|
On June 06 2013 22:12 Gorribal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:07 Markwerf 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 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?
Yes, and I want to see this implemented.
|
opterown
Australia54783 Posts
On June 06 2013 22:12 Gorribal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:07 Markwerf 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 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?
yeah i actually think that would be pretty fair so long as it's legal and they gave informed consent haha
|
On June 06 2013 22:10 Zenbrez wrote:
Nobody is going to convince anybody, and GSL aint changing it. So no need to discuss imo.
Yep you're right, GLS has never changed format before to make things fairer, that's why we still play one single elimination 64 player tournament right?
Things are changed exactly when they are unfair and people complain.
|
On June 06 2013 22:14 Gorribal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:10 Zenbrez wrote:
Nobody is going to convince anybody, and GSL aint changing it. So no need to discuss imo. Yep you're right, GLS has never changed format before to make things fairer, that's why we still play one single elimination 64 player tournament right? Things are changed exactly when they are unfair and people complain.
Still haven't came to you
|
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.
You make it sound like there's no luck involved in a Bo3. That's pretty funny actually.
Maybe we should play a Best of [x], and let them play until the best player is ahead in the series? Of course, we would have come to you before the match to ask you who the best player is.
|
On June 06 2013 22:13 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:12 Gorribal wrote:On June 06 2013 22:07 Markwerf 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 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? yeah i actually think that would be pretty fair so long as it's legal and they gave informed consent haha
That's a brilliant idea!
- "Well, I think we hadn't seen the last of him in the GSL!"
- "Actually, Tasteless, I think we had..."
|
On June 06 2013 22:10 Gorribal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:06 edgeOut wrote: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:[quote] 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.
Luck is always part of game, every champion is lucky in someway. If you are lucky, you deserve to advance.
|
On June 06 2013 22:17 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:00 Gorribal 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. 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. You make it sound like there's no luck involved in a Bo3. That's pretty funny actually. Maybe we should play a Best of [x], and let them play until the best player is ahead in the series? Of course, we would have come to you before the match to ask you who the best player is.
That's not what I meant and you know that, writing things like that only makes you look bad.
|
On June 06 2013 21:19 scypio wrote:And here are final stats throughout the GSL history: Terrans doing worse than ever. Protoss unable to bring more than 10 players into Code S. Lings off liberty refusing to fade away even the slightest bit.
P T Z R
2010 OS 1: 27/ 21 /16
2010 OS 2: 20/ 29 /15
2010 OS 3: 12/ 24 /27 / 1
2011 January: 9/ 14 /9
2011 March: 9/ 15 /8
2011 May: 10/ 14 /8
2011 July: 9/ 15 /8
2011 August: 8/ 17 /7
2011 November: 5/ 19 /8
2012 S1: 8/ 15 /9
2012 S2: 10/ 15 /7
2012 S3: 10/ 13 /9
2012 S4: 10/ 13 /9
2012 S5: 9/ 14 /9
2013 S1: 5/ 13 /14
2013 WCS S1: 7/ 11 /14
2013 WCS S2: 10/ 8 /14
First season since the very first Open Season to have more Protoss than Terran. And I'm not sure you can really count it either, since its not a normal GSL Code S because it'll be hosted by OSL. -_-
Sad Zealot just cannot catch a break with GOM it seems.
|
On June 06 2013 22:12 Gorribal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:07 Markwerf 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 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?
Just read Shellshock's a post a replies up. Makes perfect sense and you should not be complaining anymore.
|
opterown
Australia54783 Posts
On June 06 2013 22:20 -Celestial- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:19 scypio wrote:And here are final stats throughout the GSL history: Terrans doing worse than ever. Protoss unable to bring more than 10 players into Code S. Lings off liberty refusing to fade away even the slightest bit.
P T Z R
2010 OS 1: 27/ 21 /16
2010 OS 2: 20/ 29 /15
2010 OS 3: 12/ 24 /27 / 1
2011 January: 9/ 14 /9
2011 March: 9/ 15 /8
2011 May: 10/ 14 /8
2011 July: 9/ 15 /8
2011 August: 8/ 17 /7
2011 November: 5/ 19 /8
2012 S1: 8/ 15 /9
2012 S2: 10/ 15 /7
2012 S3: 10/ 13 /9
2012 S4: 10/ 13 /9
2012 S5: 9/ 14 /9
2013 S1: 5/ 13 /14
2013 WCS S1: 7/ 11 /14
2013 WCS S2: 10/ 8 /14
First season since the very first Open Season to have more Protoss than Terran. And I'm not sure you can really count it either, since its not a normal GSL Code S because it'll be hosted by OSL. -_- Sad Zealot just cannot catch a break with GOM it seems.
