|
On April 26 2017 14:47 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 13:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 26 2017 13:06 Wineandbread wrote:
For the complaint about people "getting the same place" as a team that they feel is inferior (ie. newbee/liquid vs SG assuming they lose), I feel that the placing is still fair despite the seeding. No one is actually going to compare the loser of these sets and say they are 'equal teams'. Saying that "x" team is your kryptonite from advancing further is just excuses; like for example, if tnc can't beat faceless they have no business going further in the tournament even if you'd like to see good games from them against western teams. We already saw them handily take games from EG, DC, and TBirds. It's unlikely people would say they're on the same level as SG if they lose in ro16. In an ideal world I'd love getting those awesome round robin groups where everybody plays everybody in bo2 or bo3, but dota doesn't have the LAN infrastructure I guess. Valve is comparing them, because the payout is the same. Three teams are guaranteed to go 2-3 in this tournament and get $62,500. Same payout as a team that goes 0-4. Those 2-3 teams would have had a higher chance of not finishing last though, as at least they are not facing a 'strong' opponent in the first round. I think your complaint is mainly on a SE format and not so much the group stages.
Statistically, no, this system guarantees that three teams who went 2-2 in groups will be eliminated in the first round.
And, no, my complaint is not single elimination. If Valve had just made arbitrary decisions and seeded every team into a Bo5 SE bracket, that would be preferable. Dumb group stage formats are just dumb.
|
On April 26 2017 15:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 14:47 DucK- wrote:On April 26 2017 13:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 26 2017 13:06 Wineandbread wrote:
For the complaint about people "getting the same place" as a team that they feel is inferior (ie. newbee/liquid vs SG assuming they lose), I feel that the placing is still fair despite the seeding. No one is actually going to compare the loser of these sets and say they are 'equal teams'. Saying that "x" team is your kryptonite from advancing further is just excuses; like for example, if tnc can't beat faceless they have no business going further in the tournament even if you'd like to see good games from them against western teams. We already saw them handily take games from EG, DC, and TBirds. It's unlikely people would say they're on the same level as SG if they lose in ro16. In an ideal world I'd love getting those awesome round robin groups where everybody plays everybody in bo2 or bo3, but dota doesn't have the LAN infrastructure I guess. Valve is comparing them, because the payout is the same. Three teams are guaranteed to go 2-3 in this tournament and get $62,500. Same payout as a team that goes 0-4. Those 2-3 teams would have had a higher chance of not finishing last though, as at least they are not facing a 'strong' opponent in the first round. I think your complaint is mainly on a SE format and not so much the group stages. Statistically, no, this system guarantees that three teams who went 2-2 in groups will be eliminated in the first round. And, no, my complaint is not single elimination. If Valve had just made arbitrary decisions and seeded every team into a Bo5 SE bracket, that would be preferable. Dumb group stage formats are just dumb. Yes, but they got presumably easier opponent to advance than the 0-3/0-4 teams, the 3-1s easier than the 2-2s. Unsurprisingly half the teams has to lose in rnd of 16.
Group stage gives more different opponents. At least this gives some legitimacy to the seeding, rather than favoritism. Bo5 is also too much.
|
You could add a financial incentive for winning games in groups too. It feels a bit weird to reward teams for 2 separate things but it is a bit silly that a team that loses every game makes the same amount of money as the team that was middle of the pack but happened to also lose in ro16. Or if there would be a transparent ranking system for teams (influencing future invites), a better group stage performance could give more points.
But personally I would just prefer tournament organizers to consider the sport aspect first, which for me would improve the entertainment aspect too but not for all I guess. Make a proper format, let go of this "every team has to play on the main stage" if you insist on having 4 day spectator events. Make a meaningful group stage and drop half the teams out.
Concerning the bracket I think I'm liking VP's chances. They should be able to beat their first 2 opponents, get to the semifinals and get past any sort of fear of disappointment. If they are playing their best I think they should be able to challenge anyone in the later stages.
|
On April 26 2017 15:47 spudde123 wrote:
You could add a financial incentive for winning games in groups too. It feels a bit weird but it is a bit silly that a team that loses every game makes the same amount of money as the team that was middle of the pack but happened to also lose in ro16. Or if there would be a transparent ranking system for teams (influencing future invites), a better group stage performance could give more points.
But personally I would just prefer tournament organizers to consider the sport aspect first, which for me would improve the entertainment aspect too but not for all I guess. Make a proper format, let go of this "every team has to play on the main stage" if you insist on having 4 day spectator events. Make a meaningful group stage and drop half the teams out.
