On August 28 2011 12:29 Kamikazess wrote: Well, it really doesn't make sense. They're both at 4-1, but Select with 8-2 and DRG with 8-3. So it couldn't be a tie. I think it's pretty silly the fact that individual matches doesn't make a difference. But it's the system...
How the hell doesn't it make sense? DRG beat Select. It's as simple as that. Why can't people grasp the concept of head to head victories?
It would make perfect sense if both players records' were exactly the same. If Select lost one individual match less than DRG, he should be ahead. But I already know that it's the way MLG works. I think it is wrong, but it's the way it is.
He didn't lose one less individual match. He lost one less game. One game does not equal one match.
Alright. Change the word "match" for the world "game", and my post will still have the same sense. Select lost one less game, so he should be ahead. That's the point to keep track of matches and games, in the player record.
So you're placing more emphasis on games where the whole point of a tournament is how many matches you win. I don't understand your logic and you obviously disagree with MLG's so I'm just gonna stop here.
Actually, no, I'm not doing it. The most important record should always be matches. But in a direct sense, to win a Bo3 match, I have to win 2 games. So, I'm only saying that it makes more sense to games count to anything. But it's only a kind of philosophical discussion, not a "right or wrong" one. =)
Actually there is an answer and you're just wrong. SC2 is a game with a lot of variance. Even in Brood War the best players only win 60% of the time. Placing the first tiebreaker on maps instead of head to head would be moronic. There's too much randomness with spawns, people are playing on different maps (no constant map pool), and there is random cheesy all in play that can always steal a single game but not a match.
All the factors you talked about are part of the game. One player can cannon rush every single game, on every single map, against every single player. But, if one player can defend it better than the other, he should have the advantage, in the future.
Your pretty much saying drg's one extra loss is worse than the two losses of select to drg.
On August 28 2011 12:40 tylermakesmusic wrote: EG with 6 players in the Top 24. o_0
idra huk incontrol machine were given their spots from pool play.
Actually no. Idra, Huk and Machine earned top 24 with how they played in pool play. Incontrol and Demuslim both had to win extra games to get top 24. I understand you're trying to bitch about MLG's pool play system, but honestly shut up.
not only did you not follow the tournament at all, but you also do not understand how the system works, and you even insult someone that states the truth? does it get worse.
Actually I followed the whole tournament and I fully understand how the system works. My point was if you get 6th in pool play, you are not guaranteed top 24. Kinda like what happened to Incontrol. Yes, Idra, Huk and Machine got top 24 easier than most because they are in pool play, but they are in pool play for a reason. They have past results. I think you are the one that doesn't understand the system. Does it get any worse?
Because the seeds were first based on 1 single MLG that gave them a spot that is pretty hard to lose. Even the pro players themselves have stated this and said it should change. iNcontroL for example has had 1 good MLG. His last 3 have been awful. Going 1-20 during the last 2 alone in the groups. But the Pool play makes it practically impossible for him to lose his spot. He's even said this himself.
I agree to an extent. I think the players on the lower end of the pool play should be recycled with the top placing open bracket players every tourney but hey, MLG wants to have star power and this is the way they go about that.
It's fine long term i guess because MLG have already said they will change the system for next season. So they obviously recognise it's kinda stupid atm. But for the right now it's alittle sad to see and i do feel sorry for some of the open bracket players who must be exhausted when it comes to playing their pool play opponents at the end of a very long day for themselves.
Yeah, I'm glad they are fixing the way it's run next year because that idea sounds in theory to be a lot more balanced and makes more sense. I do think that people often overlook the fact that MLG is one large season culminating in a Final Tournament that is worth a lot more money. So I think pool play makes more sense when looking at it from that perspective.
As for your second point, yeah it is unfair for the open bracket players. Maybe MLG should just start the First Round of the Championship Losers Bracket on Sunday. I don't know.
