|
how is anything rigged here? I just don't understand this lol. This is mind--boggling. im just shaking my head. have to sleep now lol again.
|
DH would still be a fantastic tournament without any koreans.
|
On June 18 2012 09:29 Warpish wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:25 oRacLeGosu wrote:
TBH..DH has a responsability to get top koreans to ther tournament imo. I know it's a LAN for nerds as well and not just a gaming event, but a tournament of this magnitude is second rate without forcing koreans to labour at the stages. It seems pretty first rate to me. I enjoy seeing the Euopean talent and the games where very good.
I enjoy it just as much, but the best needs to be beaten to really win imo these days. At least some top koreans need to be beaten for me to feel satisfied.
|
People never stop to find excuses why their favorite players lost/got eliminated.
Now, besides complaining about race imbalance, people are complaining about tournament format imbalance.
Whats next? Red is stronger than blue or some BS like that?
Good god.
|
On June 18 2012 09:28 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:09 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:59 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:57 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:53 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:47 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:40 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:33 Ammanas wrote:
I still don't understand why aren't all the tournaments with group stages using GSL format groups, rather than round robin. In that format it can never happen that player only loses once and is eliminated... Because the GSL-group system is unfair. Example. Player A is God and beats everyone. Player B is horrible and loses to everyone. Player C and Player D are exactly the same. C and D goes 1-1 (2-1, 1-2) against each other. The guy drawing player B advances and never faces player A. That is not the way it would work: A wins vs B C wins vs D A wins vs C and A advances D wins vs B and B drops out C and D have a rematch that decides who goes on. Neither of them have an advantage. A still gets out, B still drops out. In what kind of scenario would A being God and B being terrible give an unfair advantage? You have to win twice to get out, no matter what. You have to lose twice to drop out, no matter what. A vs B 2-0 C vs D 2-0 A vs C 2-0 D vs B 2-0 C vs D 1-2 How is this not unfair for C? He went 1-1 against D and actually beat him 3-2, still goes out because he didn't get the free win vs B. Because he didn't win two best of threes. The map score doesn't matter as much as the best of threes. C didn't play consistently enough. Or D played more strategically by playing poorer strategies so he could face B. Either way, C didn't play well enough when it was all on the line. The map scores don't matter at all. C played better than D overall. It's unfair because one player gets a free win and one player gets a sure loss. No need to overcomplicate that simple fact. No, C did not play better than D overall. And in any case, your example is pure fantasy. Very rarely does anyone get a "free win", but in either case whether C and D have played each other or not, they have to win twice. Even if A is God and B is shit, A does not have 100% chance to win and B does not have a 0% chance to win. Either can cheese or be cheeseed, or their opponents can be underprepared or tired or sick or playing sloppy. There are a lot of mental factors in the game as well, so it is not impossible for A to drop a best of three or for B to win one. Whatever happens the results to get out of the group remain the same: Win 2 best of threes. Since we are not discussing the content of the games, your assumptions are impossible. Perhaps C won three close games against D, and D completely dominated the two games that he win. Perhaps C cheesed twice in the 5 games they played and D was unprepared. Perhaps D was not warmed up well enough when they played their first match and had a better showing after he could warm up. Because we do not know the content of the games, the only thing I can say is that D got out because D won the games he had to win. I cannot say who "deserved" it or who played "better", but D did what he needed to. Two different systems, both have their drawsbacks. Imagine Huk's group being played GSL style: Huk>Morrow Slivko>Stephano Huk>Slivko Stephano>Morrow Stephano>Slivko Huk and Stephano advances because Huk didn't have to play Stephano. Is this more fair than having everyone meet everyone? No. Huk got eliminated because he lost 2-0 vs Stephano and dropped maps against both Morrow and Slivko. Stephano and Slivko performed better than Huk and thus Huk was eliminated.
I have to agree, the only way to make this system more fair is to play 4 games every match and give 2 points for wins and 1 point for draws. Would'nt be bad tbh more games more outcomes:>
|
On June 18 2012 09:31 Bashion wrote:
People never stop to find excuses why their favorite players lost/got eliminated.
Now, besides complaining about race imbalance, people are complaining about tournament format imbalance.
Whats next? Red is stronger than blue or some BS like that?
Good god.
