|
United Kingdom38257 Posts
On February 10 2012 05:55 MCDayC wrote:
I wish all tournaments would adopt the group stage format GOM uses, its far better than the confusing mess that 99% of foreign tournaments use.
I will never understand what's confusing about round robin group play with a tiebreak system set out in the rulebook.
The GOM system is great for the most part, but it does occasionally leave players advancing/struggling because they got unlucky/lucky with which player they didn't have to face.
I don't see the need to even be talking about tiebreaker scenarios though, Ret is a massive favourite to beat Snute.
|
On February 10 2012 05:55 MrCash wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 05:53 00Visor wrote:On February 10 2012 05:47 MrCash wrote:
Again, people still don't understand how this silly group stages go, this needs to go away.
There is still a chance slivko and snute both have a better score than ret, even though slivko already lost to ret.
Then it boils down to what is more important, map score or who beat who?
If slivko goes 5-3 and Ret ends up 4-3, SHOULD slivko still go down?
If so, why should he even try vs dakkon?
If not, how the hell is that fair to Ret that he beat someone, but they advanced because he won vs Dakkon, he actually had no incentive to try either?
Silly group system is silly.
tl;dr: Double elimination group stages ala GSL not silly at all if snute beats Ret its Snute > Ret > Slivko > Snute So every player beat another one, but one has to go down. Why is mapscore not fair then? Because it's not Snute > Ret > Slivo > Snute, but rather Slivko > Ret because he beat Dakkon 2-0 who's results didn't matter anymore (even though Slivko might win 2-0 if he played earlier just as easily). Assuming Ret gets 2-0ed by Snute.
Why not? You are assuming Ret gets 2-0ed by Snute.
Then 3 players have 2 wins.
|
On February 10 2012 05:47 MrCash wrote:
Again, people still don't understand how this silly group stages go, this needs to go away.
There is still a chance slivko and snute both have a better score than ret, even though slivko already lost to ret.
Then it boils down to what is more important, map score or who beat who?
If slivko goes 5-3 and Ret ends up 4-3, SHOULD slivko still go down?
If so, why should he even try vs dakkon?
If not, how the hell is that fair to Ret that he beat someone, but they advanced because he won vs Dakkon, he actually had no incentive to try either?
Silly group system is silly.
tl;dr: Double elimination group stages ala GSL
You can go 3:2 against the guy you play in the last match and still be knocked out, the GSL system is not any better in that regard.
|
On February 10 2012 05:55 sVnteen wrote:why does liquipedia show that ret is already through? if he loses to snute 2-0 and slivko beats dakkon (which he should do) then ret is out and i dont even think that its very unlikely that snute beats ret... slivko outplayed in game 1 and in game 2 he was too indecisive with his spines but that was probably because he was nervous and the third game slivko was a bit too greedy vs ret's pretty all-in-ish push.. would have been happy about an upset and i really like slivko actually and i like snute as well  so i actually hope that he beats ret and both of them move on eventhough i like ret as well thats the problem with zerg groups i realld dont know who to root for
Because everyone, including people editing wiki can't consistently follow the silly IEM group system.
I've been raging pretty silly about it for the last couple of pages.
People seem to think it's simple and easy, however everyone still thinks it works differently.
It's kind of pointless to discuss it here I suppose.
I'll still add I think it's unprofessional how the casters, both Bitter and Rotterdam, look when they can't figure out how the groups work. This was the case here in Sao Paulo and at Kiev when Hero got knocked out.
|
On February 10 2012 05:56 HaXXspetten wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 05:55 MCDayC wrote:
I wish all tournaments would adopt the group stage format GOM uses, its far better than the confusing mess that 99% of foreign tournaments use. ^This With GOM's format, there is no controversy, no three-way-ties, no mapscore or math to go by. It's straight-up, simple, and makes sense.
I agree wholeheartedly, the fact that there can be no discussion about who deserves to advance makes the normal GSL format so much better.
|
this format is so simple
i really dont know why ppl have so much trouble understanding it
|
On February 10 2012 05:57 clusen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 05:47 MrCash wrote:
Again, people still don't understand how this silly group stages go, this needs to go away.
There is still a chance slivko and snute both have a better score than ret, even though slivko already lost to ret.
Then it boils down to what is more important, map score or who beat who?
If slivko goes 5-3 and Ret ends up 4-3, SHOULD slivko still go down?
If so, why should he even try vs dakkon?
If not, how the hell is that fair to Ret that he beat someone, but they advanced because he won vs Dakkon, he actually had no incentive to try either?
Silly group system is silly.
tl;dr: Double elimination group stages ala GSL You can go 3:2 against the guy you play in the last match and still be knocked out, the GSL system is not any better in that regard.
What? I don't think you understand how the GSL system works.
It's a double elimination bracket of 4 people in the group stages.
