|
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.
it IS strange, because what is the point of a group stage if you don't play everyone in your group. It is by arbitrary seeding luck that theBest does not have to play Nestea, arguably the strongest player in that group. having everyone play each other would only be 6 games total anyway (barring tiebreakers) which is similar to the system that works now anyway. AB AC AD BC BD CD. Especially in a Bo1 players could potentially cheese 2 wins over a quality player and knock out a deserving one from S class completely.
I'm just saying that seeing two players play two games and end up 1-1, one is decided as better by who he had played previously. If this situation comes up again, it will really annoy me.
|
I don't think they re-seed the players in the round of 16, nestea said in his interview that he wants fruitdealer to advance as 2nd in his group so he can play him.
|
On January 03 2011 05:07 Greentellon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 05:01 Coramoor wrote:On January 03 2011 04:55 Greentellon wrote:
Only thing that matters at this stage is the top 2 of the group of 4. Top 2 advance and it doesn't matter in what order the top 2 is in because the Ro16 will be randomized into groups JUST like this round, but instead of 8 groups Ro16 has 4 groups.
So the order of top 2 in group does not matter.
Who is #3 and who is #4 does matter, because #3 gets an advantage over #4 in the "up and down" -matches that determine who will be dropped to Code A and who can stay in Code S. i'm still confused though, because instead of playing out the 6 games in a way that makes sense, they then had poltprime and thebest play twice, which is weird, cause polt wins that game taking him to 1-1, thebestfou is 1-1, then if poltprime loses to maka, then maka is 1-2 and if thebest loses to nestea, then you have a 3 way tie at 1-2, it seems a little broken to me seems like they cut it off far too early if this were proper group play Nestea - polt: 1-0 Maka - TheBest - 0-1 Polt - TheBest - 1-0 Nestea - Maka: 1-0 That was how it went right? Nestea: 2 wins Polt: 1 win theBest: 1 win Maka: 0 wins They had theBest and Polt play a game to see which one of them is #2 (he advances) and which one of them is #3 (he does not advance). This playoff match does not give extra points, only determines #2 and #3. Unless I remember the scores or the system wrong.
your layout is correct, however the number of situations that interestingly arise from proper group play, for example you can get 3 players at 1-2, you can get 3 players at 2-1, both of those would require a proper tiebreaker, you can also get two players at 2-1 and two players at 1-2, simple as then you go by advantage, it just seems like the current system screws players pretty hard when they easily could finish third in their group instead of 4th
i've posted on gomtv.net forums hoping for an official answer, no idea if i'll get one
|
On January 03 2011 05:16 Coramoor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 05:07 Greentellon wrote:On January 03 2011 05:01 Coramoor wrote:On January 03 2011 04:55 Greentellon wrote:
Only thing that matters at this stage is the top 2 of the group of 4. Top 2 advance and it doesn't matter in what order the top 2 is in because the Ro16 will be randomized into groups JUST like this round, but instead of 8 groups Ro16 has 4 groups.
So the order of top 2 in group does not matter.
Who is #3 and who is #4 does matter, because #3 gets an advantage over #4 in the "up and down" -matches that determine who will be dropped to Code A and who can stay in Code S. i'm still confused though, because instead of playing out the 6 games in a way that makes sense, they then had poltprime and thebest play twice, which is weird, cause polt wins that game taking him to 1-1, thebestfou is 1-1, then if poltprime loses to maka, then maka is 1-2 and if thebest loses to nestea, then you have a 3 way tie at 1-2, it seems a little broken to me seems like they cut it off far too early if this were proper group play Nestea - polt: 1-0 Maka - TheBest - 0-1 Polt - TheBest - 1-0 Nestea - Maka: 1-0 That was how it went right? Nestea: 2 wins Polt: 1 win theBest: 1 win Maka: 0 wins They had theBest and Polt play a game to see which one of them is #2 (he advances) and which one of them is #3 (he does not advance). This playoff match does not give extra points, only determines #2 and #3. Unless I remember the scores or the system wrong. your layout is correct, however the number of situations that interestingly arise from proper group play, for example you can get 3 players at 1-2, you can get 3 players at 2-1, both of those would require a proper tiebreaker, you can also get two players at 2-1 and two players at 1-2, simple as then you go by advantage, it just seems like the current system screws players pretty hard when they easily could finish third in their group instead of 4th i've posted on gomtv.net forums hoping for an official answer, no idea if i'll get one
How can 3 players get 2 wins (or in this case "win points")?
The "playoff" does not give "win points". Only the first 4 matches count towards points, thus maximum of four "win points" can be obtained in the group, TOTAL, rest are just tie breakers that do not give "win points".
|
On January 02 2011 22:15 shannn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 22:11 Vimsey wrote: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).
