|
On July 07 2017 07:15 opisska wrote:
Stuchiu's list is so bad mostly because he has this unbreakable delusion that foreign tournaments can be made important by simply ferrying over a bunch of Koreans. So the first thing you need to do is realize how this mistake made the results absurd and actively avoid it.The whole idea of "judging the difficulty of oponents" is circular reasoning. Another terrible thing he did was taking into account perceived imbalances and the whole "meta" crap.
I don't really think there is much room to do anything else than assign point values to a placement in GSL/OSL/SSL and sum them up, everything else will end up absurd.
Well i think we both agree that the reason we value SSL/GSL/OSL/etc so highly is because the korean scene is the most competitive for obvious reasons. So i can see why "ferrying over a bunch of koreans" would make sure that weekend tournaments get more value that way.
I think it's not reasonable to completely exclude any non korean event from the equation tbh, it's just really hard to assign point values to it because the playerfield is so different and also inconsistent.
You kinda imply that only OSL/GSL/SSL should be considered because it's safe to say that they are all basically equal?
The problem is that we miss so much data if we do that. At the same time not doing it makes the relative point values obviously kinda arbitrary. Well no list is perfect right, trying to be reasonable is the goal i guess.
On July 07 2017 07:25 jalstar wrote:
I'd be more interested to see where Neeb fits in the top foreigner list than to see a new overall GOAT list.
Yeah a list for foreigners would be something as well, i probably won't do that though :/
|
I think I did something similar to this using excel. The values I can change are tournament tier scores and how much 1st, 2nd, 3/4th place is worth.
I'm not 100% convinced what the values of these things should be, but pretty much always I have Life ahead of MVP, unless I count a GSL win for way more than a Blizzcon win, which is ludicrous. If I count 2nd place high MC can be 3rd place, if I count lesser primier tournaments as nothing else than awful wins Taeja is 3rd. If I value a Blizzcon way high sOs obviously makes a huge leap.
|
Well i basically want to do this as well, one question. Where is the cut for results? Do you also assign points to a ro32 for example?
Are proleague results included? What are some basic point values you have used just as an example?
|
The main reason why Korean tournaments were so much more competitive than non-Korean ones is that you have the whole Korean scene competing there, always. That means that lesser players had extremely hard time achieving anything, because there was just so many lower-level Koreans waiting to jump at them from every corner. At the top, the Korean environment was acting as a substitute for consistency - even though individual players were usually pretty inconsistent, in Korea you could be always sure that there is a handful of people at the absolutely top of their game at any given time.
This is simply not true for the non-Korean tournaments. Stuchiu was trying to argue for their value by listing the top-level Koreans attending them and their recent achievements - "look there is so many Ro8/4/2 GSL players here!", but that simply isn't the same level of competitive pressure. Then there was the issue of "export Koreans" who were only ever really successful outside Korea and those can't be counted towards the "top player pool" at all, because they are only considered great because they were great in lesser competition. You could say that for example Taeja had multiple GSL Ro4s, but would you even consider him anywhere in top 10 for that alone? I doubt that ...
|
Ok i see and agree with everything you said there. I probably use the wrong words, but i always call that "competitive lvl", the idea that in korea you always have the whole field in attendance for the tournaments. If all these koreans would have been part of weekend tournaments, then it would be comparable (or even most of them), but that was never the case.
I still think you cannot just throw every weekend result out of the window. While i think Taeja is incredibly overhyped due to the reasons you listed, it's still save to say that he was a great player in his own right. The main difficulty in comparing results is exactly that the tournament scene is so split in sc2. That problem never existed in bw for example which is why people in general agree on Flash as the goat.
|
I've said this in the past but WoL tournaments are a bit incomparable to HoTS ones in terms of talent pool imo. Why I've always been skeptical of MVP's claim to fame. He was ahead of his time.
To say proleague shouldn't be considered is not right imo. Yes I know it's bo1 and all, but for many players it was the primary focus (above individual leagues). If that's where their practice hours went, then it should be used to factor skill. The main issue is players couldn't control when/where they were drafted.