You win two matches (2 bo3), you move on, you lose two matches you go down.
|
Ret wins = he is #1 and slivko is #2.
Snute wins 2-0 = snute #1 and slivko #2
Snute wins 2-1 = tiebreaker between all 3.
|
On February 10 2012 05:57 Asha` wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 05:55 MCDayC wrote:
I wish all tournaments would adopt the group stage format GOM uses, its far better than the confusing mess that 99% of foreign tournaments use. I will never understand what's confusing about round robin group play with a tiebreak system set out in the rulebook. The GOM system is great for the most part, but it does occasionally leave players advancing/struggling because they got unlucky/lucky with which player they didn't have to face. I don't see the need to even be talking about tiebreaker scenarios though, Ret is a massive favourite to beat Snute.
This. There is a reason why round robin formats are used in about every sport while the GSL system is unique to the GSL. Round robin is just more fair.
|
On February 10 2012 05:57 00Visor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 05:55 MrCash wrote:On February 10 2012 05:53 00Visor wrote:On February 10 2012 05:47 MrCash wrote:
Again, people still don't understand how this silly group stages go, this needs to go away.
There is still a chance slivko and snute both have a better score than ret, even though slivko already lost to ret.
Then it boils down to what is more important, map score or who beat who?
If slivko goes 5-3 and Ret ends up 4-3, SHOULD slivko still go down?
If so, why should he even try vs dakkon?
If not, how the hell is that fair to Ret that he beat someone, but they advanced because he won vs Dakkon, he actually had no incentive to try either?
Silly group system is silly.
tl;dr: Double elimination group stages ala GSL not silly at all if snute beats Ret its Snute > Ret > Slivko > Snute So every player beat another one, but one has to go down. Why is mapscore not fair then? Because it's not Snute > Ret > Slivo > Snute, but rather Slivko > Ret because he beat Dakkon 2-0 who's results didn't matter anymore (even though Slivko might win 2-0 if he played earlier just as easily). Assuming Ret gets 2-0ed by Snute. Why not? You are assuming Ret gets 2-0ed by Snute. Then 3 players have 2 wins.
I am fully expecting Ret to move on, but the possibility of him not moving on because of how silly this group stage set up made is what I disapprove, because it is still possible for him to go down despite beating 2 of the 3 players.
|
Holy shit that man's a giant.
|
On February 10 2012 05:59 MrCash wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 05:57 clusen wrote:On February 10 2012 05:47 MrCash wrote:
Again, people still don't understand how this silly group stages go, this needs to go away.
There is still a chance slivko and snute both have a better score than ret, even though slivko already lost to ret.
Then it boils down to what is more important, map score or who beat who?
If slivko goes 5-3 and Ret ends up 4-3, SHOULD slivko still go down?
If so, why should he even try vs dakkon?
If not, how the hell is that fair to Ret that he beat someone, but they advanced because he won vs Dakkon, he actually had no incentive to try either?
Silly group system is silly.
tl;dr: Double elimination group stages ala GSL You can go 3:2 against the guy you play in the last match and still be knocked out, the GSL system is not any better in that regard. What? I don't think you understand how the GSL system works. It's a double elimination bracket of 4 people in the group stages. You win two matches (2 bo3), you move on, you lose two matches you go down.
You can play the same guy 2 times and go 3:2 against him but still get knocked out and he advances, you shouldn't try to use the GSL as an example if you didn't understand it ><
|
The group stage system has been used for years in football- World Cup, Champions League, etc. It's really simple, effective and fair.
|
On February 10 2012 06:00 MrCash wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 05:57 00Visor wrote:On February 10 2012 05:55 MrCash wrote:On February 10 2012 05:53 00Visor wrote:On February 10 2012 05:47 MrCash wrote:
Again, people still don't understand how this silly group stages go, this needs to go away.
There is still a chance slivko and snute both have a better score than ret, even though slivko already lost to ret.
Then it boils down to what is more important, map score or who beat who?
If slivko goes 5-3 and Ret ends up 4-3, SHOULD slivko still go down?
If so, why should he even try vs dakkon?
If not, how the hell is that fair to Ret that he beat someone, but they advanced because he won vs Dakkon, he actually had no incentive to try either?
Silly group system is silly.
tl;dr: Double elimination group stages ala GSL not silly at all if snute beats Ret its Snute > Ret > Slivko > Snute So every player beat another one, but one has to go down. Why is mapscore not fair then? Because it's not Snute > Ret > Slivo > Snute, but rather Slivko > Ret because he beat Dakkon 2-0 who's results didn't matter anymore (even though Slivko might win 2-0 if he played earlier just as easily). Assuming Ret gets 2-0ed by Snute. Why not? You are assuming Ret gets 2-0ed by Snute. Then 3 players have 2 wins. I am fully expecting Ret to move on, but the possibility of him not moving on because of how silly this group stage set up made is what I disapprove, because it is still possible for him to go down despite beating 2 of the 3 players.
the other guys have beaten 2 out of 3 aswell
so wheres the problem?
|
Am I the only one who thinks Portuguese sounds like a mixture of Spanish and Russian? -.-
|
Is Snute gonna make his breakthrough? :p
|
On February 10 2012 05:55 MrCash wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 05:53 00Visor wrote:On February 10 2012 05:47 MrCash wrote:
Again, people still don't understand how this silly group stages go, this needs to go away.