Red IS stronger than blue, that's no secret. Just look at the numbers.
|
On June 18 2012 09:32 Cocacooh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:28 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On June 18 2012 09:09 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:59 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:57 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:53 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:47 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:40 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:33 Ammanas wrote:
I still don't understand why aren't all the tournaments with group stages using GSL format groups, rather than round robin. In that format it can never happen that player only loses once and is eliminated... Because the GSL-group system is unfair. Example. Player A is God and beats everyone. Player B is horrible and loses to everyone. Player C and Player D are exactly the same. C and D goes 1-1 (2-1, 1-2) against each other. The guy drawing player B advances and never faces player A. That is not the way it would work: A wins vs B C wins vs D A wins vs C and A advances D wins vs B and B drops out C and D have a rematch that decides who goes on. Neither of them have an advantage. A still gets out, B still drops out. In what kind of scenario would A being God and B being terrible give an unfair advantage? You have to win twice to get out, no matter what. You have to lose twice to drop out, no matter what. A vs B 2-0 C vs D 2-0 A vs C 2-0 D vs B 2-0 C vs D 1-2 How is this not unfair for C? He went 1-1 against D and actually beat him 3-2, still goes out because he didn't get the free win vs B. Because he didn't win two best of threes. The map score doesn't matter as much as the best of threes. C didn't play consistently enough. Or D played more strategically by playing poorer strategies so he could face B. Either way, C didn't play well enough when it was all on the line. The map scores don't matter at all. C played better than D overall. It's unfair because one player gets a free win and one player gets a sure loss. No need to overcomplicate that simple fact. No, C did not play better than D overall. And in any case, your example is pure fantasy. Very rarely does anyone get a "free win", but in either case whether C and D have played each other or not, they have to win twice. Even if A is God and B is shit, A does not have 100% chance to win and B does not have a 0% chance to win. Either can cheese or be cheeseed, or their opponents can be underprepared or tired or sick or playing sloppy. There are a lot of mental factors in the game as well, so it is not impossible for A to drop a best of three or for B to win one. Whatever happens the results to get out of the group remain the same: Win 2 best of threes. Since we are not discussing the content of the games, your assumptions are impossible. Perhaps C won three close games against D, and D completely dominated the two games that he win. Perhaps C cheesed twice in the 5 games they played and D was unprepared. Perhaps D was not warmed up well enough when they played their first match and had a better showing after he could warm up. Because we do not know the content of the games, the only thing I can say is that D got out because D won the games he had to win. I cannot say who "deserved" it or who played "better", but D did what he needed to. Two different systems, both have their drawsbacks. Imagine Huk's group being played GSL style: Huk>Morrow Slivko>Stephano Huk>Slivko Stephano>Morrow Stephano>Slivko Huk and Stephano advances because Huk didn't have to play Stephano. Is this more fair than having everyone meet everyone? No. Huk got eliminated because he lost 2-0 vs Stephano and dropped maps against both Morrow and Slivko. Stephano and Slivko performed better than Huk and thus Huk was eliminated. I have to agree, the only way to make this system more fair is to play 4 games every match and give 2 points for wins and 1 point for draws. Would'nt be bad tbh more games more outcomes:>
You need to invent the 32 hour day.
|
On June 18 2012 09:29 oRacLeGosu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:27 Xoronius wrote:On June 18 2012 09:25 oRacLeGosu wrote:
TBH..DH has a responsability to get top koreans to ther tournament imo. I know it's a LAN for nerds as well and not just a gaming event, but a tournament of this magnitude is second rate without forcing koreans to labour at the stages. Ehm, no. It is an open tournament. Dreamhack has not to do anything. They are just providing an offer, to both play and watch the tournament. Not good enough..this is a huge marketing place with huge sponsors. They need top koreans to be top notch. If they have som ill illusion that pretending being some "peoples tournament for the working class" or something they are sorely mistaking in the long run.
How about we have over 10k people running around in our venue? You bet your ass that attracts more sponsors then some top Koreans in SC2 (which is only a small part of the hole Dreamhack event), which they dont need cause the viewing numbers are good.