NA/EU and weekend cups are a level below starleagues/proleague as well. Should blizzcon be considered better than most? Blizzcon is just a single elim weekend cup stacked to the max. Although some players clearly tried 1000x harder to win it than anything else. Life and sOs being the culprits.
Another strange case is soO, (almost) no one puts soO near the top because of his lack of wins. Yet he's only 11 maps of winning 6 GSLs, which would have made him the undeniable GOAT (srsly 6 Code S wins would put him miles above MVP). Should 11 maps be the difference between clear GOAT, and not even on the list?
|
I wouldn't take Blizzcon that seriously, it's honestly just a Dreamhack that is rather difficult to qualify for  Also different years' Blizzcons were pretty different, as the system evolved.
Proleague is indeed an interesting question because by choosing how exactly to value it you can basically completely change the outcome. A couple of years ago, I would have disregarded it altogether, but i think its importance for SC2 grew towards the end, in particular because there weren't many important players left that would not play in it - whereas at the beginning of SC2 PL it missed half the playing field.
At the end, we all have some biases. I will probably judge your list by how low Taeja is and how high soO is at the end
|
On July 07 2017 08:37 opisska wrote:I wouldn't take Blizzcon that seriously, it's honestly just a Dreamhack that is rather difficult to qualify for Also different years' Blizzcons were pretty different, as the system evolved.
I think value should be judged of how much players were commited to it (yh I know that's impossible to measure).
Most of the top guys wouldn't be heartbroken if they lost at a dreamhack. That's why blizzcon can be seen as bigger than a casual weekend cup, many players have said their goal is to win a blizzcon, and they clearly have all their focus on it when it comes that time. Same goes for proleague as well, we know it was common for players to put most their hours towards SPL matches over individual leagues.
edit: oh and btw the top 5 is Inno, MVP, Zest, soO, and Life. In whatever order as long as soO is 2nd.
|
Skillswise the GOAT should be TY, but over the length of domination, the regularity it's INnoVation/Life/soO/Cure. Objectively.
Mvp is like Real Madrid in 1950s, it doesnt count as GOAT.
|
On July 08 2017 03:58 DieuCure wrote:
Mvp is like Real Madrid in 1950s, it doesnt count as GOAT.
Exactly.
|
On July 07 2017 08:04 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Well i basically want to do this as well, one question. Where is the cut for results? Do you also assign points to a ro32 for example?
Are proleague results included? What are some basic point values you have used just as an example?
My goal was never to make a Stuchiu write up, so accuracy is not as strong as it would've been otherwise. My only goal was to get a list, listing players from #1 and down. So I basically just say 1st place * tournament tier, get a number and add it to the other tournament appearances. I've only counted players 1st, 2nd and 3rd/4th attendance. So you can see I've really not gone indepth enough. Proleague is not counted.
My tournament tiers were:
#1 Blizzcon, from when it became WCS. (All tournaments lead to this.)
#2 GSL
#3 SSL, OSL, IEM Championsship
#4 Dreamhack Winter, Kespa Cup, NASL, MLG championship
#5 Standard Primier tournaments: Dreamhacks, IEM's, MLG's.
#6 Lowely Primier, but Primier nonetheless. Homestory Cups, DH's, MLG's which is more invitational focused. Also the biggest of the foreigner tournaments in newer time.
#7 Tournaments without Koreans/WCS NA, WCS EU.
I think this is roughly the list. I might've actually put Kespa Cup (the big ones of them) at #3. It gets more grey as I move down and I honestly regret I didn't have even more tiers.
