|
On June 18 2012 10:02 Snusmumriken wrote:
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?
Yeah, I'm whining about wanting more top koreans to satisfy my hunger.
|
On June 18 2012 10:02 Snusmumriken wrote:
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?
You forgot that iNcontroL was explicitly BMing Stephano because he noted that Stephano generally doesn't scout as frequently as other Zergs do.
|
Does Slivko's nick mean "plum-man"? I think it comes from слива (Latin: sliva) which means plum.
|
On June 18 2012 09:52 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:46 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: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:
[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 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.
Alright, I see what you're getting at. I see map score as a good tiebreaker when the amount of won BO3 fails to set players apart. I don't see why map score shouldn't matter, winning maps is a sign of SC2 skill. Losing 1-2 is a sign that the player was closer in skill than when losing 0-2 (just like in many other sport like soccer etc). I guess our opinions differ in this regard.
I still don't get why you think the GSL system is more fair because, as I pointed out, players can advance simply by being lucky to avoid a certain opponent. That system does still not solve the problem of unfairness, it just sweeps it under the rug by not allowing all players to face eachother.
Like I said in my last edit, I can see the benefits of the GSL system and I quite like it myelf, I just don't think it's any more fair than the system used in Dreamhack.
|
What bad luck for Liquid. Team kill between Hero and Taeja. Don't even get me started on how EG is doing though... :/
|
On June 18 2012 10:02 Snusmumriken wrote:
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?
i'll agree with the naniwa being a rude whiny person who hasn't changed at all despite claiming so.
User was warned for this post
|
fanboy tears made my day heh
|
On June 18 2012 10:10 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:52 flowSthead wrote:On June 18 2012 09:46 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Alright, I see what you're getting at. I see map score as a good tiebreaker when the amount of won BO3 fails to set players apart. I don't see why map score shouldn't matter, winning maps is a sign of SC2 skill. Losing 1-2 is a sign that the player was closer in skill than when losing 0-2 (just like in many other sport like soccer etc). I guess our opinions differ in this regard. I still don't get why you think the GSL system is more fair because, as I pointed out, players can advance simply by being lucky to avoid a certain opponent. That system does still not solve the problem of unfairness, it just sweeps it under the rug by not allowing all players to face eachother. Like I said in my last edit, I can see the benefits of the GSL system and I quite like it myelf, I just don't think it's any more fair than the system used in Dreamhack.
I don't know. Maybe it just ends up being a preference thing. Thanks for the discussion.
|
On June 18 2012 10:10 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:
Alright, I see what you're getting at. I see map score as a good tiebreaker when the amount of won BO3 fails to set players apart. I don't see why map score shouldn't matter, winning maps is a sign of SC2 skill. Losing 1-2 is a sign that the player was closer in skill than when losing 0-2 (just like in many other sport like soccer etc). I guess our opinions differ in this regard.
I still don't get why you think the GSL system is more fair because, as I pointed out, players can advance simply by being lucky to avoid a certain opponent. That system does still not solve the problem of unfairness, it just sweeps it under the rug by not allowing all players to face eachother.
Like I said in my last edit, I can see the benefits of the GSL system and I quite like it myelf, I just don't think it's any more fair than the system used in Dreamhack.
I don't think that the system is unfair. Just that HuK is unlucky based on the group he got (compared to some way way easier groups), and he still did well enough to go through in a number of other groups... It is sad that such a good personality and quality player is eliminated at this point, but the same goes for others.
However, winning one game in a Bo3 (2-1) versus going 2-0, means next to nothing in my opinion, at this level of Starcraft. Almost any "pro" player can take a single set off another player given the right luck. GSL system is considerably fairer, albeit it still has some minor unfairness as it implies that if a > b, b > c, then a > c, which is also not true in Starcraft. At the end of the day there has to be some way to differentiate the players and there is no perfect method except for playing BoX (where X tends to infinity or something) in a round robin format.
|
I laugh at the tread going mad about the bracket rigged, Pool syqtem not fair (lol) etc...
