EPTDo you like the new Super-Ace PL Format? - Page 4
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
| ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
| ||
|
ktp
United States797 Posts
| ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8556 Posts
I think people are mad because they think the regular format is supposed to favor the team with more depth. | ||
|
Gustav_Wind
United States646 Posts
On August 03 2009 10:27 StarBrift wrote: How is getting two tries easier than getting one? Aren't the chances of better players winning greater the more games are played? If they were just doing a normal BO7 they would still have to win an entire match. The difference here is that even after they win that one they still need to win the other or take the ace match down. So if they lose they still need to win a BO7. But the problem lies int he fact that OZ has less of a chance of actually winning a BO7 than both CJ and SKT1 because they have only one solid threat as opposed to the tripple threat of SKT1 right now (not counting Best) or the extremely well rounded CJ that imo has atleast 4 worthy aces. Imo the only reason CJ lost to OZ is due to overwork because they are so far into the leagues. OZ members (except Jaedong) only has proleague right now. I'm not sure if you're arguing that this format is better for OZ than one BO5 or than one BO7. BO5 is obviously better for OZ no matter how you view it. If it were only one BO7 it would be like it is now but with less risk for SKT1 to fall to OZ snipers who devote 100% of their time into taking out one player at one map. Now atleast they have to practise for more matchups. Hot Bid's reasoning is correct. I'll just make up some numbers for the sake of making the example easier. Let's say Oz's chance of winning a Bo7 vs CJ is 40%, because CJ is a deeper team, and that Jaedong's chances of winning an ace match is 80%. In a normal single Bo7 format, Oz's chance of winning is 40%. Simple. In this format, Oz's chance of winning is (chance of winning both sets) + (chance of winning 1 of the two sets)*(chance of winning super ace). That is, (.4*.4) + (.4*.6*2)*.8. This comes out to .544, or 54.4%. | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66363 Posts
Because of more games | ||
|
roronoe
Canada1527 Posts
| ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On August 03 2009 13:09 Aphelion wrote: I haven't followed PL for a while, someone explain to me what the hell this is about. So ACE match = 3 wins? Then why did Hwaseung win purely due to ace match just because Jaedong won? If teams split the bo7s, there is a super ace match which determines which team advances. Oz lost the second bo7 after winning the first. Jaedong won the super ace so his team advanced. | ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8556 Posts
On August 03 2009 12:12 Gustav_Wind wrote: Hot Bid's reasoning is correct. I'll just make up some numbers for the sake of making the example easier. Let's say Oz's chance of winning a Bo7 vs CJ is 40%, because CJ is a deeper team, and that Jaedong's chances of winning an ace match is 80%. In a normal single Bo7 format, Oz's chance of winning is 40%. Simple. In this format, Oz's chance of winning is (chance of winning both sets) + (chance of winning 1 of the two sets)*(chance of winning super ace). That is, (.4*.4) + (.4*.6*2)*.8. This comes out to .544, or 54.4%. Too many assumptions and generalizations. I did the math for STX and Khan using diff percentages and the results varied. | ||
|
Kyuki
Sweden1867 Posts
If you think about it, why should the numbers matter if a team wins a set? I mean if TeamX wins with 4-0 or 4-3, it's still a 1-0 and 3 points. If the second game ties up the score I really dont think it's fair to give the win to the team that lost less sets since the score actually is 1-1. The real question is if the third game should be played between just two players or if it should come down to a last Bo7. Personally I like the format - if it comes down to 1 player in the end it will still be a teameffort if that single player wins because of all the blood and sweat they've all shared in practice. And it would be stupid to say that another BO7 is more fair - it's rather just tipping the balance to other teams, than how the balance is tipped atm. | ||
|
endGame
United States394 Posts
On August 03 2009 01:52 GGQ wrote: No. It's a bad format for proleague, which shouldn't put such emphasis on a single star player. This also. | ||
|
GinNtoniC
Sweden2945 Posts
It's dramatic and I suppose it's not bad in a spectator-perspective. Just don't find it overly fair in an example like the last semis.. | ||
|
Aurious
Canada1772 Posts
| ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
| ||
|
CoL_DarkstaR
Germany649 Posts
| ||
|
Naib
Hungary4904 Posts
| ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On August 03 2009 02:06 TerranGuy wrote: I think it would be fun to see 2v2 be the super ace, but that's just me. 4v4 Hunters.... would be epic. :p A man can dream... | ||
|
GoSu
Korea (South)1773 Posts
That's create more tention for players and it's more for the show too. | ||
|
foeffa
Belgium2115 Posts
On August 03 2009 01:31 ssystem wrote: What's the point of this poll? Basically Oz fans will vote yes. Everyone else will vote no. I was thinking of a way to phrase it but this totally expresses my sentiment so I 'll just QFT.  | ||
| ||
