|
On December 08 2011 19:14 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:11 Provocateur wrote:On December 08 2011 19:09 ZeaL. wrote:On December 08 2011 19:08 bgx wrote:On December 08 2011 19:08 shr0ud wrote:On December 08 2011 19:06 labbe wrote: *sigh* If only sc2 PvP was this exciting *sigh* If only a matchup would have 10 years to evolve. collosus won't evolve into reaver  If it wasn't for the reaver and storm bw pvp would be pretty terrible to watch. That's the thing though, the reaver is such a dynamic unit that adds a ton of excitement. Compare that to the supposed sc2 reaver, colossus wars are nowhere close as exciting =( Oh I totally agree. The only things that are exciting about sc2 pvp is... what blink micro and forcefield? =/
Ordinary Stalker micro > blink micro in terms of excitement.
|
pvp has been the worst matchup in sc2 since the dawn of the beta...whereas in BW it's a really great matchup. macro games are easily possible even if you show you're going for one, you can do stuff like dt FE into fast storm and hold off goon/reaver pushes.
|
what am i watching on TOP's stream right now...
|
I present to you the ''Much-scarab'', or ''Why reavers-drops are always exiting as fuck because you never know what will happen'':
|
On December 08 2011 19:14 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:13 mcmartini wrote:On December 08 2011 19:11 Provocateur wrote:On December 08 2011 19:09 ZeaL. wrote:On December 08 2011 19:08 bgx wrote:On December 08 2011 19:08 shr0ud wrote:On December 08 2011 19:06 labbe wrote: *sigh* If only sc2 PvP was this exciting *sigh* If only a matchup would have 10 years to evolve. collosus won't evolve into reaver  If it wasn't for the reaver and storm bw pvp would be pretty terrible to watch. That's the thing though, the reaver is such a dynamic unit that adds a ton of excitement. Compare that to the supposed sc2 reaver, colossus wars are nowhere close as exciting =( Maybe we should give collussus attack terrible Ai too, could make it super exciting if those lasers just randomly mess up I do love the reaver though, but half the excitement for me is seeing if it's gonna bug out or not haha :D It's not a bug, it used to hit almost all the time but it was too strong. Oh, I used to play Bw when i was a lot younger, and never followed the competitive scene but whenever I used them and shots just died out I thought it was some weird bug.
So what did blizzard do to it?
|
|
On December 08 2011 19:16 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:14 ZeaL. wrote:On December 08 2011 19:11 Provocateur wrote:On December 08 2011 19:09 ZeaL. wrote:On December 08 2011 19:08 bgx wrote:On December 08 2011 19:08 shr0ud wrote:On December 08 2011 19:06 labbe wrote: *sigh* If only sc2 PvP was this exciting *sigh* If only a matchup would have 10 years to evolve. collosus won't evolve into reaver  If it wasn't for the reaver and storm bw pvp would be pretty terrible to watch. That's the thing though, the reaver is such a dynamic unit that adds a ton of excitement. Compare that to the supposed sc2 reaver, colossus wars are nowhere close as exciting =( Oh I totally agree. The only things that are exciting about sc2 pvp is... what blink micro and forcefield? =/ Ordinary Stalker micro > blink micro in terms of excitement. Yeah, but even ordinary stalker micro is so basic that a lot of players have been able to execute it nowadays at a very high level.
|
On December 08 2011 19:15 Bromazepam wrote:You should consider posting this in its own thread, since in a LR it will get buried pretty quickly. Personally I'm kinda fine with big groups and Bo1, although I'd enjoy Bo3s more. However the "time" argument doesn't really hold in this context. They are broadcasting only a few games, while most of them are being played at the same time.
Time limitations is usually not only because of stream time.
|
On December 08 2011 19:09 dinsim1 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I have a serious question for these people complaining about Bo1. I think everyone here agrees that the larger the series, the larger the chance of the winner being the better player - so its quite clear that Bo1 < Bo3 < Bo5 < Bo7 < Bo9 < Bo11 < etc. for any given series. My question is this: Given that this event is hosting a global tournament with a variety of different games on a very tight schedule, what alternative to the given format would you propose which would complete the Sc2 section of the tournament in the same or less amount of time and also gives a better chance of having the final placement of the players reflective of their relative skill? This isn't some sarcastic shit either, I'm honestly curious for ideas on this.
