|
On December 16 2010 22:53 shannn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 22:45 DTWolfwood wrote:I like the Code S system. But you only get a real round robin when its 1-1 all or 2-0 2-0 if its 2-0 1-1 1-1 0-2 you only get to watch the 1-1 play in M3  Well Code A Best of ONE kinda sux... must be because of time constraints This is to avoid tie breakers and above all for the possibility of a group with more than 2 members of the same team. This to ensure they won't rig the matches (obviously you won't eliminate rigging matches entirely).
I don't understand what's wrong with using the difference between games won and games lost, or the match between two players with the same record, to decide who gets the position in the league. It's what they do in sports all over the world, and what GomTV already did in the Code A qualifications matches.
|
On December 17 2010 00:36 The Touch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 22:53 shannn wrote:On December 16 2010 22:45 DTWolfwood wrote:I like the Code S system. But you only get a real round robin when its 1-1 all or 2-0 2-0 if its 2-0 1-1 1-1 0-2 you only get to watch the 1-1 play in M3 Well Code A Best of ONE kinda sux... must be because of time constraints This is to avoid tie breakers and above all for the possibility of a group with more than 2 members of the same team. This to ensure they won't rig the matches (obviously you won't eliminate rigging matches entirely). I don't understand what's wrong with using the difference between games won and games lost, or the match between two players with the same record, to decide who gets the position in the league. It's what they do in sports all over the world, and what GomTV already did in the Code A qualifications matches.
Updated my post you quoted.
And I have posted in my OP why they did it the way they have mentioned it.
If only 1 player has won 2 games and 2 players are at 1-1 then the players with 1-1 will proceed to play again in playday 3 making it an effective Bo3.
The player that loses the first 2 games is automatically 4th and is demoted to Up and Down matches for Code S next Season and does not need to play according to the explainations in the first original post.
The difference in won and lost is the same for those players at 1-1 Only difference is that 1 player was up 1-0 before they played and the other 0-1.
Since the guy who was 0-1 won from the guy who was up 1-0 they will now play a rematch making it an effective Bo3.
Basically this also gives an advantage to players winning their first matches because then you only need to win once against the next opponent whereas if you lost the first match you have to win 2 times in a row against the same opponent while starting 0-1 behind in a bo3 (note the 0-1 is from your loss on your first match).
Basically this sytem makes every match very important except in 1 scenario which is the 2-0 / 1-1 / 1-1 / 0-2 group (the 0-2 won't need to play a third game then because he lost 2 games in a row making him inevitably 4th due to this system).
It's a good system while trying to aim for as less games as possible while still providing intense group plays. There won't be any tie breakers this way.
I will try to update my OP with a graphical image for everyone who doesn't understand how it actually is when I get back in 1.5 hours or so.
|
I dont really care for the format, or the groups. But I love all these players I cant wait for gsl 2011!
|
I'm not too fond of this system at all. Say if player D is clearly the weaker player. A beats B and C beats D. Then A beats D and B beats C. Now we're at A 2-0, B 1-1, C 1-1, D 0-2. With this system B and C will play again to see who'll advance.
That's very unfair because B had to play the stronger player A, whilst C played the weaker player D. B have yet to play D and C yet to play A. Instead of having to beat player A, player C gets a rematch against B.
On top of that D could make it a three way tie at 1-2 after three rounds.
|
|
|
Imo they should just make the groups with winner/loser bracket.
So A-B and C-D would play first round. Then the winners play each other and the two losers play eah other. WB winner becomes place 1. The player who loses the losers game is out. An the remaining two battle for 2./3. place. In total that would be 5 games per group, no tiebrakers needed and everybody would need 2 wins to advance.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
People need to realise it's only partially a round robin format.
You need to think of it as a double elimination / round robin format.
Do you play every person in a double elimination bracket? no.
GOM has put it a bit unfortunately but they did mention GOM's method in groupstages.
|
On December 17 2010 01:37 Wivyx wrote:
I'm not too fond of this system at all. Say if player D is clearly the weaker player. A beats B and C beats D. Then A beats D and B beats C. Now we're at A 2-0, B 1-1, C 1-1, D 0-2. With this system B and C will play again to see who'll advance.
That's very unfair because B had to play the stronger player A, whilst C played the weaker player D. B have yet to play D and C yet to play A. Instead of having to beat player A, player C gets a rematch against B.
On top of that D could make it a three way tie at 1-2 after three rounds.
What you're missing is that C is a higher seed than B. Remember, A was seed from top 8, and C was seeded from top 16.