|
On June 18 2012 09:25 Tantaburs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:20 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 09:09 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:59 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:57 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:53 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:47 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:40 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:33 Ammanas wrote:
I still don't understand why aren't all the tournaments with group stages using GSL format groups, rather than round robin. In that format it can never happen that player only loses once and is eliminated... Because the GSL-group system is unfair. Example. Player A is God and beats everyone. Player B is horrible and loses to everyone. Player C and Player D are exactly the same. C and D goes 1-1 (2-1, 1-2) against each other. The guy drawing player B advances and never faces player A. That is not the way it would work: A wins vs B C wins vs D A wins vs C and A advances D wins vs B and B drops out C and D have a rematch that decides who goes on. Neither of them have an advantage. A still gets out, B still drops out. In what kind of scenario would A being God and B being terrible give an unfair advantage? You have to win twice to get out, no matter what. You have to lose twice to drop out, no matter what. A vs B 2-0 C vs D 2-0 A vs C 2-0 D vs B 2-0 C vs D 1-2 How is this not unfair for C? He went 1-1 against D and actually beat him 3-2, still goes out because he didn't get the free win vs B. Because he didn't win two best of threes. The map score doesn't matter as much as the best of threes. C didn't play consistently enough. Or D played more strategically by playing poorer strategies so he could face B. Either way, C didn't play well enough when it was all on the line. The map scores don't matter at all. C played better than D overall. It's unfair because one player gets a free win and one player gets a sure loss. No need to overcomplicate that simple fact. No, C did not play better than D overall. And in any case, your example is pure fantasy. Very rarely does anyone get a "free win", but in either case whether C and D have played each other or not, they have to win twice. Even if A is God and B is shit, A does not have 100% chance to win and B does not have a 0% chance to win. Either can cheese or be cheeseed, or their opponents can be underprepared or tired or sick or playing sloppy. There are a lot of mental factors in the game as well, so it is not impossible for A to drop a best of three or for B to win one. Whatever happens the results to get out of the group remain the same: Win 2 best of threes. Since we are not discussing the content of the games, your assumptions are impossible. Perhaps C won three close games against D, and D completely dominated the two games that he win. Perhaps C cheesed twice in the 5 games they played and D was unprepared. Perhaps D was not warmed up well enough when they played their first match and had a better showing after he could warm up. Because we do not know the content of the games, the only thing I can say is that D got out because D won the games he had to win. I cannot say who "deserved" it or who played "better", but D did what he needed to. Every game matters. It's my example, C played better overall, went out because D got a free win. Actually player B was disqualified and never showed. And if C and D played a third time C would smash D hard. How much do I need to tweek the example to make you see the point? How about, forget everything, and answer just this question: Player X gets a free win. Player Z does not. Is that equal? So you are saying that a format designed for a 4 man group doesn't work when one player doesn't show and it becomes a 3 man group. the order of wins doesn't matter what matters it that if you lose 2 Bo3s you are out. It is, in essence, a 4 man double elim bracket. In your scenario player C lost 2 Bo3s player D only lost 1
No, I made it 3 players to stop flowSthead from quibbling about a hypothetical players skill level.
Player C lost twice because his competition had more skill than the competition D had, hence unfair.
|
random distribution is random
|
On June 18 2012 09:28 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:09 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:59 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:57 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:53 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:47 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:40 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:33 Ammanas wrote:
I still don't understand why aren't all the tournaments with group stages using GSL format groups, rather than round robin. In that format it can never happen that player only loses once and is eliminated... Because the GSL-group system is unfair. Example. Player A is God and beats everyone. Player B is horrible and loses to everyone. Player C and Player D are exactly the same. C and D goes 1-1 (2-1, 1-2) against each other. The guy drawing player B advances and never faces player A. That is not the way it would work: A wins vs B C wins vs D A wins vs C and A advances D wins vs B and B drops out C and D have a rematch that decides who goes on. Neither of them have an advantage. A still gets out, B still drops out. In what kind of scenario would A being God and B being terrible give an unfair advantage? You have to win twice to get out, no matter what. You have to lose twice to drop out, no matter what. A vs B 2-0 C vs D 2-0 A vs C 2-0 D vs B 2-0 C vs D 1-2 How is this not unfair for C? He went 1-1 against D and actually beat him 3-2, still goes out because he didn't get the free win vs B. Because he didn't win two best of threes. The map score doesn't matter as much as the best of threes. C didn't play consistently enough. Or D played more strategically by playing poorer strategies so he could face B. Either way, C didn't play well enough when it was all on the line. The map scores don't matter at all. C played better than D overall. It's unfair because one player gets a free win and one player gets a sure loss. No need to overcomplicate that simple fact. No, C did not play better than D overall. And in any case, your example is pure fantasy. Very rarely does anyone get a "free win", but in either case whether C and D have played each other or not, they have to win twice. Even if A is God and B is shit, A does not have 100% chance to win and B does not have a 0% chance to win. Either can cheese or be cheeseed, or their opponents can be underprepared or tired or sick or playing sloppy. There are a lot of mental factors in the game as well, so it is not impossible for A to drop a best of three or for B to win one. Whatever happens the results to get out of the group remain the same: Win 2 best of threes. Since we are not discussing the content of the games, your assumptions are impossible. Perhaps C won three close games against D, and D completely dominated the two games that he win. Perhaps C cheesed twice in the 5 games they played and D was unprepared. Perhaps D was not warmed up well enough when they played their first match and had a better showing after he could warm up. Because we do not know the content of the games, the only thing I can say is that D got out because D won the games he had to win. I cannot say who "deserved" it or who played "better", but D did what he needed to. Two different systems, both have their drawsbacks. Imagine Huk's group being played GSL style: Huk>Morrow Slivko>Stephano Huk>Slivko Stephano>Morrow Stephano>Slivko Huk and Stephano advances because Huk didn't have to play Stephano. Is this more fair than having everyone meet everyone? No. Huk got eliminated because he lost 2-0 vs Stephano and dropped maps against both Morrow and Slivko. Stephano and Slivko performed better than Huk and thus Huk was eliminated.