On August 28 2011 12:29 Kamikazess wrote: Well, it really doesn't make sense. They're both at 4-1, but Select with 8-2 and DRG with 8-3. So it couldn't be a tie. I think it's pretty silly the fact that individual matches doesn't make a difference. But it's the system...
How the hell doesn't it make sense? DRG beat Select. It's as simple as that. Why can't people grasp the concept of head to head victories?
It would make perfect sense if both players records' were exactly the same. If Select lost one individual match less than DRG, he should be ahead. But I already know that it's the way MLG works. I think it is wrong, but it's the way it is.
He didn't lose one less individual match. He lost one less game. One game does not equal one match.
Alright. Change the word "match" for the world "game", and my post will still have the same sense. Select lost one less game, so he should be ahead. That's the point to keep track of matches and games, in the player record.
So you're placing more emphasis on games where the whole point of a tournament is how many matches you win. I don't understand your logic and you obviously disagree with MLG's so I'm just gonna stop here.
Actually, no, I'm not doing it. The most important record should always be matches. But in a direct sense, to win a Bo3 match, I have to win 2 games. So, I'm only saying that it makes more sense to games count to anything. But it's only a kind of philosophical discussion, not a "right or wrong" one. =)
Actually there is an answer and you're just wrong. SC2 is a game with a lot of variance. Even in Brood War the best players only win 60% of the time. Placing the first tiebreaker on maps instead of head to head would be moronic. There's too much randomness with spawns, people are playing on different maps (no constant map pool), and there is random cheesy all in play that can always steal a single game but not a match.
All the factors you talked about are part of the game. One player can cannon rush every single game, on every single map, against every single player. But, if one player can defend it better than the other, he should have the advantage, in the future.
Your pretty much saying drg's one extra loss is worse than the two losses of select to drg.
No, I'm saying that one extra loss is worse than one less loss. But this discussion in pointless.
On August 28 2011 12:40 tylermakesmusic wrote: EG with 6 players in the Top 24. o_0
idra huk incontrol machine were given their spots from pool play.
Actually no. Idra, Huk and Machine earned top 24 with how they played in pool play. Incontrol and Demuslim both had to win extra games to get top 24. I understand you're trying to bitch about MLG's pool play system, but honestly shut up.
not only did you not follow the tournament at all, but you also do not understand how the system works, and you even insult someone that states the truth? does it get worse.
Actually I followed the whole tournament and I fully understand how the system works. My point was if you get 6th in pool play, you are not guaranteed top 24. Kinda like what happened to Incontrol. Yes, Idra, Huk and Machine got top 24 easier than most because they are in pool play, but they are in pool play for a reason. They have past results. I think you are the one that doesn't understand the system. Does it get any worse?
Because the seeds were first based on 1 single MLG that gave them a spot that is pretty hard to lose. Even the pro players themselves have stated this and said it should change. iNcontroL for example has had 1 good MLG. His last 3 have been awful. Going 1-20 during the last 2 alone in the groups. But the Pool play makes it practically impossible for him to lose his spot. He's even said this himself.
I agree to an extent. I think the players on the lower end of the pool play should be recycled with the top placing open bracket players every tourney but hey, MLG wants to have star power and this is the way they go about that.
It's fine long term i guess because MLG have already said they will change the system for next season. So they obviously recognise it's kinda stupid atm. But for the right now it's alittle sad to see and i do feel sorry for some of the open bracket players who must be exhausted when it comes to playing their pool play opponents at the end of a very long day for themselves.
Yeah, I'm glad they are fixing the way it's run next year because that idea sounds in theory to be a lot more balanced and makes more sense. I do think that people often overlook the fact that MLG is one large season culminating in a Final Tournament that is worth a lot more money. So I think pool play makes more sense when looking at it from that perspective.
As for your second point, yeah it is unfair for the open bracket players. Maybe MLG should just start the First Round of the Championship Losers Bracket on Sunday. I don't know.