Obviously a double elimination bracket starting with ~50 players would take more than 4x the amount of time available. Putting all the players in the single elimination bracket right away instead of using pools to cut it down to 16 would take less time than the current system because the average simultaneous games would be higher and also the total number of games lower. But then we are left with the distasteful proposition of having 3 of the best 4 players eliminated in the first 2 rounds, with 1st place still going to the best player and second and third to perhaps the 6th and 7th best players even if the best player wins, and also a much higher chance of the best player being cheesed out compared to the double elimination bracket. Obviously, an optimal approach would involve some kind of seeding which would prevent the best players from suffering for being placed together in early matches, and allow the bracket to pick matches that have a better chance of rewarding more skilled players with farther finishes (thats how seeding works after all). We'd also like a larger distribution of opponents per player to both strengthen the accuracy of the seeding as well.
Now the proposed system splits the players into groups of 7, so it takes 6 games to finish the seeding process. Since the tournament only pays to the best 3 players, we are most interested in ensuring their survival to the final rounds. Not only do they have low chances of being in the same groups, the top 2 make it out of each group anyway, so that serious bullshit has to happen to ruin their statistical edge on the competition (i.e. being placed in the same group + losing more than one game to worse players who manage to hold their own against other competition). All this is accomplished in the time of 6 games if the groups play simultaneously, or 12 games if they play as they are (half the groups at a time). Then the Ro16 single elimination starts: 8+4+2+1 series, each round of the bracket not beginning till the previous finishes in full, so unless not a single series goes to 3 games in a round (highly unlikely and not able to planned for), thats 15x3 = 45 games. So we have a tournament format with seeding, extremely high insurance for the top 3 to make it to the Ro16, and a total 57 game format.
Making a change to the format like "lol Bo1 is gay wut about Bo3 for the pools", keep in mind the following: 12 series have to be played for the pools to complete, with winners having to wait on conclusions of Bo3's, so this now makes the tournament running time 12x3 + 15x3 = 93 games if my math and estimates are correct. And we're now almost DOUBLING the time of the tournament for what? All we want is the best chance for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd to go to the best 3 players. If they don't, the most probable way this will occur is in the round of 16, where a bad Bo3 can send them packing to a worse player, or the top 3 can meet with each other earlier in the bracket. The latter will occur if 2 of the top 3 are pooled together and thus don't achieve the highest seeds, which changing to Bo3 in pools will do nothing to affect. The former occurs entirely in the Ro16 so also benefits in no way from a Bo3 in pools. So all we really get is noticeably more accurate seeding and a very, very slightly better chance a top 3 player won't get knocked out before the Ro16 - and for this we double the tournament time?
Looking at my top 3-4 picks for the tournament and the pools, I find it hard to believe the tournament format is not working as intended or that it will jeopardize the results. I actually am curious as to what people think about how the format could be adjusted to be more efficient/accurate, but all I'm seeing is a lot of idra fanboys flooding the thread with their tears alongside nonconstructive criticism. But if anyone who has experience with this, especially people who participated in these kind of events, I'm interested in what you think about it .
Most of the complaints are because the player(s) they like are out because it's a Bo1 and they somehow believe their player is better and can advance if everything was a Bo3 or more. Also because calling the game imba or bashing "cheesy" players will get you a ban whereas you may get away with whining about Bo1's. ^_^
In all, I agree with you, I also think the groups were big enough for "pure skill" to overcome Bo1 volatility. It's not worth making the tournament twice as long.