That thread you quoted also backed up what I said that B&D comes from the same ranking pool of players so I dont see why you cant accept this.
|
On January 03 2011 05:36 Greentellon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 05:16 Coramoor wrote:On January 03 2011 05:07 Greentellon wrote:On January 03 2011 05:01 Coramoor wrote:On January 03 2011 04:55 Greentellon wrote:
Only thing that matters at this stage is the top 2 of the group of 4. Top 2 advance and it doesn't matter in what order the top 2 is in because the Ro16 will be randomized into groups JUST like this round, but instead of 8 groups Ro16 has 4 groups.
So the order of top 2 in group does not matter.
Who is #3 and who is #4 does matter, because #3 gets an advantage over #4 in the "up and down" -matches that determine who will be dropped to Code A and who can stay in Code S. i'm still confused though, because instead of playing out the 6 games in a way that makes sense, they then had poltprime and thebest play twice, which is weird, cause polt wins that game taking him to 1-1, thebestfou is 1-1, then if poltprime loses to maka, then maka is 1-2 and if thebest loses to nestea, then you have a 3 way tie at 1-2, it seems a little broken to me seems like they cut it off far too early if this were proper group play Nestea - polt: 1-0 Maka - TheBest - 0-1 Polt - TheBest - 1-0 Nestea - Maka: 1-0 That was how it went right? Nestea: 2 wins Polt: 1 win theBest: 1 win Maka: 0 wins They had theBest and Polt play a game to see which one of them is #2 (he advances) and which one of them is #3 (he does not advance). This playoff match does not give extra points, only determines #2 and #3. Unless I remember the scores or the system wrong. your layout is correct, however the number of situations that interestingly arise from proper group play, for example you can get 3 players at 1-2, you can get 3 players at 2-1, both of those would require a proper tiebreaker, you can also get two players at 2-1 and two players at 1-2, simple as then you go by advantage, it just seems like the current system screws players pretty hard when they easily could finish third in their group instead of 4th i've posted on gomtv.net forums hoping for an official answer, no idea if i'll get one How can 3 players get 2 wins (or in this case "win points")? The "playoff" does not give "win points". Only the first 4 matches count towards points, thus maximum of four "win points" can be obtained in the group, TOTAL, rest are just tie breakers that do not give "win points".
well that's just weird if they're breaking down the group stage in such a way that you're looking for 2-0 2-0 0-2 0-2 or 2-0 1-1 1-1 0-2, especially considering that in the case of the 1-1 1-1, they should only play if they havent already, as is the case in which thebestfou lost, and then won again, seems like you're puttng the player that already won the match at an unfair disadvantage
|
On January 03 2011 05:07 theherder2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 21:40 Squeegy wrote: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. it IS strange, because what is the point of a group stage if you don't play everyone in your group. It is by arbitrary seeding luck that theBest does not have to play Nestea, arguably the strongest player in that group. having everyone play each other would only be 6 games total anyway (barring tiebreakers) which is similar to the system that works now anyway. AB AC AD BC BD CD. Especially in a Bo1 players could potentially cheese 2 wins over a quality player and knock out a deserving one from S class completely. I'm just saying that seeing two players play two games and end up 1-1, one is decided as better by who he had played previously. If this situation comes up again, it will really annoy me.
With your system though you could end up in a situation where its beneficial for Maka to maybe lose one more against Polt to let his clanmate go through at least with this system there is no chance of any shenanigans like that.
|
On January 03 2011 05:39 Coramoor wrote:
well that's just weird if they're breaking down the group stage in such a way that you're looking for 2-0 2-0 0-2 0-2 or 2-0 1-1 1-1 0-2, especially considering that in the case of the 1-1 1-1, they should only play if they havent already, as is the case in which thebestfou lost, and then won again, seems like you're puttng the player that already won the match at an unfair disadvantage
In case of 1-1-1-1..
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=177150
Third scenario is if there are all 4 players who are 1-1 then the remaining matches will be played against eachother who hasn't faced eachother making it a normal round robin group again.
When everyone has lost 1 game and won 1 game, what "advantage" does anyone have over each other at this point? Especially when each player will be facing a player they haven't yet faced.
|
On January 03 2011 05:07 theherder2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 21:40 Squeegy wrote: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. it IS strange, because what is the point of a group stage if you don't play everyone in your group. It is by arbitrary seeding luck that theBest does not have to play Nestea, arguably the strongest player in that group. having everyone play each other would only be 6 games total anyway (barring tiebreakers) which is similar to the system that works now anyway. AB AC AD BC BD CD. Especially in a Bo1 players could potentially cheese 2 wins over a quality player and knock out a deserving one from S class completely. I'm just saying that seeing two players play two games and end up 1-1, one is decided as better by who he had played previously. If this situation comes up again, it will really annoy me.
Seeding luck? What part of the seeds is luck? Someone got lucky and played better in the previous tournaments?
