xkcd

by **Jesse** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:44 pm UTC

I've already bought my ticket, so I won't be boycotting them, but I'm annoyed by the decision. I could see them introducing a new rule off the back of this, but punishing him with a rule that barely fits is simply wrong.

by **mister k** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:33 pm UTC

um, could you give us a write up of what actually occured, for those of us not privy to it?

by **J the Ninja** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:21 pm UTC

mister k wrote:um, could you give us a write up of what actually occured, for those of us not privy to it?

Ok, so at Blizzard cup, Nestea and Naniwa were both 0 for 3, and wound up facing each other. The match was pointless, as both of them were going home after that regardless of who won. So Naniwa just probe-rushed. I had gone to bed by then and haven't watched the VOD, but apparently he just A-moved to Nestea's base and took his hands off the keyboard. Obviously, Nestea held this as mathematically the probe-rush can't work unless the opponent fucks up somehow.

Uproar commenced on how disrespectful this was to just throw the match. Most people are in two camps. Camp 1 says this wasn't a big deal, as both of them were effectively eliminated already, and the match had no affect on either of them or anyone else in the tournament. Camp 2 says this was horrendously disrespectful to Nestea and the viewers, and Naniwa should have at least tried to play out the game, and done a 4-gate or proxy 2-gate or something else that had a chance of winning. A lot of this seems to be a eastern vs western cultural thing, as a lot of westerners seem to be in camp 1 with a lot of koreans in camp 2. Apparently respect for opponents and elders is a big thing there, so to them this was an awful thing for him to do. In western culture, we have less emphasis on this, so I think a lot of westerners think its ok that he threw the match since the outcome was meaningless.

Apparently the GSL people were angry, and kicked him out of Code S.

by **Game_boy** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:41 pm UTC

That is accurate.

It's not really a boycott on my part, it's that if they can bend the rules how they feel like after the fact, GSL games are no longer worth anything to me and might as well be WWF wrestling.

by **el_loco_avs** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:05 am UTC

I read somewhere (reddit?) that there are some cheating players around in Code A/S that weren't punished nearly as heavily as Naniwa. Is this true? I don't really care about the dude, but it kinda sounds hypocritical if this is true.

by **|Erasmus|** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:45 am UTC

el_loco_avs wrote:I read somewhere (reddit?) that there are some cheating players around in Code A/S that weren't punished nearly as heavily as Naniwa. Is this true? I don't really care about the dude, but it kinda sounds hypocritical if this is true.

The only things I can think of are the CoCa incident, where GOM didn't really get a chance to punish him because his team basically forced him to give up his code s spot and forbade him from competing for a while, and possibly the Choya incident where he (among others) was 'cheating' by win trading on ladder (was controversial, but it doesn't affect tournaments, so I don't think GOM did anything at all).

Im not aware of any other incidents which could be called cheating.

The entire thing is blown out of proportion anyway... People are acting so much like Naniwa is 'entitled' to his code s spot when it was given as an invitation. I could understand if a code s spot was taken from a player who had earned the spot through code a/up&down matches that it would look bad to remove it, but with the new GSL format for next year there are 2 'sponsorship positions' (according to Mr Chae on TeamLiquid) and I can see how Naniwa's actions would give him a bad image for sponsorships.

A lot of it's a cultural thing, but the Koreans in general don't like that kind of behaviour. There are better ways of Naniwa showing his frustration with the format forcing him to play a meaningless game than to make it obvious during the event that he couldn't possibly care less. No sponsor wants to have their event look like even the competitors don't care, and Naniwa has shown that if he can't win, then he won't put in any effort whatsoever to make the event watchable... You compare this to other players like Boxer who do cool/crazy strategies like rush BCs in TvP when the game isn't going to affect results (see, the final round of NASL season 1). Sure, it's just as silly in a way... you can't realistically expect to win with it, but it's still fun to watch, and that's the big thing for sponsors in the end.

EDIT:

J the Ninja wrote:Apparently the GSL people were angry, and kicked him out of Code S.

THIS is the bit I think is stupid. He wasn't "kicked out" because he was never in. He had received an invitation to compete in code S based on his performances... which GOM decided to withdraw because he is a poor investment for their sponsors by deciding to degrade the competition. It may be a problem with GOMs tournament system, but if they want you to play, you're being paid for it by their sponsors. You don't try and end the game in 30 seconds with no chance of winning or you won't get sponsored for it any more.

by **J the Ninja** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:52 am UTC

On somewhat happier news, Blizz released the map pool info for season five. Abyssal Caverns is gone (yay!) and Nerazim Crypt is also gone (aww....). In their place are two "tournament style" maps, Arid Plateau and Entombed Valley:

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/410310 ... 12_14_2011

Don't have a heart attack when you see Arid Plateau, you can only spawn at 11 and 5, in the far corners. The "mains" with the gold natural and backdoor rocks aren't actually mains, they're just extra expos. Looks pretty decent, although FFE is gonna be hard with two paths into the nat at almost right-angles.