I think the GSL version is more fair because the emphasis is clearer. The goal is to win best of threes no matter how many maps you win or lose. The Dreamhack system is less fair because not everyone has to play every map. If player A wins 2 maps vs player B no matter what, but one of those times he wins 2-0 and another time he wins 2-1, and then he gets eliminated because of that, I call that unfair.
I think if you are going to do groups like Dreamhack where it is round robin, then there should be tie breakers. I think counting maps won and lost is silly. They should do 1 map tiebreakers like at IEM.
|
On June 18 2012 09:31 Kieofire wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:29 oRacLeGosu wrote:On June 18 2012 09:27 Xoronius wrote:On June 18 2012 09:25 oRacLeGosu wrote:
TBH..DH has a responsability to get top koreans to ther tournament imo. I know it's a LAN for nerds as well and not just a gaming event, but a tournament of this magnitude is second rate without forcing koreans to labour at the stages. Ehm, no. It is an open tournament. Dreamhack has not to do anything. They are just providing an offer, to both play and watch the tournament. Not good enough..this is a huge marketing place with huge sponsors. They need top koreans to be top notch. If they have som ill illusion that pretending being some "peoples tournament for the working class" or something they are sorely mistaking in the long run. As much as I love watching Korean players, stream numbers and audience turnout proves your statement otherwise.
Maby, but then the koreans have to be sown into the seem somewhere if the kids want to see their local hero own a b-rated semi-pro. I want as many europeans as possible, but I want them to have to beat the best to win..that's all. I realize you can't get everyone everywhere all at the same time, but there are enough monsters in Korea these days to at least get a couple of them.
|
On June 18 2012 09:33 sansalvador wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:32 Cocacooh wrote:On June 18 2012 09:28 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On June 18 2012 09:09 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:59 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:57 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:53 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:47 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:40 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:33 Ammanas wrote:
I still don't understand why aren't all the tournaments with group stages using GSL format groups, rather than round robin. In that format it can never happen that player only loses once and is eliminated... Because the GSL-group system is unfair. Example. Player A is God and beats everyone. Player B is horrible and loses to everyone. Player C and Player D are exactly the same. C and D goes 1-1 (2-1, 1-2) against each other. The guy drawing player B advances and never faces player A. That is not the way it would work: A wins vs B C wins vs D A wins vs C and A advances D wins vs B and B drops out C and D have a rematch that decides who goes on. Neither of them have an advantage. A still gets out, B still drops out. In what kind of scenario would A being God and B being terrible give an unfair advantage? You have to win twice to get out, no matter what. You have to lose twice to drop out, no matter what. A vs B 2-0 C vs D 2-0 A vs C 2-0 D vs B 2-0 C vs D 1-2 How is this not unfair for C? He went 1-1 against D and actually beat him 3-2, still goes out because he didn't get the free win vs B. Because he didn't win two best of threes. The map score doesn't matter as much as the best of threes. C didn't play consistently enough. Or D played more strategically by playing poorer strategies so he could face B. Either way, C didn't play well enough when it was all on the line. The map scores don't matter at all. C played better than D overall. It's unfair because one player gets a free win and one player gets a sure loss. No need to overcomplicate that simple fact. No, C did not play better than D overall. And in any case, your example is pure fantasy. Very rarely does anyone get a "free win", but in either case whether C and D have played each other or not, they have to win twice. Even if A is God and B is shit, A does not have 100% chance to win and B does not have a 0% chance to win. Either can cheese or be cheeseed, or their opponents can be underprepared or tired or sick or playing sloppy. There are a lot of mental factors in the game as well, so it is not impossible for A to drop a best of three or for B to win one. Whatever happens the results to get out of the group remain the same: Win 2 best of threes. Since we are not discussing the content of the games, your assumptions are impossible. Perhaps C won three close games against D, and D completely dominated the two games that he win. Perhaps C cheesed twice in the 5 games they played and D was unprepared. Perhaps D was not warmed up well enough