|
On January 02 2011 21:23 TheBB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 21:18 shannn wrote:On January 02 2011 21:12 TheBB wrote:On January 02 2011 21:08 shannn wrote:On January 02 2011 21:06 TheBB wrote:On January 02 2011 21:05 shannn wrote:On January 02 2011 21:04 The KY wrote:On January 02 2011 21:03 shannn wrote: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? Maybe they'll FLIP A FUCKING COIN like they did at Dreamhack. (still mad) This system has no tie breakers Come again? 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. 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. 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?
Learn to read me?
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.
At the end of a groupstage which is after round / turn 3.
There are 3 scenarios in this system. Let's just go by all scenario's and see which are tied.
Scenario 1
3-0
2-1
1-2
0-3
Scenario 2
2-0
2-1
1-2
0-2
Scenario 3
2-1
2-1
1-2
1-2
You might think at scenario 3 there would be a tie breaker but it's not. The results between the tied players determine their rankings.
So how are tie breakers going to be in effect at the end of a contest?
My point in being that there won't be any tie breakers after the contest in this group which is after 5 or 6 games you will always see directly who advances or not.
On January 02 2011 21:24 TheBB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 21:21 Scoop wrote:On January 02 2011 21:18 TheBB wrote: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? 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.
I can finally understand where you're coming from.
You have a problem with that ok fine your opinion.
GOM made this format to let the better seeded players have a better start because they earned that right by performing in the earlier seasons.
But at the same time reward the winners of their 1st match in this case NesTea and theBest.
Maka had a 2nd chance by actually going to win his 2nd game but he didn't. So he is out but you are maybe thinking that Maka could still advance if he played his 3rd game in which the rest would end up with 1-2 then. Then you would need tie breakers for these 3 but GOM doesn't want this as it can take a long time and they specifically wanted to avoid tie breakers.
This system is more like 1/3rd double elimination and 2/3rd round robin groupstage. You have a problem with the 1/3rd double elimination because a player who loses his first 2 games is immediately out.
|
I screwed up this post and i dont want to mislead people so i jsut deleted it. you can read it below if you like : )
|
On January 02 2011 20:57 ffz wrote:
Doesnt it seem like poltprime got screwed? LOL he and bestfou are tied 1-1 but he lost to nestea (who ended up 2-0) while best beat maka (who ended up 0-2)...
No. I don't get why people think this is so strange. Had Polt advanced, that would've been unfair because they both were 1-1. Now one of them is 2-1 and the other 1-2, therefore the guy with 2-1 advances.
|
Totally overslept this. =P
Not a pleasant first day in Prime land, I see...
|
On January 02 2011 21:37 wachnlurn wrote:
Original Standings Group A
A Nestea
B Maka
C Thebest
D Polt
A=1-8
C= 9-16
BD= 25-32
thebest
Nestea PoltPrime
Maka
Maka thebest
thebest didnt have to play Nestea because he was the #2 seed in the group
PoltPrime and maka were always going to have to play tougher matches because of their seeded position. People says well thebest lucked out because he didnt have to play Nestea need to remember its not luck its because he had better results in previous tournaments thus he has an easier route to ro16
You're wrong.
It's :
A Nestea
C Maka
B Thebest
D Polt
A=1-8
C= 9-16
BD= 25-32
The better seeded players get to play the lower seeded players first.
It's just because Maka the better seeded player lost his 1st game thus he had to play vs NesTea the winner of the other match (the higher seeded player).
|
On January 02 2011 21:40 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 20:57 ffz wrote:
Doesnt it seem like poltprime got screwed? LOL he and bestfou are tied 1-1 but he lost to nestea (who ended up 2-0) while best beat maka (who ended up 0-2)... No. I don't get why people think this is so strange. Had Polt advanced, that would've been unfair because they both were 1-1. Now one of them is 2-1 and the other 1-2, therefore the guy with 2-1 advances.
poltprime didnt get screwed he started with a lower seed than thebest and nestea. thebest doesnt have to play nestea because he was already seeded top 2 in the group. now if thebest had lost both games to poltprime he would be in an updown match and next season he wouldnt be seeded top two, maybe poltprime is seeded top two and now poltprime has the easier route.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 02 2011 21:44 shannn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 21:37 wachnlurn wrote:
Original Standings Group A
A Nestea
B Maka
C Thebest
D Polt
A=1-8
C= 9-16
BD= 25-32
thebest
Nestea PoltPrime
Maka
Maka thebest
thebest didnt have to play Nestea because he was the #2 seed in the group
PoltPrime and maka were always going to have to play tougher matches because of their seeded position. People says well thebest lucked out because he didnt have to play Nestea need to remember its not luck its because he had better results in previous tournaments thus he has an easier route to ro16 ] You're wrong. It's : A Nestea C Maka
B ThebestD Polt A=1-8 C= 9-16 BD= 25-32 The better seeded players get to play the lower seeded players first. It's just because Maka the better seeded player lost his 1st game thus he had to play vs NesTea the winner of the other match (the higher seeded player). [/spoiler]
This is what i was going off of did i miss position maka?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=177392
This is how each group is composed.
