|
United States97277 Posts
On June 06 2013 21:57 Kasaraki wrote:
Huh, I haven't seen people complain about the GSL tie-breakers in forever. Surprising. :o
Really? I'm pretty sure there are complaints every time this happens
|
On June 06 2013 21:55 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:51 shockaslim wrote:On June 06 2013 21:39 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:34 opterown wrote:On June 06 2013 21:30 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:25 energized wrote:On June 06 2013 21:24 Gorribal wrote:
Wtf? WHy didn't they play tiebreakers? Maybe if you look at the group results the answer will come to you. Just give it some time  Go be a condescending jerk somewhere else. That's so stupid, so EffOrt has the same score but because he got lucky he advances. You caould make the arguement Paralyze and Super shoudl advance because they beatr players EffOrt didn't. Obviously whoever made this head to head rule has never heard of rock paper scissorts or luck or making small mistakes. head to head is a very common and fair tiebreaker method, the only time there are complaints are when the fan favourite or something doesn't advance lol Explain how it's fair. How is it NOT fair. Say me and you are both 2-2 and I already beat you. Why should I have to beat you AGAIN to move on? Especially in this case, where effort already beat those two. Paralyze beat the best player in the group whereas Effort didn't. They have the same W:L ratio. That's why it's not particularly fair.
No, it's fair than your case, if the best player lose to someone intentionally when he know he will advance. That would not be fair. Though it's not the case for today.
|
On June 06 2013 21:55 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:51 shockaslim wrote:On June 06 2013 21:39 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:34 opterown wrote:On June 06 2013 21:30 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:25 energized wrote:On June 06 2013 21:24 Gorribal wrote:
Wtf? WHy didn't they play tiebreakers? Maybe if you look at the group results the answer will come to you. Just give it some time Go be a condescending jerk somewhere else. That's so stupid, so EffOrt has the same score but because he got lucky he advances. You caould make the arguement Paralyze and Super shoudl advance because they beatr players EffOrt didn't. Obviously whoever made this head to head rule has never heard of rock paper scissorts or luck or making small mistakes. head to head is a very common and fair tiebreaker method, the only time there are complaints are when the fan favourite or something doesn't advance lol Explain how it's fair. How is it NOT fair. Say me and you are both 2-2 and I already beat you. Why should I have to beat you AGAIN to move on? Especially in this case, where effort already beat those two. Paralyze beat the best player in the group whereas Effort didn't. They have the same W:L ratio. That's why it's not particularly fair.
Exactly. And there's luck involved. There's a reason games aren't played Bo1 other than in Up&Downs. If beating someone once was enough to prove you're better whenever in the final game in group play players who played each other faced off again the guy who won the first time would be given an automatic walk over, but obviously we don't do that.
|
On June 06 2013 21:57 Kasaraki wrote:
Huh, I haven't seen people complain about the GSL tie-breakers in forever. Surprising. :o
It happens everytime. Either code A and code S.
|
On June 06 2013 21:55 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:51 shockaslim wrote:On June 06 2013 21:39 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:34 opterown wrote:On June 06 2013 21:30 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:25 energized wrote:On June 06 2013 21:24 Gorribal wrote:
Wtf? WHy didn't they play tiebreakers? Maybe if you look at the group results the answer will come to you. Just give it some time Go be a condescending jerk somewhere else. That's so stupid, so EffOrt has the same score but because he got lucky he advances. You caould make the arguement Paralyze and Super shoudl advance because they beatr players EffOrt didn't. Obviously whoever made this head to head rule has never heard of rock paper scissorts or luck or making small mistakes. head to head is a very common and fair tiebreaker method, the only time there are complaints are when the fan favourite or something doesn't advance lol Explain how it's fair. How is it NOT fair. Say me and you are both 2-2 and I already beat you. Why should I have to beat you AGAIN to move on? Especially in this case, where effort already beat those two. Paralyze beat the best player in the group whereas Effort didn't. They have the same W:L ratio. That's why it's not particularly fair.
Nothing is 100% fair. Even if a BO100 was played by every players pair in the group, luck and tiebreaker can still happen.