Well WCS KR was run by GOM last year, protoss did pretty well there haha
|
On June 06 2013 22:20 Gorribal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:17 Nebuchad wrote:On June 06 2013 22:00 Gorribal 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. 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. You make it sound like there's no luck involved in a Bo3. That's pretty funny actually. Maybe we should play a Best of [x], and let them play until the best player is ahead in the series? Of course, we would have come to you before the match to ask you who the best player is. That's not what I meant and you know that, writing things like that only makes you look bad.
What you meant is "I'm sad Super hasn't advanced, goddamnit". The rest is just semantics, and semantics are boring.
|
Discussing shit like tiebreaker rules in a LR thread after it happened makes you look like an angry fanboy. I'm not saying anyone is an angry fanboy, but this isn't the place to have that discussion. If it really matters to someone, they should wait a couple of days to cool down and make a reasoned thread about it.
Otherwise it very much looks like "waaaah my player lost, change the rules!"
|
On June 06 2013 22:22 SgtCoDFish wrote:
Discussing shit like tiebreaker rules in a LR thread after it happened makes you look like an angry fanboy. I'm not saying anyone is an angry fanboy, but this isn't the place to have that discussion. If it really matters to someone, they should wait a couple of days to cool down and make a reasoned thread about it.
Otherwise it very much looks like "waaaah my player lost, change the rules!"
Wanting people to advance fairly, obviously I'm the angry fanboy. Nice veiled insults.
|
On June 06 2013 22:24 Gorribal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:22 SgtCoDFish wrote:
Discussing shit like tiebreaker rules in a LR thread after it happened makes you look like an angry fanboy. I'm not saying anyone is an angry fanboy, but this isn't the place to have that discussion. If it really matters to someone, they should wait a couple of days to cool down and make a reasoned thread about it.
Otherwise it very much looks like "waaaah my player lost, change the rules!" Wanting people to advance fairly, obviously I'm the angry fanboy. Nice veiled insults.
He didn't say that you were.
|
On June 06 2013 22:24 Gorribal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:22 SgtCoDFish wrote:
Discussing shit like tiebreaker rules in a LR thread after it happened makes you look like an angry fanboy. I'm not saying anyone is an angry fanboy, but this isn't the place to have that discussion. If it really matters to someone, they should wait a couple of days to cool down and make a reasoned thread about it.
Otherwise it very much looks like "waaaah my player lost, change the rules!" Wanting people to advance fairly, obviously I'm the angry fanboy. Nice veiled insults.
Then what would you do with today's situation, tiebreaker? How's that fair to Effort?
|
On June 06 2013 22:24 Gorribal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:22 SgtCoDFish wrote:
Discussing shit like tiebreaker rules in a LR thread after it happened makes you look like an angry fanboy. I'm not saying anyone is an angry fanboy, but this isn't the place to have that discussion. If it really matters to someone, they should wait a couple of days to cool down and make a reasoned thread about it.
Otherwise it very much looks like "waaaah my player lost, change the rules!" Wanting people to advance fairly, obviously I'm the angry fanboy. Nice veiled insults.
Don't insult him. His logic is undeniable.
|
On June 06 2013 22:24 Gorribal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 22:22 SgtCoDFish wrote:
Discussing shit like tiebreaker rules in a LR thread after it happened makes you look like an angry fanboy. I'm not saying anyone is an angry fanboy, but this isn't the place to have that discussion. If it really matters to someone, they should wait a couple of days to cool down and make a reasoned thread about it.
Otherwise it very much looks like "waaaah my player lost, change the rules!" Wanting people to advance fairly, obviously I'm the angry fanboy. Nice veiled insults.
No, bringing it up after it happens makes you look like an angry fanboy. And jumping to conclusions doesn't help either.
Like I said, you'll convince no-one here. If you really feel strongly, make a thread in a couple of days when the dust has settled. I think in general you'll struggle to convince anyone, but hey, go ahead.
To take a random example: when watching football (soccer) with my dad, he'll have angry outbursts to decisions he views as bad on the spot, but in a couple of days he'll see that the decision was correct even though it was against his team.
|
opterown
Australia54783 Posts
|
On June 06 2013 22:30 opterown wrote:
I think ByuN should have advanced, he was unlucky in his three losses but he beat effort, who advanced. how is this fair
Don't feed him pls :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
