EPTEven more so because having lost the h2h means you did better against the other players. If h2h counts, the match between the tied players is basically doubled: as a normal match, which already has a huge influence on who advance, AND again as to who wins the tie. I don't like it.
Tiebreakers pt. 2 - Page 2
| Blogs > motbob |
|
KingPaddy
1053 Posts
Even more so because having lost the h2h means you did better against the other players. If h2h counts, the match between the tied players is basically doubled: as a normal match, which already has a huge influence on who advance, AND again as to who wins the tie. I don't like it. | ||
|
DusTerr
2520 Posts
I know group play is obviously a bit different than the playoff portion (where it's 100% H2H score - 150% in the case of extended series...), but the who point of group play is to determine who gets to the playoffs. If I have to make a determination of two tied group players, I'm taking the one that would have advanced if it was a playoff. | ||
|
MCXD
Australia2738 Posts
But if I had to pick a side, then map-score should always taken precedence, for reasons described in the OP. Map score becomes increasingly relevant with the increasing number of matches per series, and the number of players per group. | ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
So I agree with Plexa, I prefer H2H. Or at least it's close enough to not be as clear cut. | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
| ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
 JonnyREcco would have taken the group in 1st place over Snute? | ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
Okay, tournaments only crown champions instead of determining "who is best" but you get the point Because many of us would rather see our favorite players play more games, have a better chance at making it out of the first stages of play and as a way to seed competitors tournaments have adopted group play (this applies to many traditional sports as well). Since we've agreed that H2H is the best way to determine our champion it should be how we advance from groups. In a perfect group (of 6) the final result would be 5-0, 4-1, 3-2, 2-3, 1-4, and 0-5. Unfortunately, not all groups work out so simply so something other than H2H needs be used first. I'll use the OP's example. We can look at game score (4-1, 4-1, 3-2, 3-2, 1-4, 0-5) or map score (9-3, 8-4, 8,4 7-6, 2-9, 2-10). Either way, we end up with ties and since we're still under the impression that H2H determines our champion we use it. (I'm a bit too tired to discuss why I think overall score > map score.) | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On March 24 2013 15:27 Proseat wrote: If game score had been used as a tiebreaker instead of head-to-head at http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/ESET_UK_Masters_2013, wouldn't that also mean that JonnyREcco would have taken the group in 1st place over Snute?It would. JonnyREcco undoubtedly did better than Snute in the group stage. | ||
|
Apom
France655 Posts
| ||
|
TBO
Germany1350 Posts
On March 24 2013 22:12 Apom wrote: All sports leagues in the world use some equivalent of goal average (that would be map score) over head-to-head, before reaching the playoff stages. Arguing that Starcraft is so special that it should be done the other way is silly. champions league, UEFA EURO and primera division (spain league) all use head-to-head first, same for a lot of other leagues. | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On March 24 2013 22:12 Apom wrote: All sports leagues in the world use some equivalent of goal average (that would be map score) over head-to-head, before reaching the playoff stages. Arguing that Starcraft is so special that it should be done the other way is silly. A 3-0 victory over an opponent who is bad and wasn't trying shouldn't be counted as 'more skillful' than a 3-2 victory over an opponent who was at an equal or better level. | ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10341 Posts
| ||
|
Azzur
Australia6259 Posts
My personal preference is: 1. Map score difference. 2. Head-to-head. I don't like "maps won" because I feel that 2 scores of 2-1 and 1-2 should be the same as 2-0 and 0-2. In football (soccer), "goals scored" is legitimate because it encourages attacking play. In the case of a 3-way (or more) tie, my preference is: 1. Map score difference of the entire pool. 2. Head-to-head of the 3 players. 3. Head-to-head map score of the 3 players. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On March 25 2013 02:33 MountainDewJunkie wrote: If head-to-head is the tiebreaker, then should overall records even be displayed on liquipedia here in this manner? It just confuses people passing through. But there are only two columns: Bo3s and overall games. So I would say to myself, okay, Bo3s are obviously the goal here, and then overall games must separate those who share same Bo3 records. But then I see ForGG under BK. Now I'm wondering what the hell is going on. If anything, in tourney like this should display 3 columns for the groupstate standings: column 1 is Bo3s; column two is just called "owns tiebreaker" where the player's column only gets a star if they beat a person with the same Bo3 record head to head; the third column being overall record, which is just something people are overall curious and should be provided, and is useful in case we have a 3-way tie, each player beating the other (A>B>C>A) and THEN you refer to overall records to separate those people. And if those match obviously we need some round robin tiebreaker with just those players. That way it follows logically: Bo3s --> head-to-head --> Overall. Liquipedia states the tournament rules for group stages (when available) before showing results. | ||
|
-Kaiser-
Canada932 Posts
The goal of a group stage is to compress a bracket and do your seeding for the later brackets at the same time. The winner of a regular bracket is the person who beat the player who beat the player who beat the player. Deciding a group stage based on head-to-head is more consistent in that way. It efficiently says "If both of these tied players advanced and played in our regular bracket, this player wins. So let's skip a step." That's the nature of an elimination tournament, and that is how the group stage should operate in an elimination tournament. Using map score as the deciding factor is contradictory to using a best-of series in the first place. The whole point of a best-of series is to find who is better in a best-of series. Starcraft is ALL ABOUT making adjustments and tricking your opponent and being intelligent. A series should be taken as binary, either 1 or 0. A player who lost a first game of a series, adjusts, and comes back 2-1 should not be penalized for not all-inning in game 1. Map score decisions empower ladder play, not tournament play. I don't want to watch ladder play in MLG. IMO, the only time a group stage should be decided based on map score is if that is the premise of the tournament. Qualifiers are a good example, and I think they should be decided on map score. Additionally as a previous poster pointed out, deciding based on map score has problems because most tournaments do not play out a series if it starts 2-0. The times that it has been tried have poor results. It's bad for viewers, it's bad for players. | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On March 25 2013 02:03 itsjustatank wrote: A 3-0 victory over an opponent who is bad and wasn't trying shouldn't be counted as 'more skillful' than a 3-2 victory over an opponent who was at an equal or better level. It is round robin so you would play both opponents, and so would the guy you are tied with. A victory 3-0 victory over a bad opponent doesn't count more than a 3-2 victory over a better one. It's all about what the other tied player did against those opponents. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9153 Posts