Concerning the bracket I think I'm liking VP's chances. They should be able to beat their first 2 opponents, get to the semifinals and get past any sort of fear of disappointment. If they are playing their best I think they should be able to challenge anyone in the later stages. Easier opponent in rnd of 16 is the incentive to win games in group stage. Why would they have to be double rewarded?
I am sure Valve factors in a team that went 2-3, above one that went 0-4 for the future decisions of invites, even if they left in the same round.
TI 4 had a massive drop of teams before main stage and it was rightfully criticized.
|
On April 26 2017 15:38 Dracolich70 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 15:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 26 2017 14:47 DucK- wrote:On April 26 2017 13:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 26 2017 13:06 Wineandbread wrote:
For the complaint about people "getting the same place" as a team that they feel is inferior (ie. newbee/liquid vs SG assuming they lose), I feel that the placing is still fair despite the seeding. No one is actually going to compare the loser of these sets and say they are 'equal teams'. Saying that "x" team is your kryptonite from advancing further is just excuses; like for example, if tnc can't beat faceless they have no business going further in the tournament even if you'd like to see good games from them against western teams. We already saw them handily take games from EG, DC, and TBirds. It's unlikely people would say they're on the same level as SG if they lose in ro16. In an ideal world I'd love getting those awesome round robin groups where everybody plays everybody in bo2 or bo3, but dota doesn't have the LAN infrastructure I guess. Valve is comparing them, because the payout is the same. Three teams are guaranteed to go 2-3 in this tournament and get $62,500. Same payout as a team that goes 0-4. Those 2-3 teams would have had a higher chance of not finishing last though, as at least they are not facing a 'strong' opponent in the first round. I think your complaint is mainly on a SE format and not so much the group stages. Statistically, no, this system guarantees that three teams who went 2-2 in groups will be eliminated in the first round. And, no, my complaint is not single elimination. If Valve had just made arbitrary decisions and seeded every team into a Bo5 SE bracket, that would be preferable. Dumb group stage formats are just dumb. Yes, but they got presumably easier opponent to advance than the 0-3/0-4 teams, the 3-1s easier than the 2-2s. Unsurprisingly half the teams has to lose in rnd of 16.
Except a Ro16 isn't required. If you're saying it's fair because the 3-0 team is assumed to win easily against a 0-3 team, then just eliminate the 0-3 team right from the start.
|
On April 26 2017 15:57 Dracolich70 wrote:
TI 4 had a massive drop of teams before main stage and it was rightfully criticized.
I don't recall the TI4 format being terribly criticized for that purpose. Not everyone was happy but to me it feels far more people dislike the group stage just for seeding into single elim.
|
On April 26 2017 16:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 15:38 Dracolich70 wrote:On April 26 2017 15:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 26 2017 14:47 DucK- wrote:On April 26 2017 13:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 26 2017 13:06 Wineandbread wrote:
For the complaint about people "getting the same place" as a team that they feel is inferior (ie. newbee/liquid vs SG assuming they lose), I feel that the placing is still fair despite the seeding. No one is actually going to compare the loser of these sets and say they are 'equal teams'. Saying that "x" team is your kryptonite from advancing further is just excuses; like for example, if tnc can't beat faceless they have no business going further in the tournament even if you'd like to see good games from them against western teams. We already saw them handily take games from EG, DC, and TBirds. It's unlikely people would say they're on the same level as SG if they lose in ro16. In an ideal world I'd love getting those awesome round robin groups where everybody plays everybody in bo2 or bo3, but dota doesn't have the LAN infrastructure I guess. Valve is comparing them, because the payout is the same. Three teams are guaranteed to go 2-3 in this tournament and get $62,500. Same payout as a team that goes 0-4. Those 2-3 teams would have had a higher chance of not finishing last though, as at least they are not facing a 'strong' opponent in the first round. I think your complaint is mainly on a SE format and not so much the group stages. Statistically, no, this system guarantees that three teams who went 2-2 in groups will be eliminated in the first round. And, no, my complaint is not single elimination. If Valve had just made arbitrary decisions and seeded every team into a Bo5 SE bracket, that would be preferable. Dumb group stage formats are just dumb. Yes, but they got presumably easier opponent to advance than the 0-3/0-4 teams, the 3-1s easier than the 2-2s. Unsurprisingly half the teams has to lose in rnd of 16. Except a Ro16 isn't required. If you're saying it's fair because the 3-0 team is assumed to win easily against a 0-3 team, then just eliminate the 0-3 team right from the start. I think you mean, the 3-0s shouldn't have rnd16, which also means you move away from your 2-2 complaint.