Of course it's unfair to B, that's the point of the seeding ... that the top two players in each group (A/C) don't have to eliminate each other. That just makes the top players more likely to make it to the playoff rounds, and it's a good incentive to try to make it to top 16 or top 8 each season.
|
On December 17 2010 01:05 shannn wrote:
Basically this also gives an advantage to players winning their first matches because then you only need to win once against the next opponent whereas if you lost the first match you have to win 2 times in a row against the same opponent while starting 0-1 behind in a bo3 (note the 0-1 is from your loss on your first match).
but isn't that the same as saying "you're playing a bo3" because it's a given that in a bo3 you win when you win 2 games?
|
On December 17 2010 01:05 shannn wrote:
Updated my post you quoted.
...
It's a good system while trying to aim for as less games as possible while still providing intense group plays. There won't be any tie breakers this way.
Don't get me wrong, I understand what they're doing, and I can see that they're trying to minimise the number of games played (or more to the point, probably the number of games being casted, so that they can fit both the Code A and Code S tournaments in), but I don't understand why tie breakers are something that should be avoided. There are a number of very simple and quick ways of differentiating players who otherwise have the same record.
|
United States7481 Posts
There's no simple way to differentiate in a 3-way tie, as can often happen in a 4-person round robin (3-0 1-2 1-2 1-2 or 2-1 2-1 2-1 0-3).
|
On December 17 2010 03:38 Typhon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 01:05 shannn wrote:
Basically this also gives an advantage to players winning their first matches because then you only need to win once against the next opponent whereas if you lost the first match you have to win 2 times in a row against the same opponent while starting 0-1 behind in a bo3 (note the 0-1 is from your loss on your first match).
It's equivalent to round robin in either case, they just don't play the games that have no impact on advancement or next season's ranking Starting from: 2-0 ---- 1-1 ---- 1-1 ----- 0-2 then after players B and C play, it would be 2-0 , 2-1, 1-2, 0-2 so basically, the 1-2 player can't advance even if player A loses (he'd at most be tied for last), so why play the A-D game if it has no bearing on who advances? Otherwise, you have after the second day: 2-0, 2-0, 0-2, 0-2 or 1-1 x4. 1-1 x4 playing out is standard round robin, 2-0 x2 has already decided the top 2, when you play the remaining round robin, it would be for deciding A/B positions and not who advances. 16-32 are equivalently the same rank, so C/D do not need to play.
quoting myself from OP
Playday 3 has 3 scenario's as GOM has posted it.
If after 2 Playdays there are 2 players who has won 2 games then they proceed to Ro16 but they will still play eachother in playday 3 to determine group rankings. So it will be a full round robin in this case.
If only 1 player has won 2 games and 2 players are at 1-1 then the players with 1-1 will proceed to play again in playday 3 making it an effective Bo3.
The player that loses the first 2 games is automatically 4th and is demoted to Up and Down matches for Code S next Season and does not need to play according to the explainations in the first original post.
Third scenario is if there are all 4 players who are 1-1 then the remaining matches will be played against eachother who hasn't faced eachother making it a normal round robin group again.
Exactly what you just said.
Basically this also gives an advantage to players winning their first matches because then you only need to win once against the next opponent whereas if you lost the first match you have to win 2 times in a row against the same opponent while starting 0-1 behind in a bo3 (note the 0-1 is from your loss on your first match).
What is wrong with that statement?
If you lose your first match you are 0-1. You take that into account against your next opponent because if you win that game you will be 1-1. Then you play again against the same opponent. Doesn't this equate to a Bo3 ? Lose 1st match and you're 0-1 behind and have to win 2 times which means it's 2-1 just like in a Bo3.
If you win your first match you're 1-0 meaning if you win again you're through to the ro16 which is also basically a bo3. The third match when you're 2-0 against another 2-0 means to determine the ranks first or second which seems to have some sort of impact on the 2nd groupstage. Whereas if you are the only one with 2-0 after 2 rounds then you're 1st and don't have to play again which is in the OP. So my statement about winning the first match having a big advantage is wrong?
I honestly can't see what you are trying to correct me if you are trying to correct me.
On December 17 2010 03:52 The Touch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 01:05 shannn wrote:
Updated my post you quoted.
...
It's a good system while trying to aim for as less games as possible while still providing intense group plays. There won't be any tie breakers this way. Don't get me wrong, I understand what they're doing, and I can see that they're trying to minimise the number of games played (or more to the point, probably the number of games being casted, so that they can fit both the Code A and Code S tournaments in), but I don't understand why tie breakers are something that should be avoided. There are a number of very simple and quick ways of differentiating players who otherwise have the same record.
