If we look at a point scheduling system that is used in most football leagues: 3 - win 1 - draw 0 - loss
We can determine that both DRG and Select has 24 pts (8 wins - 3 pts each). Now the next determinant if both teams (or players in this case) are equal in point value is normally, at a GROUP stage, is the W-L record for series between BOTH competitors. This means the win difference between DRG and Select is 6 pts, or 2 wins.
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.
And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
I already said that this discussion is pointless. But I really can't understand how a player with a worse win ratio is the better one.
Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play.
What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance.
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.
And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
You just have no argument. The first bolded part is not even a logical argument, it is just something you made up in your head. How make instable maps and matchups the head-to-head system superior? A win against a better player abusing an unstable matchup can happen anytime as well. And the the second bolded part could also be read "hey, let's just make mirror-matchups count less, they are stupid". It has nothing to do with which tiebreaker is superior.
Both tiebreaker systems are fine, arguing that it has to be one over the other because it is clearly superior is just ignorant. MLG picked one and everything is fine.
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.
And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
I already said that this discussion is pointless. But I really can't understand how a player with a worse win ratio is the better one.
Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play.
What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance.
WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint.
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.
And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
You just have no argument. The first bolded part is not even a logical argument, it is just something you made up in your head. ne and everything is fine.
His argument makes sense because in other sports the conditions are all kept the same for both teams. The pitch is the same dimensions for both, the basketball court and hoop height is same for both etc.
In starcraft, the maps aren't the same for both except in cases when they play h2h.
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.
And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
I already said that this discussion is pointless. But I really can't understand how a player with a worse win ratio is the better one.
Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play.
What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance.
WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint.
You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible.
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.
And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
You just have no argument. The first bolded part is not even a logical argument, it is just something you made up in your head. How make instable maps and matchups the head-to-head system superior? A win against a better player abusing an unstable matchup can happen anytime as well. And the the second bolded part could also be read "hey, let's just make mirror-matchups count less, they are stupid". It has nothing to do with which tiebreaker is superior.
Both tiebreaker systems are fine, arguing that it has to be one over the other because it is clearly superior is just ignorant. MLG picked one and everything is fine.
Don't blame me for your misunderstandings because you're misrepresenting what I said. I said you can't just compare without context the map results of one player (i.e. Select) to another player (i.e. DRG) because the conditions aren't constant. They're playing on different maps with different races. It makes it a poorer indicator than head to head. DRG beat Select in a match. That takes more precedent than Select going 2-0 against Slush and DRG going 2-1 against Slush.
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.
And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
You just have no argument. The first bolded part is not even a logical argument, it is just something you made up in your head. ne and everything is fine.
His argument makes sense because in other sports the conditions are all kept the same for both teams. The pitch is the same dimensions for both, the basketball court and hoop height is same for both etc.
In starcraft, the maps aren't the same for both except in cases when they play h2h.
They still don't play the same races and the first map might favour one other the other. This is all just artificial arguing. Maps, races and matchups are given in SC2-gameplay and should not be taken account arguing stuff like this, a tiebreaker has nothing to do with this.
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.
And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
I already said that this discussion is pointless. But I really can't understand how a player with a worse win ratio is the better one.
Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play.
What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance.
WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint.
You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible.
That's your logic.
That's not what I said. That's a strawman that you set up because you can't address any of the reasonable explanations I have given you why h2h is a better TIEBREAKER. I didn't say anything about the only thing that matters in competitive play. I've only shown you why in MLG h2h is the first tiebreaker. I've always said map result is the second. No idea why you think the format has to change based on the reasoning about tiebreakers. The current system proves this line of thinking irrelevant.
And the players are all facing each other, and the map pool is the same for everyone. And map advantage is a relevant factor to SC2 as home advantage is a relevant factor to any sport.
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.
And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
You just have no argument. The first bolded part is not even a logical argument, it is just something you made up in your head. How make instable maps and matchups the head-to-head system superior? A win against a better player abusing an unstable matchup can happen anytime as well. And the the second bolded part could also be read "hey, let's just make mirror-matchups count less, they are stupid". It has nothing to do with which tiebreaker is superior.
Both tiebreaker systems are fine, arguing that it has to be one over the other because it is clearly superior is just ignorant. MLG picked one and everything is fine.
Don't blame me for your misunderstandings because you're misrepresenting what I said. I said you can't just compare without context the map results of one player (i.e. Select) to another player (i.e. DRG) because the conditions aren't constant. They're playing on different maps with different races. It makes it a poorer indicator than head to head. DRG beat Select in a match. That takes more precedent than Select going 2-0 against Slush and DRG going 2-1 against Slush.
For what it is worth, I also think that h2h is the better tiebreaker. Just the way you get to this conclusion is completely wrong in my opinion.
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.
And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
You just have no argument. The first bolded part is not even a logical argument, it is just something you made up in your head. ne and everything is fine.