One less match could be an advantage or disadvantage, and it could be a can of worms for the team that has to face them in rnd of 8. Giving them the same amount of matches, but against an easier opponent seems like better than anything you have come up with, which just seems ill thought through.
|
On April 26 2017 16:06 spudde123 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 15:57 Dracolich70 wrote:
TI 4 had a massive drop of teams before main stage and it was rightfully criticized. I don't recall the TI4 format being terribly criticized for that purpose. Not everyone was happy but to me it feels far more people dislike the group stage just for seeding into single elim. Maybe not you, but a lot of people paid/pay money and travelled far, to see their teams live on stage, and they have paid in advance. You are willing to remove half away from crowd, while arguing for sport and entertainment aspects.
|
On April 26 2017 16:19 Dracolich70 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 16:06 spudde123 wrote:On April 26 2017 15:57 Dracolich70 wrote:
TI 4 had a massive drop of teams before main stage and it was rightfully criticized. I don't recall the TI4 format being terribly criticized for that purpose. Not everyone was happy but to me it feels far more people dislike the group stage just for seeding into single elim. Maybe not you, but a lot of people paid/pay money and travelled far, to see their teams live on stage, and they have paid in advance. You are willing to remove half away from crowd, while arguing for sport and entertainment aspects.
Well it isn't set in stone that group stages have to be behind closed doors, no crowd, type of events. It has been the development of the last few years in dota that the beginning of the event is often behind closed doors completely and then the rest is on a big arena. If I'm not mistaken MLG ran their events more in a larger hall where there was one main stage but also different areas where smaller stages could be built. Also old Dreamhacks used to be like that. Maybe the "one big show on stage" is more practical for event organizers, but as a viewer I don't really like the development.
My personal bias is just that I'm watching from home and largely prefer tournaments which try to gradually drop out teams and put the teams in approximately the correct order.
|
Faceless got the best possible draw for advancing further, while TNC I feel got the worst possible draw.
|
On April 26 2017 20:15 the bear jew wrote:
Faceless got the best possible draw for advancing further, while TNC I feel got the worst possible draw.
Not buying that thought. TNC have had pretty solid form on LAN tournaments and have for the past few they participated in. Faceless do not and have not.
|
I think Valve is trying to emulate traditional sport tournaments like world cup/nba playoffs with the single elim which is maybe why they're intent on keeping ro16, even though they're still inviting only 16 teams to compete.
For swiss groups, maybe a better way to handle transition into single elim would be to eliminate 0-3 teams and give a bye to 3-0 teams. Then make the 2-2 teams play round 5 to avoid some ambiguity in the middle zone. Along with this, they can extend a group stage to 3 days (they could theoretically do it in 2 since it's just 3 more bo3s across presumably 3 channels at once, but I already felt these past 2 days were quite long).
Though then it becomes a matter of who fights the 3-0 teams and how fair that becomes. So I still stand by double elim as a better format, IF valve is insistent on keeping the 16 team number rigid.