The Championship losers bracket is already stacked on Sunday. You have to play a game on the hour, every hour for something like 8 straight hours if you want to go all the way to the final. That's not even any time for food or pee or anything haha. So i don't know if that would really help :p. Maybe more open brackets games on the first day would help, I dunno. It's so hard to fit the entire tournament into 3days. It feels like it needs an extra day now it's gotten so much bigger.
The pool play in theory is fine. And should still give pro's a safety net of having a bad MLG and still being in it. But it's too favoured towards the people in it atm and just needs tweaking slightly so it is more accessible for people to break into and others to fall out. In my opinion at least anyway.
On August 28 2011 12:29 Kamikazess wrote: Well, it really doesn't make sense. They're both at 4-1, but Select with 8-2 and DRG with 8-3. So it couldn't be a tie. I think it's pretty silly the fact that individual matches doesn't make a difference. But it's the system...
How the hell doesn't it make sense? DRG beat Select. It's as simple as that. Why can't people grasp the concept of head to head victories?
It would make perfect sense if both players records' were exactly the same. If Select lost one individual match less than DRG, he should be ahead. But I already know that it's the way MLG works. I think it is wrong, but it's the way it is.
The first tiebreaker is head to head. Considering you can lose a single map easily to the worst player in the pool it would be silly to make the first tiebreaker map results. It's correct the way it is. DRG beat Select so he won the tiebreaker.
But you can easily be the overall better player, but have one bad matchup.. So in my opinion the overall performance should count more than the score of one single match.
You really think the one more loss drg had is more weighted, even though he won the series, than a head to head match up?
Exactly, because in group play it's not about the single matchup, but about the overall performance. The player who performed best in all the games they played should be first
Except matches are more important and they were tied in matches therefore the head to head between two tied players is more important.
I guess this discussion is pointless, and no one involved will switch his mind..
On August 28 2011 12:37 tylermakesmusic wrote: [quote] How the hell doesn't it make sense? DRG beat Select. It's as simple as that. Why can't people grasp the concept of head to head victories?
It would make perfect sense if both players records' were exactly the same. If Select lost one individual match less than DRG, he should be ahead. But I already know that it's the way MLG works. I think it is wrong, but it's the way it is.
He didn't lose one less individual match. He lost one less game. One game does not equal one match.
Alright. Change the word "match" for the world "game", and my post will still have the same sense. Select lost one less game, so he should be ahead. That's the point to keep track of matches and games, in the player record.
So you're placing more emphasis on games where the whole point of a tournament is how many matches you win. I don't understand your logic and you obviously disagree with MLG's so I'm just gonna stop here.
Actually, no, I'm not doing it. The most important record should always be matches. But in a direct sense, to win a Bo3 match, I have to win 2 games. So, I'm only saying that it makes more sense to games count to anything. But it's only a kind of philosophical discussion, not a "right or wrong" one. =)
Actually there is an answer and you're just wrong. SC2 is a game with a lot of variance. Even in Brood War the best players only win 60% of the time. Placing the first tiebreaker on maps instead of head to head would be moronic. There's too much randomness with spawns, people are playing on different maps (no constant map pool), and there is random cheesy all in play that can always steal a single game but not a match.
All the factors you talked about are part of the game. One player can cannon rush every single game, on every single map, against every single player. But, if one player can defend it better than the other, he should have the advantage, in the future.
Your pretty much saying drg's one extra loss is worse than the two losses of select to drg.
No, I'm saying that one extra loss is worse than one less loss. But this discussion in pointless.
Aaah, people are finally starting to get it. As matters such as these really does not have any black and white answer and it's already been decided by someone else arguing about it is what makes no sense(unless you enjoy arguing of course).
As for the pool play, the only problem I can see at the moment is that it has a slightly too long "memory" at the moment, if you have a strong desire to remove players like iNcontroL who performed well at the beginning, but has underperformed since. With the setup of a one year season however it's fine by me. Can't really see what good adjustments could be made without a major overhaul.
EPT
also he beats tlo 2-0 already