Code S has 8 groups of 4 players.
A B
C D
Rank 1~8 players from the previous tournament are each positioned in A by the group drawing.
Rank 9~16 players are each positioned in C by the group drawing.
Rank 17~32 players are positioned in B & D of each group by the group drawing.
The match up always start as A vs. B and C vs. D.
The winner will play the loser in each turn.
So if B and D loses the next match up will be A vs. D and B vs. C.
|
On January 02 2011 21:44 shannn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 21:37 wachnlurn wrote:
Original Standings Group A
A Nestea
B Maka
C Thebest
D Polt
A=1-8
C= 9-16
BD= 25-32
thebest
Nestea PoltPrime
Maka
Maka thebest
thebest didnt have to play Nestea because he was the #2 seed in the group
PoltPrime and maka were always going to have to play tougher matches because of their seeded position. People says well thebest lucked out because he didnt have to play Nestea need to remember its not luck its because he had better results in previous tournaments thus he has an easier route to ro16 You're wrong. It's : A Nestea C Maka
B ThebestD Polt A=1-8 C= 9-16 BD= 25-32 The better seeded players get to play the lower seeded players first. It's just because Maka the better seeded player lost his 1st game thus he had to play vs NesTea the winner of the other match (the higher seeded player).
Well they were trying to give Maka the easier road but he screwed himself over. Had Nestea lost his first match, Maka would have played Polt. I'm sure Nestea would have preferred to play TheBest instead of Maka as well.
|
It doesn't seem like the matches today were very entertaining for the most part. Am I right? Did I miss much by sleeping in and not waking up to watch the first day of GSL4?
|
On January 02 2011 21:58 zemiron wrote:
It doesn't seem like the matches today were very entertaining for the most part. Am I right? Did I miss much by sleeping in and not waking up to watch the first day of GSL4?
I think people had enough of ZvT and TvT and ZvZ in the last GSL. Needs a protoss player to make it interesting 
|
On January 02 2011 21:51 wachnlurn wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 02 2011 21:44 shannn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 21:37 wachnlurn wrote:
Original Standings Group A
A Nestea
B Maka
C Thebest
D Polt
A=1-8
C= 9-16
BD= 25-32
thebest
Nestea PoltPrime
Maka
Maka thebest
thebest didnt have to play Nestea because he was the #2 seed in the group
PoltPrime and maka were always going to have to play tougher matches because of their seeded position. People says well thebest lucked out because he didnt have to play Nestea need to remember its not luck its because he had better results in previous tournaments thus he has an easier route to ro16 ] You're wrong. It's : A Nestea C Maka
B ThebestD Polt A=1-8 C= 9-16 BD= 25-32 The better seeded players get to play the lower seeded players first. It's just because Maka the better seeded player lost his 1st game thus he had to play vs NesTea the winner of the other match (the higher seeded player). This is what i was going off of did i miss position maka? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=177392This is how each group is composed. Code S has 8 groups of 4 players. A B C D Rank 1~8 players from the previous tournament are each positioned in A by the group drawing. Rank 9~16 players are each positioned in C by the group drawing. Rank 17~32 players are positioned in B & D of each group by the group drawing. The match up always start as A vs. B and C vs. D. The winner will play the loser in each turn. So if B and D loses the next match up will be A vs. D and B vs. C.
You positioned Maka wrong. Maka is a C seeded player and higher ranked than theBest. Which would made your arguments about the players in your first post wrong.
It's due to the fact that Maka lost to theBest which made the way for theBest easier to avoid NesTea by NesTea winning his game against Maka (his second loss).
|
my bad i made an error and had maka seeded higher than thebest but really its maka>thebest.
yea maka screwed himself over and thebest just did what had to do: take someoenes spot. in this case it was maka. i wonder if thebest is seeded higher than poltprime that would explain why he had easier matches (not playing NesTea)
|
On January 02 2011 22:05 wachnlurn wrote:
my bad i made an error and had maka seeded higher than thebest but really its maka>thebest.
yea maka screwed himself over and thebest just did what had to do: take someoenes spot. in this case it was maka. i wonder if thebest is seeded higher than poltprime that would explain why he had easier matches (not playing NesTea)
It's always
Seed 1 vs 3
2 vs 4.
So theBest was basically the lowest seeded player.
|
On January 02 2011 22:07 shannn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 22:05 wachnlurn wrote:
my bad i made an error and had maka seeded higher than thebest but really its maka>thebest.
yea maka screwed himself over and thebest just did what had to do: take someoenes spot. in this case it was maka. i wonder if thebest is seeded higher than poltprime that would explain why he had easier matches (not playing NesTea) It's always Seed 1 vs 3 2 vs 4. So theBest was basically the lowest seeded player.