On March 25 2013 05:39 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: It is round robin so you would play both opponents, and so would the guy you are tied with. A victory 3-0 victory over a bad opponent doesn't count more than a 3-2 victory over a better one. It's all about what the other tied player did against those opponents. I understand your point, but I still feel that when and where players are within a tournament can significantly impact how they choose to play. Of course, these things depend on the individual sportsmanship and work ethic of the players involved, but there have been instances in the past where a player's cumulative progress within a round-robin group stage has directly affected how they play. Other things being equal, a player who gives another player a 3-2 victory in the first stage of round-robin might give up and give another player a 3-0 victory in the last few rounds if they are already eliminated and are thus playing a 'meaningless game.' Having the first-order tiebreak procedure be map score differential is subject to this variance. The variance increases significantly when you start factoring in the depth of strategies available to players against other players based on map and race match-up to the point where I do not feel that, even assuming skill levels are the same, two different players can guarantee a 3-0 victory over a single 'bad' player. Intangibles begin to get in the way. Unless the map score differential isn't really a differential and is actually only map wins, a 3-0 victory would always be counted more than a 3-2 victory (+3 versus +1) regardless of the circumstances. Having it be map wins only (+3 and +3) would lead to lots of ties and head-to-head would be inevitable as the second-order tiebreak. In addition, I feel that I really prefer tiebreak procedures that do a minimum of intervention in terms of interpreting a player's relative skill in favor of looking at results. I actually feel that the ultimate tiebreak method should be a playoff game between the tied players. This is rarely possible, however, because of time constraints. Head-to-head looks at empirical data and shows that at some point in the round-robin, the tied players did in fact meet, and only one of them beat the other. Head-to-head, at this point, becomes the playoff game between the two, and that's why I feel that it is legitimate. Although, I do also think that if there is no BoX procedure, and the group stage is, in fact, conducted as "play this many games against each player no matter what," map scores are the only way to go. | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
On March 25 2013 03:51 itsjustatank wrote: Liquipedia states the tournament rules for group stages (when available) before showing results. Sure, but it's still a little bit clunky to display the results that way and just a little bit counterintuitive. The liquipedia guys put in enough effort as it were, though, so I can understand why they'd not want to spend the extra effort to address comments from non-contributing people when the current layout is ostensibly sufficient. | ||
|
-Kaiser-
Canada932 Posts
Two chess players score 5 points in a tournament of 8 games. Draws are worth 0.5, wins are worth 1. Losses are worth nothing. Each player plays black four times and white four times. Player A scored 5-3-0 Win/loss/draw Player B scored 4-1-2 Win/loss/draw Player B beat Player A in their game. However, Player A scored 2 points as black and Player B only scored 1.5, and Player B was white in his game against Player A. Should Player A advance because he performed better as black? Should Player B advance because he beat Player A? Should Player A advance because he won more games and Player B drew for 1 of his points? Making the decision based on head-to-head simplifies all of these issues. Weighing different match wins differently is a bad system. The fact is, in a group stage, players are at different stages within the tournament even within the group stage. The player who's in last place, no matter how hard you try to believe he is, is not playing at his full strength and does not have the same amount of enthusiasm in his play. He's out of the tournament, he just still has to play his games. If Player A goes 2-1 against Player C in the first round of the tournament, is that less impressive than if 4 hours later and Player C is 0-4 and demoralized, Player B goes 2-0 against him? | ||
|
Noobity
United States871 Posts
On March 25 2013 06:41 -Kaiser- wrote: + Show Spoiler + Counter-example. Not entirely a different scenario. Two chess players score 5 points in a tournament of 8 games. Draws are worth 0.5, wins are worth 1. Losses are worth nothing. Each player plays black four times and white four times. Player A scored 5-3-0 Win/loss/draw Player B scored 4-1-2 Win/loss/draw Player B beat Player A in their game. However, Player A scored 2 points as black and Player B only scored 1.5, and Player B was white in his game against Player A. Should Player A advance because he performed better as black? Should Player B advance because he beat Player A? Should Player A advance because he won more games and Player B drew for 1 of his points? Making the decision based on head-to-head simplifies all of these issues. Weighing different match wins differently is a bad system. The fact is, in a group stage, players are at different stages within the tournament even within the group stage. The player who's in last place, no matter how hard you try to believe he is, is not playing at his full strength and does not have the same amount of enthusiasm in his play. He's out of the tournament, he just still has to play his games. If Player A goes 2-1 against Player C in the first round of the tournament, is that less impressive than if 4 hours later and Player C is 0-4 and demoralized, Player B goes 2-0 against him? I think this is a really interesting and important thing to consider, but is also entirely impossible to judge in a way that is mathematically sound and fair I think. | ||
| ||
