|
No, I do see that line of logic, Fubi, but I see the difficulty of dropping down and coming back up after more matches as enough I don't know, compensation? It's not like the winner of the Winner's Bracket (Alive) actually went through pool play undefeated and the one player who beat him in pool play was Nestea, who won 2-0. It seems mad to me that the final is basically an extended series (only possibly harsher), without any specific prior match-up between the finalists being required to force the extended (or rather double) series upon the finalist from the LB, yet there is no extended series rule for Alive to overcome when facing Nestea. It doesn't make sense. Nestea was undefeated and had personally beaten Alive, so where was Alive's extended series to overcome for having lost previously? Due to the luck of it being in pool play, Alive gets away with being allowed to win 3-1.
In an extended series, supposing we use the newer MLG rule in which the series extends by 4 games (right?), that would make it even at 3-3 in a Best of 9. Older MLG would make it out of a Best of 7, I think, harsher for Alive to overcome, but in this instance, they'd have been even with a final deciding match left.
With this additional series rule instead, if you (in my opinion) justly applied it also to personal match-ups (I'd rather no such rules at all), Alive would have done a good job of winning his first Best of 5 and be welcome to start the second Best of 5 against Nestea,
Alive didn't have to face that, Squirtle did. Neither had faced each other before then, Squirtle won the first series 3-2. Having to play yet more games against an opponent you have indisputably beaten is just an unthinkable task, mentally even more so than physically.
Before the final, Alive had played 19 games to Squirtle's 22 (not counting the Open Bracket, or 33 with it assuming we ignore the first opponent who was almost certainly nowhere near a match)...
but then I suppose that going 7-4 in pool instead of 6-3 is Squirtle's fault for failing to finish off more opponents early on in the game, hey? 
+ Show Spoiler +Just a note: I incorrectly called Squirtle's pool record superior in an earlier post, it was actually 7-4 compared to 6-3 in games within series, which I would call equal.
+ Show Spoiler +EDIT: Nice pun, bagration. Oh EDIT again, somehow read it and then mixed it up and started thinking chicken was in an in-flight meal and you were making a pun on it. Joke's on me.
|
What the fuck are you talking about? it has nothing to do with who you lost to, it's just to do with losing in the double elimination bracket. This is how double elimination brackets work and it makes perfect sense, why are you trying to apply extended series at the same time?
Squirtle lost in double elimination. Alive didn't. Therefore he gets an advantage in the finals. Why does it matter that alive lost to nestea in the pools? there is no extended series rule
|
On April 10 2012 05:09 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 05:03 Azarkon wrote:On April 10 2012 04:55 ZenithM wrote:On April 10 2012 04:35 Azarkon wrote:On April 10 2012 04:21 Fawkes wrote:On April 10 2012 03:16 Big J wrote:On April 10 2012 03:07 Morfildur wrote:On April 10 2012 03:01 Sabu113 wrote:On April 10 2012 02:36 HaXXspetten wrote:On April 10 2012 02:31 dragonborn wrote:
[quote]
if his games were 2-0 lose against nestea/mkp, i can say you are right, but score was 2-1 with such a close games.