There is still a chance slivko and snute both have a better score than ret, even though slivko already lost to ret.
Then it boils down to what is more important, map score or who beat who?
If slivko goes 5-3 and Ret ends up 4-3, SHOULD slivko still go down?
If so, why should he even try vs dakkon?
If not, how the hell is that fair to Ret that he beat someone, but they advanced because he won vs Dakkon, he actually had no incentive to try either?
Silly group system is silly.
tl;dr: Double elimination group stages ala GSL not silly at all if snute beats Ret its Snute > Ret > Slivko > Snute So every player beat another one, but one has to go down. Why is mapscore not fair then? Because it's not Snute > Ret > Slivo > Snute, but rather Slivko > Ret because he beat Dakkon 2-0 who's results didn't matter anymore (even though Slivko might win 2-0 if he played earlier just as easily). Assuming Ret gets 2-0ed by Snute.
i dont get your point at all -.-
if ret lost to snute and ALMOST LOST to slivko and wins vs dakkon why is it unfair if he goes down?
because slivko beat snute and ALMOST WON vs ret and wins vs dakkon (so he has better map score)
and snute won vs dakkon and ALMOST WON vs slivko and might win vs ret so he would have better map score as well (if he wins 2-0 at least i think if he goes 2-1 they are equal)
I dont get why you are saying that this would be unfair
(you mean just because dakkon has no reason to try anymore? because that is a) not true because he wants to proof himself at an international tournament at his home country and b) he would most likely go down 2-0 anyways as you said)
|
On February 10 2012 05:58 MrCash wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 05:55 sVnteen wrote:why does liquipedia show that ret is already through? if he loses to snute 2-0 and slivko beats dakkon (which he should do) then ret is out and i dont even think that its very unlikely that snute beats ret... slivko outplayed in game 1 and in game 2 he was too indecisive with his spines but that was probably because he was nervous and the third game slivko was a bit too greedy vs ret's pretty all-in-ish push.. would have been happy about an upset and i really like slivko actually and i like snute as well so i actually hope that he beats ret and both of them move on eventhough i like ret as well thats the problem with zerg groups i realld dont know who to root for Because everyone, including people editing wiki can't consistently follow the silly IEM group system. I've been raging pretty silly about it for the last couple of pages. People seem to think it's simple and easy, however everyone still thinks it works differently. It's kind of pointless to discuss it here I suppose. I'll still add I think it's unprofessional how the casters, both Bitter and Rotterdam, look when they can't figure out how the groups work. This was the case here in Sao Paulo and at Kiev when Hero got knocked out.
If Snute would beat Ret 2:0, the group would be:
Slivko 2:1 Snute
Ret 2:1 Slivko
Snute 2:0 Ret
Everyone 2:0 Dakkon
So Ret would be eliminated, because everyone else would have one map against the guy, he lost to. How is the system silly?
|
Pretty complex situation, lets see how this ends up.
|
On February 10 2012 06:01 clusen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 05:59 MrCash wrote:On February 10 2012 05:57 clusen wrote:On February 10 2012 05:47 MrCash wrote:
Again, people still don't understand how this silly group stages go, this needs to go away.
There is still a chance slivko and snute both have a better score than ret, even though slivko already lost to ret.
Then it boils down to what is more important, map score or who beat who?
If slivko goes 5-3 and Ret ends up 4-3, SHOULD slivko still go down?
If so, why should he even try vs dakkon?
If not, how the hell is that fair to Ret that he beat someone, but they advanced because he won vs Dakkon, he actually had no incentive to try either?
Silly group system is silly.
tl;dr: Double elimination group stages ala GSL You can go 3:2 against the guy you play in the last match and still be knocked out, the GSL system is not any better in that regard. What? I don't think you understand how the GSL system works. It's a double elimination bracket of 4 people in the group stages. You win two matches (2 bo3), you move on, you lose two matches you go down. You can play the same guy 2 times and go 3:2 against him but still get knocked out and he advances, you shouldn't try to use the GSL as an example if you didn't understand it ><
No, that's not possible to go 3:2 to anyone in a group stage.
If you win 2:1 and then TIE 1:1? You can win 2:0 and then lose 2nd match and then again lose 1:2 vs first opponent? You still lost 2 of your 3 matches.
You can lose 1:2, if you win a match and then play him a 2nd time, you can just NEVER end up being 3:2 and losing, you still have to win 2 bo3, that's it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
