|
On December 08 2011 19:33 Lavi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:30 cHicKeLoR wrote:
wait.. group stage is bo1... ? oh damn... bo1, 7 games total, which is more than enough games to get a good sample
there are enough games.. I'm just afraid that through bo1 group stage the best players may not necessarly advance.
like... Actionsjesus when he 6pooled himself into the playoofs (if i remember correctly)
|
On December 08 2011 19:34 SmoKim wrote:
Titan, GoOdy, Killer and Moonglade weren't players i saw making it out of the group stage, very VERY impressive job :D!
Why?
Killer is doing quite well in all tournaments he participtes.
Moonglade is doing well too even though noone expects him cause he is SEA (and not in a team)
GoOdy has one of the best TvZ in Europe if not the best. He beat Stephano, IdrA, Ret, Nestea etc.
Most of the others were nonames
|
If you want to save some time by not doing a bo3, you could make a soccer format group play. Each player meet twice (see it as one "home" and one "away" game). Each player gets to choose one map evening out potential map race advantages. You could either have a point based system or simply best win/loss record wins.
|
On December 08 2011 19:34 gruff wrote:
What is the Samsung Super Match?
I would also like to know that.
|
T.O.P.'s stream confirms JPop still holds the crazy crown over KPop. @_@
|
On December 08 2011 19:38 cHicKeLoR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:33 Lavi wrote:On December 08 2011 19:30 cHicKeLoR wrote:
wait.. group stage is bo1... ? oh damn... bo1, 7 games total, which is more than enough games to get a good sample there are enough games.. I'm just afraid that through bo1 group stage the best players may not necessarly advance. like... Actionsjesus when he 6pooled himself into the playoofs (if i remember correctly)
That wasn't a 7 player group though. More players means less likelyhood of such a strategy to work. Also I hope people have gotten better at defending 6 pools. 
|
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.
That is a ridiculous statement. If they're 3-3, they just deserve it.
For exemple, Idra went 3-3 while KiLLeR went 5-1. Idra lost to Orly and Capoch when KiLLeR destroyed Orly and Capoch. It's all normal that Idra dosn't get a spot.
|
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.
F91 has been better than Sen for 7 or 8 years. They are teammates at one point, and good friends for long time, too familiar with each other. You can't expect sen to beat F91.
And also you can't say Sen is better than Moonglade and Socke, maybe equal, 4th place for sen is pretty normal.
|
On December 08 2011 19:38 cHicKeLoR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:33 Lavi wrote:On December 08 2011 19:30 cHicKeLoR wrote:
wait.. group stage is bo1... ? oh damn... bo1, 7 games total, which is more than enough games to get a good sample there are enough games.. I'm just afraid that through bo1 group stage the best players may not necessarly advance. like... Actionsjesus when he 6pooled himself into the playoofs (if i remember correctly)
bo1 is fine since it is 7 games.
A more logical argument would be that they should of better balanced the racial distribution within the groups.
For example both Sen and Idra's group had Zero terrans. And this matchup may of gave them better records if it's a good matchup for them, or made their opponents lose more matches if they are bad matchups for them... so whoever is more well rounded would advance not just zvp and mirror specialists.
|
Khan RorO (z) versus CJ Snow (p)
|
On December 08 2011 19:39 harrycane wrote:I would also like to know that.
Its a match between fan favourites, its a showmatch for every game. I believe its sen vs mvp in sc2. They were was a poll about this a couple of weeks ago on the wcg website.
|
On December 08 2011 19:46 Eee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:39 harrycane wrote:On December 08 2011 19:34 gruff wrote:
What is the Samsung Super Match? I would also like to know that. Its a match between fan favourites, its a showmatch for every game. I believe its sen vs mvp in sc2. They were was a poll about this a couple of weeks ago on the wcg website.
So they don't mean anything, right?
|
Oh no!
I just saw Moon is out of the tournament.. 
|
|
|
On December 08 2011 19:48 KingPaddy wrote:Oh no! I just saw Moon is out of the tournament..
Link to the wc3-brackets?
|
On December 08 2011 19:41 Lasbike wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:22 Hnnngg wrote: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. That is a ridiculous statement. If they're 3-3, they just deserve it. For exemple, Idra went 3-3 while KiLLeR went 5-1. Idra lost to Orly and Capoch when KiLLeR destroyed Orly and Capoch. It's all normal that Idra dosn't get a spot.
Yeah, winning is great. But that's not going to be fun to watch. Playing to win is not fun to watch. I want to see good games, not games being won. I seriously don't care who wins as long as the game was good. If the game wasn't good, then I still don't care who wins. For a spectator it should not matter who wins.
Exactly as someone criticized me for, "i don't even know why they play the games."
If a spectator only cared about winning, why don't they just field the players with the most spectators wanting them to win?
So we fall into this situation where winning = important and Idra/Sen wins, and good games = important and still Idra/Sen wins.
|
|
|
Hmm, funny how Norways only representative (GLSnute) is participating in Samsung Super match then? Would not think of him as fan favorite, I guess some Norwegians must voted like no tomorrow.
Nevertheless, I will cheer for him. Norwegian and Zerg player, oo yeah!
|
On December 08 2011 19:41 ElephantBaby wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:22 Hnnngg wrote: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. F91 has been better than Sen for 7 or 8 years. They are teammates at one point, and good friends for long time, too familiar with each other. You can't expect sen to beat F91. And also you can't say Sen is better than Moonglade and Socke, maybe equal, 4th place for sen is pretty normal.
Is that why Sen is 4th on the TLPD? Because he's maybe equal to Socke and Moonglade?
|
On December 08 2011 19:50 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:41 Lasbike wrote:On December 08 2011 19:22 Hnnngg wrote: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. That is a ridiculous statement. If they're 3-3, they just deserve it. For exemple, Idra went 3-3 while KiLLeR went 5-1. Idra lost to Orly and Capoch when KiLLeR destroyed Orly and Capoch. It's all normal that Idra dosn't get a spot. Yeah, winning is great. But that's not going to be fun to watch. Playing to win is not fun to watch. I want to see good games, not games being won. I seriously don't care who wins as long as the game was good. If the game wasn't good, then I still don't care who wins. For a spectator it should not matter who wins. Exactly as someone criticized me for, "i don't even know why they play the games." If a spectator only cared about winning, why don't they just field the players with the most spectators wanting them to win? So we fall into this situation where winning = important and Idra/Sen wins, and good games = important and still Idra/Sen wins.
Underdogs may be the next stars. What you are saying is that we have to have idra as a star forever and no one should beat him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
