EPT[GSL] Code S Ro32 Group A - Page 68
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
| ||
|
shannn
Netherlands2891 Posts
On January 02 2011 20:58 Pudge_172 wrote: Actually what I want is if a group goes 2-0 1-1 1-1 0-2 then two players who are tied 1-1 in the group stage that the player who won the meeting between the 1-1 players should be 2nd in the group with the other placing 3rd. This is the only flaw I have with their group system. If it goes 2-0 2-0 0-2 0-2 then you have the 2-0 vs 2-0 for 1st/2nd and the 0-2 vs 0-2 for 3rd/4th. If it goes 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 then you will end up 2-1 2-1 1-2 1-2 with clear tiebreaks. It's just the 2-0 1-1 1-1 0-2 that they screwed up. ... Let me ask a simple question. What's the point when 2 players are 1-1 who is 2nd and 3rd? They both have the same amount of games and results. They will play again in the 5th match to decide who is 2nd and 3rd. Which would mean it would end up with 2-0 2-1 1-2 0-2 which makes it fair and logical then right? So doesn't it kinda strike to you that it's irrelevant who's at 2nd or 3rd after just 2 rounds? | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On January 02 2011 20:58 Pudge_172 wrote: Actually what I want is if a group goes 2-0 1-1 1-1 0-2 then two players who are tied 1-1 in the group stage that the player who won the meeting between the 1-1 players should be 2nd in the group with the other placing 3rd. This is the only flaw I have with their group system. If it goes 2-0 2-0 0-2 0-2 then you have the 2-0 vs 2-0 for 1st/2nd and the 0-2 vs 0-2 for 3rd/4th. If it goes 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 then you will end up 2-1 2-1 1-2 1-2 with clear tiebreaks. It's just the 2-0 1-1 1-1 0-2 that they screwed up. Well that can happen in, say, the MSL too. Say Bisu beats Stork and Flash beats Jaedong. Flash beats Bisu in the winner's match and Stork beats Jaedong in the loser's match. Flash 2-0 Bisu 1-1 Stork 1-1 Jaedong 0-2 With Bisu being 1-0 vs Stork. So this problem's not unique to GSL. | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
On January 02 2011 21:03 shannn wrote: ... Let me ask a simple question. What's the point when 2 players are 1-1 who is 2nd and 3rd? They both have the same amount of games and results. They will play again in the 5th match to decide who is 2nd and 3rd. Which would mean it would end up with 2-0 2-1 1-2 0-2 which makes it fair and logical then right? So doesn't it kinda strike to you that it's irrelevant who's at 2nd or 3rd after just 2 rounds? Maybe they'll FLIP A FUCKING COIN like they did at Dreamhack. (still mad) | ||
|
shannn
Netherlands2891 Posts
On January 02 2011 21:04 The KY wrote: Maybe they'll FLIP A FUCKING COIN like they did at Dreamhack. (still mad) This system has no tie breakers whatsoever. So they'll never flip a coin  | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
Come again? | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
This system is specifically set up to avoid tie breakers. | ||
|
shannn
Netherlands2891 Posts
I need to repeat? The system is made to avoid all tie breakers with 2 or 3 players having 1-2 or 2-0. So there is no tie breaker in this system. | ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
On January 02 2011 21:08 shannn wrote: I need to repeat? The system is made to avoid all tie breakers with 2 or 3 players having 1-2 or 2-0. So there is no tie breaker in this system. All matches are tie breakers... or none of them are. They just come on different levels. Here you could say there are three levels of tie breakers. The first two games, the next two games, and the final one or two. Tie breakers break ties. Since you start with a tie, surely you need tie breakers (i.e. games). Some systems have tie breakers which may not happen, or tie breakers with indeterminable length. Neither of these are necessary qualities for tie breakers to have. | ||
|
Scoop
Finland482 Posts
In the case of 2-0, 1-1, 1-1, 0-2, the guys with 1-1 have already played a bo3 and the winner advances. | ||
|
Wheats
United States68 Posts
Flame away if you want but I felt that game was a great deal closer than many people thought it was and I though maka even had it won. All the rest of the games were forgettable but I think thats how blistering TvZ might end up looking in the future, taking half the map and starving the zerg with terran defense advantage. | ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
On January 02 2011 21:12 Scoop wrote: Actually the system is fine. But would be better if they cut that last match and make these bo3. In the case of 2-0, 1-1, 1-1, 0-2, the guys with 1-1 have already played a bo3 and the winner advances. But that would allow someone to advance without winning two games. What if they go 1-1 x4? Do you want the winners of the second games to advance then? Surely not. So if, in the first winner vs loser game, the loser wins, he has to hope that in the other game, the winner wins, and then he'll advance? If not, he has to play another game? How does that make sense? | ||
|
shannn
Netherlands2891 Posts