Plus top 3 will be Koreans, so most of this is moot.
|
United States13896 Posts
On December 08 2011 19:17 Sub40APM wrote: what am i watching on TOP's stream right now... Some kind of insanely large J-Pop group? I dk I'm confused as well.
|
On December 08 2011 19:18 mcmartini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:14 jalstar wrote:On December 08 2011 19:13 mcmartini wrote:On December 08 2011 19:11 Provocateur wrote:On December 08 2011 19:09 ZeaL. wrote:On December 08 2011 19:08 bgx wrote:On December 08 2011 19:08 shr0ud wrote:On December 08 2011 19:06 labbe wrote: *sigh* If only sc2 PvP was this exciting *sigh* If only a matchup would have 10 years to evolve. collosus won't evolve into reaver  If it wasn't for the reaver and storm bw pvp would be pretty terrible to watch. That's the thing though, the reaver is such a dynamic unit that adds a ton of excitement. Compare that to the supposed sc2 reaver, colossus wars are nowhere close as exciting =( Maybe we should give collussus attack terrible Ai too, could make it super exciting if those lasers just randomly mess up I do love the reaver though, but half the excitement for me is seeing if it's gonna bug out or not haha :D It's not a bug, it used to hit almost all the time but it was too strong. Oh, I used to play Bw when i was a lot younger, and never followed the competitive scene but whenever I used them and shots just died out I thought it was some weird bug. So what did blizzard do to it? Made the ai worse so that it would bug out. Gotta love this kind of nerf^^
On December 08 2011 19:16 Tump wrote: pvp has been the worst matchup in sc2 since the dawn of the beta...whereas in BW it's a really great matchup. macro games are easily possible even if you show you're going for one, you can do stuff like dt FE into fast storm and hold off goon/reaver pushes. For me PvP is the worst match-up in bw^^ (but that wasn't what I thought when I started watching).
|
On December 08 2011 19:11 DarkMatter_ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:08 bgx wrote:On December 08 2011 19:08 shr0ud wrote:On December 08 2011 19:06 labbe wrote: *sigh* If only sc2 PvP was this exciting *sigh* If only a matchup would have 10 years to evolve. collosus won't evolve into reaver  Maybe Blizzard will get the memo when developing Legacy of the Void. Is it possible for Blizzard to scrap/add units by the time the HOTS beta comes out?
Made the ai worse so that it would bug out. Gotta love this kind of nerf^^ How could the Protoss not fix Scarab production so there aren't any duds? Tsk tsk.
|
On December 08 2011 19:18 Holgerius wrote:I present to you the ''Much-scarab'', or ''Why reavers-drops are always exiting as fuck because you never know what will happen'': Man, Tasteless was so awesome back then. He's still good, but he's definitely missing something.
|
On December 08 2011 19:21 DarkMatter_ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:18 Holgerius wrote:I present to you the ''Much-scarab'', or ''Why reavers-drops are always exiting as fuck because you never know what will happen'': Man, Tasteless was so awesome back then. He's still good, but he's definitely missing something. His passion.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On December 08 2011 19:20 p4NDemik wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:17 Sub40APM wrote: what am i watching on TOP's stream right now... Some kind of insanely large J-Pop group? I dk I'm confused as well.
I assume its AKB48 without watching it, they have like 53 members and like uh 10 active at a time or so?
not really that informed about them though.
|
horang2 for cj in game 3!
|
On December 08 2011 19:19 Mobius_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:09 dinsim1 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I have a serious question for these people complaining about Bo1. I think everyone here agrees that the larger the series, the larger the chance of the winner being the better player - so its quite clear that Bo1 < Bo3 < Bo5 < Bo7 < Bo9 < Bo11 < etc. for any given series. My question is this: Given that this event is hosting a global tournament with a variety of different games on a very tight schedule, what alternative to the given format would you propose which would complete the Sc2 section of the tournament in the same or less amount of time and also gives a better chance of having the final placement of the players reflective of their relative skill? This isn't some sarcastic shit either, I'm honestly curious for ideas on this.
Obviously a double elimination bracket starting with ~50 players would take more than 4x the amount of time available. Putting all the players in the single elimination bracket right away instead of using pools to cut it down to 16 would take less time than the current system because the average simultaneous games would be higher and also the total number of games lower. But then we are left with the distasteful proposition of having 3 of the best 4 players eliminated in the first 2 rounds, with 1st place still going to the best player and second and third to perhaps the 6th and 7th best players even if the best player wins, and also a much higher chance of the best player being cheesed out compared to the double elimination bracket. Obviously, an optimal approach would involve some kind of seeding which would prevent the best players from suffering for being placed together in early matches, and allow the bracket to pick matches that have a better chance of rewarding more skilled players with farther finishes (thats how seeding works after all). We'd also like a larger distribution of opponents per player to both strengthen the accuracy of the seeding as well.
