|
oh man, Life is my hero. how do i get my motivation now ?
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On August 07 2013 17:14 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 17:03 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 17:01 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 16:12 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 16:08 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 16:01 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 15:59 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 15:53 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 15:52 DigitalDevil wrote:
Wait, why is the last game between Bang and soO not played? If Bang wins, wouldn't it mean a 3 way tie between Life, Byun, and soO? Why is soO getting a bye just because Bang is already out? soO beat both Life and ByuN, so he advances. That's unfair. He basically got an advantage due to the order of the matches played. He only played 3 matches and lost 1 and could have potentially lost another one, just like Life and Byun. You could say that Life beat herO, who beat soO. And soO could have potentially lost to Bang who lost to Life and Byun. It's a rock paper scissors scenario. You can't say that rock is superior to paper because it beats scissors, which beats paper. If soO wins, he is through If soO loses, he is tied, but wins the first tiebreaker, which is head-to-head record with those tied with him. Other results don't matter in weighing this tiebreaker. It's not unfair. Head-to-head is a legitimate tiebreaker since he beat both the two involved in the tie. soO's losses before the tiebreaker give him an advantage because they were to other people, whom Life and Byun may have beaten. They all lost 2 games, which should all be weighted equally. The order is drawn randomly, so you can't blame it on that. The results are what they are and players shouldn't blame it on the luck of the draw. Because if you start that line of thinking, might as well blame "unfavorable maps" which are also semi-random. You can't go x > y > z to gauge the tied players including their games against other players, because it doesn't make sense and will always be tied. There are also no mapscores since this is Bo1. Head-to-head between tied players is the fairest first tiebreaker. soO beat both Life and ByuN. You can't just throw that away. You could do a tiebreaker with soO up 2-0, ByuN 1-1 and Life 0-2 and make it a race to 3 wins. But that is excessively complicated. You also can't throw away Life and Byun's wins. If they were all 2-2, surely the fairest system would be first to win 2 consecutive games. soO won against the two players he tied with. Having to beat them a second time, when the other players only have to beat him once, isn't fair either. If you consider it like that, then you can also for example say that it is unfair for Life and Byun to not have their win against Bang count against soO if soO had lost to Bang. As you said earlier, you cannot apply transitivity to determine the better player. Therefore, you can only count on how many times they won/lost. In this case, they are all 2-2 and so their scores should reset to 0-0 for the tiebreaker.
If you're not going to isolate the results of the three players tied, then why require them to only play amongst themselves? If the group is reduced to the three tied players, since the other player is effectively 'meaningless', then why should the results between those tied players not matter more than their results against the rest of the group, since the tiebreakers were made to compare the three directly with each other?
The system effectively reduces the need to play excessive games, when soO has already gone 2-0, ByuN 1 - 1 and Life 0 - 2 in the games that are just going to be replayed the same way.
You see, we are never going to come up with a 'perfectly fair' system when you also have to take into consideration time and resource constraints.
Bo1 is unfair
Random maps is unfair
Etc etc is unfair
Only Bo7 Round Robin ensures the best player gets out.
But their time and resources are limited, and they have to have tiebreakers that are fair enough considering those constraints.
|
|
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
has coach park began official duties for CJ yet?
if so we can start coachpark stuff again
|
oh damn it Life, why do you keep on losing so much
|
On August 07 2013 17:18 scr wrote:oh man, Life is my hero. how do i get my motivation now ?
Watch KT Zergs, they are pretty exciting these days. /sarcasm 
|
KESPAAAAAAAAAA baiting i see, been a while.