On January 02 2011 21:12 TheBB wrote: All matches are tie breakers... or none of them are. They just come on different levels. Here you could say there are three levels of tie breakers. The first two games, the next two games, and the final one or two. Tie breakers break ties. Since you start with a tie, surely you need tie breakers (i.e. games). Some systems have tie breakers which may not happen, or tie breakers with indeterminable length. Neither of these are necessary qualities for tie breakers to have. You're going to discuss what a tie breaker is? Tie breakers break ties. Since you start with a tie, surely you need tie breakers (i.e. games). A tiebreaker or tiebreak is used to determine a winner from among players or teams that are tied at the end of a contest, or a set of contests. (in this case groupstage). Not during a contest. | ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
On January 02 2011 21:12 TheBB wrote: All matches are tie breakers... or none of them are. They just come on different levels. Here you could say there are three levels of tie breakers. The first two games, the next two games, and the final one or two. Tie breakers break ties. Since you start with a tie, surely you need tie breakers (i.e. games). Some systems have tie breakers which may not happen, or tie breakers with indeterminable length. Neither of these are necessary qualities for tie breakers to have. Quite simply..a ridiculous post; what are you trying to prove? The format is not natural as it has not been done to this extent in other major tournaments; once we get used to it and see it executed through each round we will understand it better.. No games were really that great; which is shame for day 1.. but Nestea's muta bully was pretty cool to watch  | ||
|
Scoop
Finland482 Posts
On January 02 2011 21:18 TheBB wrote: But that would allow someone to advance without winning two games. What if they go 1-1 x4? Do you want the winners of the second games to advance then? Surely not. So if, in the first winner vs loser game, the loser wins, he has to hope that in the other game, the winner wins, and then he'll advance? If not, he has to play another game? How does that make sense? 1-1 x4 is a different scenario obviously and would work just like it is now, except it would be bo3. In other words, the players who go 2-1 advance. | ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
On January 02 2011 21:18 shannn wrote: You're going to discuss what a tie breaker is? A tiebreaker or tiebreak is used to determine a winner from among players or teams that are tied at the end of a contest, or a set of contests. (in this case groupstage). Not during a contest. My point is that if they are tied at the end of a contest, then the contest ends with a tie. If there are more games, it's not the end of the contest. So I should be able to say that the second set of games are tiebreakers after the "end of the first set of games"? According to you? But this is anyway a stupid discussion. | ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
On January 02 2011 21:21 Scoop wrote: 1-1 x4 is a different scenario obviously and would work just like it is now, except it would be bo3. In other words, the players who go 2-1 advance. From the point of view of each individual player going 1-1, a 1-1 x4 is exactly the same as a 2-0 1-1 1-1 0-2. In one case they play a tie breaker, in the other case one advances and the other does not. Which one applies is left out of the hands of the players involved. And that is the problem. | ||
|
Odoakar
Croatia1835 Posts
It places one player in such bad spot, the player 4 who has to play against player 1 is in a much tougher spot, as if he loses, and the player 3 wins against player 2, then the player 4 needs to win 2 games against player 3 if he wants to advance, but the player 3 only needs one win. So we have situations where Best advances even though he didn't have to play the strongest player in the group - NesTea. Take this group for example: oGsMC oGsInCa oGsNada SanZenith SanZenith is pretty much screwed. Let's say he loses to MC and Nada wins against Inca. MC then thrashes Inca, who is out. The rankings would then be: MC 2:0 advances Nada 1:0 Zenith 0:1 Inca 0:2 Now Zenith needs to win 2 games against Nada to advance, while Nada needs only one. But NaDa doesn't need to play against the strongest player in the group, while SenZenith had. It makes no sense. | ||
|
Scoop
Finland482 Posts
On January 02 2011 21:29 Odoakar wrote: This system is just...I don't know...retarded? It places one player in such bad spot, the player 4 who has to play against player 1 is in a much tougher spot, as if he loses, and the player 3 wins against player 2, then the player 4 needs to win 2 games against player 3 if he wants to advance, but the player 3 only needs one win. So we have situations where Best advances even though he didn't have to play the strongest player in the group - NesTea. Take this group for example: oGsMC oGsInCa oGsNada SanZenith SanZenith is pretty much screwed. Let's say he loses to MC and Nada wins against Inca. MC then thrashes Inca, who is out. The rankings would then be: MC 2:0 advances Nada 1:0 Zenith 0:1 Inca 0:2 Now Zenith needs to win 2 games against Nada to advance, while Nada needs only one. But NaDa doesn't need to play against the strongest player in the group, while SenZenith had. It makes no sense. Ever heard of seeds in tournaments? Know how playoffs work in the NHL? SanZenith is pretty lucky to even be in this tournament. | ||
| ||