Entombed Valley looks pretty cool, like a bigger version of Shakuras. Third has its own high ground, although there are rocks blocking the high-ground path between the nat and the third. Apparently though, it allows you to spawn vertically, i.e. with both of you on the left or both on the right. Have to play it to see if its big enough for that.

Speaking of which, supposedly these two are already published, so you can play them in custom games, they just aren't in the ladder pool yet.

Disappointed some of the GSL maps didn't make it though. Really was hoping for Terminus or Daybreak in the ladder pool.

by **BlackSails** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:54 am UTC

This sort of thing (re:naniwa) is actually standard in chess tournaments.

by **J the Ninja** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:02 am UTC

Ok, played both new maps, messed with building positioning a bit, a few quick facts:

Entombed Valley:
-It takes 4 building to wall the ramp up to the natural, but only 3 to wall in the third's ramp.
-You CAN close the high-ground access path between the two expos using only 2 force fields
-Horizontal spawns are closer than vertical. It's across the axis of symmetry, so it mentally seems farther, but its pretty clearly closer once you see the minimap.
-Easiest map to take a third. Ever.
-Fairly open once you are away from the mains. This is a huge map, close to the size of Terminus or Taldarim, maybe slightly smaller, but with mostly open, flat ground.

Arid Plateau
-Pretty tiny
-Gas geyser is in the side choke, so it forms part of the wall. Front entrance is a 9-square one too, so walling in the natural is easier than it might look from the official map pic (pardon the macro, i was working on my sim-city):

by **Game_boy** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:26 am UTC

Now that they've established that Naniwa could enter the January prelims if he wanted to (he doesn't), this is looking less like a ban and more like an image consideration for GOM in not giving him a free pass to Code S. The final translation also makes no reference to a GOM rule, so there is no official punishment for his actions I guess. I still think they took a qualified MLG slot off him but that is less bad than changing tournament rules.

Naniwa/Quantic also gave the most forced apology ever but if they are submitting to GOM totally it doesn't make any sense to be the only one avoiding GSL when I care the most about it.

GOM moved the November Up-Downs to not be covered by the November ticket but instead you have to buy a January ticket (QQ why didn't they tell us this sooner). I will leave buying said ticket for a few weeks to see what happens.

--

Thanks for the FFE pic on Arid. Entombed looks like a great map.

by **mister k** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:59 pm UTC

hmm, yeah, while I can sort of see people getting annoyed because naniwa didn't break any rules, this kind of behaviour would probably be penalised in any sports league you can think of, precisely because it doesn't energise the fans.

by **Game_boy** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

mister k wrote:hmm, yeah, while I can sort of see people getting annoyed because naniwa didn't break any rules, this kind of behaviour would probably be penalised in any sports league you can think of, precisely because it doesn't energise the fans.

He doesn't have an obligation to GOM to be entertaining. He has an obligation to his team, because his team sponsors are paying for positive exposure.

What I want to see out of GOM is some very clear rules about what can and cannot be done in game. If probe rushing is banned, but 6pooling is not, then SAY that.

by **Yakk** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:37 pm UTC

Game_boy wrote:He doesn't have an obligation to GOM to be entertaining.

What business do you think GOM is in?

Entertainment.

The primary purpose of the games, as far as GOM is concerned, is that they be entertaining. This may involve them being close, long, short, pink, blue, green, balanced, unbalanced, or polka-dotted. If the probe rush had been entertaining to GOM's customers, there would be far less of a chance of there being a problem than if it was boring.

A tactic with effort put behind it (even a probe rush that wasn't A-move, or a 6 pool with micro effort) might at least lead to an entertaining game. Heck, even something ridiculous (a proxy nexus mothership rush) would be at least funny, if about equally likely to succeed.

by **Game_boy** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:29 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:
Game_boy wrote:He doesn't have an obligation to GOM to be entertaining.
What business do you think GOM is in?

Entertainment.

The primary purpose of the games, as far as GOM is concerned, is that they be entertaining. This may involve them being close, long, short, pink, blue, green, balanced, unbalanced, or polka-dotted. If the probe rush had been entertaining to GOM's customers, there would be far less of a chance of there being a problem than if it was boring.