Now the proposed system splits the players into groups of 7, so it takes 6 games to finish the seeding process. Since the tournament only pays to the best 3 players, we are most interested in ensuring their survival to the final rounds. Not only do they have low chances of being in the same groups, the top 2 make it out of each group anyway, so that serious bullshit has to happen to ruin their statistical edge on the competition (i.e. being placed in the same group + losing more than one game to worse players who manage to hold their own against other competition). All this is accomplished in the time of 6 games if the groups play simultaneously, or 12 games if they play as they are (half the groups at a time). Then the Ro16 single elimination starts: 8+4+2+1 series, each round of the bracket not beginning till the previous finishes in full, so unless not a single series goes to 3 games in a round (highly unlikely and not able to planned for), thats 15x3 = 45 games. So we have a tournament format with seeding, extremely high insurance for the top 3 to make it to the Ro16, and a total 57 game format.
Making a change to the format like "lol Bo1 is gay wut about Bo3 for the pools", keep in mind the following: 12 series have to be played for the pools to complete, with winners having to wait on conclusions of Bo3's, so this now makes the tournament running time 12x3 + 15x3 = 93 games if my math and estimates are correct. And we're now almost DOUBLING the time of the tournament for what? All we want is the best chance for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd to go to the best 3 players. If they don't, the most probable way this will occur is in the round of 16, where a bad Bo3 can send them packing to a worse player, or the top 3 can meet with each other earlier in the bracket. The latter will occur if 2 of the top 3 are pooled together and thus don't achieve the highest seeds, which changing to Bo3 in pools will do nothing to affect. The former occurs entirely in the Ro16 so also benefits in no way from a Bo3 in pools. So all we really get is noticeably more accurate seeding and a very, very slightly better chance a top 3 player won't get knocked out before the Ro16 - and for this we double the tournament time?
Looking at my top 3-4 picks for the tournament and the pools, I find it hard to believe the tournament format is not working as intended or that it will jeopardize the results. I actually am curious as to what people think about how the format could be adjusted to be more efficient/accurate, but all I'm seeing is a lot of idra fanboys flooding the thread with their tears alongside nonconstructive criticism. But if anyone who has experience with this, especially people who participated in these kind of events, I'm interested in what you think about it . Most of the complaints are because the player(s) they like are out because it's a Bo1 and they somehow believe their player is better and can advance if everything was a Bo3 or more. Also because calling the game imba or bashing "cheesy" players will get you a ban whereas you may get away with whining about Bo1's. ^_^ In all, I agree with you, I also think the groups were big enough for "pure skill" to overcome Bo1 volatility. It's not worth making the tournament twice as long. Plus top 3 will be Koreans, so most of this is moot. 
When Sen isn't allowed to get 3rd place, there's something fucking wrong with the tournament.
Idra and Sen got the same score, two of the best foreign zergs are out before it starts, something actually went wrong.
|
On December 08 2011 19:19 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:15 Bromazepam wrote:On December 08 2011 19:09 dinsim1 wrote: -snip- You should consider posting this in its own thread, since in a LR it will get buried pretty quickly. Personally I'm kinda fine with big groups and Bo1, although I'd enjoy Bo3s more. However the "time" argument doesn't really hold in this context. They are broadcasting only a few games, while most of them are being played at the same time. Time limitations is usually not only because of stream time.
If you play the games in parallel time is not an issue. At most it's because there aren't enough computers, but that shouldn't be the case for events as big as WCG.
|
On December 08 2011 19:22 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:19 Mobius_1 wrote:On December 08 2011 19:09 dinsim1 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I have a serious question for these people complaining about Bo1. I think everyone here agrees that the larger the series, the larger the chance of the winner being the better player - so its quite clear that Bo1 < Bo3 < Bo5 < Bo7 < Bo9 < Bo11 < etc. for any given series. My question is this: Given that this event is hosting a global tournament with a variety of different games on a very tight schedule, what alternative to the given format would you propose which would complete the Sc2 section of the tournament in the same or less amount of time and also gives a better chance of having the final placement of the players reflective of their relative skill? This isn't some sarcastic shit either, I'm honestly curious for ideas on this.
