out badly. With clear lines you run into the possibility that for some cases, while it's clear what the rules are because of the clear lines, it seems like what the rules clearly say is the wrong answer.
I also think it's unfair to make the players the jury, because they are definitely biased. It's unfair to the guy who wants the win he clearly earned because he's quite unlikely to get that win since it depends on the other guy making a decision against his own interest, and it's unfair to the guy who has to make that decision because it's putting him on the spot to make a decision against his own interests.
The best setup is to have people making the judgment calls who are very well positioned to make these judgments. TSL3 handled this great; it had a panel of progamers who reviewed the replay and decided whether to replay it or not.
Invictus on
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
0
marty_0001I am a fileand you put documents in meRegistered Userregular
Ah yes I see the difficulty.
0
Euphemonitsudemo sagashiteiruyodokka ni kimi no sugata woRegistered Userregular
This sort of thing used to happen with Xboxes at MLG. You have to put in the rules a blanket statement that any technical failure causes the game to be completely restarted. There's not really another fair way to handle it.
I don't think this is right. Clear example:
Army is dead, main base is dead, all that is left is some economy spread across the map while the other player is nearly maxed. We would consider this a late gg, but if somebody's computer crashes, we want to be able to give it to the person who has clearly won.
And if you agree with me there, then we're just negotiating about what constitutes 'clearly won'.
The point is to avoid the grey area entirely. There would be cases where the losing team would agree to let the other team have the win if it was clear cut. Problem is there's always situations where some people consider it a "clearly over" match and others don't. See some of Idra's ggs from a couple weeks ago. People were upset that he left, but others thought he was in a clearly unrecoverable situation.
Without clear rules you inevitably run into some pitchfork-inducing grey areas.
Let the players make the exception if it's clearly over. I don't think it's the role of the tournament organizers to play the jury.
My point is that you run into some pitchfork-inducing areas if you have a hard line, too. If the case happens as I described it, and the guy with no army or infrastructure down by 120 supply takes the regame as you are suggesting that he ought to be entitled to, there would be a huge outcry. Without clear lines you run into the possibility that the judgment of the decision-makers will turn out badly. With clear lines you run into the possibility that for some cases, while it's clear what the rules are because of the clear lines, it seems like what the rules clearly say is the wrong answer.
I also think it's unfair to make the players the jury, because they are definitely biased. It's unfair to the guy who wants the win he clearly earned because he's quite unlikely to get that win since it depends on the other guy making a decision against his interest, and it's unfair to the guy who has to make that decision because it's putting him on the spot to make a decision against his own interests.
The best setup is to have people making the judgment calls who are very well positioned to make these judgments. TSL3 handled this great; it had a panel of progamers who reviewed the replay and decided whether to replay it or not.
Also, asking other players in the tournament puts them on the spot as well. If they know they're bad against a player (race or player matchup), then they would be inclined to favor them. Obviously not as biased as the players themselves, but still. It can also lead to hard feelings or bad press if they decide against a friend or fan-favorite player. On the other hand, tourney admins don't really understand the game at the level of the pros, so it's not really fair to them to ask them to judge if it was a 100% won game or not.
Basically, it's a total shitstorm. The fairest solution really is just regame 90% of the time. It just really fucking sucks for a player in a really strong position. Not only did they lose a won (or close to), it really fucks with their mentality.
To be clear, I have no strong feelings about the Kas game; I was not watching it closely. Similarly, I'm happy with the judgment that most of the time, you ought to regame. I just think that the fairest ruleset is one where experts make the judgment call as to whether to regame, instead of just having a hard line.
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
0
TannerMS "I'm confidence cause I'm zerg!"Registered Userregular
edited March 2012
I don't understand IdrA's ZvP, he does these constant multipronged pokes and counters but it's not for anything! He's not stalling for a fast hive, he's not bringing enough to kill his opponent, nothing makes sense here.
He said he was going to copy all of DRG's replays from MLG (which were just released). Perhaps he's still transitioning to that style and hasn't figured it out yet.
What I don't understand is that Feast opening. Seriously, he could have nexus first, he could have std ffe'd, instead he builds a forge, a gateway, a cycore, then a nexus. Is he really gonna nexus cancel?
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
0
TannerMS "I'm confidence cause I'm zerg!"Registered Userregular
edited March 2012
It's just a fast 2 base 4 gate. Can't imagine how it would work against anyone who had seen it before
I think you just need to get your gas as soon as you see the core drop so you'll have speed for the attack.
Regardless of whether it's beatable, something needs to be done about 2 base allins. Fuck Protoss
Feast looking good though, cheesing two better players on his way to 2-0.
It kills me that the most of the best protosses have made their fucking careers off of nothing but blind two base all-ins.
It wasn't really an all-in (at first, anyway. It turned into one after he ended up with Immortal/Blink Stalker vs Roaches). He was building Probes the whole time, got upgrades and teched. IdrA essentially didn't build Drones for 10 minutes.