|
On August 07 2013 17:19 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 17:14 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 17:03 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 17:01 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 16:12 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 16:08 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 16:01 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 15:59 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 15:53 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 15:52 DigitalDevil wrote:
Wait, why is the last game between Bang and soO not played? If Bang wins, wouldn't it mean a 3 way tie between Life, Byun, and soO? Why is soO getting a bye just because Bang is already out? soO beat both Life and ByuN, so he advances. That's unfair. He basically got an advantage due to the order of the matches played. He only played 3 matches and lost 1 and could have potentially lost another one, just like Life and Byun. You could say that Life beat herO, who beat soO. And soO could have potentially lost to Bang who lost to Life and Byun. It's a rock paper scissors scenario. You can't say that rock is superior to paper because it beats scissors, which beats paper. If soO wins, he is through If soO loses, he is tied, but wins the first tiebreaker, which is head-to-head record with those tied with him. Other results don't matter in weighing this tiebreaker. It's not unfair. Head-to-head is a legitimate tiebreaker since he beat both the two involved in the tie. soO's losses before the tiebreaker give him an advantage because they were to other people, whom Life and Byun may have beaten. They all lost 2 games, which should all be weighted equally. The order is drawn randomly, so you can't blame it on that. The results are what they are and players shouldn't blame it on the luck of the draw. Because if you start that line of thinking, might as well blame "unfavorable maps" which are also semi-random. You can't go x > y > z to gauge the tied players including their games against other players, because it doesn't make sense and will always be tied. There are also no mapscores since this is Bo1. Head-to-head between tied players is the fairest first tiebreaker. soO beat both Life and ByuN. You can't just throw that away. You could do a tiebreaker with soO up 2-0, ByuN 1-1 and Life 0-2 and make it a race to 3 wins. But that is excessively complicated. You also can't throw away Life and Byun's wins. If they were all 2-2, surely the fairest system would be first to win 2 consecutive games. soO won against the two players he tied with. Having to beat them a second time, when the other players only have to beat him once, isn't fair either. If you consider it like that, then you can also for example say that it is unfair for Life and Byun to not have their win against Bang count against soO if soO had lost to Bang. As you said earlier, you cannot apply transitivity to determine the better player. Therefore, you can only count on how many times they won/lost. In this case, they are all 2-2 and so their scores should reset to 0-0 for the tiebreaker. If you're not going to isolate the results of the three players tied, then why require them to only play amongst themselves? If the group is reduced to the three tied players, since the other player is effectively 'meaningless', then why should the results between those tied players not matter more than their results against the rest of the group, since the tiebreakers were made to compare the three directly with each other? The system effectively reduces the need to play excessive games, when soO has already gone 2-0, ByuN 1 - 1 and Life 0 - 2 in the games that are just going to be replayed the same way.
Simply, they are playing amongst themselves simply because the other players have either already advanced from having enough wins or have already been eliminated from having too many losses. The results of the tied players against the other players still matter in terms of pure win loss ratio (they are all tied 2-2), not who they lost to.
You see, we are never going to come up with a 'perfectly fair' system when you also have to take into consideration time and resource constraints.
Bo1 is unfair
Random maps is unfair
Etc etc is unfair
Only Bo7 Round Robin ensures the best player gets out.
But their time and resources are limited, and they have to have tiebreakers that are fair enough considering those constraints.
I understand the purpose of the system to save time but I still disagree that it is fair.
Bo1 is not unfair. Random maps are not unfair. These create volatile results, not unfair results.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On August 07 2013 17:26 DigitalDevil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 17:19 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 17:14 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 17:03 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 17:01 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 16:12 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 16:08 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 16:01 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 15:59 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 15:53 lichter wrote:
[quote]
soO beat both Life and ByuN, so he advances. That's unfair. He basically got an advantage due to the order of the matches played. He only played 3 matches and lost 1 and could have potentially lost another one, just like Life and Byun. You could say that Life beat herO, who beat soO. And soO could have potentially lost to Bang who lost to Life and Byun. It's a rock paper scissors scenario. You can't say that rock is superior to paper because it beats scissors, which beats paper. If soO wins, he is through If soO loses, he is tied, but wins the first tiebreaker, which is head-to-head record with those tied with him. Other results don't matter in weighing this tiebreaker. It's not unfair. Head-to-head is a legitimate tiebreaker since he beat both the two involved in the tie. soO's losses before the tiebreaker give him an advantage because they were to other people, whom Life and Byun may have beaten. They all lost 2 games, which should all be weighted equally. The order is drawn randomly, so you can't blame it on that. The results are what they are and players shouldn't blame it on the luck of the draw. Because if you start that line of thinking, might as well blame "unfavorable maps" which are also semi-random. You can't go x > y > z to gauge the tied players including their games against other players, because it doesn't make sense and will always be tied. There are also no mapscores since this is Bo1. Head-to-head between tied players is the fairest first tiebreaker. soO beat both Life and ByuN. You can't just throw that away. You could do a tiebreaker with soO up 2-0, ByuN 1-1 and Life 0-2 and make it a race to 3 wins. But that is excessively complicated. You also can't throw away Life and Byun's wins. If they were all 2-2, surely the fairest system would be first to win 2 consecutive games. soO won against the two players he tied with. Having to beat them a second time, when the other players only have to beat him once, isn't fair either. If you consider it like that, then you can also for example say that it is unfair for Life and Byun to not have their win against Bang count against soO if soO had lost to Bang. As you said earlier, you cannot apply transitivity to determine the better player. Therefore, you can only count on how many times they won/lost. In this case, they are all 2-2 and so their scores should reset to 0-0 for the tiebreaker. If you're not going to isolate the results of the three players tied, then why require them to only play amongst themselves? If the group is reduced to the three tied players, since the other player is effectively 'meaningless', then why should the results between those tied players not matter more than their results against the rest of the group, since the tiebreakers were made to compare the three directly with each other? The system effectively reduces the need to play excessive games, when soO has already gone 2-0, ByuN 1 - 1 and Life 0 - 2 in the games that are just going to be replayed the same way. Simply, they are playing amongst themselves simply because the other players have either already advanced from having enough wins or have already been eliminated from having too many losses. The results of the tied players against the other players still matter in terms of pure win loss ratio (they are all tied 2-2), not who they lost to. Show nested quote +
You see, we are never going to come up with a 'perfectly fair' system when you also have to take into consideration time and resource constraints.