A tactic with effort put behind it (even a probe rush that wasn't A-move, or a 6 pool with micro effort) might at least lead to an entertaining game. Heck, even something ridiculous (a proxy nexus mothership rush) would be at least funny, if about equally likely to succeed.

Contractual obligation. We pay GOM to be entertaining, but our contract with them is that they show games, not show entertaining games - no one has the right to a refund because of the probe rush. They do this by hiring players to play (via prize money) and casters to cast. Players also have to agree to a set of rules, and if "being entertaining" was in there no one would sign up. The only contractual obligation a player has to a tournament is to follow the rules they agreed to.

So GOM should only be enforcing the rules they got the players to sign up to. And if probe rushing is something they think will hurt their business they should make VERY clear in the rules that this is the case, not arbitrarily decide which builds are insulting or disrespecful after the fact.

Of course GOM have the right to change the rules as they go along (and take the loss of customers that implies) but it makes it seem like a rigged competition to me. Players won't play their best they will do whatever builds aren't going to get banned this week.

On the other hand, the players DO have a contractual obligation to their teams to be entertaining. I would be fine if the team issued any punishment they wanted over this, since the contract with the player rests upon their public image and how well they promote the team's sponsors, and probe rushing is terrible for that. If fOu dropped TheBest for all-inning every game of Season 3 I would be OK with that.

by **Yakk** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:36 pm UTC

The contractual obligation was lived up to on both players part, barring that weasel-word vague "insulting your opponent" clause.

But I don't see why GOM would have to invite a particular player back next time if they showed poor sportsmanship, especially if that player was eliminated quickly and wasn't a strong player in the competition. They aren't under a contractual obligation to invite the player back, as far as I can tell.

by **Game_boy** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:41 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:The contractual obligation was lived up to on both players part, barring that weasel-word vague "insulting your opponent" clause.

But I don't see why GOM would have to invite a particular player back next time if they showed poor sportsmanship, especially if that player was eliminated quickly and wasn't a strong player in the competition. They aren't under a contractual obligation to invite the player back, as far as I can tell.

Firstly - if I thought it was an invite basis only I would be 100% happy with GOM's decision. You can invite who you want for whatever reason you want.

But he qualified for it by winning MLG. The wording on MLG and GOM's site all year has said that 2011 MLG competition winners recieve a Code S spot. Even though GOM changed their format they gave no indication before yesterday they no longer intended to stick to that. There are plenty of quotes from MLG's site saying that (they thought) he got the spot by winning. They only changed their mind to what they're saying now so it doesn't look as bad.

--

If you watched the games you would see that all three were incredibly close (could have been 3-0 very easily), he microed and positioned better than I have seen from any Protoss in some situations, and I'd love to see someone do that to that standard in Code S. Nestea played much worse in his games for example. His performance in that event alone is Code S class.

--

Do you agree that GOM should put allowed and disallowed builds in the rules? And acceptable or not forms of BM (manner nexus, writing GG in pylons/turrets, "u werent loss" Huk thing, thumbs down ceremony) etc.

by **Yakk** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:52 pm UTC

No, putting allowed and disallowed builds in the rules would be pointless. It would, if anything, lead to people skirting the rules, as opposed to avoiding the behavior that they don't want to occur.

by **Koa** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:26 pm UTC

I put aside the whole probe rush because that can be fixed by not having games that don't matter. If a player retains the attitude that they don't care to compete, that can be enforced by the tournament itself (they get eliminated or fail to qualify) without any intervention.

So, what I see is that apparently the MLG+GSL partnership for seeding was an extremely loose agreement that could be revoked under any circumstance by GSL. The rest is likely racism and cultural differences.

by **Game_boy** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:36 pm UTC

Koa wrote:I put aside the whole probe rush because that can be fixed by not having games that don't matter. If a player retains the attitude that they don't care to compete, that can be enforced by the tournament itself (they get eliminated or fail to qualify) without any intervention.

So, what I see is that apparently the MLG+GSL partnership for seeding was an extremely loose agreement that could be revoked under any circumstance by GSL. The rest is likely racism and cultural differences.

"With the announcement of the 2012 GSL season, their format changed and GSL changed the MLG Providence Code S invite to two spots at the GSL Blizzard Cup and Naniwa was awarded one of these spots. Unfortunately, the change was made without notification to MLG but it is within GSL's jurisdiction to adjust placement."

http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/o ... de-s-issue

You were correct, this was just posted.

This is MLG disapproving of GOM in a very toned down, diplomatic way.

by **|Erasmus|** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:36 pm UTC

Just to have one more thing to say on this topic, in a bit of contrast to what I posted before:

I don't really -like- that GOM punished him, but as I said, I understand. What I really don't like though, is that his fans continue to support his decision to effectively forfeit the game.