0
TannerMS "I'm confidence cause I'm zerg!"Registered Userregular
I'm sure feast was counting drones with the hallucination and observers he got. Not just crossing his fingers and 1aing
Which attack are you referring to? If you mean the last one, he was on Immortal/Blink Stalker against pure Roach, he had forced IdrA to make lots of Roaches for a long time and just fended off a big attack. Why wouldn't he attack?
It's just a fast 2 base 4 gate. Can't imagine how it would work against anyone who had seen it before
I think you just need to get your gas as soon as you see the core drop so you'll have speed for the attack.
Regardless of whether it's beatable, something needs to be done about 2 base allins. Fuck Protoss
Feast looking good though, cheesing two better players on his way to 2-0.
It kills me that the most of the best protosses have made their fucking careers off of nothing but blind two base all-ins.
So maybe Feast 'cheesed' IdrA, but against Kas, he won the first game with super standard pressure that was in no way all-in against a build that was simply unsafe, and the regame looked to me (though I did not watch it closely) as a pretty standard macro game. Feast's PvT is simply good; it's not particularly gimmicky.
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
Played some Terran during lunch. The macro feels a ton different than protoss. Mainly all the waypointing and weird upgrades going on. Never knew how many barracks with what add-ons I wanted.
Mostly, my hands felt strange. I ended up changing nearly every hotkey to be something Protoss-ish.
Scouting/drops on Q and `
Army on 1-2-3,
Command Centers on 4 with E for SCV and C for Mule
Barracks on W (lol)
Factory on 5 (usually robo)
Starport on 6 (usually stargate)
All upgrades on 7 (usually forge, tab through to get to tech-labs etc)
Build all buildings with similar things. So Barracks is G (gateway), Supply Depot is E (pylon), Command Center can be N, etc.
Reapers are indeed fun but wonky as all hell. Fun to jump up a cliff with 8 reapers and a medivac though. Unless your reapers take a Thor volley.
Played some Terran during lunch. The macro feels a ton different than protoss. Mainly all the waypointing and weird upgrades going on. Never knew how many barracks with what add-ons I wanted.
Mostly, my hands felt strange. I ended up changing nearly every hotkey to be something Protoss-ish.
Scouting/drops on Q and `
Army on 1-2-3,
Command Centers on 4 with E for SCV and C for Mule
Barracks on W (lol)
Factory on 5 (usually robo)
Starport on 6 (usually stargate)
All upgrades on 7 (usually forge, tab through to get to tech-labs etc)
Build all buildings with similar things. So Barracks is G (gateway), Supply Depot is E (pylon), Command Center can be N, etc.
Reapers are indeed fun but wonky as all hell. Fun to jump up a cliff with 8 reapers and a medivac though. Unless your reapers take a Thor volley.
Played some Terran during lunch. The macro feels a ton different than protoss. Mainly all the waypointing and weird upgrades going on. Never knew how many barracks with what add-ons I wanted.
Mostly, my hands felt strange. I ended up changing nearly every hotkey to be something Protoss-ish.
Scouting/drops on Q and `
Army on 1-2-3,
Command Centers on 4 with E for SCV and C for Mule
Barracks on W (lol)
Factory on 5 (usually robo)
Starport on 6 (usually stargate)
All upgrades on 7 (usually forge, tab through to get to tech-labs etc)
Build all buildings with similar things. So Barracks is G (gateway), Supply Depot is E (pylon), Command Center can be N, etc.
Reapers are indeed fun but wonky as all hell. Fun to jump up a cliff with 8 reapers and a medivac though. Unless your reapers take a Thor volley.
Didn't you play the campaign?
I don't know about you, but as soon as I found out there was spec-ops units (Ghosts/Spectres) I built nothing but those for the rest of the game.
Played some Terran during lunch. The macro feels a ton different than protoss. Mainly all the waypointing and weird upgrades going on. Never knew how many barracks with what add-ons I wanted.
Mostly, my hands felt strange. I ended up changing nearly every hotkey to be something Protoss-ish.
Scouting/drops on Q and `
Army on 1-2-3,
Command Centers on 4 with E for SCV and C for Mule
Barracks on W (lol)
Factory on 5 (usually robo)
Starport on 6 (usually stargate)
All upgrades on 7 (usually forge, tab through to get to tech-labs etc)
Build all buildings with similar things. So Barracks is G (gateway), Supply Depot is E (pylon), Command Center can be N, etc.
Reapers are indeed fun but wonky as all hell. Fun to jump up a cliff with 8 reapers and a medivac though. Unless your reapers take a Thor volley.
Didn't you play the campaign?
Nope. Well, like 3 levels. I hated it.
Also, the command for massing marines with this setup is literally 'waaaaaaaa'
Posts
that was kinda silly
You call this Belgian perfection? You disgust me.
look, it's a really tiny hammer
making long words would just take too much time
I want to off-race, but the only units of the other races that interest me are Reapers and Drones.
no bunker, just marines vs stalkers
not attacking at max right now in unbelievable.
