|
On August 16 2013 06:20 ThePrince wrote:
Gosh... A 5 way tie would've been killer! This is where people's skills in tension situations truly shine. Kespa shouldve put in a little more effort, it's not like a hurricane destroyed their home and they weren't able to practice. Next time they should call Jack G as a coach and maybe they will perform.
God this is so bad it's funny.
But 0/10 you didn't include "thunder" in the post.
|
|
|
On August 16 2013 06:25 ThePrince wrote:
"Thunder"?
It's easier to include than LosirA or KangHo without making it completely obvious... but yeah he used to be known as tHuNdEr[fOu] 
|
Jack G has the swagger yo. If you think he can't manage well I'm telling you he can, ho. If they listen to me I will shed a tear I swear.
|
Oh yeah? I didn't know he was known as Thunder. So he had 4 names? Ughhh. You're making me regret that he is in Code S.
|
An NSH player made it to code S just in time for there to be no more NSH...
Really happy for jjakji, even if he's guaranteed to leave after this season, I'm glad its a season in Code S
|
|
|
On August 16 2013 01:09 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 01:04 pylonsalad wrote:
The head-to-head condition is entirely arbitrary. It does not show that Kangho played better than the other two. Guess what, he lost to both the better player of the day (jjakji) and the worse player of the day (shine). It is accepted because it is agreed upon by convention to save time, but to make the argument that it shows who is the better player is fancy magical logic. But you can make that argument for pretty much every tournament format currently in use, that they favor convenience and scheduling over the highest accuracy of determining who the best player is. If you want to know for sure 100% who the best player is, good luck hosting a tournament the scale of GSL and having every single player duke it out against every other one in a Bo7/Bo9.
You know there is a middle ground between Bo9`s and arbitrarily deciding who advances? If you`ve sim
ply got to save time, and records are tied, going by Code S incumbents advancing first would be just as fair. H2H can be ok but not in a format with so few games, low match scores and heaps of ties.
|
On August 16 2013 08:15 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 01:09 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 16 2013 01:04 pylonsalad wrote:
The head-to-head condition is entirely arbitrary. It does not show that Kangho played better than the other two. Guess what, he lost to both the better player of the day (jjakji) and the worse player of the day (shine). It is accepted because it is agreed upon by convention to save time, but to make the argument that it shows who is the better player is fancy magical logic. But you can make that argument for pretty much every tournament format currently in use, that they favor convenience and scheduling over the highest accuracy of determining who the best player is. If you want to know for sure 100% who the best player is, good luck hosting a tournament the scale of GSL and having every single player duke it out against every other one in a Bo7/Bo9. You know there is a middle ground between Bo9`s and arbitrarily deciding who advances? If you`ve sim ply got to save time, and records are tied, going by Code S incumbents advancing first would be just as fair. H2H can be ok but not in a format with so few games, low match scores and heaps of ties.
So mad . A better system would probably to play the Ups and Downs as if they were double bracket group stage. BO1 does seem a bit arbitrary. However, it is still fun to see fan favorites crash and burn
|
Let's try this again.
A 5 way tie would've been killer! This is where people's skills in tension situations truly shine. Kespa shouldve put in a little more effort, it's not like a hurricane or thunder destroyed their internet and they weren't able to practice. Next time they should call Jack G as a coach and maybe they will perform. That guy has the swagger yo. If you think he can't coach well I'm telling you... he can, ho! If they recruit him I will shed a tear of joy.
