|
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.
how can you say that with a straight face
|
On June 18 2012 09:40 woody60707 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. 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.
You could say the same about GSL though. Where some player gets to play 3 bo3s while some only get to play 2.
|
On June 18 2012 09:37 oRacLeGosu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:34 TheSir 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. 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
No one is stopping them from coming, they just rather destroy a NA event i guess. If you want to complain about the lack of Koreans there's only one place to do that and thats with the teams themselves.
80/90% of the top foreign players are at Dreamhack (plus most korean's in foreign teams), so who's fault is it that there are not that many Koreans? right.
|
On June 18 2012 09:43 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:34 flowSthead 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 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. how can you say that with a straight face
Instead of being incredulous, could you provide something specific you have a problem with?
|
I think ppl with an IQ under 100 shouldnt be allowed to post in this thread anymore. my brain goes crazy when i read the last 20 pages.
|
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.
I honestly don't get your argument. It's more fair because it's more clear? I agree it is more clear in a sense that it's probably more viewer friendly. It will also be percieved to be more fair, because (in the above example) viewers won't have to see that Huk in fact would've lost to Stephano. I don't see how that has anything to do with actual fairness though. All players know the rules of the game, win as many matches and maps as you can and if you perform better than two of your opponents, you advance.
Neither do I get your map argument. In GSL there's an 8 map pool. Does that mean all maps have to be played for it to be fair?
EDIT: I can see why people prefer the GSL system, but not for a reason of "fairness".
|
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.
I think DH got more than a couple of them.. your complaining is ridiculous.
|
What were the best games for today? That is which ones should I watch.
|
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.
Question: Do they consider direct confrontations' results before considering points? Because, even if it won't change the outcome of the group (Huk would still be out), it looks more fair to me.
|
On June 18 2012 09:46 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:34 flowSthead 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 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. I honestly don't get your argument. It's more fair because it's more clear? I agree it is more clear and probably more viewer friendly. It will also be percieved to be more fair, because (in the above example) viewers won't have to see that Huk in fact would've lost to Stephano. I don't see how that has anything to do with actual fairness though. All players know the rules of the game, win as many matches and maps as you can and if you perform better than two of your opponents, you advance. Neither do I get your map argument. In GSL there's an 8 map pool. Does that mean all maps have to be played for it to be fair?
My point is that the goal is to win best of threes in the GSL and it is fair because everyone has to win the same number of best of threes. In DreamHack you could win the same number of best of threes but your map differences are the deciding factor if a tie occurs. I think that is unfair because you are confusing the issue by bringing maps in to it.
If Stephano beats Huk, Huk beats Slivko, and Slivko beats Stephano, then to me it doesn't matter if Huk won 2-1 while everyone else won 2-0. The situation is a three way tie. There should be a tiebreaker. You are arguing that Slivko and Stephano performed better than Huk because they won more often 2-0 and lost more often 1-2. But that doesn't make sense to me. The performance here is in best of threes. Huk won as many best of threes as the other players. He performed just as well.
Maybe if they played a tiebreaker Huk will lose twice to Stephano and Slivko and they both make it out. I am ok with that. I'm not a Huk fanboy and think he deserves to get out. I think none of the three players deserve to get out based on performances because there was a tie situation. Two should get out based on a tiebreaker.
And yes, those are the rules so within the Dreamhack system, this is fair. But the discussion at the moment is whether the system itself is fair, which I am arguing it is not.
|
On June 18 2012 09:46 KalWarkov wrote:
I think ppl with an IQ under 100 shouldnt be allowed to post in this thread anymore. my brain goes crazy when i read the last 20 pages.
maybe you should start practice that on your own :p
|
There isn't anything inherently unfair about the DH system. If you lose games you are in danger of not progressing. If you win them all you are guaranteed to go through (see Hero).
I don't think Koreans were scared to come to DH, they just don't hold EU tournaments in as high regard as US ones. They have a history that puts the US on a pedestal. Watch some Korean dramas and see that all the cool/privileged people are portrayed as having studied or lived in the US. It's a cultural thing. Complain to the Koreans themselves if you are upset about Korean representation.
|
On June 18 2012 09:39 GunPaladin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:34 flowSthead 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 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.
That isn't true at all lmao.
If you 2-1 all your opponents you make it. Simple as that.
There is no liability. You have to bring it every game and I highly encourage tournaments to make every game count.
Finger pointing and excuses aren't healthy.
|
On June 18 2012 09:46 KalWarkov wrote:
I think ppl with an IQ under 100 shouldnt be allowed to post in this thread anymore. my brain goes crazy when i read the last 20 pages.
Just don't pay attention to LR threads after the games end for the day.
It's generally not good for your health.
|
I am now SURE that Dreamhack hates TL and Hero. They give him so many team kills XD
|
On June 18 2012 09:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:46 KalWarkov wrote:
I think ppl with an IQ under 100 shouldnt be allowed to post in this thread anymore. my brain goes crazy when i read the last 20 pages. Just don't pay attention to LR threads after the games end for the day. It's generally not good for your health.
Or you can laugh it off like the rest of us. 
|
On June 18 2012 09:57 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 18 2012 09:46 KalWarkov wrote:
I think ppl with an IQ under 100 shouldnt be allowed to post in this thread anymore. my brain goes crazy when i read the last 20 pages. Just don't pay attention to LR threads after the games end for the day. It's generally not good for your health. Or you can laugh it off like the rest of us.
That too ^^
|
funzies from the community today:
1. Naniwa is cheating and hearing the casters because of an ingame smiley
2. Naniwa is the rudest person ever and must die, all because he writes 'lol'
3. DH is cheating with the brackets
4. Sase is evil and must be destroyed because of a joke he made (or was that yesterday?)
5. DH is continuing its cheatfest when huk is eliminated by the "unfair" rules.
6. People whining all the time about tvz (including me).
Did I miss anything?
|
Bah, whatever. I don't know why I got so worked up. I guess it doesn't really matter.
|
3 terrans left.. and two were koreans in pure foreigner groups. huge huge huge props to brat_ok for somehow winning in a group of three zergs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