No B&D or as you say 3&4 are of equal rank (17~32)
C is 9-16 and A is 1-8
The system seems pretty fair to me and will be better once the players settle into their true ranks. The problem at the moment are with players like the fou clan who only played in one GSL and some who have played in 3 who are maybe ranked a bit higher than they should be at the moment.
|
it all really boils down to making it harder for the top players to be "cheesed out of S class" it will be more difficult for someone to be lucked into the bo16 where the real money is. its kind of like poker... you go all in at the start of the tourney in hopes that you have just enough chips to stick around till you make the money.
and if someone legitimately deserves to be in S class they will have earned it. once that person gets to S class.. its going to be pretty hard for them to get booted out. unless they really screw up.
|
On January 02 2011 22:11 Vimsey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 22:07 shannn wrote:On January 02 2011 22:05 wachnlurn wrote:
my bad i made an error and had maka seeded higher than thebest but really its maka>thebest.
yea maka screwed himself over and thebest just did what had to do: take someoenes spot. in this case it was maka. i wonder if thebest is seeded higher than poltprime that would explain why he had easier matches (not playing NesTea) It's always Seed 1 vs 3 2 vs 4. So theBest was basically the lowest seeded player. No B&D or as you say 3&4 are of equal rank (17~32) C is 9-16 and A is 1-8
I actually researched it in this thread (source). In which before the matchups were posted by GOM I made the list of matchups according to their news.
Like for instance in group H IdrA is the lowest seeded player and Jinro is the 2nd so they had to play eachother in round 1. Same went for the rest.
Unless you call it random in every group (in which every 2nd seeded is playing against the 4th seeded).
|
Well, I wanted to watch VODs.
Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.
Way to go. :D
|
Yeah, gomtv.net seems to be down :/
|
Aw maka might lose his code S =[
|
On January 02 2011 21:33 shannn wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 02 2011 21:23 TheBB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 21:18 shannn wrote:On January 02 2011 21:12 TheBB wrote:On January 02 2011 21:08 shannn wrote:On January 02 2011 21:06 TheBB wrote:On January 02 2011 21:05 shannn wrote:On January 02 2011 21:04 The KY wrote:On January 02 2011 21:03 shannn wrote: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? Maybe they'll FLIP A FUCKING COIN like they did at Dreamhack. (still mad) This system has no tie breakers Come again? 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. 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. 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? Learn to read me?
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.
At the end of a groupstage which is after round / turn 3. There are 3 scenarios in this system. Let's just go by all scenario's and see which are tied. Scenario 1 3-0 2-1 1-2 0-3 Scenario 2 2-0 2-1 1-2 0-2 Scenario 3 2-1 2-1 1-2 1-2 You might think at scenario 3 there would be a tie breaker but it's not. The results between the tied players determine their rankings. So how are tie breakers going to be in effect at the end of a contest? My point in being that there won't be any tie breakers after the contest in this group which is after 5 or 6 games you will always see directly who advances or not. On January 02 2011 21:24 TheBB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 21:21 Scoop wrote:On January 02 2011 21:18 TheBB wrote: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? 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. I can finally understand where you're coming from. You have a problem with that ok fine your opinion. GOM made this format to let the better seeded players have a better start because they earned that right by performing in the earlier seasons. But at the same time reward the winners of their 1st match in this case NesTea and theBest. Maka had a 2nd chance by actually going to win his 2nd game but he didn't. So he is out but you are maybe thinking that Maka could still advance if he played his 3rd game in which the rest would end up with 1-2 then. Then you would need tie breakers for these 3 but GOM doesn't want this as it can take a long time and they specifically wanted to avoid tie breakers. This system is more like 1/3rd double elimination and 2/3rd round robin groupstage. You have a problem with the 1/3rd double elimination because a player who loses his first 2 games is immediately out.
Dear Shannn,
My discussion with you is about the terminology "tie breaker". The other one is about the actual group format, and is with someone else. If you claimed to understand my point in that discussion, I think you are wrong. But that's not important, because I was discussing that with someone else.
My point is purely semantic. Tie breakers are a natural and integral part of a tournament format and there is nothing about them (I believe) that clearly and distinctly separates them from main rounds. Therefore, the distinction between tie breakers and not tie breakers is wholly arbitrary, and thus, such a statement as "there are no tie breakers in this system" could be both true and false, depending on wherever the line is drawn, so it contains no actual information at all. I could just as well claim that the whole tournament is made up of nothing but tie breakers.
After all, that's what a tournament is for. To separate the best from the worst.
I'm just saying that some rounds can be considered tie breakers for other rounds, but you can't really draw a final separation between rounds that are tie breakers and rounds that are not.
That is all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