As for the how the values go:
+ Show Spoiler +This is where I get biased and look at the outcome of the list and go, does this look good? If it's clearly not I change it to be more according to my biased self Here's an example: Tournament tiers: 64 48 32 24 18 12 6 64 being Blizzcon. 1st, 2nd, 3rd/4th: 24, 8, 4. So in this example I haven't been very generous towards SoO. Only counting 2nd place as 8. Here's the outcome: 9128 Life 7360 MVP 6632 TaejA 6608 MC 6520 sOs 6360 MMA 5768 INnoVation 5536 Polt 4976 herO 4928 Zest 4680 Rain 4184 NesTea 4032 Parting 3768 ByuN 3744 Solar 3680 Bomber 3504 Maru 3504 Leenock 3432 DongRaeGu 3312 HerO 3240 SoO 3240 Stephano 3144 Dark 2944 Classic 2936 Stats 2848 MarineKing 2808 Dear 2640 JaeDong
|
Canada2764 Posts
Tiers don't work. You end up assigning X points to Y tournament, but then you need extremely strict (and subjective) criteria as to what makes a tournament into a certain tier. Is a GSL from 2011 as difficult as the MLG Fall Championship from 2012? What about a GSL from 2010 compared to Red Bull Washington event from 2014? What about DH Stockholm vs the IEM Championship from 2011? DH Moscow vs DH Bucharest? There's no way to objectively say, well, this tournament had 2014 MMA, 2014 jjakji, so on so on, and this tournament had 2011 Nerchio, 2011 MaNa, so on so on, therefor X tournament is more stacked by Y value, resulting in Z points. The only way you could technically get away with this is to build an algorithm, but algorithms are often incorrect. Look at the algorithm 538 uses for the NBA - they undervalue the Cavs massively, because some things just cannot be quantified by statistics. Different DHs correspond to different players and therefor different levels of difficulty. To give every DH the same point value would be frankly ridiculous. To give every IEM the same point value means saying 2013 Sao Paulo (Polt, herO, Bomber, jjakji, MC) is as stacked as 2014 Toronto (Polt, TaeJa, Zest, Life, Flash, MC, sOs, Jaedong, herO) which is wrong. You'd need something like 25-30 different tiers, and at that point, it's subjective as hell anyway.
Looking at the example above, you run into certain subjective issues - why is Blizzcon worth twice as much as an OSL? Looking at Maru's run from the 2013 OSL, he beat sOs, Trap, KangHo, SuperNova, Symbol, INno, Rain. Looking at sOs' run from the Blizzcon of that year, he beat HerO, Polt, Bomber, Jaedong. I don't think it's very hard to tell that sOs' run is not significantly harder (if harder at all) than Maru's OSL run, so it doesn't make sense to have it worth twice as much either. But it's also not easy to say how much harder/easier it is, because it just becomes subjective nothingness. But analyzing the runs still provides a more concrete argument than assigning points to each tournament, which provides an effectively random result because there's no actual reason to have Tier 7 worth 6 and then Tier 1 worth 64 and all that. The numbers are meaningless.
|
There will always be bias. I am biased towards prestige and even prize money. I also care more about big qualifiers than invitationals which may even have greater players playing. I am also biased towards first place vs consistently getting to the semi finals (sorry Classic.)
If you only care about the players playing then looking at who's the top of Kr ladder for the longest time, or who has the highest Aligulac ranking over time, might be better for you. I believe in prestige, it's not a tournament winners fault that not more players tried to win it.
|
On July 08 2017 03:58 DieuCure wrote:
Skillswise the GOAT should be TY, but over the length of domination, the regularity it's INnoVation/Life/soO/Cure. Objectively.
Mvp is like Real Madrid in 1950s, it doesnt count as GOAT.
I love that people don't even react anymore. Eventually it will become ingrained in everyone's subconsciousness and noone will even ask why Cure.
|
Tiers work definitely better than trying to judge every tournament run ever.
Especially because people don't seem to understand that a specific run isn't even the important factor, the competitive playing field of the tournament is.
No player chooses his opponents, saying a run is easier than the other by only looking at the players he had to beat is flawed. These players he had to beat quite possibly were simply good at that time, maybe even beating "stronger" opponents before they lost to the guy we are looking at. If anything you would need to be 100% sure about the strength of each opponent in that specific matchup at that specific time. You really wanna tell me that's possible without a real database/elo system? No it's not and even pretending stuchiu did it is absurd.