he is just outclassed against MMA @game 2. MMA outclasses everyone in TvZ, except maybe DRG. I think people underestimated how sick Stephano was in their g1 because of the show MMA put on in g2. In G1 for most of the game, Stephano had managed to deny /any/ worker kills whatsoever. Stephano is pretty damn impressive... it's just that like you say MMA's TvZ is absurd (yet he won't do an SCfou style tvp t.t). Even in g2 i was impressed by stephano. As a former Zerg i was in horror while as current Terran i was also in awe of what MMA unleashed on poor Stephano and Stephano still managed to almost keep up with the multitasking of MMA, he even managed to get quite a huge army out. I wish i was even half as good as either of them. na, MMA could have just 1a-ed him from the moment those 3banshees killed the third and stephano only killed one. His army was "impressive" because ultras and lings take up like infinity space and make you max really fast, compared to more expensive (lategame)efficient stuff. MMA was pretty much playing with him at that point. Yes, which is BM. Stephano had one option at that point - GG as soon as he was contained on two bases, which in the foreigner's scene results in him being called an IdrA, not fighting to the last, etc. Yet, the alternative to that was getitng humiliated by MMA, who refused to push because he wanted to humiliate Stephano. MMA's behavior is a huge blow to people who think Korean pros are GM, respectful, etc., unlike foreigners. It doesn't work that way. Lol, don't spread that bullshit here. It's the responsibility of the losing player to gg, if he's on 2 bases, he has to attempt something, MMA can just sit on his 5 bases throwing around nukes until Stephano gg's out. That's all there is to it. Plus, as Terran with MM + tanks, you can't really push into 15+ infestors + ultras (or just super slowly). MMA was in a very good position, he just has to stay in his position and deny further zerg bases, that's it. Stephano is the one who has to gg, and didn't do it early enough, hence the taunting maneuvers like mass sensor towers, nukes and manner muling to forcefield ultras (quite funny this one :D). Stephano has this extra cockiness of saying he doesn't practice and doesn't care who he faces because he doesn't need to prepare for his opponent, it was well worth a little taunting at the end imo, and Stephano took it well I think, no harm done, not BM in the slightest. GGing in that situation is seen as cowardly across the board. The reason Boxer is loved by people in Korea is because of his Never-GG attitude. MMA knows that well enough, being on Slayers. Plus, Stephano did not have 15+ infestors and ultras when MMA started nuking. Watch MMA's games vs. IdrA to see his standard play vs. Zerg when he's way ahead. He doesn't nuke, he doesn't build six sensor towers, and he doesn't drag games out this long. Don't get me wrong, Stephano does a lot of in-game ceremonies as well, but MMA dragged the game out twenty minutes with his ceremony and put the casters in a ridiculously awkward position. That was BM. I can certainly understand your views on early gg-ing. But IdrA is the guy who gg's while having the game won and Boxer is the one who gg's only when he has single digit supply count (which I personally find more ridiculous than laudable). Nobody will resent Stephano for gg'ing if he starts losing shit to nukes, or if he has only 2 bases remaining against a 5 base Terran. Personally I didn't feel that what MMA was doing was offensive. It was on the level of Stephano proxy'ing hatcheries in the middle of the map. Showy, funny and certainly a bit provocative, but not "Bad Mannered" so to speak.
My problem with him is that he dragged it out too long. A nuke ceremony is 4-5 nukes dropping as you push into the opponent's base - that's cool and awesome. Trying to nuke for 15-20 minutes and landing 2-3 good ones out of the two dozen you used is just dumb, and it is BM in the same way saying why haven't you left yet to your opponent is BM.
Good manners as we think of it in the foreigner's community is playing your best to win when victory is still within grasp, and finishing it in a timely manner when it's over. Lifting all your buildings as Terran when you've lost and flying them to the corners of the map is sore loser behavior and is BM. Excessively taunting your opponent and dragging the game out after you've won is sore winner behavior and is also BM. In this case I think Stephano, given the information he had, was within the limit of good manners to try and make a comeback. MMA, however, knew he had won - nobody builds six sensor towers in the same location without thinking that.
|
I just finished watching the vod of the last day, and hearing apollo screaming probes probes probes!! at the ending of squirtle's vs alive in the last game of the first bo5 was priceless. Great duo him and catz were, fun tourney good matches!
Edit: wow, lackluster 2nd bo5 O.O
|
Fermats_last, why did you even bother replying? I explained precisely what I was talking about and why I think this system seems even harsher than the MLG system. Shall I try just a bit more for you? I didn't say everyone had to agree with me, so you're free to like this system, but seeing as you don't seem to be able to comprehend what I'm saying, one last effort:
If Nestea vs Alive's first series had been in the finals rather than pool play, Alive would have been knocked down to the loser's bracket anyway. Being knocked down to the loser's bracket makes getting to the finals much harder anyway, yet they apply further difficulty to, in this case, Squirtle. I don't see it as a matter of 'everyone gets one death allowed', I know that's how this system works and I'm saying I disagree with the use of it, because it discredits and works SO strongly against the player that has played more matches and it makes for tiring tournaments and especially tired players (at least one).
There is no need for it to be 'double elimination', just have a Loser's bracket which forces players in the loser's bracket to play numerous extra games, so that it is a more tiring path, because they're already at a disadvantage when they get to the final anyway. I don't care if you disagree with it, I'm not fussed about convincing you, but double elimination like this is very hard on a player that end up playing extra matches only to play in the final with such a disadvantage. It's like you're trying to encourage the finals to end up being a one-sided clash between a more pepped-up WB player and that one person who crawled back through the LB, just so that we can watch him get eliminated for a second time. Not fun.