The big scandal of this week-end if you want one was the way fraer and slivko post-poned there match to fix it and both advance, letting Diestar desesperate. THIS is a scandal and THIS is unfair, now because Huk is famous there is 20 pages talking about shit...
|
Israel2209 Posts
This turned into such a huge discussion which I find ridiculous.
This is not a league with 20 players in a division and the one with the best standings wins. It is a tournament and if you lose you should be out.
HuK knew his situation before the match vs Stephano and his fate was entirely in his hands.
To win these events you need to be able to beat the best, and if you meet the best in Ro32 and lose then that is your fate.
HerO is currently 18-0 in maps, he could be out of the whole tournament with an 18-2 map score tomorrow, do you call that unfair as well?
|
On June 18 2012 10:24 Noam wrote:
This turned into such a huge discussion which I find ridiculous.
This is not a league with 20 players in a division and the one with the best standings wins. It is a tournament and if you lose you should be out.
HuK knew his situation before the match vs Stephano and his fate was entirely in his hands.
To win these events you need to be able to beat the best, and if you meet the best in Ro32 and lose then that is your fate.
HerO is currently 18-0 in maps, he could be out of the whole tournament with an 18-2 map score tomorrow, do you call that unfair as well?
Yes because most huk fans are HerO fans too 
+ Show Spoiler +But seriously its completely fair and people need to stop bitching that their favorite player is out
|
Fun facts: All terrans are on one side of bracket. All Poles too. All Koreans too. And it is the same side.
|
On June 18 2012 10:27 Rewera wrote:
Fun facts: All terrans are on one side of bracket. All Poles too. All Koreans too. And it is the same side.
This has been said atleast 20 times in the past 10 pages. All of the brackets were decided by random draw.
|
Why are people arguing over the group system? Most sports use this system I really dont understand why people are so mad.
Btw Fraer,Harstem really comming out this tournament good for them
|
Also another fun fact: In second group stage Nerchio was in group with Naugrim and Mana with Protosser. In third stage Nerchio was with Protosser and Mana with Naugrim.
Also In third stage other two players in Nerchio group vere recpectively paired in groups in second stage with oter players from Mana group.
|
Putting HerO and Taeja against each other in the first round (brackets) is BS.
Outside if a 1vs2 there does not seem to be any method to picking who plays who, so I'm pretty sure its handpicked.
to put 2 players who are clearly favorites AND team mates against each other to start is beyond me.
Maybe this is why DH is famous for Koreans now winning it lol
|
On June 18 2012 10:36 Ancient-Hunter wrote:
Putting HerO and Taeja against each other in the first round (brackets) is BS.
Outside if a 1vs2 there does not seem to be any method to picking who plays who, so I'm pretty sure its handpicked.
to put 2 players who are clearly favorites AND team mates against each other to start is beyond me.
Maybe this is why DH is famous for Koreans now winning it lol
Its random. The chance is 1/7 considering Taeja got 2nd place and hero got 1st. Its luck of the draw you think Denmark are happy being in a group with Holland,Germany,Portugal?. It just happends an you deal with it
And btw the reason why the Koreans not winning dreamhack is becuase the EU players are alot better then people giving them credit for
|
It's supposedly random but certainly questionable with how it turned out. A Korean team kill and the other Korean vs. Stephano all on the same side of the bracket. If I was making a bracket that would be the ideal matches to make it least likely a Korean is in the final.
|
On June 18 2012 10:43 setzer wrote:
It's supposedly random but certainly questionable with how it turned out. A Korean team kill and the other Korean vs. Stephano all on the same side of the bracket. If I was making a bracket that would be the ideal matches to make it least likely a Korean is in the final.
This is the worst bracket ever, of course it was random. Take off your tinfoil hat and think man 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