And tiebreaker is more unfair in today's situation, because Effort already beat both of them, why should there be a tiebreaker?
|
On June 06 2013 22:00 Gorribal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:55 Scarecrow wrote:On June 06 2013 21:51 shockaslim wrote:On June 06 2013 21:39 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:34 opterown wrote:On June 06 2013 21:30 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:25 energized wrote:On June 06 2013 21:24 Gorribal wrote:
Wtf? WHy didn't they play tiebreakers? Maybe if you look at the group results the answer will come to you. Just give it some time Go be a condescending jerk somewhere else. That's so stupid, so EffOrt has the same score but because he got lucky he advances. You caould make the arguement Paralyze and Super shoudl advance because they beatr players EffOrt didn't. Obviously whoever made this head to head rule has never heard of rock paper scissorts or luck or making small mistakes. head to head is a very common and fair tiebreaker method, the only time there are complaints are when the fan favourite or something doesn't advance lol Explain how it's fair. How is it NOT fair. Say me and you are both 2-2 and I already beat you. Why should I have to beat you AGAIN to move on? Especially in this case, where effort already beat those two. Paralyze beat the best player in the group whereas Effort didn't. They have the same W:L ratio. That's why it's not particularly fair. Exactly. And there's luck involved. There's a reason games aren't played Bo1 other than in Up&Downs. If beating someone once was enough to prove you're better whenever in the final game in group play players who played each other faced off again the guy who won the first time would be given an automatic walk over, but obviously we don't do that.
Ask them nicely maybe they play it out just for you
|
On June 06 2013 22:02 edgeOut wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:55 Scarecrow wrote:On June 06 2013 21:51 shockaslim wrote:On June 06 2013 21:39 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:34 opterown wrote:On June 06 2013 21:30 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:25 energized wrote:On June 06 2013 21:24 Gorribal wrote:
Wtf? WHy didn't they play tiebreakers? Maybe if you look at the group results the answer will come to you. Just give it some time Go be a condescending jerk somewhere else. That's so stupid, so EffOrt has the same score but because he got lucky he advances. You caould make the arguement Paralyze and Super shoudl advance because they beatr players EffOrt didn't. Obviously whoever made this head to head rule has never heard of rock paper scissorts or luck or making small mistakes. head to head is a very common and fair tiebreaker method, the only time there are complaints are when the fan favourite or something doesn't advance lol Explain how it's fair. How is it NOT fair. Say me and you are both 2-2 and I already beat you. Why should I have to beat you AGAIN to move on? Especially in this case, where effort already beat those two. Paralyze beat the best player in the group whereas Effort didn't. They have the same W:L ratio. That's why it's not particularly fair. Tiebreaker is more unfair, because Effort already beat both of them, why should there be a tiebreaker?
Because there is such a thing as luck involved, and he lost to players they couldn't beat. I mean did you see his game versus Super? The reason super lost is fail recall and no cannons at his nat being the thing that forced that fail recall. By your logic all games should be played Bo1.
|
On June 06 2013 21:38 illidanx wrote:
so how many kespa and how many esf in code S?
Funnily, Terran and Zerg are exactly at 50/50, and two more kespa Protosses (surprise). Of course, if you stay true to the kespa vs esf "lore" about BW players vs SC2 players, then Parting counts as esf, which makes all races exactly equally distributed. But I´m sure someone will figure out a way to get some kind of rage out of it. 
|
United States97277 Posts
The way the tiebreaker is set up is you take the tied players and put them in a minipool. in that minipool, effort is 2-0, super is 1-1, and paralyze is 0-2. that's just the way the rules are.
|
On June 06 2013 22:03 Gorribal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:02 edgeOut wrote:On June 06 2013 21:55 Scarecrow wrote:On June 06 2013 21:51 shockaslim wrote:On June 06 2013 21:39 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:34 opterown wrote:On June 06 2013 21:30 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:25 energized wrote:On June 06 2013 21:24 Gorribal wrote:
Wtf? WHy didn't they play tiebreakers? Maybe if you look at the group results the answer will come to you. Just give it some time Go be a condescending jerk somewhere else. That's so stupid, so EffOrt has the same score but because he got lucky he advances. You caould make the arguement Paralyze and Super shoudl advance because they beatr players EffOrt didn't. Obviously whoever made this head to head rule has never heard of rock paper scissorts or luck or making small mistakes. head to head is a very common and fair tiebreaker method, the only time there are complaints are when the fan favourite or something doesn't advance lol Explain how it's fair. How is it NOT fair. Say me and you are both 2-2 and I already beat you. Why should I have to beat you AGAIN to move on? Especially in this case, where effort already beat those two. Paralyze beat the best player in the group whereas Effort didn't. They have the same W:L ratio. That's why it's not particularly fair. Tiebreaker is more unfair, because Effort already beat both of them, why should there be a tiebreaker? Because there is such a thing as luck involved, and he lost to players they couldn't beat. I mean did you see his game versus Super? The reason super lost is fail recall and no cannons at his nat being the thing that forced that fail recall. By your logic all games should be played Bo1.