Unless my above explained concept format, with a loser's bracket which would probably ideally last longer than just the final 8, more like final 16, without the specific concept of 'double elimination', were to be put in place, which I find simple but apparently you do not, Single Elimination is the way to go. Even if I might like my version of this WB/LB format, I think I still prefer Single Elimination.
|
Squirtle was a beast in IPL4, shame he couldn't go all the way, he was sooo close!
Grats to aLive though, I don't think many would've put him up there considering the crazy lineup. aLive is a silent killer.
|
Glad that Squirtle, the underdog pretty much, got so far. Didn't think he would even make the groups tbh. Happy that this helps make him more well known since the last I really heard of him was his good performances in the GSTL some time back.
|
On April 10 2012 07:46 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 05:09 ZenithM wrote:On April 10 2012 05:03 Azarkon wrote:On April 10 2012 04:55 ZenithM wrote:On April 10 2012 04:35 Azarkon wrote:On April 10 2012 04:21 Fawkes wrote:On April 10 2012 03:16 Big J wrote:On April 10 2012 03:07 Morfildur wrote:On April 10 2012 03:01 Sabu113 wrote:On April 10 2012 02:36 HaXXspetten wrote:
[quote]
MMA outclasses everyone in TvZ, except maybe DRG. I think people underestimated how sick Stephano was in their g1 because of the show MMA put on in g2. In G1 for most of the game, Stephano had managed to deny /any/ worker kills whatsoever. Stephano is pretty damn impressive... it's just that like you say MMA's TvZ is absurd (yet he won't do an SCfou style tvp t.t). Even in g2 i was impressed by stephano. As a former Zerg i was in horror while as current Terran i was also in awe of what MMA unleashed on poor Stephano and Stephano still managed to almost keep up with the multitasking of MMA, he even managed to get quite a huge army out. I wish i was even half as good as either of them. na, MMA could have just 1a-ed him from the moment those 3banshees killed the third and stephano only killed one. His army was "impressive" because ultras and lings take up like infinity space and make you max really fast, compared to more expensive (lategame)efficient stuff. MMA was pretty much playing with him at that point. Yes, which is BM. Stephano had one option at that point - GG as soon as he was contained on two bases, which in the foreigner's scene results in him being called an IdrA, not fighting to the last, etc. Yet, the alternative to that was getitng humiliated by MMA, who refused to push because he wanted to humiliate Stephano. MMA's behavior is a huge blow to people who think Korean pros are GM, respectful, etc., unlike foreigners. It doesn't work that way. Lol, don't spread that bullshit here. It's the responsibility of the losing player to gg, if he's on 2 bases, he has to attempt something, MMA can just sit on his 5 bases throwing around nukes until Stephano gg's out. That's all there is to it. Plus, as Terran with MM + tanks, you can't really push into 15+ infestors + ultras (or just super slowly). MMA was in a very good position, he just has to stay in his position and deny further zerg bases, that's it. Stephano is the one who has to gg, and didn't do it early enough, hence the taunting maneuvers like mass sensor towers, nukes and manner muling to forcefield ultras (quite funny this one :D). Stephano has this extra cockiness of saying he doesn't practice and doesn't care who he faces because he doesn't need to prepare for his opponent, it was well worth a little taunting at the end imo, and Stephano took it well I think, no harm done, not BM in the slightest. GGing in that situation is seen as cowardly across the board. The reason Boxer is loved by people in Korea is because of his Never-GG attitude. MMA knows that well enough, being on Slayers. Plus, Stephano did not have 15+ infestors and ultras when MMA started nuking. Watch MMA's games vs. IdrA to see his standard play vs. Zerg when he's way ahead. He doesn't nuke, he doesn't build six sensor towers, and he doesn't drag games out this long. Don't get me wrong, Stephano does a lot of in-game ceremonies as well, but MMA dragged the game out twenty minutes with his ceremony and put the casters in a ridiculously awkward position. That was BM. I can certainly understand your views on early gg-ing. But IdrA is the guy who gg's while having the game won and Boxer is the one who gg's only when he has single digit supply count (which I personally find more ridiculous than laudable). Nobody will resent Stephano for gg'ing if he starts losing shit to nukes, or if he has only 2 bases remaining against a 5 base Terran. Personally I didn't feel that what MMA was doing was offensive. It was on the level of Stephano proxy'ing hatcheries in the middle of the map. Showy, funny and certainly a bit provocative, but not "Bad Mannered" so to speak. My problem with him is that he dragged it out too long. A nuke ceremony is 4-5 nukes dropping as you push into the opponent's base - that's cool and awesome. Trying to nuke for 15-20 minutes and landing 2-3 good ones out of the two dozen you used is just dumb, and it is BM in the same way saying why haven't you left yet to your opponent is BM. Good manners as we think of it in the foreigner's community is playing your best to win when victory is still within grasp, and finishing it in a timely manner when it's over. Lifting all your buildings as Terran when you've lost and flying them to the corners of the map is sore loser behavior and is BM. Excessively taunting your opponent and dragging the game out after you've won is sore winner behavior and is also BM. In this case I think Stephano, given the information he had, was within the limit of good manners to try and make a comeback. MMA, however, knew he had won - nobody builds six sensor towers in the same location without thinking that.