Um this is so bad.
|
On August 16 2013 08:40 ThePrince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 08:15 Scarecrow wrote:On August 16 2013 01:09 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 16 2013 01:04 pylonsalad wrote:
The head-to-head condition is entirely arbitrary. It does not show that Kangho played better than the other two. Guess what, he lost to both the better player of the day (jjakji) and the worse player of the day (shine). It is accepted because it is agreed upon by convention to save time, but to make the argument that it shows who is the better player is fancy magical logic. But you can make that argument for pretty much every tournament format currently in use, that they favor convenience and scheduling over the highest accuracy of determining who the best player is. If you want to know for sure 100% who the best player is, good luck hosting a tournament the scale of GSL and having every single player duke it out against every other one in a Bo7/Bo9. You know there is a middle ground between Bo9`s and arbitrarily deciding who advances? If you`ve sim ply got to save time, and records are tied, going by Code S incumbents advancing first would be just as fair. H2H can be ok but not in a format with so few games, low match scores and heaps of ties. So mad
Yes I was clearly angry/upset in that last post -.- I'm not a huge fan of anyone in this group though felt Effort was unlucky with the rock bug. I just dislike seeing people defending the tiebreaker system like it's fair or actually chooses the better player when it's nothing more than a time saver. A format with the potential for a 2-1 record to face a 1-2 with the winner advancing is seriously flawed.
|
On August 16 2013 08:58 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 08:40 ThePrince wrote:On August 16 2013 08:15 Scarecrow wrote:On August 16 2013 01:09 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 16 2013 01:04 pylonsalad wrote:
The head-to-head condition is entirely arbitrary. It does not show that Kangho played better than the other two. Guess what, he lost to both the better player of the day (jjakji) and the worse player of the day (shine). It is accepted because it is agreed upon by convention to save time, but to make the argument that it shows who is the better player is fancy magical logic. But you can make that argument for pretty much every tournament format currently in use, that they favor convenience and scheduling over the highest accuracy of determining who the best player is. If you want to know for sure 100% who the best player is, good luck hosting a tournament the scale of GSL and having every single player duke it out against every other one in a Bo7/Bo9. You know there is a middle ground between Bo9`s and arbitrarily deciding who advances? If you`ve sim ply got to save time, and records are tied, going by Code S incumbents advancing first would be just as fair. H2H can be ok but not in a format with so few games, low match scores and heaps of ties. So mad Yes I was clearly angry/upset in that last post -.- I'm not a huge fan of anyone in this group though felt Effort was unlucky with the rock bug. I just dislike seeing people defending the tiebreaker system like it's fair or actually chooses the better player when it's nothing more than a time saver. A format with the potential for a 2-1 record to face a 1-2 with the winner advancing is seriously flawed.
But flaws are what make perfection.
Isn't perfection just a conglomeration of flaws put together in a harmonious yet perfectly flawed way?
|
J-J-J-J-J-J-J-J-JAKJI! :D so happy for him
|
On August 16 2013 08:58 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 08:40 ThePrince wrote:On August 16 2013 08:15 Scarecrow wrote:On August 16 2013 01:09 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 16 2013 01:04 pylonsalad wrote:
The head-to-head condition is entirely arbitrary. It does not show that Kangho played better than the other two. Guess what, he lost to both the better player of the day (jjakji) and the worse player of the day (shine). It is accepted because it is agreed upon by convention to save time, but to make the argument that it shows who is the better player is fancy magical logic. But you can make that argument for pretty much every tournament format currently in use, that they favor convenience and scheduling over the highest accuracy of determining who the best player is. If you want to know for sure 100% who the best player is, good luck hosting a tournament the scale of GSL and having every single player duke it out against every other one in a Bo7/Bo9. You know there is a middle ground between Bo9`s and arbitrarily deciding who advances? If you`ve sim ply got to save time, and records are tied, going by Code S incumbents advancing first would be just as fair. H2H can be ok but not in a format with so few games, low match scores and heaps of ties. So mad Yes I was clearly angry/upset in that last post -.- I'm not a huge fan of anyone in this group though felt Effort was unlucky with the rock bug. I just dislike seeing people defending the tiebreaker system like it's fair or actually chooses the better player when it's nothing more than a time saver. A format with the potential for a 2-1 record to face a 1-2 with the winner advancing is seriously flawed.
