EPT[WCS EU] RO32 Group H Premier Season 3 2013 - Page 33
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
4tre55
Germany330 Posts
| ||
|
Bjarne
Germany192 Posts
On September 19 2013 18:28 Xoronius wrote: As I said before, I am not judging the skill of both players, that was a comment, when TargA>Naniwa and Starbuck>LucifroN were still in th discussion. "Consisteny is also important". Yes, it is. But how is 0-2 first and 2-0 second more consistent then 2-0 first and 0-2 second? It is the exact same score, your point does not make any sence at all. Yeah, he sure sucks for going head to head with another player and getting eliminated for this, valid point... How about actually saying something, worth the time, it takes typing it? You can talk shit all day, but the only thing, you guys say here, is that I am annoying, while I am the only one in this discussion, who is actually making points. So either start contributing to the discussion or stop posting in it. Edit: To be fair, Nestea won the direct comparism, as he lost 1:2, but won 2:0. If Stardust would have lost 1:2 and won 2:0 after that, I would´nt say anything, because there would be at least some indication, that he is the better player. But when those to are completely equal and one advances, while the other does not, this is just bad. I agree.... Kas and Stardust is slightly diffrent. Considering the hole discussion, i think your right. The system is random at this point. | ||
|
Xoronius
Germany6362 Posts
On September 19 2013 18:38 4tre55 wrote: GSL style groups are really good for a reason: A player who wins 2 out of 3 Matches always makes it out and it's always in that Hand of the player if he makes it through. If you fully play out all groups you get a lot of situations where people go 2-1 and still don't make it. This never happens here. But those two out of three matches are against different people. Stardust had to win 2 out of 3 against Kas(2x) and Firecake. Kas had to win to out of 3 against Stardust (2x) and MC. Noone could make sure, whether SD for example could still win 2 out of three, if he plays MC instead of Firecake, so again we get uncertaincy. In round robin, you can get eliminated going 2-1, but in this case it still is, because 2 other guys performed better (in map-score) against the same people. | ||
|
4tre55
Germany330 Posts
On September 19 2013 20:00 Xoronius wrote: But those two out of three matches are against different people. Stardust had to win 2 out of 3 against Kas(2x) and Firecake. Kas had to win to out of 3 against Stardust (2x) and MC. Noone could make sure, whether SD for example could still win 2 out of three, if he plays MC instead of Firecake, so again we get uncertaincy. In round robin, you can get eliminated going 2-1, but in this case it still is, because 2 other guys performed better (in map-score) against the same people. That still leaves the point that Kas had all the chances in the world to advance by winning a best of 3 against stardust, the player who advanced in his stead. So imo people are right to say Stardust deserve to advance instead of Kas, because he beat Kas for that spot. That's the whole beauty of GSL-style groups, not to mention more advantages like being better for TV, not forcing situations where a player who plays for nothing actually decides the fate of other players and so on... | ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On September 19 2013 20:55 4tre55 wrote: That still leaves the point that Kas had all the chances in the world to advance by winning a best of 3 against stardust, the player who advanced in his stead. So imo people are right to say Stardust deserve to advance instead of Kas, because he beat Kas for that spot. That's the whole beauty of GSL-style groups, not to mention more advantages like being better for TV, not forcing situations where a player who plays for nothing actually decides the fate of other players and so on... This is one of the reasons that shows, unequivocally, that GSL style groups are better in systems that do not reward map scores as points for future use. Round robin not only allow ties, but they force inconsequential games (for one or both). These players have no incentive to win but end up deciding the future of other players. Some players just end up fortunately playing against these players last. If these last placed players had something to play for (for example, points that improve his chances in Challenger League) then perhaps round robins could be more acceptable. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and round robins do not provide any real advantages against the current system. | ||
|
Whatson
United States5356 Posts
On September 19 2013 20:55 4tre55 wrote: That still leaves the point that Kas had all the chances in the world to advance by winning a best of 3 against stardust, the player who advanced in his stead. So imo people are right to say Stardust deserve to advance instead of Kas, because he beat Kas for that spot. That's the whole beauty of GSL-style groups, not to mention more advantages like being better for TV, not forcing situations where a player who plays for nothing actually decides the fate of other players and so on... The last part is probably why most tournaments use GSL style now. | ||
|
Daswollvieh
5553 Posts
| ||
|
Xoronius
Germany6362 Posts