when they played their first match and had a better showing after he could warm up. Because we do not know the content of the games, the only thing I can say is that D got out because D won the games he had to win. I cannot say who "deserved" it or who played "better", but D did what he needed to. Two different systems, both have their drawsbacks. Imagine Huk's group being played GSL style: Huk>Morrow Slivko>Stephano Huk>Slivko Stephano>Morrow Stephano>Slivko Huk and Stephano advances because Huk didn't have to play Stephano. Is this more fair than having everyone meet everyone? No. Huk got eliminated because he lost 2-0 vs Stephano and dropped maps against both Morrow and Slivko. Stephano and Slivko performed better than Huk and thus Huk was eliminated. I have to agree, the only way to make this system more fair is to play 4 games every match and give 2 points for wins and 1 point for draws. Would'nt be bad tbh more games more outcomes:> You need to invent the 32 hour day.
Could just force out the bo3 to.
|
Bisutopia19299 Posts
Brat_OK and Drimaga both in this makes me very very happy. Two of my favorites.
On June 18 2012 09:36 Cocacooh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:33 sansalvador wrote:On June 18 2012 09:32 Cocacooh wrote:On June 18 2012 09:28 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On June 18 2012 09:09 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:59 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:57 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:53 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:47 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:40 TheBanana wrote:
[quote]
Because the GSL-group system is unfair.
Example.
Player A is God and beats everyone.
Player B is horrible and loses to everyone.
Player C and Player D are exactly the same.
C and D goes 1-1 (2-1, 1-2) against each other.
The guy drawing player B advances and never faces player A. That is not the way it would work: A wins vs B C wins vs D A wins vs C and A advances D wins vs B and B drops out C and D have a rematch that decides who goes on. Neither of them have an advantage. A still gets out, B still drops out. In what kind of scenario would A being God and B being terrible give an unfair advantage? You have to win twice to get out, no matter what. You have to lose twice to drop out, no matter what. A vs B 2-0 C vs D 2-0 A vs C 2-0 D vs B 2-0 C vs D 1-2 How is this not unfair for C? He went 1-1 against D and actually beat him 3-2, still goes out because he didn't get the free win vs B. Because he didn't win two best of threes. The map score doesn't matter as much as the best of threes. C didn't play consistently enough. Or D played more strategically by playing poorer strategies so he could face B. Either way, C didn't play well enough when it was all on the line. The map scores don't matter at all. C played better than D overall. It's unfair because one player gets a free win and one player gets a sure loss. No need to overcomplicate that simple fact. No, C did not play better than D overall. And in any case, your example is pure fantasy. Very rarely does anyone get a "free win", but in either case whether C and D have played each other or not, they have to win twice. Even if A is God and B is shit, A does not have 100% chance to win and B does not have a 0% chance to win. Either can cheese or be cheeseed, or their opponents can be underprepared or tired or sick or playing sloppy. There are a lot of mental factors in the game as well, so it is not impossible for A to drop a best of three or for B to win one. Whatever happens the results to get out of the group remain the same: Win 2 best of threes. Since we are not discussing the content of the games, your assumptions are impossible. Perhaps C won three close games against D, and D completely dominated the two games that he win. Perhaps C cheesed twice in the 5 games they played and D was unprepared. Perhaps D was not warmed up well enough when they played their first match and had a better showing after he could warm up. Because we do not know the content of the games, the only thing I can say is that D got out because D won the games he had to win. I cannot say who "deserved" it or who played "better", but D did what he needed to. Two different systems, both have their drawsbacks. Imagine Huk's group being played GSL style: Huk>Morrow Slivko>Stephano Huk>Slivko Stephano>Morrow Stephano>Slivko Huk and Stephano advances because Huk didn't have to play Stephano. Is this more fair than having everyone meet everyone? No. Huk got eliminated because he lost 2-0 vs Stephano and dropped maps against both Morrow and Slivko. Stephano and Slivko performed better than Huk and thus Huk was eliminated. I have to agree, the only way to make this system more fair is to play 4 games every match and give 2 points for wins and 1 point for draws. Would'nt be bad tbh more games more outcomes:> You need to invent the 32 hour day. Could just force out the bo3 to.