Nuking all over the place still had benefits for MMA. He had the lead to invest in nukes, and some of his nukes did hit. But the constant nuking also taxes Stephano's multitasking, and it overwhelmed him.
|
On April 10 2012 06:49 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:No, I do see that line of logic, Fubi, but I see the difficulty of dropping down and coming back up after more matches as enough I don't know, compensation? It's not like the winner of the Winner's Bracket (Alive) actually went through pool play undefeated and the one player who beat him in pool play was Nestea, who won 2-0. It seems mad to me that the final is basically an extended series (only possibly harsher), without any specific prior match-up between the finalists being required to force the extended (or rather double) series upon the finalist from the LB, yet there is no extended series rule for Alive to overcome when facing Nestea. It doesn't make sense. Nestea was undefeated and had personally beaten Alive, so where was Alive's extended series to overcome for having lost previously? Due to the luck of it being in pool play, Alive gets away with being allowed to win 3-1. In an extended series, supposing we use the newer MLG rule in which the series extends by 4 games (right?), that would make it even at 3-3 in a Best of 9. Older MLG would make it out of a Best of 7, I think, harsher for Alive to overcome, but in this instance, they'd have been even with a final deciding match left. With this additional series rule instead, if you (in my opinion) justly applied it also to personal match-ups (I'd rather no such rules at all), Alive would have done a good job of winning his first Best of 5 and be welcome to start the second Best of 5 against Nestea, Alive didn't have to face that, Squirtle did. Neither had faced each other before then, Squirtle won the first series 3-2. Having to play yet more games against an opponent you have indisputably beaten is just an unthinkable task, mentally even more so than physically. Before the final, Alive had played 19 games to Squirtle's 22 (not counting the Open Bracket, or 33 with it assuming we ignore the first opponent who was almost certainly nowhere near a match)... but then I suppose that going 7-4 in pool instead of 6-3 is Squirtle's fault for failing to finish off more opponents early on in the game, hey?
First of all, arguments like "Losers had to go through a harder road" or "Losers had to fight back to make up" etc etc, are all subjective arguments. Yes, a lot of people would agree with you that those are punishments, but there will be players that see playing more games as a good way to keep themselves warmed up, or maybe a good way to fool their future opponents by keep showing certain trends in their strategies (such as playing macro), then switch it up and suddenly using different ones when it counts (such as switching to all in).
The point is, these are simply subjective advantages. But when it comes to fairness of a system, you need absolute advantages in a systematically balanced form. Therefore, in this double elimination example, if you're giving everyone two lifes, you can not simply go "we feel that you having to play less games equals that extra life", because that is a subjective opinion.
As for the Pool play, they are completely separate from the double elimination as far as systems go. They are not part of the double elimination format, nor does a double elimination format need the pool play, nor does a pool play have to always go into a double elimination. If you want to debate about extended series, this definitely isn't the place to do it, as it can derail into completely different topics.
|
Double elimination is the best option for ranking the players by ability. Single elimination makes match-ups, and thus luck-of-the-draw, more important. The problem of tired players is a matter of scheduling - if not for GSTL, IPL could have stretched out the matches over two days. Even more so, with double brackets, you should really stick to BO3, but it's not a big issue if you allow enough time.
In any case, part of the charm of the weekend tournaments is that they're quick, gritty, tiring and intense. If a player can't handle that, well, tough tittie! And as we saw, the player coming from the lower-bracket certainly has a chance - squirtle took the first bo5 after all.
|
On April 10 2012 08:35 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:
Fermats_last, why did you even bother replying? I explained precisely what I was talking about and why I think this system seems even harsher than the MLG system.