I abslutely agree with oppiska when he says:
The main reason why Korean tournaments were so much more competitive than non-Korean ones is that you have the whole Korean scene competing there, always. That means that lesser players had extremely hard time achieving anything, because there was just so many lower-level Koreans waiting to jump at them from every corner. At the top, the Korean environment was acting as a substitute for consistency - even though individual players were usually pretty inconsistent, in Korea you could be always sure that there is a handful of people at the absolutely top of their game at any given time.
This is what makes/made the competition in korea so special. Simply pretending that a certain run isn't as valuable because the players our candidate had to beat aren't high profile names completely misses the point.
With that being said, i definitely don't agree with rating blizzcon higher than korean starleagues for the reasons already stated in this thread.
And yes ofc the point values and tier systems are subjective, but you can make a case for it with arguments. Doing every single run case by case is not possible in the slightest and thus becomes "random" and "meaningless". It's way more likely that personal bias creates the end result here.
Well i will give the point values some real thought in the next week or so and then start applying it. Will be interesting to see the results.
Current thoughts:
Tournaments before the kespa switch will be worth a little bit less than similar ones later on (around 70-80%?)
Korean starleagues are the highest tier, no difference between SSL/GSL or OSL
Blizzcon, IEM worldchampionships, the big dreamhacks and maybe "korean weekenders" (kespa cup, etc) are about the same as the early GSLs (so about 70-80% of starleagues)
Other premier tournaments will be probably around 25-40% of a starleague.
Still extremely unsure about proleague, but i think it has to play an important role tbh. I will stay close to the "kespa ranking" proportions, nerf it a little bit though most likely (i think it is fair to say that overall it wasn't as important as in bw)
Atm i think each round in a tournament basically doubles the points, probably with a little bit less difference between second and first place.
All these values are just very basic current thoughts, nothign fixed at all.
edit: it's definitely possible (and likely) that there are more tiers btw, i really just wanted to comment on some possible values here.
|
You can do a GOAT list by accomplishments, dominence, or skill. All three of which will give different outcomes. It seems like everyone here wants to do it based on accomplishments, which is fair enough. But I think that skill and consistancy should always be a factor. There are players that have incredible done things, but wouldn't be high up on a list if you just base it of tournament wins.
edit: examples
-Zest, he's had runs of dominence that are untouched. He's had season were he straight up can't lose to anyone.
-soO averages only a couple maps of winning GSL every season, 6 2nd places is more impressive than 2-3 wins in my opinion. And the consistancy of it.
-Maru might have been the best proleague player of all time? He played like no one else could and dominated during the most imbalanced period of starcraft against terran.
I think most would agree those 3 should be high on a GOAT list, even if they only have a few starleague wins between them
And proleague should always count. Like I said before, if many players say they've prioritised proleague matches over individual leagues, then SPL is arguably as (if not more) competitive than starleagues. To disregard it would be a shame.
|
Also, it sounds strange but I'd value 2nd place in a GSL to be roughly 2/3 of 1st place. To win, you have to beat 3 players during playoffs, to get 2nd you have to beat 2. That's how I see it anyway.
|
Well i think every result a player has should mean something, which is why i will give points for every round, that means a ro32 will already give you at least a little bit.
About "dominance", i don't see why it is more impressive to win things in a row compared to winning the same amount just a little bit more spread. I don't think there should be any difference between two players who have basically the same results just in different order.
Proleague will absolutely count a lot, i am not quite sure how much though. As i said, in comparison to the kespa ranking approach i will nerf it a bit simply because it's reasonable to say that proleague was a bigger factor in bw.
Just as a very rough example, in the kespa ranking you needed around 26 proleague wins to have the same point value as a starleague title. (It basically says a win in proleague is worth 80% of a win in a starleague) I am not sure if that is reasonable for sc2. Also note that this is just regular season wins, playoff matches and ace matches are worth even more
|
The way I see it, the winner of the tournament conquered the entire playing field. Getting a 2nd means you beat half the playing field, you didn't beat the winner of the tournament and the players on that bracket. That's why I don't actually think 2nd place is that much more impressive than 3rd/4th place.
|
But for you The Red Viper, GOAT = the best in tournaments or the most skilled player ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