To make an (potentially bad) analogy... Just imagine that in a football (soccer, for you uncouth Americans

) match where in the home leg, a team lost by a completely non-sensical margin. They are still obliged to play the remaining game, despite it not being relevant any more. Can you imagine the reaction of their fans if any popular team just say, walked out onto the field and just sat down and didn't move for 90 minutes?

They could do anything else. They could field all their b-teamers and just mess around, and try to be flashy and entertaining at the cost of winning, and noone would fucking care, cause they already lost. But the sheer act of just blatantly blowing off your own fans who spent money on a ticket to watch your games is the bit that I find completely retarded. Especially after the Naniwa/NesTea rivalry has been hyped so much recently. Everyone wanted to see if Naniwa could repeat his MLG/MLG Global Invitational performance. Even being knocked out of his group, beating NesTea for a third time, this one in a fucking GSL booth would have been incredible. It really would have made his code s seed look legitimate...

I'm not personally a Naniwa fan, but I spent money on my ticket. I don't want to watch someone probe rush. Do a terrible (but fun) carrier or mothership rush, or some crazy colossi/warp prism drops or something. Still stupid, can still just mess around, but do something for the fans. You can bet your life that's what HuK or Boxer or any other actually marketable player would have done in this situation.

EDIT:
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblo ... _id=295222

Alex Garfield (owner of EG) basically says what I'm trying to say, but better

.

by **Adacore** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:15 am UTC

This seems to be akin to the system in tennis where you can be penalised for not giving your best effort - I suspect this exists in many other sports as well. Of course, in that system there's a globally integrated system of tournaments and penalties are assessed by way of prize money fines (you don't actually get your prize money until the end of the year, I believe, at which point any breaches of the rules have been converted into monetary fines and are deducted from your prize money pool).

It's important for everyone involved in the broadcasting process - the team, and GOM - that the games be entertaining. For the team, it means sponsorship money, for GOM it means repeat subscriber revenues next season, plus likely more subscribers this season as people hear it through word of mouth.

by **Bakemaster** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:37 am UTC

Dear thread, I am in serious need of advice.

Spoiler:

by **Adacore** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:43 am UTC

I prefer void guys. (Also, I think I actually like 'high guys' and 'dark guys' more than 'guy templar'.)

by **J the Ninja** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:09 am UTC

Adacore wrote:I prefer void guys. (Also, I think I actually like 'high guys' and 'dark guys' more than 'guy templar'.)

It must be "high guys" simply so you can be all "HAI GUYZ" when you make HTs.

(speaking of which, HTs are really fraking awesome vs T, why I have not noticed this before? Feedbacking the drop-medivac makes an unbelievable difference in defending the drop)

by **Jesse** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:51 am UTC

I'm not against NaNi being punished, although I think GOM went about it in completely the wrong way, managing to piss off MLG and a bunch of foreigners into the bargain, which I feel was completely unhelpful (And isn't the first time they've had problems with Korea-centrism). At the same time, I wasn't up in arms about it, I think partly because the controversial moments are some that end up being the best for the game. IdrA's gg after MC's hallucinations or MMA destroying his own CC have been some of the most talked about moments of Starcraft 2, grabbing interest from people outside of the sport. In short, I believe that NaNiWa was at fault, GOM then handled it badly, but that altogether this will be better for the sport than a single, pointless game could have been otherwise.

by **Koa** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:10 am UTC

It's a good point of irony that, despite his game being criticized for a lack of entertainment, it's entertaining to follow during this december lull.

by **Game_boy** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:37 am UTC

|Erasmus| wrote:Just to have one more thing to say on this topic, in a bit of contrast to what I posted before:

I don't really -like- that GOM punished him, but as I said, I understand. What I really don't like though, is that his fans continue to support his decision to effectively forfeit the game.

Well, I don't, and I've been the most critical of GOM in this thread. Nani shouldn't have done it. I also haven't seen many on TL who say there was no problem with it. Who are you referring to?

To make an (potentially bad) analogy... Just imagine that in a football (soccer, for you uncouth Americans ) match where in the home leg, a team lost by a completely non-sensical margin. They are still obliged to play the remaining game, despite it not being relevant any more. Can you imagine the reaction of their fans if any popular team just say, walked out onto the field and just sat down and didn't move for 90 minutes?.