Bo1 is unfair
Random maps is unfair
Etc etc is unfair
Only Bo7 Round Robin ensures the best player gets out.
But their time and resources are limited, and they have to have tiebreakers that are fair enough considering those constraints.
I understand the purpose of the system to save time but I still disagree that it is fair. Bo1 is not unfair. Random maps are not unfair. These create volatile results, not unfair results.
But they've already played against each other. Why should they replay it? They advanced to tiebreakers because of their results with the entire group, but the tiebreakers are played to determine who can gain 2 wins from the other 2 players. soO already has 2 wins against them.
Anyway, this has already been debated to death many many times.
If you refuse to accept it as fair, then you should email GOMtv and tell them your concerns.
|
On August 07 2013 17:34 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 17:26 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 17:19 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 17:14 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 17:03 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 17:01 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 16:12 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 16:08 DigitalDevil wrote:On August 07 2013 16:01 lichter wrote:On August 07 2013 15:59 DigitalDevil wrote:
[quote]
That's unfair. He basically got an advantage due to the order of the matches played. He only played 3 matches and lost 1 and could have potentially lost another one, just like Life and Byun. You could say that Life beat herO, who beat soO. And soO could have potentially lost to Bang who lost to Life and Byun. It's a rock paper scissors scenario. You can't say that rock is superior to paper because it beats scissors, which beats paper. If soO wins, he is through If soO loses, he is tied, but wins the first tiebreaker, which is head-to-head record with those tied with him. Other results don't matter in weighing this tiebreaker. It's not unfair. Head-to-head is a legitimate tiebreaker since he beat both the two involved in the tie. soO's losses before the tiebreaker give him an advantage because they were to other people, whom Life and Byun may have beaten. They all lost 2 games, which should all be weighted equally. The order is drawn randomly, so you can't blame it on that. The results are what they are and players shouldn't blame it on the luck of the draw. Because if you start that line of thinking, might as well blame "unfavorable maps" which are also semi-random. You can't go x > y > z to gauge the tied players including their games against other players, because it doesn't make sense and will always be tied. There are also no mapscores since this is Bo1. Head-to-head between tied players is the fairest first tiebreaker. soO beat both Life and ByuN. You can't just throw that away. You could do a tiebreaker with soO up 2-0, ByuN 1-1 and Life 0-2 and make it a race to 3 wins. But that is excessively complicated. You also can't throw away Life and Byun's wins. If they were all 2-2, surely the fairest system would be first to win 2 consecutive games. soO won against the two players he tied with. Having to beat them a second time, when the other players only have to beat him once, isn't fair either. If you consider it like that, then you can also for example say that it is unfair for Life and Byun to not have their win against Bang count against soO if soO had lost to Bang. As you said earlier, you cannot apply transitivity to determine the better player. Therefore, you can only count on how many times they won/lost. In this case, they are all 2-2 and so their scores should reset to 0-0 for the tiebreaker. If you're not going to isolate the results of the three players tied, then why require them to only play amongst themselves? If the group is reduced to the three tied players, since the other player is effectively 'meaningless', then why should the results between those tied players not matter more than their results against the rest of the group, since the tiebreakers were made to compare the three directly with each other? The system effectively reduces the need to play excessive games, when soO has already gone 2-0, ByuN 1 - 1 and Life 0 - 2 in the games that are just going to be replayed the same way. Simply, they are playing amongst themselves simply because the other players have either already advanced from having enough wins or have already been eliminated from having too many losses. The results of the tied players against the other players still matter in terms of pure win loss ratio (they are all tied 2-2), not who they lost to.
You see, we are never going to come up with a 'perfectly fair' system when you also have to take into consideration time and resource constraints.
