|
There are a million threads explaining how the up/down matches, etc. work, so I'm sure that my question has been answered somewhere, but I can't find it.
What I'm curious about, is with the GSL group format, how do they get a complete ranking in 6 games?
As far as I can tell there are a few possible outcomes:
After two games, there will be two players as 1-0 and two players as 0-1.
Then, we have two games between 1-0 and 0-1 players. The results after the fourth games can be:
A: one 2-0, two 1-1, one 0-2
In this case, a single game gives you a complete ordering of players.
B: two 2-0, two 0-2
In this case, two additional games give you a complete ordering.
C: four 1-1
This seems like its a complete reset -- how do an additional two games give a complete ordering? (Two additional games will always give two 2-1, two 1-2.) Do they use a tie breaker based on head-to-head match-ups?
Finally, why wouldn't they use this format:
Game 1: A vs B
Game 2: C vs D
Game 3: 1 winner vs 2 winner
Game 4: 1 loser vs 2 loser
Game 5: 3 loser vs 4 winner
That would always give a complete ranking ... I don't understand why they use the format they do.
|
I'm pretty sure with 4 1-1's they'll complete the round robin (ie. 2 more games, the players who haven't played each other yet play), which will 2 players 2-1 (they advance) and 2 players 1-2. Not entirely sure on this, but since I'm sure they don't want to play an additional 2 games to figure out 1/2 and 3/4, the 2-1 player who beat the other 2-1 player in their game will advance as first, while the 1-2 player who beat the other 1-2 player in their game will get 3rd.
Why they're not using a standard round robin or the format you described in the OP is anyone's guess, as it doesn't really make any sense at all. It can't be that they want to cut down on the number of games, because right now they either have 5 games (in the case of 1 2-0, 2 1-1's and 1 0-2) or 6 games (in the case of 2 2-0's and 2 0-2's and 4 1-1's), which is more than they would have if they used the format in the OP.
|
|
|
OK ... So they never do tie-breaking matches, so I assume the ordering is determined by head-to-head tie breakers. Thanks all.
|
The group stage can be a bit counter-intuitive and confusing but it is done with 2 reasons in mind:
- There can never be tiebreaks.
- All games played have "meaning" (i.e. it's impossible for someone to lose to a team-mate on purpose to help them out). Also, as a consequence of this, each player's fate is in their own hands and no other player can influence whether they are still in the tournament or not.
Lets put the 4 players as P1, P2, P3, P4.
Round 1:
P1 > P3
P2 > P4
Round 2:
P1 vs P4
P2 vs P3
At this stage, 3 possible things can happen:
Scenario 1
If P1 wins and P2 wins again, then both will qualify, and P3 and P4 gets eliminated. In the next round:
P1 vs P2 to determine the winner of the group.
P3 vs P4 to determine who finishes 3rd (important as it gives an extra Code S chance).
Scenario 2
P1 wins and P2 loses. The status is now:
P1 = 2-0
P2 = 1-1
P3 = 1-1
P4 = 0-2
Here, P4 is eliminated and P2 and P3 plays again to see who qualifies. This situation is the counter-intuitive one with P2 and P3 is playing again.
In the classic round robin format, it would've been P1 vs P2 and P3 vs P4. However, if this were to occur, it would be possible for P4 to do a "favour" to P3 by losing, thus guaranteeing that P3 would qualify or go to tie-breaks. Whether this is a bad thing or not is individual preference.
Scenario 3
Everyone has 1-1 at the end of Round 2. In this case, the group finishes as a traditional round-robin format:
P1 vs P2
P3 vs P4
The winner of the group will be decided by the head-to-head encounter.
|
On January 06 2011 03:18 nzb wrote:Finally, why wouldn't they use this format:
Game 1: A vs B
Game 2: C vs D
Game 3: 1 winner vs 2 winner
Game 4: 1 loser vs 2 loser
Game 5: 3 loser vs 4 winner
That would always give a complete ranking ... I don't understand why they use the format they do.
I think the GSL format is fine, but this one would be ok too and also have a major advantage in being easier to understand.
For the 3 cases of GSL:
2-0, 1-1, 1-1, 0-2: This case is almost identical to the MSL format. In Game 5 1-1 players rematch for 2nd place.