You guys are ridiculous................... You want it to be fair? Then be the best an win your games. It shouldn't matter who you play, it's an easy win if your the better player, right?
|
On June 18 2012 09:35 oRacLeGosu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:31 Kieofire wrote:On June 18 2012 09:29 oRacLeGosu wrote:On June 18 2012 09:27 Xoronius wrote:On June 18 2012 09:25 oRacLeGosu wrote:
TBH..DH has a responsability to get top koreans to ther tournament imo. I know it's a LAN for nerds as well and not just a gaming event, but a tournament of this magnitude is second rate without forcing koreans to labour at the stages. Ehm, no. It is an open tournament. Dreamhack has not to do anything. They are just providing an offer, to both play and watch the tournament. Not good enough..this is a huge marketing place with huge sponsors. They need top koreans to be top notch. If they have som ill illusion that pretending being some "peoples tournament for the working class" or something they are sorely mistaking in the long run. As much as I love watching Korean players, stream numbers and audience turnout proves your statement otherwise. Maby, but then the koreans have to be sown into the seem somewhere if the kids want to see their local hero own a b-rated semi-pro. I want as many europeans as possible, but I want them to have to beat the best to win..that's all. I realize you can't get everyone everywhere all at the same time, but there are enough monsters in Korea these days to at least get a couple of them.
Get them to sign up for the next Dreamhack. I'm sure no one would mind.
|
On June 18 2012 09:34 TheSir wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:29 oRacLeGosu wrote:On June 18 2012 09:27 Xoronius wrote:On June 18 2012 09:25 oRacLeGosu wrote:
TBH..DH has a responsability to get top koreans to ther tournament imo. I know it's a LAN for nerds as well and not just a gaming event, but a tournament of this magnitude is second rate without forcing koreans to labour at the stages. Ehm, no. It is an open tournament. Dreamhack has not to do anything. They are just providing an offer, to both play and watch the tournament. Not good enough..this is a huge marketing place with huge sponsors. They need top koreans to be top notch. If they have som ill illusion that pretending being some "peoples tournament for the working class" or something they are sorely mistaking in the long run. How about we have over 10k people running around in our venue? You bet your ass that attracts more sponsors then some top Koreans in SC2 (which is only a small part of the hole Dreamhack event), which they dont need cause the viewing numbers are good.
You can get both! Just make the compo bigger. Getting koreans doesn't remove eropeans, but makes them play even bigger matches. Just fix the brackets!:D
|
On June 18 2012 09:34 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:28 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On June 18 2012 09:09 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:59 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:57 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:53 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:47 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:40 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:33 Ammanas wrote:
I still don't understand why aren't all the tournaments with group stages using GSL format groups, rather than round robin. In that format it can never happen that player only loses once and is eliminated... Because the GSL-group system is unfair. Example. Player A is God and beats everyone. Player B is horrible and loses to everyone. Player C and Player D are exactly the same. C and D goes 1-1 (2-1, 1-2) against each other. The guy drawing player B advances and never faces player A. That is not the way it would work: A wins vs B C wins vs D A wins vs C and A advances D wins vs B and B drops out C and D have a rematch that decides who goes on. Neither of them have an advantage. A still gets out, B still drops out. In what kind of scenario would A being God and B being terrible give an unfair advantage? You have to win twice to get out, no matter what. You have to lose twice to drop out, no matter what. A vs B 2-0 C vs D 2-0 A vs C 2-0 D vs B 2-0 C vs D 1-2 How is this not unfair for C? He went 1-1 against D and actually beat him 3-2, still goes out because he didn't get the free win vs B. Because he didn't win two best of threes. The map score doesn't matter as much as the best of threes. C didn't play consistently enough. Or D played more strategically by playing poorer strategies so he could face B. Either way, C didn't play well enough when it was all on the line. The map scores don't matter at all. C played better than D overall. It's unfair because one player gets a free win and one player gets a sure loss. No need to overcomplicate that simple fact. No, C did not play better than D overall. And in any case, your example is pure fantasy. Very rarely does anyone get a "free win", but in either case whether C and D have played each other or not, they have to win twice. Even if A is God and B is shit, A does not have 100% chance to win and B does not have a 0% chance to win. Either can cheese or be cheeseed, or their opponents can be underprepared or tired or sick or playing sloppy. There are a lot of mental factors in the game as well, so it is not impossible for A to drop a best of three or for B to win one. Whatever happens the results to get out of the group remain the same: Win 2 best of threes. Since we are not discussing