EPT[NASL] Season 2 Qualifier - Page 23
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
masterchip27
United States284 Posts
| ||
|
godemperor
Belgium2043 Posts
On June 29 2011 13:44 masterchip27 wrote: Hilarious that there is only 1 North American (Sheth) in the grand finals of the North American Star League Season 1. Also hilarious is how people were whining that there weren't enough Koreans, and now half the contestants in the finals are Korean. Jussayin. If there were more Koreans in NASL, the games would be much better. Games between "top" NA players are just painful to watch, drewbie vs painuser is probably the worst match I have ever seen. Even more Europeans would mean more quality games. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Ummm, isn't Sen's NA alias Softball? He plays on that account all the time on his stream. | ||
|
puzzl
United States263 Posts
On June 29 2011 12:27 LaLuSh wrote: There seems to be different seeding options. This is a 16 player example of "traditional seeding". http://binarybeast.com/xBW1011231 Still not how most sc2 cups are seeded. But I don't think it makes too much of a difference in the end. It most certainly does make a difference, because 3 of the top 10 players in the world (and almost certainly the best 3 in the tournament) are going to knock each other out early because the seeding is disastrous. | ||
|
Andrew2658
United States356 Posts
On June 29 2011 13:59 Defacer wrote: I just noticed Softball is playing. Ummm, isn't Sen's NA alias Softball? He plays on that account all the time on his stream. Softball is a friend of Sen. He is a player in the TeSL. He often lets Sen use his account to go on NA B.Net. Here's an interview of him done by Artosis: + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
425kid
416 Posts
On June 29 2011 13:44 masterchip27 wrote: Hilarious that there is only 1 North American (Sheth) in the grand finals of the North American Star League Season 1. Also hilarious is how people were whining that there weren't enough Koreans, and now half the contestants in the finals are Korean. Jussayin. still not enough | ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
On June 29 2011 10:26 LaLuSh wrote: I think it's legit. It's just that binarybeast automatic seeding places seeded players in different places than we normally have come to expect from the millions of online sc2 cups. Sort of like this: http://binarybeast.com/xBW1011191 i think its only fair that this qualifier should be redone if xeris actually made the barckets so that 17th seed plays 1st and 16 plays 32nd..... | ||
|
cwp
United States10 Posts
On June 29 2011 14:33 rauk wrote: i think its only fair that this qualifier should be redone if xeris actually made the barckets so that 17th seed plays 1st and 16 plays 32nd..... Why? Why should the alleged best player not have to try to win? If he's 15 seeds higher, it should be no problem for him. How is everyone playing someone exactly 15 seeds away from them an injustice? I'm not saying it's the right way, but it's definitely not unfair in anyway. | ||
|
Kraznaya
United States3711 Posts
On June 29 2011 14:43 cwp wrote: Why? Why should the alleged best player not have to try to win? If he's 15 seeds higher, it should be no problem for him. How is everyone playing someone exactly 15 seeds away from them an injustice? I'm not saying it's the right way, but it's definitely not unfair in anyway. Ah, the tried and true "top seed gets to play hardest lower seed so that more shit players can get into the late rounds" bracket format. You do realize that this makes getting the 15th seed the best seed in the tournament and the 1st seed is punished for carrying in the best record, right? | ||
|
425kid
416 Posts
On June 29 2011 15:32 Kraznaya wrote: Ah, the tried and true "top seed gets to play hardest lower seed so that more shit players can get into the late rounds" bracket format. You do realize that this makes getting the 15th seed the best seed in the tournament and the 1st seed is punished for carrying in the best record, right? Im pretty sure the nasl doesnt want goody losing 5 hour series once a week so once they figured out the international elo was that bad they scrambled to find a way to hurt goody without helping koreans | ||
|
cwp
United States10 Posts