His argument makes sense because in other sports the conditions are all kept the same for both teams. The pitch is the same dimensions for both, the basketball court and hoop height is same for both etc.
In starcraft, the maps aren't the same for both except in cases when they play h2h.
They still don't play the same races and the first map might favour one other the other. This is all just artificial arguing. Maps, races and matchups are given in SC2-gameplay and should not be taken account arguing stuff like this, a tiebreaker has nothing to do with this.
What the hell is artificial arguing? As opposed to genuine arguing? And this is a discussion about tiebreakers so what do you mean tiebreaker has nothing ot do with this? You're just vomiting words out without preparation.
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.
And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
I already said that this discussion is pointless. But I really can't understand how a player with a worse win ratio is the better one.
Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play.
What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance.
WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint.
You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible.
That's your logic.
That's not what I said. That's a strawman that you set up because you can't address any of the reasonable explanations I have given you why h2h is a better TIEBREAKER. I didn't say anything about the only thing that matters in competitive play. I've only shown you why in MLG h2h is the first tiebreaker. I've always said map result is the second. No idea why you think the format has to change based on the reasoning about tiebreakers. The current system proves this line of thinking irrelevant.
The problem is that you're trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, while I'm discussing ideas.
And the current system only proves the flaws of head-to-head as the 1st tie-breaker, as I already demonstrated.
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.
And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
You just have no argument. The first bolded part is not even a logical argument, it is just something you made up in your head. ne and everything is fine.
His argument makes sense because in other sports the conditions are all kept the same for both teams. The pitch is the same dimensions for both, the basketball court and hoop height is same for both etc.
In starcraft, the maps aren't the same for both except in cases when they play h2h.
They still don't play the same races and the first map might favour one other the other. This is all just artificial arguing. Maps, races and matchups are given in SC2-gameplay and should not be taken account arguing stuff like this, a tiebreaker has nothing to do with this.
What the hell is artificial arguing? As opposed to genuine arguing? And this is a discussion about tiebreakers so what do you mean tiebreaker has nothing ot do with this? You're just vomiting words out without preparation.
That is actually true, I didn't prepare this debate the last week to throw hard facts in your face. Anyway, I just cannop help but realize that you are now angry and a disuucssion is pretty much useless, so I might as well drop this.
On August 28 2011 15:14 jmbthirteen wrote: [quote] And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
I already said that this discussion is pointless. But I really can't understand how a player with a worse win ratio is the better one.
Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play.
What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance.
WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint.
You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible.
That's your logic.
That's not what I said. That's a strawman that you set up because you can't address any of the reasonable explanations I have given you why h2h is a better TIEBREAKER. I didn't say anything about the only thing that matters in competitive play. I've only shown you why in MLG h2h is the first tiebreaker. I've always said map result is the second. No idea why you think the format has to change based on the reasoning about tiebreakers. The current system proves this line of thinking irrelevant.
The problem is that you're trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, while I'm discussing ideas.
And the current system only proves the flaws of head-to-head as the 1st tie-breaker, as I already demonstrated.
You've demonstrated nothing. Your argument amounts to, "It's a difference of opinion and neither side is right but I don't like the situation." The only grounds you've provided were trying to draw parallels to other sports which I tried to show you doesn't work in a sport without fixed variables.
On August 28 2011 15:14 jmbthirteen wrote: [quote] And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
I already said that this discussion is pointless. But I really can't understand how a player with a worse win ratio is the better one.
Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play.
What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance.
WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint.
You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible.
That's your logic.
That's not what I said. That's a strawman that you set up because you can't address any of the reasonable explanations I have given you why h2h is a better TIEBREAKER. I didn't say anything about the only thing that matters in competitive play. I've only shown you why in MLG h2h is the first tiebreaker. I've always said map result is the second. No idea why you think the format has to change based on the reasoning about tiebreakers. The current system proves this line of thinking irrelevant.
The problem is that you're trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, while I'm discussing ideas.
And the current system only proves the flaws of head-to-head as the 1st tie-breaker, as I already demonstrated.
You think its a flaw. There is no fact saying that h2h is flawed. Many believe its the best way. You put too much emphasis on individual games when sc2 is about series.
On August 28 2011 15:14 jmbthirteen wrote: [quote] And if you beat that player 2-0 (or even 2-1) you did better than him. Say a player goes 5-0 but wins all his series 2-1 so he goes 10-5. The next guy goes 4-1, but his only losses are to the first guy so he goes 9-2. 9-2 is a better record than 10-5, which guy is advancing? The guy that went 5-0 because individual games don't matter. Series matter. Select lost the series to drg, drg dropped a game to someone else that select beat 2-0. Drg deserves the higher seed.
And yeah dreamhack used h2h because I remember the confusion on who was advancing between him and grubby since idra won the h2h but grubby had a better record
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
I already said that this discussion is pointless. But I really can't understand how a player with a worse win ratio is the better one.
Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play.
What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance.
WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint.
You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible.
That's your logic.
That's not what I said. That's a strawman that you set up because you can't address any of the reasonable explanations I have given you why h2h is a better TIEBREAKER. I didn't say anything about the only thing that matters in competitive play. I've only shown you why in MLG h2h is the first tiebreaker. I've always said map result is the second. No idea why you think the format has to change based on the reasoning about tiebreakers. The current system proves this line of thinking irrelevant.
The problem is that you're trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, while I'm discussing ideas.
And the current system only proves the flaws of head-to-head as the 1st tie-breaker, as I already demonstrated.
It's not flawed. I understand where you are coming from, but this is a TOURNAMENT GROUP STAGE. Usually at this level, head-to-head is the first and foremost criteria in determining tiebreakers. What you want and are referencing to in terms of using the Win-Loss difference (Goal difference, you can say) is mainly in overall LEAGUE PLAY, as those are criteria in understanding the strength of a competitor over various stages.
As I have already said, of course the 1st tie-breaker should be the series record. But the 2nd, in my vision, should be the games record. The situation you proposed is different from what I'm talking about.
I can't believe that you're still arguing this.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
I already said that this discussion is pointless. But I really can't understand how a player with a worse win ratio is the better one.
Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play.
What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance.
WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint.
You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible.
That's your logic.
That's not what I said. That's a strawman that you set up because you can't address any of the reasonable explanations I have given you why h2h is a better TIEBREAKER. I didn't say anything about the only thing that matters in competitive play. I've only shown you why in MLG h2h is the first tiebreaker. I've always said map result is the second. No idea why you think the format has to change based on the reasoning about tiebreakers. The current system proves this line of thinking irrelevant.
The problem is that you're trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, while I'm discussing ideas.
And the current system only proves the flaws of head-to-head as the 1st tie-breaker, as I already demonstrated.
You've demonstrated nothing. Your argument amounts to, "It's a difference of opinion and neither side is right but I don't like the situation." The only grounds you've provided were trying to draw parallels to other sports which I tried to show you doesn't work in a sport without fixed variables.
I demonstrated, yes. Said that is possible to a player with 4-1 (9-6) record be ahead of a player with a 4-1 (9-2) record, which isn't a fair possibility in a Pool Play, where the best overall player should have the advantage. And you didn't even understood what I was saying.
The maps aren't constant and the race matchups aren't constant so using map results is a poorer tiebreaker than a winner take all head-to-head system which lets the better player earn it.
If they took map results you would have Select win the group because he 2-0'd Slush and DRG would get second because he 2-1'd Slush but he beat Select h2h. Mirror matchups are more volatile and unpredictable. Especially ZvZ. Losing 1 more game in a mirror matchup which has more volatility does not lessen beating the other guy head to head. This example perfectly shows why h2h is the 1st tiebreaker and map result is the 2nd. Move on already.
I already said that this discussion is pointless. But I really can't understand how a player with a worse win ratio is the better one.
Because he played the other guy and beat him. That's usually how they determine who is better in competitive play.
What's the point of pool play, then? MLG should be a open bracket, start to finish. So the guy who beat the other guy will always advance.
WTF?! How did you arrive at this point? You're not even arguing with logic at this point. You've been provided with enough explanations why map results are a poorer tiebreaker. No idea why you're arguing tournament format as a counterpoint.
You are the one saying that the only thing that matters, in competitive play, is to play the other guy and beat him. But, the Pool format doesn't work this way, because a tie can happen, and some form of tie-breaker will have to exist. So, if the only thing that matters is to beat the other guy, MLG should have assured that a tie wouldn't ever be possible.
That's your logic.
That's not what I said. That's a strawman that you set up because you can't address any of the reasonable explanations I have given you why h2h is a better TIEBREAKER. I didn't say anything about the only thing that matters in competitive play. I've only shown you why in MLG h2h is the first tiebreaker. I've always said map result is the second. No idea why you think the format has to change based on the reasoning about tiebreakers. The current system proves this line of thinking irrelevant.
The problem is that you're trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, while I'm discussing ideas.
And the current system only proves the flaws of head-to-head as the 1st tie-breaker, as I already demonstrated.
You've demonstrated nothing. Your argument amounts to, "It's a difference of opinion and neither side is right but I don't like the situation." The only grounds you've provided were trying to draw parallels to other sports which I tried to show you doesn't work in a sport without fixed variables.
I demonstrated, yes. Said that is possible to a player with 4-1 (9-6) record be ahead of a player with a 4-1 (9-2) record, which isn't a fair possibility in a Pool Play, where the best overall player should have the advantage. And you didn't even understood what I was saying.
Is he really the overall best player when he has won as many series as the player he lost to? Series are more important than games.
EPT