Soo also advanced in group B on a H2H. Where were you then and were you angry/upset?
|
On August 16 2013 08:58 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 08:40 ThePrince wrote:On August 16 2013 08:15 Scarecrow wrote:On August 16 2013 01:09 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 16 2013 01:04 pylonsalad wrote:
The head-to-head condition is entirely arbitrary. It does not show that Kangho played better than the other two. Guess what, he lost to both the better player of the day (jjakji) and the worse player of the day (shine). It is accepted because it is agreed upon by convention to save time, but to make the argument that it shows who is the better player is fancy magical logic. But you can make that argument for pretty much every tournament format currently in use, that they favor convenience and scheduling over the highest accuracy of determining who the best player is. If you want to know for sure 100% who the best player is, good luck hosting a tournament the scale of GSL and having every single player duke it out against every other one in a Bo7/Bo9. You know there is a middle ground between Bo9`s and arbitrarily deciding who advances? If you`ve sim ply got to save time, and records are tied, going by Code S incumbents advancing first would be just as fair. H2H can be ok but not in a format with so few games, low match scores and heaps of ties. So mad Yes I was clearly angry/upset in that last post -.- I'm not a huge fan of anyone in this group though felt Effort was unlucky with the rock bug. I just dislike seeing people defending the tiebreaker system like it's fair or actually chooses the better player when it's nothing more than a time saver. A format with the potential for a 2-1 record to face a 1-2 with the winner advancing is seriously flawed.
lol, aren't all tournament systems constraint by time in some sense? If you want to theoretically choose the 'best player' (if there is such a thing). You would need to play like Bo49 robin round with all the 32 players.
One could argue that Innovation got 'lucky' that his Ro32 group didn't include Maru and Bomber. Or he would have gotten knocked out in Ro32. I think as long as all the players know the tiebreaker system before hand, it is fine. There is NO 'perfect' system.
|
On August 16 2013 11:48 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 08:58 Scarecrow wrote:On August 16 2013 08:40 ThePrince wrote:On August 16 2013 08:15 Scarecrow wrote:On August 16 2013 01:09 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 16 2013 01:04 pylonsalad wrote:
The head-to-head condition is entirely arbitrary. It does not show that Kangho played better than the other two. Guess what, he lost to both the better player of the day (jjakji) and the worse player of the day (shine). It is accepted because it is agreed upon by convention to save time, but to make the argument that it shows who is the better player is fancy magical logic. But you can make that argument for pretty much every tournament format currently in use, that they favor convenience and scheduling over the highest accuracy of determining who the best player is. If you want to know for sure 100% who the best player is, good luck hosting a tournament the scale of GSL and having every single player duke it out against every other one in a Bo7/Bo9. You know there is a middle ground between Bo9`s and arbitrarily deciding who advances? If you`ve sim ply got to save time, and records are tied, going by Code S incumbents advancing first would be just as fair. H2H can be ok but not in a format with so few games, low match scores and heaps of ties. So mad Yes I was clearly angry/upset in that last post -.- I'm not a huge fan of anyone in this group though felt Effort was unlucky with the rock bug. I just dislike seeing people defending the tiebreaker system like it's fair or actually chooses the better player when it's nothing more than a time saver. A format with the potential for a 2-1 record to face a 1-2 with the winner advancing is seriously flawed. lol, aren't all tournament systems constraint by time in some sense? If you want to theoretically choose the 'best player' (if there is such a thing). You would need to play like Bo49 robin round with all the 32 players. One could argue that Innovation got 'lucky' that his Ro32 group didn't include Maru and Bomber. Or he would have gotten knocked out in Ro32. I think as long as all the players know the tiebreaker system before hand, it is fine. There is NO 'perfect' system.
This is seriously the dumbest argument. By your logic there's no perfect system so we should just give up on making it fair at all and toss a coin. Obviously there's no perfect system but there can definitely be improved formats/tiebreaking methods, especially when it's Bo1. OSL tiebreakers are a great example.