TheBest didn't play Nestea because he beat Maka. Had Maka won like he was supposed to, TheBest would've played Nestea. Blame Maka for ruining your night.
|
On January 03 2011 05:44 Greentellon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2011 05:39 Coramoor wrote:
well that's just weird if they're breaking down the group stage in such a way that you're looking for 2-0 2-0 0-2 0-2 or 2-0 1-1 1-1 0-2, especially considering that in the case of the 1-1 1-1, they should only play if they havent already, as is the case in which thebestfou lost, and then won again, seems like you're puttng the player that already won the match at an unfair disadvantage In case of 1-1-1-1.. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=177150Show nested quote +Third scenario is if there are all 4 players who are 1-1 then the remaining matches will be played against eachother who hasn't faced eachother making it a normal round robin group again. When everyone has lost 1 game and won 1 game, what "advantage" does anyone have over each other at this point? Especially when each player will be facing a player they haven't yet faced.
whoops missed that scenario, i guess in that only the first 4 games are important system that 1-1 1-1 1-1 thing works, as does the 2-0 2-0 0-2 0-2, i just don't agree with the 2-0 1-1 1-1 0-2 setup
|
Based on the state of the game right now, with a lot of coinflipish all-in play about, I wish we'd see every set be a best of 3 rather than best of 1
|
On January 03 2011 05:57 JeanLuc wrote:
Based on the state of the game right now, with a lot of coinflipish all-in play about, I wish we'd see every set be a best of 3 rather than best of 1
Actually, it kinda is Bo3.
-If you win 2 matches you advance.
-If you win 1 lose 1 there will be 3rd match (the tie breaker)
-If you lose 2 times you don't advance.
|
I'm not a fan of this one and done for the group play. I think it's way to big of a deal to miss out on the round of 16 based on one game.
|
On January 03 2011 06:05 LostBLuE wrote:
I'm not a fan of this one and done for the group play. I think it's way to big of a deal to miss out on the round of 16 based on one game.
You do have to lose twice to get dropped from next round. Just like in past.
|
On January 03 2011 05:07 theherder2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 21:40 Squeegy wrote: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. it IS strange, because what is the point of a group stage if you don't play everyone in your group. It is by arbitrary seeding luck that theBest does not have to play Nestea, arguably the strongest player in that group. having everyone play each other would only be 6 games total anyway (barring tiebreakers) which is similar to the system that works now anyway. AB AC AD BC BD CD. Especially in a Bo1 players could potentially cheese 2 wins over a quality player and knock out a deserving one from S class completely. I'm just saying that seeing two players play two games and end up 1-1, one is decided as better by who he had played previously. If this situation comes up again, it will really annoy me.
Tournaments don't try to decide who is the better player; that would require that everyone play everyone else, or at least that there be no elimination rounds, because otherwise there's no way of ranking eliminated players from one group against advancing or eliminated players from another group. If the best two players meet by random seeding in round one, you wouldn't say that the second best player is the tournament runner-up.
All a tournament attempts to decide is who wins the tournament. Polt didn't advance because thebest did better than him under the tournament rules. They're not supposed to have the best player always win, if they were we would not have best of 1 series.
The rules are "fair" insofar as they are applied evenly to all participants, and the different positions people find themselves in are based on objective criteria (performance in previous tournaments). You can argue that the rules are flawed because they reward dumb types of play and let people advance for reasons you don't like - and I agree, best of one series are retarded - but no set of rules - except maybe some kind of months-long league - will always let the "better" player win.
|
This is quite confusing.
I wish they'd just do the standard group stage play like everyone else.
|
This isn't confusing at all, just think of it as the following: Each player plays according to his seed against the players in his group, whenever someone gets 2 wins, he immediately qualifies for next round, whomever gets 2 losses, he is immediately eliminated, these 2 play no 3rd match, since their result is already settled. The only way a player can have a win and a loss is if someone else already has the same results, and as such, both players go on a tie breaker to decide second place.
Nestea 1-0 Polt
TheBest 1-0 Maka
Nestea 1-0 Maka
Polt 1-0 TheBest
As such, at this stage nestea had already qualified (2 wins), while maka was eliminated and polt and thebest had each a 1-1 record, so they had to play a tiebreaker. As far as I understand, if maka had beat nestea (making all players have a 1-1 record), then Nestea would have played TheBest, and Maka would have played Polt, as those matches hadn't been played previously, thus reverting to a "normal" round robin.
|
Meh, nestea was a given, maka going out 0-2 is suprising.
personally i think they should automatically play each player in their group, so that way you don't get lucky seeding
|
Seems pretty simple.
Win 2 games and advance.
Lose 2 games and you're out.
No?
|
On January 03 2011 07:05 1Eris1 wrote:
Meh, nestea was a given, maka going out 0-2 is suprising.
personally i think they should automatically play each player in their group, so that way you don't get lucky seeding
As I said before though if every player plays each other once then you get the situation where a player that is already out (Maka losing 2-0 already) can affect the last game by letting a clan teammate beat them or not actually give much of a stuff because they are already out if clans/rivalries arent involved.
It seems to me that GOM have put a lot more thought into this than some are giving them credit for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
