|
Lol Bitter 
|
On February 10 2012 06:00 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 05:57 Asha` wrote: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.
And there is a reason why OSL, MSL and GSL use this unique system instead of blindly copying other sports. Because it is just better and more appropriate for Starcraft.
And we can debate fairness forever because you can find pros and cons for every format - but ultimately if you just follow the tradition that exists for a LONG time, people will accept it and everybody will be happy. If tournaments keep trying to reinvent the wheel and act as if they're smarter than the ones before them, it will just continue to rub people the wrong way.
|
I can't even explain how much I love Rotti in the casting booth haha
|
Poor Rotti had to kiss girls on their mouths to get a beer for every kiss. 
|
On February 10 2012 06:00 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 05:57 Asha` wrote: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.
There is also a reason most sports who follow a boX-format within their matches do almost never use round-robin with small groups/low number of groupstage-matches.
|
On February 10 2012 06:03 MrCash wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:01 clusen wrote: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.
Yes you can. 2-0 the first match, then lose the winner's match. The guy you beat the first time comes back to the final match, and you lose 1-2. In sum, you beat him 3-2, but he advances, not you.
|
Norway278 Posts
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.
How is it not easy? World Cup in football uses the same system. (Goal difference instead of mapscore but you get the point.)
It makes perfect sense.
|
IEM has one of the fairest systems out there. Whining about it because you don't understand it is infinitely ridiculous.
|
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.
Well first of all three way ties are always possible in a round robin system. Second of all often completely arbitrary neasures are used to determine who should advance. It is not at all objectively clear why someone who has won more maps should advance over someone who has lost less maps. Similarly it is not clear why someone who has beaten someone in the head-to-head match should advance, since the other player has beaten someone the other could not beat.
Prefering the round robin system is perfectly fine, there are problems with any system. But, it should be pretty easy to understand what is confusing about the system if you just try.
|
On February 10 2012 06:04 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:00 Redox wrote:On February 10 2012 05:57 Asha` wrote: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. And there is a reason why OSL, MSL and GSL use this unique system instead of blindly copying other sports. Because it is just better and more appropriate for Starcraft. And we can debate fairness forever because you can find pros and cons for every format - but ultimately if you just follow the tradition that exists for a LONG time, people will accept it and everybody will be happy.
It's actually fairly terrible for Starcraft. Just because GSL does it doesn't mean it's all good.
Imagine This.
1. Good Player 1 vs. Good player 2.. Good 1 wins. (2-0)
2 Very Good 3 vs. Terrible 1. Very Good 3 wins. 2-0
3 Good 1 vs. Very Good 3 - Very Good 3 wins. 2-1
4 Good 2 vs. Terrible 1 Good 2 wins. 2-1
5 Good 1 vs. Good 2 - Good 2 wins. 2-1
Good 2 and 3 go on, Good 1 relegated.
Good 2 got an easy win vs. Terrible 1, while Good 1 is even with Good 2 in terms of games between them both, and Good 1 had to play MVP/MMA/Nestea, and gets a loss. Good 2 goes on based on an easy win vs. a perpetual Code A level player. Even if Good 1 has a 3-2s overall vs. Good 2.
Round Robin increases the need for more games, but it allots for easy and not easy matches.
|
On February 10 2012 06:03 sVnteen 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. 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)
I made that pretty clear. You can't simply look at who beat who, by how many maps.
If you take the names out of the equation, maybe it can eliminate some bias.
Player 1 wins first 2 bo3.
Player 4 lost first 2 bo3 - He is out 100%.
Player 2 and 3 are in limbo.
If player 3 Beats player 4, when player 4 has nothing to gain (think Naniwa), and knocks out Player 1, is that fair?
Other way to look at it:
3 Player go 2-1 in their 3 bo3.
The 1 played his bo3 first, and went 5-3.
The 2 played his bo3 2nd and went 5-2.
The 3 played his bo3 last went 5-1, because he played an opponent who was out and didn't care to play.
1 beat 3, 1 is still out.
The point is, the best player doesn't move on, the player who got the most map wins, for non-consistent reasons, advances.
|
The observer justed missed all of Ret's lings get owned by two banelings, saw it on the minimap.
One big giant red cluster, then it just disappears.
|
On February 10 2012 06:06 TheBB wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:03 MrCash wrote:On February 10 2012 06:01 clusen wrote: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 >< That's the example I said, you didn't beat him 3-2 in a bo5, you won 1 bo3 and lost 2 bo3. You do go overall 3-2 vs one player, but he won 2 bo3 to move on. Everyone still has two only win 2 matches. 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. Yes you can. 2-0 the first match, then lose the winner's match. The guy you beat the first time comes back to the final match, and you lose 1-2. In sum, you beat him 3-2, but he advances, not you.
|
Can't understand how people think a system where all players in group doesn't have to play each other can be more fair than this.
|
On February 10 2012 06:13 MrCash wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:06 TheBB wrote:On February 10 2012 06:03 MrCash wrote:On February 10 2012 06:01 clusen wrote: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 >< That's the example I said, you didn't beat him 3-2 in a bo5, you won 1 bo3 and lost 2 bo3. You do go overall 3-2 vs one player, but he won 2 bo3 to move on. Everyone still has two only win 2 matches. 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. Yes you can. 2-0 the first match, then lose the winner's match. The guy you beat the first time comes back to the final match, and you lose 1-2. In sum, you beat him 3-2, but he advances, not you.
?
Reply goes in text box!
|
|
|
Ret showing his sick macro <3.
|
Ret advances yeey
|
On February 10 2012 06:11 MrCash wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:03 sVnteen 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. 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) I made that pretty clear. You can't simply look at who beat who, by how many maps. If you take the names out of the equation, maybe it can eliminate some bias. Player 1 wins first 2 bo3. Player 4 lost first 2 bo3 - He is out 100%. Player 2 and 3 are in limbo. If player 3 Beats player 4, when player 4 has nothing to gain (think Naniwa), and knocks out Player 1, is that fair? Other way to look at it: 3 Player go 2-1 in their 3 bo3. The 1 played his bo3 first, and went 5-3. The 2 played his bo3 2nd and went 5-2. The 3 played his bo3 last went 5-1, because he played an opponent who was out and didn't care to play. 1 beat 3, 1 is still out. The point is, the best player doesn't move on, the player who got the most map wins, for non-consistent reasons, advances.
dude, just stop. You DON'T GET it.
Player 1,2 and 3 beat 4 2:0.
Player 1 beats 2- 2:1
Player 3 beats 1- 2:1
Player 2 beats 3- 2:0
1 and 2 advance. THAT was the scenario, but it won't happen because Ret will roll Snute.
|
He won a TvZ against MorroW, not a ZvZ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