the content of the games, your assumptions are impossible. Perhaps C won three close games against D, and D completely dominated the two games that he win. Perhaps C cheesed twice in the 5 games they played and D was unprepared. Perhaps D was not warmed up well enough when they played their first match and had a better showing after he could warm up. Because we do not know the content of the games, the only thing I can say is that D got out because D won the games he had to win. I cannot say who "deserved" it or who played "better", but D did what he needed to. Two different systems, both have their drawsbacks. Imagine Huk's group being played GSL style: Huk>Morrow Slivko>Stephano Huk>Slivko Stephano>Morrow Stephano>Slivko Huk and Stephano advances because Huk didn't have to play Stephano. Is this more fair than having everyone meet everyone? No. Huk got eliminated because he lost 2-0 vs Stephano and dropped maps against both Morrow and Slivko. Stephano and Slivko performed better than Huk and thus Huk was eliminated. I think the GSL version is more fair because the emphasis is clearer. The goal is to win best of threes no matter how many maps you win or lose. The Dreamhack system is less fair because not everyone has to play every map. If player A wins 2 maps vs player B no matter what, but one of those times he wins 2-0 and another time he wins 2-1, and then he gets eliminated because of that, I call that unfair. I think if you are going to do groups like Dreamhack where it is round robin, then there should be tie breakers. I think counting maps won and lost is silly. They should do 1 map tiebreakers like at IEM.
exactly, DH's emphasis on maps basically turns it into a bo1 series. 2-1 is no longer a win, it's a liability.
|
Pretty unfortunate that the best 4 players in the tournament are on the same side of the bracket and have to face off in the ro16 
|
On June 18 2012 09:28 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:09 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:59 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:57 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:53 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:47 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:40 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:33 Ammanas wrote:
I still don't understand why aren't all the tournaments with group stages using GSL format groups, rather than round robin. In that format it can never happen that player only loses once and is eliminated... Because the GSL-group system is unfair. Example. Player A is God and beats everyone. Player B is horrible and loses to everyone. Player C and Player D are exactly the same. C and D goes 1-1 (2-1, 1-2) against each other. The guy drawing player B advances and never faces player A. That is not the way it would work: A wins vs B C wins vs D A wins vs C and A advances D wins vs B and B drops out C and D have a rematch that decides who goes on. Neither of them have an advantage. A still gets out, B still drops out. In what kind of scenario would A being God and B being terrible give an unfair advantage? You have to win twice to get out, no matter what. You have to lose twice to drop out, no matter what. A vs B 2-0 C vs D 2-0 A vs C 2-0 D vs B 2-0 C vs D 1-2 How is this not unfair for C? He went 1-1 against D and actually beat him 3-2, still goes out because he didn't get the free win vs B. Because he didn't win two best of threes. The map score doesn't matter as much as the best of threes. C didn't play consistently enough. Or D played more strategically by playing poorer strategies so he could face B. Either way, C didn't play well enough when it was all on the line. The map scores don't matter at all. C played better than D overall. It's unfair because one player gets a free win and one player gets a sure loss. No need to overcomplicate that simple fact. No, C did not play better than D overall. And in any case, your example is pure fantasy. Very rarely does anyone get a "free win", but in either case whether C and D have played each other or not, they have to win twice. Even if A is God and B is shit, A does not have 100% chance to win and B does not have a 0% chance to win. Either can cheese or be cheeseed, or their opponents can be underprepared or tired or sick or playing sloppy. There are a lot of mental factors in the game as well, so it is not impossible for A to drop a best of three or for B to win one. Whatever happens the results to get out of the group remain the same: Win 2 best of threes. Since we are not discussing the content of the games, your assumptions are impossible. Perhaps C won three close games against D, and D completely dominated the two games that he win. Perhaps C cheesed twice in the 5 games they played and D was unprepared. Perhaps D was not warmed up well enough when they played their first match and had a better showing after he could warm up. Because we do not know the content of the games, the only thing I can say is that D got out because D won the games he had to win. I cannot say who "deserved" it or who played "better", but D did what he needed to. Two different systems, both have their drawsbacks. Imagine Huk's group being played GSL style: Huk>Morrow Slivko>Stephano Huk>Slivko Stephano>Morrow Stephano>Slivko Huk and Stephano advances because Huk didn't have to play Stephano. Is this more fair than having everyone meet everyone? No. Huk got eliminated because he lost 2-0 vs Stephano and dropped maps against both Morrow and Slivko. Stephano and Slivko performed better than Huk and thus Huk was eliminated.