On June 29 2011 15:32 Kraznaya wrote: Ah, the tried and true "top seed gets to play hardest lower seed so that more shit players can get into the late rounds" bracket format. You do realize that this makes getting the 15th seed the best seed in the tournament and the 1st seed is punished for carrying in the best record, right? Yes, I'm aware that for the first round, the player with the 15th seed will be playing someone easier than the first seed. I believe I stated that this wasn't unfair, in fact. Explain to me the rationale behind, "This guy is the best player in the world... let's give him, who we believe, is the worst opponent possible, so that he doesn't have to prove he's the best player in the world." He should be rewarded as the best player by not having to prove he's still the best? Spots 1-15 don't change. They just have to play different opponents. Also, I don't understand how shit players are getting through to the late rounds. I would like you to prove to me that seeding 1 v 16 to 15 v 32 means that shit players get through. Seed 1 and seed 2 are still in different halves of the bracket. And if someone is beating these "top players," then they're not really the best players are they? You're making absurd claims with no logical backing. | ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
On June 29 2011 15:58 cwp wrote: Yes, I'm aware that for the first round, the player with the 15th seed will be playing someone easier than the first seed. I believe I stated that this wasn't unfair, in fact. Explain to me the rationale behind, "This guy is the best player in the world... let's give him, who we believe, is the worst opponent possible, so that he doesn't have to prove he's the best player in the world." He should be rewarded as the best player by not having to prove he's still the best? Spots 1-15 don't change. They just have to play different opponents. Also, I don't understand how shit players are getting through to the late rounds. I would like you to prove to me that seeding 1 v 16 to 15 v 32 means that shit players get through. Seed 1 and seed 2 are still in different halves of the bracket. And if someone is beating these "top players," then they're not really the best players are they? You're making absurd claims with no logical backing. if you are 15th seed, you are playing someone who is supposedly the worst player in the tournament. if you are 1st seed, you are playing someone who is supposedly the 16th best player in the tournament. that means in order to advance deeper into the tournament, it is really good to be 15th seed. now let's assume seeding = skill. this gives the 32nd worst player in the tournament a much higher chance to advance compared to the first best player, and rewards the 15th best player by feeding them easy opponents. this is why this format will allow bad players to advance further. | ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
| ||
|
cwp
United States10 Posts
On June 29 2011 16:04 rauk wrote: if you are 15th seed, you are playing someone who is supposedly the worst player in the tournament. if you are 1st seed, you are playing someone who is supposedly the 16th best player in the tournament. that means in order to advance deeper into the tournament, it is really good to be 15th seed. now let's assume seeding = skill. this gives the 32nd worst player in the tournament a much higher chance to advance compared to the first best player, and rewards the 15th best player by feeding them easy opponents. this is why this format will allow bad players to advance further. But bad players don't get through without winning their matches. So you're saying that 32 can beat 15 but 1 can't beat 16. It's not like seed 1 and seed 2 (who you're assuming are the best two players) can meet before the final. "Shit players" get through by stacking sub brackets with talent. If the top seeds are distributed throughout the different branches of the bracket, then the only reason "shit players" are getting through is that they're beating the people you call the "top players," who have higher seeds. I don't understand your problem with challenging the top players while not stacking the branches. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
By Season 3, this tournament is going to be stacked. Online qualifiers + massive prizepool = win. | ||
|
Kraznaya
United States3711 Posts
On June 29 2011 15:58 cwp wrote: Yes, I'm aware that for the first round, the player with the 15th seed will be playing someone easier than the first seed. I believe I stated that this wasn't unfair, in fact. Explain to me the rationale behind, "This guy is the best player in the world... let's give him, who we believe, is the worst opponent possible, so that he doesn't have to prove he's the best player in the world." He should be rewarded as the best player by not having to prove he's still the best? Spots 1-15 don't change. They just have to play different opponents. Also, I don't understand how shit players are getting through to the late rounds. I would like you to prove to me that seeding 1 v 16 to 15 v 32 means that shit players get through. Seed 1 and