This imba.tv caster
DOESNOTSTOPTALKING
EDIT: Kas is PISSED
Is this an admission that Mr. Bitter is fundamentally unreasonable?
His computer froze. Actually not Bnet's issue.
This sort of thing used to happen with Xboxes at MLG. You have to put in the rules a blanket statement that any technical failure causes the game to be completely restarted. There's not really another fair way to handle it.
I don't think this is right. Clear example:
Army is dead, main base is dead, all that is left is some economy spread across the map while the other player is nearly maxed. We would consider this a late gg, but if somebody's computer crashes, we want to be able to give it to the person who has clearly won.
And if you agree with me there, then we're just negotiating about what constitutes 'clearly won'.
blehhhhhhhh
The point is to avoid the grey area entirely. There would be cases where the losing team would agree to let the other team have the win if it was clear cut. Problem is there's always situations where some people consider it a "clearly over" match and others don't. See some of Idra's ggs from a couple weeks ago. People were upset that he left, but others thought he was in a clearly unrecoverable situation.
Without clear rules you inevitably run into some pitchfork-inducing grey areas.
Let the players make the exception if it's clearly over. I don't think it's the role of the tournament organizers to play the jury.
A penalty shootout would be nice also but is there such a thing in SC2?
In a lot of tournaments, there is functionally an "jury". The tourney admins generally judge whether a game is over or not. Sometimes they ask other players. But games are almost never awarded to a player, which makes sense because it's rare that games have reached a point where the victor is certain, yet the losing player hasn't yet forfeited. On the other hand, I think tourney admins are a little bit too far on the safe side.
My point is that you run into some pitchfork-inducing areas if you have a hard line, too. If the case happens as I described it, and the guy with no army or infrastructure down by 120 supply takes the regame as you are suggesting that he ought to be entitled to, there would be a huge outcry. Without clear lines you run into the possibility that the judgment of the decision-makers will turn out badly. With clear lines you run into the possibility that for some cases, while it's clear what the rules are because of the clear lines, it seems like what the rules clearly say is the wrong answer.
I also think it's unfair to make the players the jury, because they are definitely biased. It's unfair to the guy who wants the win he clearly earned because he's quite unlikely to get that win since it depends on the other guy making a decision against his own interest, and it's unfair to the guy who has to make that decision because it's putting him on the spot to make a decision against his own interests.
The best setup is to have people making the judgment calls who are very well positioned to make these judgments. TSL3 handled this great; it had a panel of progamers who reviewed the replay and decided whether to replay it or not.
Also, asking other players in the tournament puts them on the spot as well. If they know they're bad against a player (race or player matchup), then they would be inclined to favor them. Obviously not as biased as the players themselves, but still. It can also lead to hard feelings or bad press if they decide against a friend or fan-favorite player. On the other hand, tourney admins don't really understand the game at the level of the pros, so it's not really fair to them to ask them to judge if it was a 100% won game or not.
Basically, it's a total shitstorm. The fairest solution really is just regame 90% of the time. It just really fucking sucks for a player in a really strong position. Not only did they lose a won (or close to), it really fucks with their mentality.
I think you just need to get your gas as soon as you see the core drop so you'll have speed for the attack.
Regardless of whether it's beatable, something needs to be done about 2 base allins. Fuck Protoss
Feast looking good though, cheesing two better players on his way to 2-0.
It kills me that the most of the best protosses have made their fucking careers off of nothing but blind two base all-ins.
So maybe Feast 'cheesed' IdrA, but against Kas, he won the first game with super standard pressure that was in no way all-in against a build that was simply unsafe, and the regame looked to me (though I did not watch it closely) as a pretty standard macro game. Feast's PvT is simply good; it's not particularly gimmicky.
Or maybe he's gonna throw away a won game and then give up. I mean, probably, one of those.
Mostly, my hands felt strange. I ended up changing nearly every hotkey to be something Protoss-ish.
Scouting/drops on Q and `
Army on 1-2-3,
Command Centers on 4 with E for SCV and C for Mule
Barracks on W (lol)
Factory on 5 (usually robo)
Starport on 6 (usually stargate)
All upgrades on 7 (usually forge, tab through to get to tech-labs etc)
Build all buildings with similar things. So Barracks is G (gateway), Supply Depot is E (pylon), Command Center can be N, etc.
Reapers are indeed fun but wonky as all hell. Fun to jump up a cliff with 8 reapers and a medivac though. Unless your reapers take a Thor volley.
Didn't you play the campaign?
I don't know about you, but as soon as I found out there was spec-ops units (Ghosts/Spectres) I built nothing but those for the rest of the game.
Nope. Well, like 3 levels. I hated it.
Also, the command for massing marines with this setup is literally 'waaaaaaaa'