It's would of been fair if they played the same number of games. It's not very fair to have a system where some people have played more games then others.
|
On June 18 2012 09:20 TheBanana wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:09 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:59 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:57 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:53 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:47 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 08:40 TheBanana wrote:On June 18 2012 08:33 Ammanas wrote:
I still don't understand why aren't all the tournaments with group stages using GSL format groups, rather than round robin. In that format it can never happen that player only loses once and is eliminated... Because the GSL-group system is unfair. Example. Player A is God and beats everyone. Player B is horrible and loses to everyone. Player C and Player D are exactly the same. C and D goes 1-1 (2-1, 1-2) against each other. The guy drawing player B advances and never faces player A. That is not the way it would work: A wins vs B C wins vs D A wins vs C and A advances D wins vs B and B drops out C and D have a rematch that decides who goes on. Neither of them have an advantage. A still gets out, B still drops out. In what kind of scenario would A being God and B being terrible give an unfair advantage? You have to win twice to get out, no matter what. You have to lose twice to drop out, no matter what. A vs B 2-0 C vs D 2-0 A vs C 2-0 D vs B 2-0 C vs D 1-2 How is this not unfair for C? He went 1-1 against D and actually beat him 3-2, still goes out because he didn't get the free win vs B. Because he didn't win two best of threes. The map score doesn't matter as much as the best of threes. C didn't play consistently enough. Or D played more strategically by playing poorer strategies so he could face B. Either way, C didn't play well enough when it was all on the line. The map scores don't matter at all. C played better than D overall. It's unfair because one player gets a free win and one player gets a sure loss. No need to overcomplicate that simple fact. No, C did not play better than D overall. And in any case, your example is pure fantasy. Very rarely does anyone get a "free win", but in either case whether C and D have played each other or not, they have to win twice. Even if A is God and B is shit, A does not have 100% chance to win and B does not have a 0% chance to win. Either can cheese or be cheeseed, or their opponents can be underprepared or tired or sick or playing sloppy. There are a lot of mental factors in the game as well, so it is not impossible for A to drop a best of three or for B to win one. Whatever happens the results to get out of the group remain the same: Win 2 best of threes. Since we are not discussing the content of the games, your assumptions are impossible. Perhaps C won three close games against D, and D completely dominated the two games that he win. Perhaps C cheesed twice in the 5 games they played and D was unprepared. Perhaps D was not warmed up well enough when they played their first match and had a better showing after he could warm up. Because we do not know the content of the games, the only thing I can say is that D got out because D won the games he had to win. I cannot say who "deserved" it or who played "better", but D did what he needed to. Every game matters. It's my example, C played better overall, went out because D got a free win. Actually player B was disqualified and never showed. And if C and D played a third time C would smash D hard. How much do I need to tweek the example to make you see the point? How about, forget everything, and answer just this question: Player X gets a free win. Player Z does not. Is that equal?
See again, you are misusing words. C won more maps vs D, but less maps overall. C is 3 to 2 vs D, but C is 3-4 to D's 4-3 in overall maps. That doesn't mean C played better overall. C and D didn't play the third game in their first best of three. Who is to say D wouldn't have won that?
And if Player X gets a free win in a system where there are supposed to be 4 players, then it is still fair because luck factors in to it and Player Z should be prepared to play three matches.
Player X wins vs Player Z.
Player A gets a free win.
Player A wins vs Player X.
Player Z gets a free win.
Player X plays against Player Z.
If Player X loses against Player Z, then he wasn't prepared enough. There are two players that he had to face, and he had to win against both of them. Whoever lost the first game would get a free win, and assuming A makes it out no matter what, then one of them will always get a free win. The fourth player was missing, so two of the players got a free win. They still need two wins to get out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