On August 16 2013 09:16 painkilla wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 08:58 Scarecrow wrote:On August 16 2013 08:40 ThePrince wrote:On August 16 2013 08:15 Scarecrow wrote:On August 16 2013 01:09 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 16 2013 01:04 pylonsalad wrote:
The head-to-head condition is entirely arbitrary. It does not show that Kangho played better than the other two. Guess what, he lost to both the better player of the day (jjakji) and the worse player of the day (shine). It is accepted because it is agreed upon by convention to save time, but to make the argument that it shows who is the better player is fancy magical logic. But you can make that argument for pretty much every tournament format currently in use, that they favor convenience and scheduling over the highest accuracy of determining who the best player is. If you want to know for sure 100% who the best player is, good luck hosting a tournament the scale of GSL and having every single player duke it out against every other one in a Bo7/Bo9. You know there is a middle ground between Bo9`s and arbitrarily deciding who advances? If you`ve sim ply got to save time, and records are tied, going by Code S incumbents advancing first would be just as fair. H2H can be ok but not in a format with so few games, low match scores and heaps of ties. So mad Yes I was clearly angry/upset in that last post -.- I'm not a huge fan of anyone in this group though felt Effort was unlucky with the rock bug. I just dislike seeing people defending the tiebreaker system like it's fair or actually chooses the better player when it's nothing more than a time saver. A format with the potential for a 2-1 record to face a 1-2 with the winner advancing is seriously flawed. Soo also advanced in group B on a H2H. Where were you then and were you angry/upset?
You must've missed the sarcasm. Obviously I'm not going to argue it in every thread but I've disapproved of the U&D tiebreakers since I first encountered it, regardless of who benefits. Doesn't mean I need to argue it in every group it happens. Just in this particular thread people were defending it like it was a fair and accurate way of producing a winner.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Citing OSL as a comparison is disingenuous. They are 4man groups with the only tiebreaker possibility being a 3 way tie for first or second, with all the players having tied records against the other tiebreaker contenders. It is impossible in OSL groups to have a tie where one player has beaten both the other players. They are different kinds of groups so comparing it to OSL is irrelevant.
|
On August 16 2013 12:10 lichter wrote:
Citing OSL as a comparison is disingenuous. They are 4man groups with the only tiebreaker possibility being a 3 way tie for first or second, with all the players having tied records against the other tiebreaker contenders. It is impossible in OSL groups to have a tie where one player has beaten both the other players. They are different kinds of groups so comparing it to OSL is irrelevant.
What I meant was OSL is still essentially a best of one format with a superior tiebreaker (playing it out). Even if, due to time constraints, they had the games played unbroadcasted or even online it'd still be better than the current system where a progamer's livelihood hinges on GOM arbitrarily cherrypicking the right data. Who beat who is irrelevant when the cumulative scores are the same.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On August 16 2013 12:21 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 12:10 lichter wrote:
Citing OSL as a comparison is disingenuous. They are 4man groups with the only tiebreaker possibility being a 3 way tie for first or second, with all the players having tied records against the other tiebreaker contenders. It is impossible in OSL groups to have a tie where one player has beaten both the other players. They are different kinds of groups so comparing it to OSL is irrelevant. What I meant was OSL is still essentially a best of one format with a superior tiebreaker (playing it out). Even if, due to time constraints, they had the games played unbroadcasted or even online it'd still be better than the current system where a progamer's livelihood hinges on GOM arbitrarily cherrypicking the right data. Who beat who is irrelevant when the cumulative scores are the same.
OSL play it out exactly the same way as U/D. The situation you are complaining about can't happen in OSL groups so it is irrelevant to compare them.
You call it fair but logical arguments can be made to question that. If one player has already beaten both, why must he replay only those games where he already won? For a player who lost to both, why must he only play against the players he is likely to lose against? If 'who beat who' is irrelevant, why not replay the whole group until the result isn't a tie?
It isn't an arbitrary choice. That is ridiculous. Call it an unfortunate 'shortcut' if you will. But it is not arbitrary.
|
Even if there was a 3 way tie, best two players of the day advanced anyway IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