On September 19 2013 20:55 4tre55 wrote: That still leaves the point that Kas had all the chances in the world to advance by winning a best of 3 against stardust, the player who advanced in his stead. So imo people are right to say Stardust deserve to advance instead of Kas, because he beat Kas for that spot. That's the whole beauty of GSL-style groups, not to mention more advantages like being better for TV, not forcing situations where a player who plays for nothing actually decides the fate of other players and so on... Ofc. he had a chance to still advance, but it was not an equal chance. SD defeated Kas for the spot, but Kas did beat SD 2 ours earlier and that was not worth anything at the end. A Group stage is a group stage, because the entire performance should matter, not only the last match. Otherwise you could just make everything double-elim. from the o32 and avoid groups entirely. Being better for TV is not an advantadge at all for a system, it does´nt increase it´s fairness, it only increases the pleasure of the viewer. If we only want to have that, we might as well start seeding the last WCS Champion in the final, so we get a clash of kings, when the tournament ends. Edit: On September 19 2013 21:24 lichter wrote: This is one of the reasons that shows, unequivocally, that GSL style groups are better in systems that do not reward map scores as points for future use. Round robin not only allow ties, but they force inconsequential games (for one or both). These players have no incentive to win but end up deciding the future of other players. Some players just end up fortunately playing against these players last. If these last placed players had something to play for (for example, points that improve his chances in Challenger League) then perhaps round robins could be more acceptable. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and round robins do not provide any real advantages against the current system. You say that GSL groups would be unequivocally better becuase they do not use map-scores, but IMHO that is one of the main reasons, why they are worse; every series matters, but what happens in the series gets completely irrelevant, you don´t gain anything by winning additional maps, when they actually make a difference. It is like the First-past-to-post election system, it just ignores relevant stuff. Yes, RR allows ties and thus has tie-breakers, but that is only becuase if two people are equal in results, you require additional data on who deserves to go through. In GSL System this "additional data" is just the fact, that one series is played later than the other. The argument of "useless" games is the only real flaw RR has, and while that can be a problem in other tourneys, it is´nt really in WCS: IN RR the last 2 games are always played at the same time and thus there is quite a variation of possible results with a chance for improvement almost every time. And In WCS every place has a difference; 1&2 in seeding, 2&3 in advancement and 3&4 in 50 WCS points. | ||
|
xN.07)MaK
Spain1159 Posts
On September 19 2013 20:00 Xoronius wrote: But those two out of three matches are against different people. Stardust had to win 2 out of 3 against Kas(2x) and Firecake. Kas had to win to out of 3 against Stardust (2x) and MC. Noone could make sure, whether SD for example could still win 2 out of three, if he plays MC instead of Firecake, so again we get uncertaincy. In round robin, you can get eliminated going 2-1, but in this case it still is, because 2 other guys performed better (in map-score) against the same people. Yes, some people (myself included) think that tournament groups should not depend on the ORDER of the games. Every style has its downfalls, but to me the order one it's one of the worst. | ||
|
4tre55
Germany330 Posts
On September 20 2013 01:09 Xoronius wrote: But those two out of three matches are against different people. Stardust had to win 2 out of 3 against Kas(2x) and Firecake. Kas had to win to out of 3 against Stardust (2x) and MC. Noone could make sure, whether SD for example could still win 2 out of three, if he plays MC instead of Firecake, so again we get uncertaincy. In round robin, you can get eliminated going 2-1, but in this case it still is, because 2 other guys performed better (in map-score) against the same people. But depending on the tie-breaker rules there are situations you actually performed better than at least one of the two players if you only take into acount the results between those two and still not adanve. Not the most fair either, right? On September 20 2013 01:09 Xoronius wrote: Ofc. he had a chance to still advance, but it was not an equal chance. SD defeated Kas for the spot, but Kas did beat SD 2 ours earlier and that was not worth anything at the end. A Group stage is a group stage, because the entire performance should matter, not only the last match. Otherwise you could just make everything double-elim. from the o32 and avoid groups entirely. What chance could be more equal and fair for both players than playing each other in a best of 3 for the slot. Isn't it even more fair to both of them than inlucding the results of games against a 3rd person into the equation? And the results of their first match do matter in GSL-style, because it's the difference between playing for advancment in 1st place vs. playing to avoid elmination in last place in the next match. On September 20 2013 01:09 Xoronius wrote: The argument of "useless" games is the only real flaw RR has, and while that can be a problem in other tourneys, it is´nt really in WCS: IN RR the last 2 games are always played at the same time and thus there is quite a variation of possible results with a chance for improvement almost every time. And In WCS every place has a difference; 1&2 in seeding, 2&3 in advancement and 3&4 in 50 WCS points. I don't think anyone in the world really cares for the difference of 50 WCS points, Jeadong even forfeits matches for 75 points. And the seeding for Group Stage 2 doesn't really matter compared to - for example - giving a teammate the chance to advance by somehow losing a game you would normally most likely win. Only GSL-style gives you 100% meaningfull games, because every game is played for advancement, which is the key thing in the group stage. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 20 2013 04:26 4tre55 wrote: But depending on the tie-breaker rules there are situations you actually performed better than at least one of the two players if you only take into acount the results between those two and still not adanve. Not the most fair either, right? What chance could be more equal and fair for both players than playing each other in a best of 3 for the slot. Isn't it even more fair to both of them than inlucding the results of games against a 3rd person into the equation? And the results of their first match do matter in GSL-style, because it's the difference between playing for advancment in 1st place vs. playing to avoid elmination in last place in the next match. I don't think anyone in the world really cares for the difference of 50 WCS points, Jeadong even forfeits matches for 75 points. And the seeding for Group Stage 2 doesn't really matter compared to - for example - giving a teammate the chance to advance by somehow losing a game you would normally most likely win. Only GSL-style gives you 100% meaningfull games, because every game is played for advancement, which is the key thing in the group stage. The only really good version of group MU IMO is something like OSL system with team kills ALWAYS played first. | ||
|
Xoronius
Germany6362 Posts
On September 20 2013 04:26 4tre55 wrote: But depending on the tie-breaker rules there are situations you actually performed better than at least one of the two players if you only take into acount the results between those two and still not adanve. Not the most fair either, right? If you only take the result between 2 players, than you miss the bigger picture. One player might beat another, because his style works very well against him (for example, Ret wins most of the tie against Hasu, even if Hasu is in better shape, when the games are played), but still perform worse against the rest of the group. If you use map-score as a tie-breaker, you let the player advance, who performs best against a variety of different players and thus can be assumed better, even if he loses the direct comparism. On September 20 2013 04:26 4tre55 wrote: What chance could be more equal and fair for both players than playing each other in a best of 3 for the slot. Isn't it even more fair to both of them than inlucding the results of games against a 3rd person into the equation? And the results of their first match do matter in GSL-style, because it's the difference between playing for advancment in 1st place vs. playing to avoid elmination in last place in the next match. Before the games Kas defeated Stardust and lost to MC, while Stardust defeated Firecake and lost to Kas. Kas obviously performed better before the final bo3 and he gets nothing for it. How is it fair, that two players get an equal chance of advancement, when one outperformed the other prior to the match? On September 20 2013 04:26 4tre55 wrote: I don't think anyone in the world really cares for the difference of 50 WCS points, Jeadong even forfeits matches for 75 points. And the seeding for Group Stage 2 doesn't really matter compared to - for example - giving a teammate the chance to advance by somehow losing a game you would normally most likely win. Only GSL-style gives you 100% meaningfull games, because every game is played for advancement, which is the key thing in the group stage. Jaedong did´nt play that match, because EG sends him to every tournament there is and he a ton of points because of that. For someone like Innovation, Jaedong or Bomber, WCS points might not matter anymore, but for the average player, everypoint happens. And you obviously schedule teamates matches against eachother first, so that this situation can´t happen | ||
|
4tre55
Germany330 Posts
| ||
|
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7524 Posts
| ||
|
Xoronius
Germany6362 Posts
On September 20 2013 16:40 4tre55 wrote: Since you're no really adressing the points i'm trying to make i'd rather ask one question just out of interest: You're also a big fan of the MLG extended series than? While I think, that I am adressing the points, you make, I´ll still answer your question: No I don´t like the extended series of MLG. I you would apply MLG extendet series in WCS groupstage, you would not fix the problem, you would just give Kas an unfair advantadge, by letting him lose the extra series to MC, while SD had to win his extra series against Firecake. It results in the same problem, that GSL system has: Series played lose there value. In GSL system, the first series becomes worthless; in extended series, both and WB and LB lose there value. In round robin, you do not have this problem, as every series played in a gorup stage keeps counting. In the end GSL system is better than extended series, but that does not make it better than RR. In an ideal world, you would play MLG as a league system, where everyone plays everyone, but being realistic, the amout of games and time, that would be needed is far to high, so that I still see double-elim as a less bad thing than double-elim with extended series. But in a 4-man group, this problem of to many games and to much time, does not exist, so there is no reason to not play RR. | ||
| ||