Bo1 is unfair
Random maps is unfair
Etc etc is unfair
Only Bo7 Round Robin ensures the best player gets out.
But their time and resources are limited, and they have to have tiebreakers that are fair enough considering those constraints.
I understand the purpose of the system to save time but I still disagree that it is fair. Bo1 is not unfair. Random maps are not unfair. These create volatile results, not unfair results. But they've already played against each other. Why should they replay it? They advanced to tiebreakers because of their results with the entire group, but the tiebreakers are played to determine who can gain 2 wins from the other 2 players. soO already has 2 wins against them. Anyway, this has already been debated to death many many times. If you refuse to accept it as fair, then you should email GOMtv and tell them your concerns.
As I've said, they have to replay each other because that is the only way to defeat the rock beats paper beats scissors beats rock argument. You're saying that even though soO is in a tiebreaker with Life and Byun that he is better than them because he beat them before. I am saying you cannot determine whether soO is better or not because he would have lost to Bang who was beaten by both Life and Byun. Therefore, the logical course of action would be to restart the tiebreaker at 0-0 and have the better player be determined by winning twice consecutively.
I'm not so attached to the issue that I'd contact gomtv about it. Was just wondering why they are doing it this way.
|
Norway25712 Posts
Damn, I'd rather have ByuN than herO
|
Life is putting up some heartbreaking perfomances lately :S
|
On August 07 2013 15:25 dustinth wrote:
if hero > byun
I expect their would be another round of debate of this tiebreaker system since life will be out.
Some guys are so predictable
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On August 07 2013 17:54 dustinth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 15:25 dustinth wrote:
if hero > byun
I expect their would be another round of debate of this tiebreaker system since life will be out. Some guys are so predictable
Well it doesn't happen that often. I guess people are just unhappy about how unforgiving U/D can be. Win, Code S. Lose, first round Code A.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
yeah there was this big fuss too when flash didn't make it lol, always happens in u/d tiebreakers. i'm not happy byun is out, but the rules are the rules and the players knew the system beforehand, so nothing they can complain about if those rules are upheld
|
On August 07 2013 17:58 opterown wrote:
yeah there was this big fuss too when flash didn't make it lol, always happens in u/d tiebreakers. i'm not happy byun is out, but the rules are the rules and the players knew the system beforehand, so nothing they can complain about if those rules are upheld
I agree that it is fair in the sense that the players agreed to the rules. Also, the fact that it was a random drawing means that it is by definition fair. I don't really care who would have come out of this but I'm just annoyed that the system itself leaves some unanswered possibilities,
|
The rules are supposed to be harsh since only the best of the best are supposed to get into Code S. What is debatable however is if it should be determined by a series of Bo1s.
|
On August 07 2013 17:10 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 17:08 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:On August 07 2013 17:04 sc2holar wrote:On August 07 2013 16:54 painkilla wrote:On August 07 2013 16:49 sc2holar wrote:
Has anyone read an interview with Life post HoTS or something where he explains why he seems to struggle so much? he was looking like the next Bonjwa during the last days of WoL... HoTS changes a lot of strategies and Life's style is no longer strong. Not just Life, it happens to many of the top WoL players. i guess you are right, but i always thought players of that caliber were capable of adapting. i mean some kespa like players like Bogus could go directly from BW into HoTS and start dominating, changing your style from WoL to fit HoTS shouldnt be THAT hard for a top-tier player, especially in comparison to the BW>HoTS switch. Life actually did go from WoL to HotS and dominate initially, he won MLG and qualified for the Asian Indoor Tournament (kicking Flash's ass twice). No, I think there's something else wrong with Life. Life fans will disagree but it is because everyone has caught up with his mechanics. During his reign he had the best mechanics and micro out of any zerg player. His zergling baneling micro was unparalleled. He was strategically naive doing whatever he wanted but he made it work because of his superior control. Now that everyone has caught up, he can't get by on his mechanics alone. He's playing the same way while everyone has improved.
I actually don't agree with that so much, though his micro was unquestionably better then every other zergs.
|
Austria24422 Posts
To me Life was always about great decisionmaking and executing exactly what he wanted to do. His ZvT revolved a lot around exploiting weaknesses at certain stages in the game for example.
|
On August 07 2013 18:23 DarkLordOlli wrote:
To me Life was always about great decisionmaking and executing exactly what he wanted to do. His ZvT revolved a lot around exploiting weaknesses at certain stages in the game for example.
Life gave meth to his lings instead of crack. Unfortunetaly meth's side affects come into play a lot faster, and thus he can't keep going anymore.
Remember, not even once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