Obviously a double elimination bracket starting with ~50 players would take more than 4x the amount of time available. Putting all the players in the single elimination bracket right away instead of using pools to cut it down to 16 would take less time than the current system because the average simultaneous games would be higher and also the total number of games lower. But then we are left with the distasteful proposition of having 3 of the best 4 players eliminated in the first 2 rounds, with 1st place still going to the best player and second and third to perhaps the 6th and 7th best players even if the best player wins, and also a much higher chance of the best player being cheesed out compared to the double elimination bracket. Obviously, an optimal approach would involve some kind of seeding which would prevent the best players from suffering for being placed together in early matches, and allow the bracket to pick matches that have a better chance of rewarding more skilled players with farther finishes (thats how seeding works after all). We'd also like a larger distribution of opponents per player to both strengthen the accuracy of the seeding as well.
Now the proposed system splits the players into groups of 7, so it takes 6 games to finish the seeding process. Since the tournament only pays to the best 3 players, we are most interested in ensuring their survival to the final rounds. Not only do they have low chances of being in the same groups, the top 2 make it out of each group anyway, so that serious bullshit has to happen to ruin their statistical edge on the competition (i.e. being placed in the same group + losing more than one game to worse players who manage to hold their own against other competition). All this is accomplished in the time of 6 games if the groups play simultaneously, or 12 games if they play as they are (half the groups at a time). Then the Ro16 single elimination starts: 8+4+2+1 series, each round of the bracket not beginning till the previous finishes in full, so unless not a single series goes to 3 games in a round (highly unlikely and not able to planned for), thats 15x3 = 45 games. So we have a tournament format with seeding, extremely high insurance for the top 3 to make it to the Ro16, and a total 57 game format.
Making a change to the format like "lol Bo1 is gay wut about Bo3 for the pools", keep in mind the following: 12 series have to be played for the pools to complete, with winners having to wait on conclusions of Bo3's, so this now makes the tournament running time 12x3 + 15x3 = 93 games if my math and estimates are correct. And we're now almost DOUBLING the time of the tournament for what? All we want is the best chance for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd to go to the best 3 players. If they don't, the most probable way this will occur is in the round of 16, where a bad Bo3 can send them packing to a worse player, or the top 3 can meet with each other earlier in the bracket. The latter will occur if 2 of the top 3 are pooled together and thus don't achieve the highest seeds, which changing to Bo3 in pools will do nothing to affect. The former occurs entirely in the Ro16 so also benefits in no way from a Bo3 in pools. So all we really get is noticeably more accurate seeding and a very, very slightly better chance a top 3 player won't get knocked out before the Ro16 - and for this we double the tournament time?
Looking at my top 3-4 picks for the tournament and the pools, I find it hard to believe the tournament format is not working as intended or that it will jeopardize the results. I actually am curious as to what people think about how the format could be adjusted to be more efficient/accurate, but all I'm seeing is a lot of idra fanboys flooding the thread with their tears alongside nonconstructive criticism. But if anyone who has experience with this, especially people who participated in these kind of events, I'm interested in what you think about it . Most of the complaints are because the player(s) they like are out because it's a Bo1 and they somehow believe their player is better and can advance if everything was a Bo3 or more. Also because calling the game imba or bashing "cheesy" players will get you a ban whereas you may get away with whining about Bo1's. ^_^ In all, I agree with you, I also think the groups were big enough for "pure skill" to overcome Bo1 volatility. It's not worth making the tournament twice as long. Plus top 3 will be Koreans, so most of this is moot.  When Sen isn't allowed to get 3rd place, there's something fucking wrong with the tournament. Idra and Sen got the same score, two of the best foreign zergs are out before it starts, something actually went wrong. Yep, agreed, upstets should never happen, I even wonder why they bother to play the games.
|
Grape for Khan. More PvP.
|
|
|
|