|
Regardless I think we can all agree that this format is not intuitive, and regardless from which way you look at it, it doesn't feel optimal at all.
You've got 4 players in a group. Let them duke it out in an intuitive fashion. The only reason I can think of is that they don't think they can afford having to play 3 more games (possibly more) if a tiebreaker appears.
But there simply has to be another way. If necessary, just play the tiebreakers offstage and report the results later... Just make a fair format. God, I'm going to be so pissed this entire season just because of this.
Can someone explain the format they use in major Brood War tournaments so we have something to compare to?
|
Are there any VODs?
e: can't find anything on Gomtv.net... (I got the ticket...)
|
On January 02 2011 23:01 supersoft wrote:
Are there any VODs?
Seconded, I just woke up and missed everything.
|
On January 02 2011 22:35 HeroHenry wrote:
Aw maka might lose his code S =[
If he keeps loosing, he should lose his Code S. Am I wrong?
|
On January 02 2011 22:53 ParasitJonte wrote:
Regardless I think we can all agree that this format is not intuitive, and regardless from which way you look at it, it doesn't feel optimal at all.
You've got 4 players in a group. Let them duke it out in an intuitive fashion. The only reason I can think of is that they don't think they can afford having to play 3 more games (possibly more) if a tiebreaker appears.
But there simply has to be another way. If necessary, just play the tiebreakers offstage and report the results later... Just make a fair format. God, I'm going to be so pissed this entire season just because of this.
Can someone explain the format they use in major Brood War tournaments so we have something to compare to?
Who cares, you'll still get good games, and as usual the best players will rise to the top of their groups. As long as that happens it shouldn't matter if the format is retarded.
|
are all theses games non recommended or u guys just hate games that have terran on it ? xDDDDDDDDD
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 02 2011 22:53 ParasitJonte wrote:
Regardless I think we can all agree that this format is not intuitive, and regardless from which way you look at it, it doesn't feel optimal at all.
You've got 4 players in a group. Let them duke it out in an intuitive fashion. The only reason I can think of is that they don't think they can afford having to play 3 more games (possibly more) if a tiebreaker appears.
But there simply has to be another way. If necessary, just play the tiebreakers offstage and report the results later... Just make a fair format. God, I'm going to be so pissed this entire season just because of this.
Can someone explain the format they use in major Brood War tournaments so we have something to compare to?
I'm pretty sure that OSL and MSL have group stages that are almost exactly the same, and similar tournament structure all together.
EDIT: Their group stages are similar, but different people face off after the 1st two group matches. It winner-winner, loser-loser, rather then winner-loser, winner-loser.
|
On January 02 2011 22:45 TheBB wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Well I did understand your opinion I just disapprove how you approached that by giving the general definition. How you view that definition is entitled to you which I'm at peace now.
A tournament is indeed to separate the best from the worst but what you want is something which is hard to achieve with tie breakers at the end.
To determine the best you need an infinite amount of games to see who is the best between each player. You cannot do that and especially in 1 month and with the resources available from GOM.
The point I'm making is it doesn't matter what you or me want. It's about what GOM can do and this is it. If they feel or think it can be better people need to mail them and give them proof that it can be better. They listen to the community after all and especially to PM's you give them whether it's on TL or on GOM forums (through threads). People are discussing it pointlessly with other people who can't change it. But GOM can. Stop with posting here and pm them or mail them or w/e.
If anyone disagrees they can pm me and discuss it with me. I shouldn't derail the thread anymore since it isn't about today's groupstage.
|
what a horrible day for prime
|
On January 02 2011 23:06 Scoop wrote:If he keeps loosing, he should lose his Code S. Am I wrong?
Logically speaking you are right, Scoop.
Im sorry that we are no emotionless robots like you.
|
Interview with Nestea & TheBest pop up on playxp already. Where's Canuck dude 
|
So no VODs at all? 
|
On January 02 2011 22:53 ParasitJonte wrote:
Regardless I think we can all agree that this format is not intuitive, and regardless from which way you look at it, it doesn't feel optimal at all.
You've got 4 players in a group. Let them duke it out in an intuitive fashion. The only reason I can think of is that they don't think they can afford having to play 3 more games (possibly more) if a tiebreaker appears.
But there simply has to be another way. If necessary, just play the tiebreakers offstage and report the results later... Just make a fair format. God, I'm going to be so pissed this entire season just because of this.
Can someone explain the format they use in major Brood War tournaments so we have something to compare to?
This is the exact same format as MSL, and OSL arguably (it does in my opinion) has a worse format. Personally, I think this is a pretty good format.
EDIT: Their group stages are similar, but different people face off after the 1st two group matches. It winner-winner, loser-loser, rather then winner-loser, winner-loser.
Ok, didn't realize it was this format. Yeah, that is really stupid for GSL. It's still not the worst, but it's pretty bad xD
|
|
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 02 2011 23:48 emperorchampion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 22:53 ParasitJonte wrote:
Regardless I think we can all agree that this format is not intuitive, and regardless from which way you look at it, it doesn't feel optimal at all.
You've got 4 players in a group. Let them duke it out in an intuitive fashion. The only reason I can think of is that they don't think they can afford having to play 3 more games (possibly more) if a tiebreaker appears.
But there simply has to be another way. If necessary, just play the tiebreakers offstage and report the results later... Just make a fair format. God, I'm going to be so pissed this entire season just because of this.
Can someone explain the format they use in major Brood War tournaments so we have something to compare to? This is the exact same format as MSL, and OSL arguably (it does in my opinion) has a worse format. Personally, I think this is a pretty good format. Show nested quote +EDIT: Their group stages are similar, but different people face off after the 1st two group matches. It winner-winner, loser-loser, rather then winner-loser, winner-loser. Ok, didn't realize it was this format. Yeah, that is really stupid for GSL. It's still not the worst, but it's pretty bad xD
Honestly, I don't see much difference in the order which the players play.
|
some of you guys are just delusional if u think this is a good format, it is a format different than msl (which is also quite unfair) designed simply because gomtv couldnt afford to air tiebreakers
nothing more, nothing less
if its not obvious to anyone that, when ure dividing players/teams/whatever into groups, u should have them all play each other to determine the winner instead of going the msl/gomtv way which inevitably screws over a, perhaps small, % of players ...
it is what it is, just please dont try to sugarcoat it (jon posted the format is like that because of time constraints, why would fanboys feel the need to defend it anyway is beyond me, especially when gomtv goes on and has breaks of 20min between games)
|
|
|
|
|
My only complaint with the how the group stages are being run is when after two rounds the standings are 2-0 1-1 1-1 0-2.
The two players who are 1-1 have already played. I think the winner should be 2nd and the loser 3rd.
Just my opinion. Doesn't really matter what my opinion is, GOM isn't going to change their system to make me happy. I will just be rooting for 2-0 2-0 0-2 0-2 OR 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 to happen all the time.
|
On January 02 2011 22:13 wachnlurn wrote:
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.
By playing bo1's? How is that possible? bo1's are inherently a crap shoot everyone knows higher number of games between two people really tells you who is better and less number leaves more question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