seed 2 are still in different halves of the bracket. And if someone is beating these "top players," then they're not really the best players are they? You're making absurd claims with no logical backing. In Round 1? Yes. The traditional method of playoff seeding increases the likelihood of higher seeds meeting each other in the later rounds, and prevents top seeds from having to knock each other out before it is necessary. Having higher seeds meet each other unnaturally early messes up placing, because you are knocking out high seeds by forcing each other to play one another when some seeds don't have to play any difficult matchups at all. If the 1st seed loses in the first round to the 16th sed, but the 15th seed advances by beating the 32nd seed, it's not justified at all that the 15th seed should be placed higher in the standings than the 1st seed. This is especially important for a tournament that relies not on the champion, but on the top 4 (or 8) standings, like the NASL. I'm not making absurd claims. You are, by advocating a ridiculous playoff system which is completely unfair because it absurdly gives the middle seed of a tournament a monumental advantage over the first seed. There's a reason every competitive sports league in the world follows a format which follows a first v last seeding format. | ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
On June 29 2011 16:11 cwp wrote: But bad players don't get through without winning their matches. So you're saying that 32 can beat 15 but 1 can't beat 16. It's not like seed 1 and seed 2 (who you're assuming are the best two players) can meet before the final. "Shit players" get through by stacking sub brackets with talent. If the top seeds are distributed throughout the different branches of the bracket, then the only reason "shit players" are getting through is that they're beating the people you call the "top players," who have higher seeds. I don't understand your problem with challenging the top players while not stacking the branches. basically with 1-32 2-31 etc the worst players in the tournament get eliminated instantly. with 1-16 2-17 the worst players get to stay in the tournament longer, while the 16th best player is forced to be potentially eliminated by the best player right away. | ||
|
cwp
United States10 Posts
On June 29 2011 16:13 rauk wrote: basically with 1-32 2-31 etc the worst players in the tournament get eliminated instantly. with 1-16 2-17 the worst players get to stay in the tournament longer, while the 16th best player is forced to be potentially eliminated by the best player right away. You're looking at individual match-ups in a ro32 and claiming they're stacked. It's still the DISTRIBUTION that is important. Seed 1 is just as likely to beat seed 16 as 15 is to beat 32 according to your marker of skill. Either way, it's irrelevant because the distribution is such that seed 1 can't face seed 3 before the semi-finals, and seed 2 vs seed 4 in the same situation. 1 and 2 can't meet before the finals. That is the important criterion which is met through both types of brackets. This 1-16, 15-32 distribution ensures no one is playing someone too close to them in the first round, which gives the entire top half a lesser advantage, but a good advantage nonetheless. | ||
|
zYwi3c
Poland1811 Posts
| ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
On June 29 2011 16:28 cwp wrote: You're looking at individual match-ups in a ro32 and claiming they're stacked. It's still the DISTRIBUTION that is important. Seed 1 is just as likely to beat seed 16 as 15 is to beat 32 according to your marker of skill. Either way, it's irrelevant because the distribution is such that seed 1 can't face seed 3 before the semi-finals, and seed 2 vs seed 4 in the same situation. 1 and 2 can't meet before the finals. That is the important criterion which is met through both types of brackets. This 1-16, 15-32 distribution ensures no one is playing someone too close to them in the first round, which gives the entire top half a lesser advantage, but a good advantage nonetheless. did you bother reading my post? 1v16 and 15v32, versus 1v32 and 16v17. compared to the second scenario, the 32nd worst player has a much higher chance of advancing than if he had to play the 1st best player. the 16th best player gets fucking owned because he has to play the best player in the tournament, whereas in the second scenario he gets to play someone close to his own skill level. please explain to me how the first scenario is remotely fair for the 16th seed, and how by matching up 15v32 16v31 17v30 etc doesn't give the lowest seeds a much higher chance of advancing compared to having to play 1st 2nd 3rd seeds. | ||
| ||
