On August 28 2011 14:20 holynorth wrote: Cultural differences are pretty weird. To me, head to head is an obvious first pick for tiebreaker. Apparently, other countries disagree.
I just feel as if two people are tied, yet one beat the other, that person should get the lead.
Ya i guess it just has to be a cultural thing because head to head makes perfect sense to me if they are tied. To me it would of been weird if select got placed higher the DRG even though he lost there individual match-up.
Most major SC2 tournys use head to head to brake ties in pool play though, at least i think, ie dreamhack, IEM and they are European turnys so i might not just be the US thing
On August 28 2011 14:20 holynorth wrote: Cultural differences are pretty weird. To me, head to head is an obvious first pick for tiebreaker. Apparently, other countries disagree.
I just feel as if two people are tied, yet one beat the other, that person should get the lead.
Well h2h is flawed as a tiebreaker in that it makes more games meaningless. In a tournament like the World Cup with only four teams per group you'd see loads of games that one or more of the teams had nothing to win from if you went with a h2h system.
This is less relevant in the MLG tournament because of the large groups and scores being less flexible (2-0 and 2-1 being the only two possible results) but if say Select had been playing TLO last and after DRG well then he might aswell have forfitted his last match because he would have gotten second place anyway whereas with the point system he would have had a reason to fight for 2-0.
I think this is the main reason you will never see h2h in a World Cup.
On August 28 2011 14:20 holynorth wrote: Cultural differences are pretty weird. To me, head to head is an obvious first pick for tiebreaker. Apparently, other countries disagree.
I just feel as if two people are tied, yet one beat the other, that person should get the lead.
But what if it's the guy's best matchup and the other's worst? Shouldn't the guy with the overall better map score be the better player?
It's kind of arbitrary. A lot of sports or leagues use the win percentage, where Select would edge out DRG, but as long as MLG has consistently used this rule (H2H) and is consistent applying it and doesn't change it mid tournament to favor a player, it's fine. If everyone know ahead of time that this is the rule and this is the condition that must be met, no problem.
It's kind of like the extended series rule. I don't care for it and would prefer they disregard previous results as if the players had never played each other, but this is the rule MLG has chosen to go with. At least it's kind of consistent, they put a lot of importance on the H2H result between the players, both in the tiebreaker and in the extended series.
On August 28 2011 14:20 holynorth wrote: Cultural differences are pretty weird. To me, head to head is an obvious first pick for tiebreaker. Apparently, other countries disagree.
I just feel as if two people are tied, yet one beat the other, that person should get the lead.
But what if it's the guy's best matchup and the other's worst? Shouldn't the guy with the overall better map score be the better player?
A lot of sports or leagues use the win percentage, where Select would edge out DRG, .
But those sports that use win % do so because every team plays the same number of games. DRG played 11 games whereas select played 10 games which throws a wrench into that.
On August 28 2011 14:18 CKHound wrote: When it comes to the tiebreaker system, of course head to head is going to be first. Think of it this way. If someone loses all their Bo3's but takes everyone to 3 games, they still have a fairly ok looking record in individual games, but guess what they are seeded lower. This tournement is based on the Bo3's not on how many individual games a person wins
Except that what you wrote has nothing to do with a tiebreaker system. If they lose all their series, they're seeded last due to losing all their series, nothing else.
Ok so think of this. Already been used but ill use it again because it makes sense. If The New England Patriots play the Jets Twice in a Season, beating them both times, and at the end of the season they are tied in records at 12-4. who should be placed higher? even if the jets beat say the Colts and the ravens and the pats lost to both those teams? It literally is nonsensical to place a team who cannot beat the other higher than them. Obviously the pats are the better team than the jets if they beat them. Your defending a viewpoint that states that matchups such as in football a team may be great against the run and suck against the pass. That should not come into play when saying which team is better. there, good enough for you troll?
I feel that H2H works in Starcraft because more emphasis is placed on winning series than on individual games. Since, SC is a game of limited infomration, luck plays a larger factor when you stress games. For example, I could play some pro one game and possibly cheese him to win a Bo1 but in a Bo3 I will lose 100% of the time. This is why MLG cares more about series record than it does about performance.
If MLG didn't use H2H and instead went for a point system in the group stages, like some of you are suggesting, then they would need to play out all three games of the best of 3. That kinda fucks with everything and is x10 more trouble than it is worth.
On August 28 2011 11:03 Oboeman wrote: On 1.4 I think Kiwi would have owned that engagement.
Pros do whatever that they think has the highest probability to win them the game, if 1.4 turned out to help alot on protoss defending 1/1/1, this tact will probably phase out eventually.
On August 28 2011 13:03 Pratoss wrote: Missed majority of today's series
would anyone mind recommending some series since I really don't have the time to watch them all.
Puma vs Nada was a TvT you don't see every day.
That was a sick series. As was kiwi vs puma
+1 to kiwi vs puma. If you watch just one series from today, watch that one imo.
Putting Select above a player he lost to who also didn't lose at all seems insane to me. I understand that a score based system prevents games being potentially meaningless at the end, but I feel like the series score is what's more important.
On August 28 2011 14:20 holynorth wrote: Cultural differences are pretty weird. To me, head to head is an obvious first pick for tiebreaker. Apparently, other countries disagree.
I just feel as if two people are tied, yet one beat the other, that person should get the lead.
Ya i guess it just has to be a cultural thing because head to head makes perfect sense to me if they are tied. To me it would of been weird if select got placed higher the DRG even though he lost there individual match-up.