I also just realized that the regional qualifiers used double elim but the main event is single elim. volvo pls
|
On April 26 2017 06:39 Otolia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 03:05 Wintex wrote:On April 26 2017 03:01 Degu wrote:On April 26 2017 02:46 HappyTuna wrote:
I'm so glad OG is here to ruin another major with their shitty illusions. Wonder how many games it will take for everyone to copy them and we get Boston 2.0 I don't get it. Alch buys Manta and he is an illusion hero all of a sudden. So I guess AM, Jugg, Spec and other heroes that use Manta are shitty? Plus, while I think Alch is broken, it's not like they use their "shitty illusions" to rat. His built-in Terrasque-like regen and is what seems really broken for me. While it's been nerfed to reduce its uptime, those 2 games have shown he's still extremely tanky and strong. Not to mention he can farm like crazy and gift aghs. If you watched them play around the Alch, you'd see that they just stand behind the Alch to siege much like they did around Miracle-'s SF waiting to counter initiate. Also, if you also cared to watch their Naga games, instead of just saying Naga is a shit hero, you'd see that they don't really use sleep to disengage but instead they choose to use the sleep to set up the some fights. In DAC it was with an Enigma and in this major it was with a Disruptor. I don't know about you, so much teamwork and coordination comes into pulling off a combo with sleep. I've seen so many teams try and pull it off and fail miserably. Even OG botched it many times during the series against Random. But okay, you can hate on Alch & Naga on OG because hating on those heroes is the cool and popular thing to do. I don't really post here much but it's gotten to a point where people will just hate on a team because of the heroes they use. If the heroes are that OP/broken then everyone would be picking it and have an extremely good win rate on it. With that being said, I'm an OG fan but it's been frustrating for me to watch them keep going back to the same old strategies when their backs are against the wall because I always felt like they had the more versatile players and they haven't really executed much on their "other" strats. OG are not versatile. Haven't been for a while. It's a problem with their mid and safelaners who are so stagnant in hero picks, or bad as laners that they need these specific heroes that the players know how to recover/play on. The amount of pressure on S4, Jerax and fly needed to allow nobrain and ana to play a game of dota 2 is crazy. I was dining with friends, so I almost missed this Wintex's collectors edition. Anyway my gut feeling is that OG isn't any less versatile than other top teams like Newbee, EG or iG. For example, in variety of picks, during the last 6 months and in premium leagues (dotabuff's definition) here are the number of different pick : - EG: 84
- iG: 71
- NB: 83
- OG: 85
it's more that the way they play their games usually revolve around the same mentalities or "game plans". A few adjustments here and there obviously exist, but they really love illusion cores, while also enjoy those heroes that punish you very hard if you lose a teamfight. Their drafts are really smart, but they don't really change their core philosophy. It's obviously also because they are extremely apt at knowing how much they can get from a map both before and after a fight.
I might just be talking out of my ass. I'm certain that focusing the carries in the draft, having an even matchup versus s4 and banging jerax' early movements in the game destabilizes a lot of that. Ana loses most lanes if he doesn't have a crazy favorable lane, and I would say most of the mids this tournament play better than him (sumail, noone, sccc, paparazzi, abed, kuku, op, w33, miracle, midone, blink, Maaaaybe freeze).
So yeah. It's easier said than done, but teams respect them so much I feel like they pull shit out of their ass in quite a substantial amount of victories.
|
Papua New Guinea504 Posts
On April 26 2017 10:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 09:30 Kelefei2016 wrote:
Swiss system use winner plays winner and loser plays loser to decide the ranking without needing every team to play everyone here.
If you think your favourite team should be ranked higher than they should not lose in early phase. Anyhow eventually after 2 games, the 2 straight winner will face each other and the I don't think any "weak team" will have 2 straight winning game. Pretty sure the flaws of this seeding system are apparent when you look where Liquid ended up. Beat two teams in the bottom 4, get seeded above the two teams that you lose to. Seems fair. Dumb way to settle a tiebreaker. Pretty obvious that losing in the "High" bracket should seed you above the teams that won in the "Low".
It is because liquid lost with 1-2 but won in clean sweep 2-0, even though they lost to DC & Thunderbird's. The system encourage to clean sweep the opponent and discourage dragging game (3 matches rather than 2). Double elimination missed its function when come to best of 3, a loser down to lower bracket can still come back to final after winning loser bracket final, which makes no sense for winner finalist. Exactly what happened to OG in DAC
|
On April 27 2017 02:56 Kelefei2016 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 10:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 26 2017 09:30 Kelefei2016 wrote:
Swiss system use winner plays winner and loser plays loser to decide the ranking without needing every team to play everyone here.
If you think your favourite team should be ranked higher than they should not lose in early phase. Anyhow eventually after 2 games, the 2 straight winner will face each other and the I don't think any "weak team" will have 2 straight winning game. Pretty sure the flaws of this seeding system are apparent when you look where Liquid ended up. Beat two teams in the bottom 4, get seeded above the two teams that you lose to. Seems fair. Dumb way to settle a tiebreaker. Pretty obvious that losing in the "High" bracket should seed you above the teams that won in the "Low". It is because liquid lost with 1-2 but won in clean sweep 2-0, even though they lost to DC & Thunderbird's. The system encourage to clean sweep the opponent and discourage dragging game (3 matches rather than 2). Double elimination missed its function when come to best of 3, a loser down to lower bracket can still come back to final after winning loser bracket final, which makes no sense for winner finalist. Exactly what happened to OG in DAC
Liquid (theoretically) got clean sweeps because they went Mid-Low-Mid-Low in the brackets.
DC and Thunderbird went Mid-High-Mid-High.
(And EG went Mid-Low-Mid-High)
Using map score is stupid when the group stage guarantees some teams will face easier opponents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