I didn't see any logic similar between your case and his case.
|
On June 06 2013 22:03 Gorribal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:02 edgeOut wrote:On June 06 2013 21:55 Scarecrow wrote:On June 06 2013 21:51 shockaslim wrote:On June 06 2013 21:39 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:34 opterown wrote:On June 06 2013 21:30 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:25 energized wrote:On June 06 2013 21:24 Gorribal wrote:
Wtf? WHy didn't they play tiebreakers? Maybe if you look at the group results the answer will come to you. Just give it some time Go be a condescending jerk somewhere else. That's so stupid, so EffOrt has the same score but because he got lucky he advances. You caould make the arguement Paralyze and Super shoudl advance because they beatr players EffOrt didn't. Obviously whoever made this head to head rule has never heard of rock paper scissorts or luck or making small mistakes. head to head is a very common and fair tiebreaker method, the only time there are complaints are when the fan favourite or something doesn't advance lol Explain how it's fair. How is it NOT fair. Say me and you are both 2-2 and I already beat you. Why should I have to beat you AGAIN to move on? Especially in this case, where effort already beat those two. Paralyze beat the best player in the group whereas Effort didn't. They have the same W:L ratio. That's why it's not particularly fair. Tiebreaker is more unfair, because Effort already beat both of them, why should there be a tiebreaker? Because there is such a thing as luck involved, and he lost to players they couldn't beat. I mean did you see his game versus Super? The reason super lost is fail recall and no cannons at his nat being the thing that forced that fail recall. By your logic all games should be played Bo1.
If you say luck is not fair, then you can play BO1001 for every sereis, it's still not gonna be 100% fair.
|
opterown
Australia54785 Posts
Poll: Head to head tiebreakers?They're fine, why are we even talking about this (21) 81% Stupid and unfair, I demand we replay the matches (5) 19% 26 total votes Your vote: Head to head tiebreakers? (Vote): Stupid and unfair, I demand we replay the matches
(Vote): They're fine, why are we even talking about this
damn, i should have re-edited the poll to say "my favourite player lost, i don't like head to head tiebreakers anymore"
|
On June 06 2013 21:58 Shellshock1122 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:57 Kasaraki wrote:
Huh, I haven't seen people complain about the GSL tie-breakers in forever. Surprising. :o Really? I'm pretty sure there are complains every time this happens
Huh really? I haven't paid attention. D: I thought these tiebreakers were universally agreed upon. The more you know I guess!
|
On June 06 2013 21:55 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:51 shockaslim wrote:On June 06 2013 21:39 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:34 opterown wrote:On June 06 2013 21:30 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:25 energized wrote:On June 06 2013 21:24 Gorribal wrote:
Wtf? WHy didn't they play tiebreakers? Maybe if you look at the group results the answer will come to you. Just give it some time Go be a condescending jerk somewhere else. That's so stupid, so EffOrt has the same score but because he got lucky he advances. You caould make the arguement Paralyze and Super shoudl advance because they beatr players EffOrt didn't. Obviously whoever made this head to head rule has never heard of rock paper scissorts or luck or making small mistakes. head to head is a very common and fair tiebreaker method, the only time there are complaints are when the fan favourite or something doesn't advance lol Explain how it's fair. How is it NOT fair. Say me and you are both 2-2 and I already beat you. Why should I have to beat you AGAIN to move on? Especially in this case, where effort already beat those two. Paralyze beat the best player in the group whereas Effort didn't. They have the same W:L ratio. That's why it's not particularly fair.
tiebreaker rules are always a reason for complaining. They both know the rule beforehand and both had equal chances so you can say it's fair no matter what. head to head score between tied players is the only effective option in these small groups and I think it's fine really. There is a point to be made that games against the top players or the bottom should be less important because they are often played with less on the line.
|
On June 06 2013 22:04 Shellshock1122 wrote:
The way the tiebreaker is set up is you take the tied players and put them in a minipool. in that minipool, effort is 2-0, super is 1-1, and paralyze is 0-2. that's just the way the rules are.
