|
More of a standard PvZ this time.
|
On December 08 2011 19:09 dinsim1 wrote:
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.
I ran several tournaments for Wc3 in a format of poules to double elim as most tournaments do these days. However, in the poules we didn't run Bo3 but "Bo2." This name is a bit misleading as you can't actually do this. We did this to save time and still get a feel of "almost Bo3." It worked as well. Making a mistake in 1 game means you lose 2 points in the endresult for the match but you still manage to force a draw match you still get a point for it. This makes for a smaller errors possibility and won't lenghten the match too much, only by 1 game, in the poules. For most matchups this isnt a problem. Only in certain specific cases this will result in a significantly longer match. Also, for me personally, I like the possible result of a draw, it gives you a certain extra tension but that's just personal :-)
|
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.
Not really. Sen was better and WAY more accomplished than F91 until 2008.
I remember Testie saying that F91 was kinda mediocre at bw when he played some IEF tournament in China i think in 2007 or 2006. He was more impressed by Moon's Protoss lol.
|
On December 08 2011 19:52 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:50 Hnnngg wrote: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.
So then make the sample size bigger.
6 games is not acceptable for Group Play, you don't see that small of Group Play in any other tournament and the rest of those tournaments have fantastic finals because of it.
|
Are DTs actually viable against Zerg?
|
On December 08 2011 19:53 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:41 ElephantBaby 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. 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. Not really. Sen was better and WAY more accomplished than F91 until 2008. I remember Testie saying that F91 was kinda mediocre at bw when he played some IEF tournament in China i think in 2007 or 2006. He was more impressed by Moon's Protoss lol.
Um, perhaps I should chime in with the whole MYM deal. F91 might have been inconsistent, but when he was on. He was fucking on. Very unorthodox and Sen and F91 have always been very back and forth. Sen might have the accolades, but he knows first hand how tough F91 can be and Nick is being Nick. - -
|
On December 08 2011 19:56 Bromazepam wrote:
Are DTs actually viable against Zerg?
Yes. If a unit one shots another unit (ie, DT against drones), it gives no warning message of attack. DTs are very good harassers.
|
On December 08 2011 19:56 Bromazepam wrote:
Are DTs actually viable against Zerg?
it is if you manage to find a group of clustered and unprotected ovies. or dt drops
it's not a deviation of strategy anyway as it is in the same tech tree as HTs
|
On December 08 2011 19:56 Bromazepam wrote:
Are DTs actually viable against Zerg?
part of bisu build, sair take care of overlord dts sneak in, yes
|
On December 08 2011 19:56 Bromazepam wrote:
Are DTs actually viable against Zerg?
They are a good harass tool in combination with corsairs, even though zerg have gotten pretty good at dealing with them recently.
|
On December 08 2011 19:51 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:41 ElephantBaby 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. 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?
TLPD means very little. There are no official leagues, only short 3 days tournaments, and not every one attend every tournaments also. They live in different continents, even if they attend, hard to be in best form during that 3 days. Nobody knows who is better in foreigner scene.
|
sick timing on the egg block
|
Wow really disappointing results from Sen and Idra. They should've been able to beat most of these scrubs easily.
|
|
|
corsairs and dts wrecking roro.
|
RORO SO SICK! LMAO what a block and those drops!!!!
|
Now this is what BW is all about. Pretty fun game so far.
|
lol huge muta tech switch
|
Well I missed the whole first day. Could somebody please give a (spoilered) short summary of what were the storylines/remarkable games to watch (SC2 obv)? I suppose I'm not the only one in this situation.
|
On December 08 2011 19:57 ElephantBaby wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 19:51 Hnnngg wrote:On December 08 2011 19:41 ElephantBaby 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. 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? TLPD means very little. There are no official leagues, only short 3 days tournaments, not every one attend every tournaments also. They live in different continents, even they attend, hard to be in best form during that 3 days.
Agree... It's not like BW where everyone is centralized in one location so travel isn't much of an issue. There could be tons of players especially these lesser known korean players that aren't as known publicly that don't get the chance to be sent overseas to foreign tournaments. Then players like xigua, f91, and moonglade you hardly see in international tournaments... by default they will be ranked lower in tlpd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