I think that's fine. They can deal with the consequences of individuals no longer coming to their games. But it isn't for the league to punish that, because they didn't break any league rules (unless they did, and I'm talking a specific rule here).

by **Adacore** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:13 am UTC

Game_boy wrote:I think that's fine. They can deal with the consequences of individuals no longer coming to their games. But it isn't for the league to punish that, because they didn't break any league rules (unless they did, and I'm talking a specific rule here).

I know in the cited example (English soccer) this would be declared 'unsportsmanlike conduct' or similar even if it's not against any specific rules, and the team would be penalized by the league.

by **Sytri** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:06 pm UTC

I think the closest this could be compared to is when Ronnie O'Sullivan plays snooker. When in a competion he's not bothered about will concede a match just to get out of it. While not exaclty the same he has been called up on his behaviour and his respect for his opponents.

Any news on the next release yet? I've not been playing this much since Skyrim came out but I want to buy it as soon as its here

by **omgryebread** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:01 pm UTC

I was happily playing a while ago when my cousin saw me. I was in bronze then, she liked the look of the game. I let her play the campaign some and then she played some matches which she lost. She liked it enough that I bought her her own copy. That was a few months ago. I'm now mid silver and feeling okay about that.

She's staying with me for a few days, and was logged on to her account on my computer. I saw she was now high silver, and recent matches have been mostly wins against gold level players, so I'm pretty sure she'll move up in season 5. This is embarrassing.

by **Yakk** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:07 pm UTC

The ranking system is great, in that it makes everyone feel like they are making progress (look! more points! -- hint: the point system isn't skill ranking system) and, at the same time, that they suck, because they still lose in half of the games they play.

by **omgryebread** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:25 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:The ranking system is great, in that it makes everyone feel like they are making progress (look! more points! -- hint: the point system isn't skill ranking system) and, at the same time, that they suck, because they still lose in half of the games they play.

Seems to me that ranking within leagues is mostly a measure of how much you play, while what league you're in seems a better indicator of who you should be actually playing. The highest ranking players in a league always have tons of wins, but they are usually against other players in that league, and not against a league up from them.

by **Game_boy** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:48 pm UTC

Sytri wrote:Any news on the next release yet? I've not been playing this much since Skyrim came out but I want to buy it as soon as its here

Blizzard = "when it's done"

The last thing they said was at Blizzcon whereby the beta would be in 2012. And since the beta lasted six months for WoL I think it could easily be 2013 for retail release.

by **Spambot5546** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:37 pm UTC

I decided to get back into SC2. I found a multitasking trainer map and played until I could almost beat it on normal difficulty. I would have gone with "could actually beat it" but I don't think my build order allowed me to get overlord drop fast enough.

Not important.

I played two games this morning. Lost the first one pretty bad and won the second one pretty good. I compare a game from Searing Crater from a few months ago to a game on Metalopolis today an the difference is remarkable. I keep my money fairly low, I'm mostly on-time with my larva injects, and have a good chunk of drones.

by **|Erasmus|** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:28 pm UTC

Spambot5546 wrote:I played two games this morning. Lost the first one pretty bad and won the second one pretty good. I compare a game from Searing Crater from a few months ago to a game on Metalopolis today an the difference is remarkable. I keep my money fairly low, I'm mostly on-time with my larva injects, and have a good chunk of drones.

trying to analyse a game with zerg on searing crater is like trying to analyse a football game where one team all had broken legs. Hell, I even beat psion a few times on that map, and he was the only zerg I ever dropped a game to on it. I played a bunch of other master zergs there and the map was so bad I won all the time. :/

by **Spambot5546** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:39 pm UTC

Right, but I'm gold league, so the difference wasn't strategy so much as "I don't have 1500 unspent minerals at 75 supply". That's an accomplishment for me, it turns out.

Plus it was ZvZ, so you can't really blame the map there.

by **Xeio** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:10 am UTC

Oh shit, I just placed into Master in 4v4? But that means I might have to play better.

Though I did finally give up on random and am playing zerg only now, but I still don't try very hard!

by **Game_boy** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:24 am UTC

Cross-region play coming before HotS.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmes ... _id=297048

by **Spambot5546** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:49 am UTC

Bizarre how balance would be different across regions. I get that the Korean ladder is more competitive than foreign ones, but you wouldn't think that would make a certain race more powerful.

Edit to add: What do they mean about games always coming down to one big battle? Pro games I see often include drop play, harass, and small engagements.

by **Xanthir** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:51 am UTC

Spambot5546 wrote:Bizarre how balance would be different across regions. I get that the Korean ladder is more competitive than foreign ones, but you wouldn't think that would make a certain race more powerful.

I assume that's just general metagame balance. For a given time and a given population, the current set of successful and common strategies will favor certain races over others.

Who is online