Most major SC2 tournys use head to head to brake ties in pool play though, at least i think, ie dreamhack, IEM and they are European turnys so i might not just be the US thing
Nope. European events don't. Don't even know where you got the idea from tbh. Assembly didn't, Dreamhack didn't, pretty sure IEM doesn't as well.
It makes more sense to me for the games won and lost to count before head to head. Rewarding the better overall record over the course of the entire group. So it's not as obvious as North Americans seem to think and they certainly shouldn't slate people for having different views.
On August 28 2011 14:45 Plexa wrote: If MLG didn't use H2H and instead went for a point system in the group stages, like some of you are suggesting, then they would need to play out all three games of the best of 3. That kinda fucks with everything and is x10 more trouble than it is worth.
No they wouldn't. I don't even know what you're suggesting but if they use the method of games won and lost instead of H2H. Then whoever has the better record would just go through. If they both have the same record then it goes to H2H.
On August 28 2011 14:20 holynorth wrote: Cultural differences are pretty weird. To me, head to head is an obvious first pick for tiebreaker. Apparently, other countries disagree.
I just feel as if two people are tied, yet one beat the other, that person should get the lead.
Well h2h is flawed as a tiebreaker in that it makes more games meaningless. In a tournament like the World Cup with only four teams per group you'd see loads of games that one or more of the teams had nothing to win from if you went with the h2h system.
This is less relevant in a MLG tournament but if Select had been playing TLO last and after DRG well then he might aswell have forfitted his last match because he would have gotten second place anyway whereas with the point system he would have had to fight for a 2-0.
I think this is the main reason you will never see h2h in a World Cup.
I like head to head, but this was probably the best explanation I have so far read about why the other way is better. I now understand why you would prefer the individual games over head to head. Essentially, depending on the way the games play out, the head to head could make certain matches meaningless.
That does not mean it is flawed as a system though, since the entire idea of the system being flawed does not really make sense to me. It is a decision based on what has more importance, an overall best of 3, or the individual matches. You say it is flawed because you want every game to be meaningful, but in reality, there is no system that will create every game as meaningful for every player. The Rain vs Incontrol match, for example, is largely meaningless for both players under either system. Rain's spot does not change if he loses, and Incontrol's spot does not change if he wins 2-0 even. If MLG had tie-breaker matches between a 3-way tie, then Rain would have motivation to win 2-0, but Incontrol still would arguably not have any motivation to win since his position does not change with winning 2-0.
If you take the stand that there is no system that can create every game to be meaningful, then it becomes one of preference. It is possible that there is a greater statistical chance of games being meaningful in one system over another (which you have not shown), but the choice may not even lie in creating meaningful games for all players. It could lie in a sense of "fairness", which for some would result in the head to head winner taking precedence.
This really isn't a big deal guys. These are the rules of the tournament, and the players signed up knowing those rules. That's just the way it is.
On a sidenote, I really wish people would stop shitting all over MLG. Honestly, these MLGs are some of the best tournaments I have seen. The downtime is pretty low relative to some of the other recent tournaments, and there are a ridiculous number of games being played over 3 days to watch. Even if not every game is amazing, overall, you get to see an awesome amount of different strategies and play-styles over a short period of time. MLG has also been ridiculous accommodating to all of us fans, in regards to extra streams, putting out the replays, getting vods out quickly, and even having all of the games that were played but not casted, casted later on after the tournament. It's ridiculous that people are still bitching about an awesome thing.
[QUOTE]On August 28 2011 14:49 TheHova wrote: [QUOTE]On August 28 2011 14:33 Quintum_ wrote: [QUOTE]On August 28 2011 14:20 holynorth wrote: Cultural differences are pretty weird. To me, head to head is an obvious first pick for tiebreaker. Apparently, other countries disagree.
I just feel as if two people are tied, yet one beat the other, that person should get the lead.[/QUOTE]
In the assembly example, there is a 3 way tie and in such cases even mlg goes to map score differential, because you can't determine h2h b/w 3 players.
In your dreamhack example. Idra and Grubby are both 3-2, but Idra won h2h so the point is moot because Idra would advance in either case.
People were really hating on NA after Idra's games against Noblesse, but turns out that the best two non-Korean performances were from NA players. Well done to Select and Kiwi.
There's no need to play all 3 games. This is why it's a Best of 3 series. If you need more games to win the Bo3 than another player, this other player did better than you and should be ahead. Simple.
But, it's obviously a cultural thing, this preference for head-to-head or win/loss ratio.
On August 28 2011 14:59 Kamikazess wrote: There's no need to play all 3 games. This is why it's a Best of 3 series. If you need more games to win the Bo3 than another player, this other player did better than you and should be ahead. Simple.
But, it's obviously a cultural thing, this preference for head-to-head or win/loss ratio.
But if you can't even beat the person you're tied with, why are you considered better than him?
On August 28 2011 14:20 holynorth wrote: Cultural differences are pretty weird. To me, head to head is an obvious first pick for tiebreaker. Apparently, other countries disagree.
I just feel as if two people are tied, yet one beat the other, that person should get the lead.
In the assembly example, there is a 3 way tie and in such cases even mlg goes to map score differential, because you can't determine h2h b/w 3 players.
In your dreamhack example. Idra and Grubby are both 3-2, but Idra won h2h so the point is moot because Idra would advance in either case.
Assembly i did not watch so i cant comment on but i am pretty sure dreamhack used H2H to determine placement over win percentage. Would grubby not of advanced over idra because he had better win percentage then idra if that was the case.
EPT