Tie brakers are never easy to differentiate. If you can tell me an easy way without getting a tie breaker after having a tie breaker between 3 players then the system is wrong that GOM posted.
|
On December 16 2010 15:52 Letitfly wrote:
Does anyone think that the koreans fear the foreigners? So they pit the only 2 foreigners in S class against each other. I mean what are the odds they would be in the same group and the play each other first round. Just seems like the group drawing could have been fixed alittle. Just saying
The match-ups aren't random, they're determined by ranking in Code S.
|
On December 17 2010 04:04 Antoine wrote:
There's no simple way to differentiate in a 3-way tie, as can often happen in a 4-person round robin (3-0 1-2 1-2 1-2 or 2-1 2-1 2-1 0-3).
On December 17 2010 04:16 shannn wrote:
Tie brakers are never easy to differentiate. If you can tell me an easy way without getting a tie breaker after having a tie breaker between 3 players then the system is wrong that GOM posted.
I do agree that it's worth avoiding tie breakers when using a BO1 format, though there are still simple and easy solutions to differentiating (such as the extra series used by OSL), but then it's not exactly quick.
But frankly BO1 is an awful format, both for the players and for the viewers, especially with the current map pool. I would vastly prefer BO3 round robin group stages. It would be far easier to differentiate between players in that situation, based on individual games won and lost, and you can always fall back on the series between the players in question (which happens in regular sports, as well as in the Code S Determination matches) if their overall 'goal difference', so to speak, is the same.
|
@shannn, not trying to correct you, just trying to clarify the logic. I edited my previous post to make it shorter. basically, you said that it gives an advantage to the player who wins first, but in any kind of bo3, you'd have to win 2 matches, so it's the same kind of "oh, if you win 2 in a row you dont' have to play the third game anymore" kind of advantage.
|
On December 17 2010 04:24 Typhon wrote:
@shannn, not trying to correct you, just trying to clarify the logic. I edited my previous post to make it shorter. basically, you said that it gives an advantage to the player who wins first, but in any kind of bo3, you'd have to win 2 matches, so it's the same kind of "oh, if you win 2 in a row you dont' have to play the third game anymore" kind of advantage.
It was talking about the mental state you get in when you win the first match which is the same as in a bo3.
Being behind has more pressure as you only need to lose once rather than two times so it's actually more advantageous if you're starting 1-0 in a Bo3 rather than 0-1. It's a mental state which the player puts himself in going in a match.
It's still the same thing which comes down to if you win the 2nd and 3rd game but the state you start into a match is advantageous or not? That's what I meant.
On December 17 2010 04:23 The Touch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 04:04 Antoine wrote:
There's no simple way to differentiate in a 3-way tie, as can often happen in a 4-person round robin (3-0 1-2 1-2 1-2 or 2-1 2-1 2-1 0-3). Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 04:16 shannn wrote:
Tie brakers are never easy to differentiate. If you can tell me an easy way without getting a tie breaker after having a tie breaker between 3 players then the system is wrong that GOM posted. I do agree that it's worth avoiding tie breakers when using a BO1 format, though there are still simple and easy solutions to differentiating (such as the extra series used by OSL), but then it's not exactly quick. But frankly BO1 is an awful format, both for the players and for the viewers, especially with the current map pool. I would vastly prefer BO3 round robin group stages. It would be far easier to differentiate between players in that situation, based on individual games won and lost, and you can always fall back on the series between the players in question (which happens in regular sports, as well as in the Code S Determination matches) if their overall 'goal difference', so to speak, is the same.
Isn't the extra series longer ? Yea you answered that. Which GOM doesn't want.
Bo3 is better than bo1 yes. But GOM can't do that for now as it's more expensive and takes more time which they can't do for some reasons.
Now take those into account and the way GOM has set it up now is the best method based on what the time and budget asks for apparently.
|
The best thing about this is they put the priority in matching players of similar skill, and advancing as many top players as possible in the fewest matches.
|
Code A indeed is like a second chance. It's like double elimination, where all the players who got eliminated get dropped to Code A. Besides, the whole point is to decide who gets to move to Code S and if you lose your first game someone else is going to be more deserving
|
so...what happens if a person in Code S gets sick, say, and they can't play on of the GSL leagues...they automatically drop to Code A?!
|
Couldnt be more excited for this.
I think the system is great (Okay, I dont understand it 100 % but it looks good)
and 2011 will be the Glory year of SC2!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img2.imagebanana.com/img/b7bzdvvq/baba.jpg)