It's not harsher, it's as fair as it can possibly be. The double elimination system IPL used can be summed up by this simple rule: as soon as you have lost two BO3s, you are out. That's it, and it's the same for absolutely everyone. That's why someone coming from the loser bracket has to win two BO3s against the WB winner: the WB winner has not lost a single BO3 yet. If he loses both, he's out. If the LB winner loses one in the grand final, he has lost two total and is therefore out. It cannot possibly get any fairer than that. The champion is the only contestant who has not lost two BO3s in the brackets.
|
My problem with him is that he dragged it out too long. A nuke ceremony is 4-5 nukes dropping as you push into the opponent's base - that's cool and awesome. Trying to nuke for 15-20 minutes and landing 2-3 good ones out of the two dozen you used is just dumb, and it is BM in the same way saying why haven't you left yet to your opponent is BM.
Good manners as we think of it in the foreigner's community is playing your best to win when victory is still within grasp, and finishing it in a timely manner when it's over. Lifting all your buildings as Terran when you've lost and flying them to the corners of the map is sore loser behavior and is BM. Excessively taunting your opponent and dragging the game out after you've won is sore winner behavior and is also BM. In this case I think Stephano, given the information he had, was within the limit of good manners to try and make a comeback. MMA, however, knew he had won - nobody builds six sensor towers in the same location without thinking that.
Although it was kinda BM to have so many nukes and sensor towers from MMA, I think it has to do with what happened during Iron Squid. Probably not happy with Stephano's unprofessional attitude.
|
TIL that Stephano doesn't even have a 50% winrate vs. Koreans.
|
I don't think anyone would complain if they made the starting conditions of the finals absolutely even. They [tourney organizers] should try it once to prove to themselves that it will be all right. They can keep the extended series rule for every other part except the final for the first try. I think they will be pleasantly surprised by the warmth of the reception for this.
|
are VODs up for this tournament yet?
|
On April 10 2012 10:57 Chunhyang wrote:
I don't think anyone would complain if they made the starting conditions of the finals absolutely even. They [tourney organizers] should try it once to prove to themselves that it will be all right. They can keep the extended series rule for every other part except the final for the first try. I think they will be pleasantly surprised by the warmth of the reception for this.
I would object. The purpose of the competition is to find the best player. By that criteria, double-bracket > single-bracket, which includes not punishing the upper-bracket player by letting him be the only player in the whole bracket system whose tournament life ends if he looses a series. It simply makes no sense, except to serve the idea that it somehow provides better entertainment. But if your main criteria is entertainment, well, why not just have a showmatch?
|
On April 10 2012 10:57 Chunhyang wrote:
I don't think anyone would complain if they made the starting conditions of the finals absolutely even. They [tourney organizers] should try it once to prove to themselves that it will be all right. They can keep the extended series rule for every other part except the final for the first try. I think they will be pleasantly surprised by the warmth of the reception for this.
Erm, no, that would be completely unfair to the guy coming from the WB. Read my previous post if you don't understand why.
|
day9 is so much better than fucking tasteless omg
|
On April 10 2012 10:57 Chunhyang wrote:
I don't think anyone would complain if they made the starting conditions of the finals absolutely even. They [tourney organizers] should try it once to prove to themselves that it will be all right. They can keep the extended series rule for every other part except the final for the first try. I think they will be pleasantly surprised by the warmth of the reception for this.
Did you not read the massive storm that went through the LR thread of TBs monobattle tournament where the finals were Bo5 while the rest of the tournament was double elim? People were raging about that in a _fun tournament_... think about what would happen if a big tournament would do the same?
|
On April 10 2012 12:08 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 10:57 Chunhyang wrote:
I don't think anyone would complain if they made the starting conditions of the finals absolutely even. They [tourney organizers] should try it once to prove to themselves that it will be all right. They can keep the extended series rule for every other part except the final for the first try. I think they will be pleasantly surprised by the warmth of the reception for this. Did you not read the massive storm that went through the LR thread of TBs monobattle tournament where the finals were Bo5 while the rest of the tournament was double elim? People were raging about that in a _fun tournament_... think about what would happen if a big tournament would do the same?
Nope.
I guess someone has already complained. Were they really raging about the system or the fact that their favorite player had lost?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