Yes, that's a fair rule in many other sports games.
|
I think they should just flip a coin
|
Nobody is going to convince anybody, and GSL aint changing it. So no need to discuss imo.
|
On June 06 2013 22:06 edgeOut wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:03 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 22:02 edgeOut wrote:On June 06 2013 21:55 Scarecrow wrote:On June 06 2013 21:51 shockaslim wrote:On June 06 2013 21:39 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:34 opterown wrote:On June 06 2013 21:30 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:25 energized wrote:On June 06 2013 21:24 Gorribal wrote:
Wtf? WHy didn't they play tiebreakers? Maybe if you look at the group results the answer will come to you. Just give it some time Go be a condescending jerk somewhere else. That's so stupid, so EffOrt has the same score but because he got lucky he advances. You caould make the arguement Paralyze and Super shoudl advance because they beatr players EffOrt didn't. Obviously whoever made this head to head rule has never heard of rock paper scissorts or luck or making small mistakes. head to head is a very common and fair tiebreaker method, the only time there are complaints are when the fan favourite or something doesn't advance lol Explain how it's fair. How is it NOT fair. Say me and you are both 2-2 and I already beat you. Why should I have to beat you AGAIN to move on? Especially in this case, where effort already beat those two. Paralyze beat the best player in the group whereas Effort didn't. They have the same W:L ratio. That's why it's not particularly fair. Tiebreaker is more unfair, because Effort already beat both of them, why should there be a tiebreaker? Because there is such a thing as luck involved, and he lost to players they couldn't beat. I mean did you see his game versus Super? The reason super lost is fail recall and no cannons at his nat being the thing that forced that fail recall. By your logic all games should be played Bo1. If you say luck is not fair, then you can play BO1001 for every sereis, it's still not gonna be 100% fair.
You're being a baby and taking what I said way out of proportion. I said luck is too much for one game, then you take that out of proportion suggesting that because of my theory on luck we should play Bo10001. And you've changed the subject from the fact their wins and losses we're even.
|
Hah, suddenly I remember the tears when Flash went out in U&D in a similar fashion...!
|
On June 06 2013 22:07 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:55 Scarecrow wrote:On June 06 2013 21:51 shockaslim wrote:On June 06 2013 21:39 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:34 opterown wrote:On June 06 2013 21:30 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 21:25 energized wrote:On June 06 2013 21:24 Gorribal wrote:
Wtf? WHy didn't they play tiebreakers? Maybe if you look at the group results the answer will come to you. Just give it some time Go be a condescending jerk somewhere else. That's so stupid, so EffOrt has the same score but because he got lucky he advances. You caould make the arguement Paralyze and Super shoudl advance because they beatr players EffOrt didn't. Obviously whoever made this head to head rule has never heard of rock paper scissorts or luck or making small mistakes. head to head is a very common and fair tiebreaker method, the only time there are complaints are when the fan favourite or something doesn't advance lol Explain how it's fair. How is it NOT fair. Say me and you are both 2-2 and I already beat you. Why should I have to beat you AGAIN to move on? Especially in this case, where effort already beat those two. Paralyze beat the best player in the group whereas Effort didn't. They have the same W:L ratio. That's why it's not particularly fair. tiebreaker rules are always a reason for complaining. They both know the rule beforehand and both had equal chances so you can say it's fair no matter what. head to head score between tied players is the only effective option in these small groups and I think it's fine really. There is a point to be made that games against the top players or the bottom should be less important because they are often played with less on the line.
Just because they both knew the rules doesn't make it fair. It's not like there was an alternative tournament where there wasn't a head to head rule. It's like if I made a tournament where the loser was thrown off a cliff, would that be fair because everyone knew the rules before they signed up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