2-0, 2-0, 0-2, 0-2: This case is pretty damn boring, the 5th and 6th games are tiebreaks for seeding. Sure seeding is important but not as dramatic as the break between 2nd/3rd. On the plus side, at least we get 6 games instead of 5, more is better?
1-1, 1-1, 1-1, 1-1: This case is better than the MSL format, because now we get two dramatic games where winner goes on, loser goes home (to the up/down matches).
Round robin is terrible because it can make unbreakable ties and situations where teammates can throw games to help each other.
Also I want to throw in my rant again that Tastosis need to learn these 3 cases and hype them more. During the initial builds hype what the game means going forward into the tourny. During the waiting for gg-time, look forward to the impact of that result on the tourny.
|
On January 06 2011 04:32 KillerDucky wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 03:18 nzb wrote:Finally, why wouldn't they use this format:
Game 1: A vs B
Game 2: C vs D
Game 3: 1 winner vs 2 winner
Game 4: 1 loser vs 2 loser
Game 5: 3 loser vs 4 winner
That would always give a complete ranking ... I don't understand why they use the format they do. I think the GSL format is fine, but this one would be ok too and also have a major advantage in being easier to understand. For the 3 cases of GSL: 2-0, 1-1, 1-1, 0-2: This case is almost identical to the MSL format. In Game 5 1-1 players rematch for 2nd place. 2-0, 2-0, 0-2, 0-2: This case is pretty damn boring, the 5th and 6th games are tiebreaks for seeding. Sure seeding is important but not as dramatic as the break between 2nd/3rd. On the plus side, at least we get 6 games instead of 5, more is better? 1-1, 1-1, 1-1, 1-1: This case is better than the MSL format, because now we get two dramatic games where winner goes on, loser goes home (to the up/down matches). Round robin is terrible because it can make unbreakable ties and situations where teammates can throw games to help each other.
The format I listed also has the advantage of two "win or go home" games. And it's never in a player's interest to lose, because that always puts them closer to getting knocked out.
Also I want to throw in my rant again that Tastosis need to learn these 3 cases and hype them more. During the initial builds hype what the game means going forward into the tourny. During the waiting for gg-time, look forward to the impact of that result on the tourny.
Completely agree. Why don't they talk about the rankings in the group? It's very frustrating...
|
On January 06 2011 04:43 nzb wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 04:32 KillerDucky wrote:On January 06 2011 03:18 nzb wrote:Finally, why wouldn't they use this format:
Game 1: A vs B
Game 2: C vs D
Game 3: 1 winner vs 2 winner
Game 4: 1 loser vs 2 loser
Game 5: 3 loser vs 4 winner
That would always give a complete ranking ... I don't understand why they use the format they do. I think the GSL format is fine, but this one would be ok too and also have a major advantage in being easier to understand. For the 3 cases of GSL: 2-0, 1-1, 1-1, 0-2: This case is almost identical to the MSL format. In Game 5 1-1 players rematch for 2nd place. 2-0, 2-0, 0-2, 0-2: This case is pretty damn boring, the 5th and 6th games are tiebreaks for seeding. Sure seeding is important but not as dramatic as the break between 2nd/3rd. On the plus side, at least we get 6 games instead of 5, more is better? 1-1, 1-1, 1-1, 1-1: This case is better than the MSL format, because now we get two dramatic games where winner goes on, loser goes home (to the up/down matches). Round robin is terrible because it can make unbreakable ties and situations where teammates can throw games to help each other. The format I listed also has the advantage of two "win or go home" games. And it's never in a player's interest to lose, because that always puts them closer to getting knocked out. Show nested quote +
Also I want to throw in my rant again that Tastosis need to learn these 3 cases and hype them more. During the initial builds hype what the game means going forward into the tourny. During the waiting for gg-time, look forward to the impact of that result on the tourny.
Completely agree. Why don't they talk about the rankings in the group? It's very frustrating...
Your format works similar to the GSL in that all games are "meaningful" and it'll be impossible to lose games to help someone out. I won't call it more understandable because in some situations, the players would also have to play the same opponent again. Which format is better (yours or the GSL one) will come down to personal preference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
